Pro-life vid of day: First babies of year may cost more under ACA
by Hans Johnson
The first baby of a new year has always been considered good luck for a family or village. Often gifts and money were awarded to the parents. But under Obamacare, it may no longer be a financially lucky event.
Said a representative for the insurance industry: “Deductibles accumulate on an annual basis, so claims for 2013 accrue until December 31st and then start again for 2014.” That means a double whammy for the same medical condition – and that would include pregnancies.
At least this would make it even less likely for couples to go to extreme lengths like this one in the film New Year’s Eve:
[youtube]http://youtu.be/JWAzfgrn484[/youtube]
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
Jan.02, 2014 12:00 pm |
Video of the day |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
How is this different under the ACA than before? I know people who had this problem in years past.
“How is this different under the ACA than before?”
It’s not. That’s how insurance works lol.
I’m having a baby in January, and this is how my insurance works–but this is how my insurance has always worked. Like the other commenters have already stated, this has nothing to do with the ACA, and only with the way insurance deductibles have worked for ages.
Congrats on the baby Ella Rae!
Whether it’s under ACA or under the previous insurance system, I think it’s upsetting that pregnancy and childbirth incur so many costs to the mother/family. The idea that having a child equals financial ruin is partially a scare tactic perpetuated by the pro-abortion lobby, but it also unfortunately holds some truth. I wish we could find more ways to empower women to choose life for their children without money being a concern.
To be fair, our pro-life orgs are doing a wonderful job helping pregnant and parenting mothers with job placement, housing, transport, nutrition and baby supplies but I think structural reforms to the insurance system are important as well. I’m just not sure of the right way to accomplish it.
“To be fair, our pro-life orgs are doing a wonderful job helping pregnant and parenting mothers with job placement, housing, transport, nutrition and baby supplies but I think structural reforms to the insurance system are important as well. I’m just not sure of the right way to accomplish it. ”
Yeah, that’s my deal. I think it’s possible, the pro-life movement being as big as it is, for us to support the vast majority of mothers/families in crisis with things like clothing/food/etc. Healthcare is an entirely different beast, it’s such a mess. Housing is expensive too.
The N.Y. Times article that was linked to says this has been the norm, but the “double dedutible jeopardy” may be exacerbated by the switch of companies under the ACA.
This year, the beginning of the Affordable Care Act health exchanges may amplify the problem for some patients as they switch to new insurance
Unfortunately, that is how insurance works. “Deductibles accumulate on an annual basis, so claims for 2013 accrue until December 31st and then start ag
Who wrote the initial headline/story and linked out to this? At best, they were misleading – at worst, they were lying. This isn’t a new problem – it might be worse and more people have insurance, and as some plans change – but the writing on this site definitely made it sound like a new problem.
Disappointing to see.
That would be me, and the Times reporter. Take it up with him, if you think he’s an anti-Obamacare alarmist. I wouldn’t think that would be a popular viewpoint there.
The New York Times article made it clear this was always an issue.
The rewrite on this site made it appear that this was a new thing based on Health Care Reform.
I found it more than misleading – and it appears others did as well.
Padma: I think it’s upsetting that pregnancy and childbirth incur so many costs to the mother/family. The idea that having a child equals financial ruin is partially a scare tactic perpetuated by the pro-abortion lobby, but it also unfortunately holds some truth.
Oh good grief – if you want to do something, you should be able to afford it. Talk of “scare tactics” or not, scads of people in the US have simply gone nuts over the past 40 years as far as taking on debt and financially extending themselves too far.
Doug,
A little birdie told me you had commented here. So nice to see you again.
Yes, it’s true we have overextended ourselves. But can you really put a price on human beings? Cars, computers, Iphones…yes. But people? Really?
The Obamacare may move to make things better for this one issue. Obamacare will promote “bundled payments.” This is where you don’t get billed for every doctor visit, every blood test, etc., but your insurance company and your health care provider agree to a set total price for the entire pregnancy/delivery. The six-week post-delivery visit, and everything else, could be put in this bundle.
That one payment would fall either in the pregnancy year or the delivery year. Not both.
There are m any ways this can be arranged. The OB’s part – the visits and delivery – could be bundled, but the hospital care for the delivery is yet another bundle, which may or may not include anesthesia service.
If more of the overall care is put in a bundle, it helps us, the consumer. The OBs and hospitals and anesthetists are pressured to make arrangements of discounts and deals for working together, and no one wants to be left out. It is kind of like musical chairs – if you are the hospital left out, your business will get slow. If you are the anesthetist who does not want to “align” with one or a few OBS or hospitals, you will lose business.
From that point, all the providers have an incentive to be more efficient – no more repeating tests – they will ask each other if some blood test has been done, and will share data-sharing agreements to view each others’ records. –Hopefully, we won’t have to provide the same history over and over and over – It cost money for you to tell your story to some salaried health care professional over and over. If they can share the data, they can decrease person-hours of labor.
If they all are incentivized to reduce the overall hours of professional labor they devote for each pregnancy/delivery.
Overall, I believe Obamacare was a dumb move. For many reasons. But just knowing that the docs, the hospitals, and the pharmacy companies were in on the whole legislation tells you all you need to know: they will make out OK, and we individuals are getting shafted.
But this pressure to go to bundled payments may turn pregnancy-and-delivery into a one-time charge, and that will be either in one year or the other. That may help us with our deductibles and co-pays.