Insurance tells woman life not in danger, bills her $9000 for abortion

[uncommon]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7047935

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/5255

"“Our medical experts have determined that your life was not in danger and you could have carried the pregnancy to term. And, by the way, you owe us $9,000.”

Her voice breaking, D.J. Feldman, a Washington, D.C. federal employee, recently spoke to the press about her struggles with her insurance company after she aborted a much-desired pregnancy because of a fetal diagnosis of anencephaly (the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull and scalp). The insurance would only cover abortion in the case of rape, incest or a threat to her life, so the fact that if Feldman had continued the pregnancy, it would have been both physically and emotionally grueling—resulting either in a fetal demise, a stillbirth, or a live birth of a newborn who would quickly die—had no effect on the insurance company’s decision.

The primary culprit in this situation is not really Feldman’s insurance carrier, however, but the U.S. Congress. For decades it has imposed such unconscionable restrictions on abortion coverage for federal employees, as well as on women in the military, Native Americans using government provided health facilities and women on Medicaid in a majority of states.

Feldman is speaking out now because of her outrage that the notorious Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health reform measure would extend such federal bans on abortion coverage to the millions of women who are enrolled in the private insurance market. Under this amendment, any insurance plan that wishes to be part of the new national health-care exchange would be prohibited from offering abortion coverage, although most insurance plans currently offer this coverage."

[gratuitous]

1. That'll teach her to have sex!

Which is, of course, what about 98% of anti-abortion blather is about.

[Tansy_Gold]

3. I have to totally disagree with you.

I think it's much more like 99.7%.

Other than that, I think we're in total agreement.


Tansy Gold, NTY

[gratuitous]

11. Sue me

I'm feeling in a generous mood today. :P

[Jackpine Radical]

105. What's the other 0.5%?

[Jackpine Radical]

94. Do I hear 99.98?

Going once, going twice...

[CLANG]

103. You're being awfully harsh. I won't go above 99.5%.

[Ken Burch]

7. Which reminds me of the classic George Carlin line:

"Did you ever notice that most of the people who are against abortion are people you'd NEVER want to fuck in the first place?"

[BrklynLiberal]

15. Carlin was a treasure. Every word was priceless.

[Sparkly]

78. Also...

"If you're pre-born, you're golden; if you're pre-school, you're fucked."

[feslen]

85. unfortrunately

somebody did and produced them :P~~!

[Divernan]

44. DU was running one of those "guilt trip girls into choosing adoption" ads

at the top of the thread when I first read it.

These adoption promoters get their hooks into desperate young women and there is NO balanced presentation of the options/choice between abortion and adoption.

The nastily anti-Democratic, pro GOP ads are offensive enough on DU (yeah, yeah, someone's going to say, better we take their money), but these warm fuzzy ads for these adoption agencies are slick anti-abortion ads. Is there any advertising too offensive to be refused on this website?

There are a range of readers on DU, including the extremely significant independent voters. Constantly reading distorted ads promoting Pat Toomey and attacking Joe Sestak may very well have an effect on these voters in what looks to be an extremely close election. PLUS, Sestak is/will be forced to run ads on DU to counteract Toomey's ads. DU should be a safe haven for Sestak, and he will have to spend money on ads here that could be put to better use elsewhere. Buy, hey! The almighty dollar/profit is the name of the game.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RainDog]

2. Read this -

those who would accommodate the right-wing attack on women's reproductive rights, and explain why a medical procedure for a female is denied coverage and... it's okay.

Those of you on this board who take this position should send this woman money to pay for her medical bills.

Congress should be ashamed of itself for willfully treating women like second class citizens.

DISGUSTING.

[uncommon]

5. Amen.

[Ken Burch]

9. But the thing is, most of those people

would think that having to carry an anencephalic fetus to term was a deserved punishment for whatever wretched sins that woman had committed(and that the pro-lifers don't get to commit as often as they'd like).

[Withywindle]

62. Sins like...making love with her husband? Wanting a child and being unlucky?

I get tired of sex jokes in abortion-rights threads. It is NOT about sex. It's about women's health and sanity.

[SemperEadem]

65. I wish I could give your post 1000 recommendations because you are so right

folks get stuck in the prurient and don't bother to look at the whole picture--of relegating women to second class status as far as their health is concerned by people who at the same time will fight tooth and nail to prevent their taxes going up to pay for forcing the woman to take the pregnancy to term.

[aquart]

98. Not at all. They don't care about that. It's about CONTROL.

Patriarchal religion is about controlling women.

[Ken Burch]

106. I wasn't making a sex joke

I was commenting on the belief that a lot of those people seem to have that every bad thing that happens to a person is a deserved punishment.

My post was totally NOT about victim-bashing. Sorry for wording it badly.

[Withywindle]

110. I may have knee-jerked.

So I apologize too. I'm just really raw right now about perceived trivializations of this issue, so sometimes I see them when they're not even there. I still mean what I said about the jokes, but I mean it in general, not as a reply to your post.

I fully agree with you about the shaming and blaming. It appalls me to the core. There are lots of people who do everything "right" and still draw a bad hand, and right-wing ideologues have no compassion at all.

[Ken Burch]

111. Understandable. This is a painful subject

Those who disagree with the right to choose don't recognize the common humanity of those they attack, especially the women to whom they cause suffering.

I could have phrased my initial post lest flippantly. I can see how you could have made the interpretation you made.

But we're good.

And I think that what I meant was, on one level, that some of those crazies in the "fetus-on-a-stick" brigade probably think its sinful for a woman, even a married woman sleeping with her husband, to ENJOY sex.

[Withywindle]

112. Good, I'm glad we're good.

It's easy for people of good will to step on each other's toes when it comes to issues like this.

I agree with you about the "fetus-on-a-stick" brigade (LOL!) but I still think it's important to separate issues about sex from the discussion of medical-necessity/"late-term" abortion. We're all grownups here, we all know how babies are made. That's separate from the fact that the vast majority of "late-term" abortions happen when a woman who WANTS to carry to term learns late in the process that the fetus can't possibly survive/have a meaningful life, or that it will ruin her health or life in the process, or both. The revelation of this information is already a tragedy--most women who get to this stage WANT the child, have already felt the bonding, might have already had a baby shower and started decorating the nursery and picking out names.

To get terrible, crushing medical news--and to THEN have to run the gauntlet of judgmental pricks on the sidelines and insurance companies who get rich off denying claims rather than paying them....

it's just unspeakably cruel. It's kicking people (well, if you consider women people) at their lowest point. It's every bit as predatory and abusive as Fred Phelps waving offensive signs at mourners and funerals--and does more real harm to real people's bodies. And this is what gets lost in the ideological rantings--and even the focus on sexuality.

This is why it hurts so much. (And yes, it did happen to someone close to me. Long ago, and she's OK, and eventually was able to accept that she couldn't carry and adopted a beautiful daughter....but I still think in today's brutal climate, she might have died or at the least been left destitute by the medical bills, and then Anna wouldn't have a family, and...well, you know where that leads. Times millions of women and their spouses out there.)

[Ken Burch]

113. My condolences to your friend.

I can't imagine what it would feel like to want a child and find out that you couldn't. It's wonderful that she was able to adopt.

And you're right, it IS cruel...and sanctimonious...for people who don't know the situation to pass judgment in the very rare situations in which a late-term abortion was necessary. Nonetheless, for too many people, religion is about thinking God WANTS them to be mean.

[Withywindle]

115. Vicarious thanks. She's OK, now.

It took about a decade for her to come to terms with it, but now she DOES have a child. Her adopted daughter is as much hers as any baby grown in her uterus. She's working on getting Anna a sibling now. :)

I really hate the whole abortion-police thing using "God's will" as some kind of barometer, because, hello, something like 1/3 of pregnancies spontaneously abort early on in the process.

I have yet another friend who, when push came to shove (so to speak) gave birth to a healthy son and survived but had a VERY difficult process getting there, when her life was potentially at risk. She was in her early 20s, nonsmoker, nondrinker, vegetarian, athletic, carrying a child she wanted--and yet she had a sudden attack of high blood pressure and prenatal diabetes, so her delivery was very risky. (She was on hospital bedrest for a month up until delivery, doctor's orders--and by 2010s standards, she wouldn't have been eligible for affordable health insurance! Fortunately she still was by early 90s standards when it happened.)

That's why I SEE RED when anyone tries to imply that pregnancy is some kind of minor inconvenience that "good" women should cheerfully endure whether they want to be pregnant or not. No. Death in childbirth still happens, sometimes to women who were in excellent physical condition before they got pregnant. It actually is a life-or-death risk, and should never be undertaken by any woman who doesn't completely voluntarily choose to do so. Hosting another organism in your body and undergoing great pain and risk to one's own life in the process--how could anyone ever think that was ever OK to force on someone unwilling?

[Ken Burch]

116. And your posts here once again illustrate why pro-choice people need to defend

the "Right To Privacy".

Anti-choice types don't accept it, and don't accept that they're under any obligation to respect anyone else's boundaries...especially in times of grief or suffering. They assume they have the RIGHT to be judgmental bullies.

Thank you for this exchange, btw. I think I've learned some things from it.

[Dappleganger]

33. +100000

[Starry Messenger]

80. +

[Liberal_in_LA]

4. K&R

thanks for posting this important story.

[ljm2002]

6. But we've been told again and again...

...that these amendments to the Health (Insurance) Reform bill do not put any meaningful restrictions on abortion.

See, she could get one couldn't she? For a mere $9,000. So what's the beef?

:sarcasm:

[CTyankee]

13. I am a broken record saying this. On every post where I see people saying it's "only"

a few hundred bucks for most abortions, I say "what about the later term abortion of a pregnancy gone terribly wrong?" Many of them do not threaten the life of the woman, but do threaten her health.

Planned Parenthood is pro-Obama but they have issue with this part of the law. We must change this. We must push the admin. to change it.

[katandmoon]

8. K&R. Outrageous. This is what the Dems in the WH and congress have wrought.

Count me out.

[hedgehog]

10. Can anybody explain a $9000 bill for an abortion at 11 weeks?

Isn't this an out-patient procedure?

On edit - I hunted back to the original article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004065.html

and found out that Blue Cross would have been billed $5000.

I'm no fan of health insurance companies, but where is the world does this fee come from for a procedure that is relatively simple.

[Ruby the Liberal]

17. I was thinking the same thing.

That is an outrageous amount of money.

[Mass]

21. I'm not surprised. My son had his wisdom teeth pulled out.

As it was all four of them, it was done in an OR. We got the invoice by error, and the invoice was $8000.

[Gormy Cuss]

28. Just a guess, but maybe she was at high risk for complicationsand it was done in-patient

at a hospital rather than on a more typical out patient basis.

[Dorian Gray]

39. When I miscarried last fall

I had a D&C to remove the fetal tissue. Billed over $6000. (My insurance paid it, though.)

Isn't that insane for a 45 minute out patient procedure?

[Dappleganger]

41. It is...

I'm so sorry for your loss.

[Dorian Gray]

68. Thank you

I'm actually pregnant now (almost 7 months), so though it was painful at the time, I think that these things work out for the best. But it was pretty shocking to receive the insurance information in the mail and see how much it cost. I can only imagine if I had to pay for the whole thing myself because my insurance refused to cover it. That would have been a horrifying reminder of the pain. And I truly feel for this woman who is saddled with $9,000 in bills. She can probably negotiate it down with the hospital, but who wants to do that after something so painful.

[mrs_p]

42. wow

i've been quoted $2800 for ALL of my prenatal care and delivery. And my insurance covers most of that. how can these procedures cost more than 8+ months worth of care?

[Dorian Gray]

70. I have no idea

though $2800.00 seems like a great deal. (I am assuming that doesn't include the birth and hospital stay, though.)

I think it's the hospital stay (a few hours), anaesthesia, and post-operation demerol that cost so much. I think that if I had to pay it myself, the hospital would have negotiated the price down, but who wants to deal with that type of negotiation post-miscarriage.

[woo me with science]

50. Our family just saw a 2000 dollar bill for sitting in an ER for two hours.

All scans and major tests declined. The 2 grand was for some blood testng, an IV of fluids, and a couple of doses of pain and anti-nausea medication. Went home in two hours.

It does not surprise me that an actual, simple PROCEDURE now comes to 9 grand.

OUTRAGEOUS ESCALATION OF COSTS...That's what's wrong with our health care system. And Obama's precious health insurance legislation does NOTHING substantive to fix that problem.

[Bette Noir]

84. Medical procedures don't have set prices.

Medicare, Medicaid, and every insurance company pay different prices, negotiated by their lawyers. Some of these reimbursement rates are below cost, so the providers try to make up the difference on other cases-- notably, self-payers who come in on an emergency basis, and can't comparison shop for prices.

Example: I had to have an MRI last year. The doctor had negotiated a cash price of $600. I had insurance; the MRI was billed to my insurance at $4000. The insurance company said, no, that's too much, we'll give you $1200. The MRI company accepted the $1200 as payment in full. So, what was the price of the MRI, was it %600, $4000, or $1200?

A few months later, I had to see a neurosurgeon. He billed the insurance $300 for an office visit; the insurance company paid $75 (below cost, I'm sure), and he took it as payment in full. He'd go out of business if all his patients only paid $75, which is why he has to get $300 from the ones he can.

We need a complete overhaul of the whole system. I'd like to see single payer, of course, with a public option as a distant second. Failing either of those, transparent pricing would be a good start.

[NickB79]

88. Blue Cross denied my wife's medical claim for a surgery, and the hospital sent us a $28,000 bill

We fought those bastards for 8 months, I got my HR rep. and the surgeon who did the operation involved on our behalf, and the claim was FINALLY accepted a month ago.

Blue Cross paid the hospital $5000 to completely settle the bill. ON A $28,000 BILL! Someone explain that one to me.

[SocialistLez]

109. Thank you.

I have heard of girls scrounging up $600-800 for an abortion so 9000 seems outrageous.

[femrap]

12. yet

viagra is covered.

So what was she to do? This is what: After finding out that her fetus is not viable, she must contact her insurance company and demand to know if an abortion is covered. Sit on hold while transferred to someone with the 'authority' to say yes or no. If no, then how much will she be asked to pay for something that is totally out of her control. These types of abnormalities with fetuses happen in nature all the fucking time.

IMHO, she is treated worse than a filly in Bluegrass country.

You know, maybe women should just stop having babies. TPTB hate women so much so why bring more of them onto this planet?

I wouldn't pay that $9,000 bill. EVER. I'd have local NOW and other women's groups out protesting the insurance provider for misogyny and pure cruelty.

Maybe all women stop paying their insurance bills. fuck 'em....no, better yet, don't fuck 'em.

[msanthrope]

48. Viagra is for men. Abortions are for women.

It's that simple, and that sad.

[BrklynLiberal]

14. I am speechless and appalled....I have no words.

[BrklynLiberal]

16. and yet, there are still those who would have us believe that the current state of women's health

care is acceptable...that there is no double standard, there is no pseudo-paternalistic, misogynist attitude evident in current policies!!

I say "BULLSHIT!"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8871988#8872075

[saracat]

18. But , but , the exclusions in the new HCR actually "help" women

because there are some women that would have no coverage al all. Therefore this is a "resonable exchange". We HAD to get the HCR passed. And it isn't as though anyone's rights would be effected! :sarcasm:

[JoePhilly]

19. The GOP intentionally creates these Gordian Knots ...

Their goal is to ensure that absolutely every positive action by our government is accompanied by something negative.

This is their fall back position when they know they can't cause total inaction.

The GOP's view of government is that it should never help people, and always help the rich.

When they "fail" at stopping in action, they do everything they can to ensure that even a positive action (like most of the HCR bill) is accompanied by as many negative elements as they can get away with.

They would have liked to ensure NO action on Health care ... failing that, they moved to plan B ... adding bad things.

That is the Gordian Knot they always use ... nothing at all, or some good, plus some SHIT they crammed in.

That is how they stopped any HCR under Clinton.

The GOP never makes the hard choice. They create the hard choice. And then dare the Dems to act. Again, main GOP goal, prevent any action whatsoever.

[saracat]

23. Obama has written an exec order twice reaffirming this. This ain't just the GOP!

[laughingliberal]

51. No, it isn't. Stupak is a Democrat. nt

[RainDog]

25. it was OBAMA who voluntarily restricted abortion in the high-risk pool.

you can't blame this on republicans.

this is a direct result of democratic pandering to the religious right.

as I said before, if a progressive pro-choice candidate challenged Obama, I would vote for that person in the primary - and perhaps beyond.

[JoePhilly]

26. Most Americans, support a woman's right to choose ...

and yet they also understand the "moral issue" some have with abortion ... and about the potential that their tax dollars be used to find it.

And, while the majority supports "choice" they do not support it "across the board". In fact, most support some restrictions. Where they draw the line varies. And that is what the GOP exploits.

The Hyde amendment already handles the issue ... but the GOP has done what it always does ... exploit the grey space to force the administration to take a stark position ... and by doing so, the administration angers both sides.

And the Gordian Knot gets tighter.

As for your willingness to support a "progressive pro-choice candidate" in a primary ... you have to define your terms better. You have to make that candidate draw STARK lines.

Are you talking "abortion on demand?" ... "rape and incest?" ... "prior to week X?" ... risk to the mother ... and please provide the specific risks that are OK ....

Those are those specifics that the GOP avoids, and that they will use to tighten the knot.

[RainDog]

27. Abortion is a medical procedure that is not the business of any religion or the state

I trust that women in this country are not blood-thirsty whores who fuck anything that walks down the road and then go demand an abortion the next day.

...contrary to the religious right and conservative-minded democrats who enable them in their crusade against women's health care - particularly in the area of reproductive choice. Because they care so much about morality... right.

You know, there are A LOT of things the govt. does that I do not support - for instance, the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. Will "Congress make a law that makes it illegal to use my tax dollars to murder children in Iraq, to burn the flesh off their bodies by illegal weapons, by the use of depleted uranium that results in birth defects for years to come? Can I get my money back?

Why, no. They won't do that and the religious right has no problem with the death and multilation of children if they feel it makes them "safer." The claim to a moral issue is TOTAL BULLSHIT. They don't care about killing children - just "certain" children.

The reality is that most abortions are not performed on viable fetuses, so they don't even care about children in those cases, either. They care about limiting women's reproductive choices.

So, in answer to your question - the government needs to get out of the religious pandering business - they need to stop sucking the dicks of the Pope and Randall Terry and the other misogynists that think they may dictate the lives of women.

It is a MEDICAL ISSUE.

Get your and others' fucking religious beliefs out of the lives of women. If those women have a religious objection then they should not get an abortion.

It could not be any simpler. You do not get to dictate your religious beliefs to others.

[bain_sidhe]

30. "The claim to a moral issue is TOTAL BULLSHIT" - actually

I don't care if it ISN'T bullshit. What I want to know is, what makes their "moral issue" so special?

As you mentioned, I have "moral issues" with a great many things that the government does with my tax dollars. Yet my tax dollars aren't given legal protection from being used to fund activities that violate my morals or my beliefs. Why are their tax dollars - and ONLY their tax dollars - given that protection?

[RainDog]

37. this is from today's ruling on same-sex marriage in CA

The arguments surrounding Proposition 8 raise a question similar to that addressed in Lawrence, when the Court asked whether a majority of citizens could use the power of the state to enforce "profound and deep convictions accepted as ethical and moral principles" through the criminal code. ... The question here is whether California voters can enforce those same principles through regulation of marriage licenses. They cannot. California's obligation is to treat its citizens equally, not to "mandate own moral code."

This should be the same principle behind health care options for women.

[derby378]

92. +1000

I like you. :hi:

[Spheric]

34. +1000 /nt

[gaspee]

38. AMEN!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

[laughingliberal]

52. +10,000 nt

[handmade34]

74. +1000000

we need you fighting...

I am currently taking an ethics class (online)with mostly traditional age students... we are discussing abortion this week. These, for the most part, brain dead kids have no clue about history and seem to struggle trying to think rationally about the issue. About 2/3 are pro-choice but with the usual caveats (viability, rape, incest, blah, blah). The rest are anti-abortion. I am adamantly opposed to any restriction whatsoever on the mother as it is a medical and very personal decision. One person called me mentally unstable because I support any choice that a woman makes for her own body (up until birth). I am afraid for our future.

[feslen]

86. that's just sad

"One person called me mentally unstable because I support any choice that a woman makes for her own body (up until birth)."

I was already concerned for the future, but that's just unspeakable ignorance.... +1,000,000 in support of you Handmade34. go stand up against those foolish enough not to know what choice is.

[Hekate]

31. Joe, I think you have it right in this and your previous post. In culture-war terms, this IS the RW

... tactic in the war they declared on the rest of us. I think you described it well.

They are horrible people, and they don't care what the human cost is to women -- or to children. Even a nonviable fetus is more important to them than a living woman and any other children she has or will have. Every time this extreme view comes up (and requiring a mother's life to be in immediate danger is extreme) the first instance I think of is anencephaly, in which the fetus has no brain at all. That's not a "deformity" -- that's 100% fatal.

The RWers Do. Not. Care. As for the insurance companies, they only care about one thing -- money.

Hekate

:argh:

[JoePhilly]

73. Thanks for understanding my point ...

There are a number of posts yelling at me for simply describing the situation as it stands, and how the GOP exploits it.

If a rich GOP member's daughter needs an abortion, she's going to get one. A few months back we learned that the RNC's own medical plan covered abortion, and had done so since the early 1990s. You would think that in a 20 year period some one would have noticed that.

I'd extend your point about the GOP and RW not caring ... not only about women, as you describe, but about anyone else. Money and power is what they care about most ... thus the revolving door from industry, to government, and back again.

[SemperEadem]

66. their tax dollars aren't being used for abortions and haven't since the Hyde amendment

so that argument is really non sequitur.

[RainDog]

107. that's the whole point

other than the knowledge that Obama CHOSE to extend this religious oppression to the high-risk pool - which is the point of this woman's problem.

[Radical Activist]

55. Good way of describing it.

a-holes.

[Missy Vixen]

36. +10,000

Or maybe it should be +however many millions of women will be negatively impacted by this new legislation.

When you have no reproductive freedom, you have NO freedom at all.

>We HAD to get the HCR passed. And it isn't as though anyone's rights would be effected! :sarcasm:<

Of course not. Just stupid sluts who insisted on having sex, right? They wouldn't have a fetal abnormality if they kept their knees together in the first place! :sarcasm:

:sarcasm:
:sarcasm:
:bullshit:

[snake in the grass]

93. No, no! It is not reasonable!

It is sensible!

[City Lights]

20. K&R.

This makes me sick.

:nuke:

[Mass]

22. This made me mad. So, the woman would have had to stay pregnant with a fetus

that was not going to live. Outrageous, particularly when you consider the psychological damage to the mother (or worse potential medical problems).

[RainDog]

24. but it makes assholes like Ben Nelson happy - so women should just shut up and accept it

may Ben Nelson never have to deal with such a tragedy in his own family - oops. but he's got the bucks from all the fucking religious right wingers who fund him to pay for an abortion for a woman in his family.

and if he would try to force someone in his family to carry a dead fetus to term, that man is too fucked up to be in public office.

[defendandprotect]

49. You know, evidently that used to happen a great deal . . . fetus died -- carry it to term--!!

I never knew this until I was reading a book by Debbie Reynolds, the actress --

she was relating that when she was married to Harry Karl - ugh! -- she was pregnant

and somewhere along in the pregnancy discovered the infant had died -- she might

have been like 6-7 months when that happened. Anyway, she was forced to walk around

with a dead infant inside of her until she delivered a dead baby!

She quickly became pregnant again -- she wanted more children -- and same thing

happened, only earlier in the pregnancy. Now she was like 4 or more months carrying

this dead fetus around -- and had to go to term.

When it was all over, they discovered that the first child had died becaue she was

deficient in vitamins/minerals, whatever to carry the child. And, needless to say,

carrying around a dead child probably didn't help any of that and probably also effected

the next pregnancy!! Hard to believe -- but true!

[demigoddess]

29. chances are, that giving birth and the care of the baby til it died

which they do not do immediately would have been more than the cost of an abortion. so the insurance company is just being dogmatic and stupid.

[Dappleganger]

32. There's your fucking death panel.

The insurance companies.

[Spheric]

35. Fucking Amen to that. /nt

[Radical Activist]

57. Is there even a panel?

A whole death panel is expensive. Maybe just a death claims adjuster.

[SemperEadem]

67. for real!

funny how they don't see that when it suits their purposes.

[MadMaddie]

40. So basically Insurance Companies are Doctors now?

[Mariana]

56. Of course not. She wasn't denied the abortion, after all.

Don't you understand? She was just denied coverage for it and made to pay for it herself. That's not dictating care, you see. She was still free to have any legal procedure done that she wanted.

Isn't that wonderful?

Gawd this system sucks.

[MadMaddie]

108. The insurance company determined it wasn't an emergency

They made the decision on what the status was.

[SemperEadem]

69. there's a law against practicing medicine without a license

the insurance companies should be hit with that on decisions like this.

non medical personnel interfering in the health decisions of a patient and her doctor cannot be allowed to stand.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

43. Isn't it wonderful that Pres. Obama is spreading the love to high risk Private pools?

:sarcasm:

[lutherj]

45. If her physician told her that her life was in danger, why would she doubt it?

Why does this go back to the patient? The insurance company should take it up with the medical provider and leave the woman out of it. Better yet, we should have single payer and be done with this useless protection racket.

[defendandprotect]

46. Absolutely unbelievable that this crap is going on . . . and Obama furthering it--!!

[defendandprotect]

47. Catholics support FUNDING this type of "elective" abortion ... by 66% majority/71%

when Latinos/Latinas included!!

Catholics favor government or private insurance coverage for reproductive services

by 73%/83%

including for abortions ... "when fetus has severe abnormal condition" -- 66%/71%


and simply when a woman and her doctor decide appropriate -- 50%/53%


and imagine these figures will only be rising -- despite the lock the Vatican or

US Catholic Bishops may have on our own government --!!

Catholic women have just as many abortions as any other women -- !!

[ddeclue]

53. That isn't even in the insurance company's own financial interest!

If she had carried the child to term it would have cost them far more than $9,000.

:shrug:

[McCamy Taylor]

60. Yes it is. After the fact denial means they pay nothing. Insurers do this all the time.

They let people get their surgery done---and then deny after the fact so that their is no malpractice liabilty. I had an insurer deny the surgery to remove a woman's brain tumor...after the fact.

[laughingliberal]

54. K & R nt

[Radical Activist]

58. I'm always impressed

by the courage it takes for a woman defending choice to speak about her own experience with something as personal as having had an abortion. Great article.

[handmade34]

89. I am always eager to tell my story

because I believe that I come from a place of experience: I gave up a daughter for adoption, I have had abortions and also have beautiful children that I love more than life itself (my daughter that I adopted out now after many long years, one of them)... It is a very personal matter, a choice that only a woman should make for herself.

...and I lived in the time of illegal abortions; we do not want to go back there!!

[McCamy Taylor]

59. This is all about insurance greed---they wanted to find a way not to pay the bill.

Trust me, if she was getting an $800 outpatient procedure that would save them thousands in OB care, they would have agreed. It is the $9k pricetag that had them scrambling for a loophole.

Insurers will find some way to cover abortion. They like abortion. It saves them money. They just won't cover a $9k procedure.

[cornermouse]

64. Medical necessity, McCamy.

http://www.physiciansnews.com/law/802.miller.html

[Shining Jack]

61. K&R

Bunch of greedy bastards.:grr:

[WolverineDG]

63. And just how is that any different from the "surprise" I got from my insurance company

after initially denying, then paying after I kicked up a fuss, Humana decided that my emergency surgery wasn't an "emergency" & left me stuck with a $6000 bill?

The "culprit" isn't the federal government. It's the insurance companies that look for any way they can to deny payment.

dg

[suffragette]

81. In this case, it's both.

From the original article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/30/AR2009113004065.html

Feldman's health was in jeopardy. The minority of babies with anencephaly that are carried to term -- dying shortly after birth -- cause complications such as "dysfunctional labor and postpartum hemorrhage, which can increase the risk for the mother," Feldman's doctor wrote in a letter to her insurance company.

The doctor warned that the complications for a woman of Feldman's maternal age from giving birth to a child with anencephaly "are especially serious . . . and could be life threatening."

Despite the doctor's plea, the Office of Personnel Management refused to make Blue Cross/Blue Shield pay.

"The fetal anomaly presented no medical danger to you, the mother," OPM wrote to Feldman. "Consequently, we cannot direct the Plan to provide benefits for the services in dispute."


The Office of Personnel Management overruledthe doctor's professional opinion. So she had two non-medical entities - her employer (the federal gov't HR office) and the insurance company determining whether or not this was medically necessary and therefore should be denied coverage. I have long disagreed with insurance companies having this role. And here is a clear example of an agency in the federal gov't also taking this role of overruling the physician's expert opinion. And now with Obama applying what's basically the Stupak amendment to the high risk pool, this process will affect more women.

And of course, even Obama's adding this restriction isn't enough and there is already a new bill being introduced to restrict even more and make Hyde permanent:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-5939
http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/other/111671-house-bill-would-ban-federal-abortion-funding

[WolverineDG]

96. Which puts her in the same position as everyone else who's ever been denied payment

One thing that needs to be done is prohibiting insurance companies from denying payment of an obvious claim. That would help everyone.

dg

[Hello_Kitty]

101. It's not either/or.

Insurance cos. try to deny everything they can but with abortion the Federal Government has dictated to women and health care providers under what circumstances abortion will be covered.

Your coverage wasn't denied because Ben Nelson and Bart Stupak disapprove of it.

[Vinca]

71. You'd think the blood-sucking insurance carrier would be grateful

she aborted the pregnancy since a potential live birth would have the potential of incurring hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of covered care for the badly malformed child. I'll never understand why the "insurance model" was felt to be worth saving.

[ehrnst]

72. If she claimed that she did not desire sex when conception occured, it would be covered.

Rape is a basis for abortion coverage, no matter if the pregnancy is healthy or not.

This just goes to the root of all PL legislation - it's not about "saving babies" it's about keeping women in line sexually.

[handmade34]

75. "it's about keeping women in line sexually"

this is certainly evident with the "abortion is wrong because it is a living being" ...and then to say it's ok when the pregnancy is a result of rape or incest? The fetus is still the same whether it was conceived by a rape or by consent. I resent the religious right and their attempts at logic...

[PADemD]

76. Two of the possible complications

of carrying an anencephalic baby to term are polyhydramnios and placental abruption. Also severe bleeding after delivery.

"Maternal and fetal death may occur because of hemorrhage and coagulopathy."
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/795514-overview

[valerief]

77. If only Viagra could be used for abortions. There'd be NO insurance problem then.

If only we had a Congress who cared a rat's ass about the populace. Maybe on Bizarro Earth it's true.

I'm sure it's better in communist countries like China and Cuba.

[Citizen Worker]

79. That the democrats when in control of the congress and the white house

have not changed this illegal rule when they have the power to do so leaves them culpable. To deny a woman her right to make her own reproductive decisions is unconcsionable.

[femrap]

91. Of course we'll never know...

but I believe HRC would NEVER had let this happen. That was the only reason I supported her in the primaries. She is a staunch fighter for women's reproductive health.

I knew he'd throw women under the bus. And he did. Look surprised.

She would have put that Stupid Stupak on Air Force One and given him a defective parachute!

[LittleGirl]

82. Neighbor had the same diagnosis

She was a healthy 30 something yr old with a 2 yr child at home. Her second pregnancy resulted in this diagnosis but it wasn't detected until she was 20 weeks pregnant. Can you imagine? She and her husband were devastated.

She carried the baby to term and the baby died within an hour of birth. They had a full funeral afterward. That family went though hell.

A good ending to the story is that she had another baby girl this past year and they are thrilled with their now complete family.

[uncommon]

90. That is so sad...

having to carry a baby for months knowing it will not survive is just cruel and inhumane.

[harun]

83. Health Insurance companies need to be taken out of the equation.

[aquart]

99. Yes. The health of the American people is a national security matter

It should not be manipulated for profit.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[abelenkpe]

95. OK I confess

Four years ago I was pregnant with twin girls. Around 16 weeks we discovered one of the twins had the same problem as this woman's child and her chances of survival were pretty much zero. To make matters worse she was endangering the other twin who was developing fine. We had to make a choice, to ensure the other would survive.

I chose my daughter who will be four in four weeks. I love her more than anything. Making that decision was one of the toughest things I've ever done. Not a day goes by that I don't wish it didn't happen. It's never an easy decision and it is criminal that our society feels the need to punish women who are forced to make such a painful decision further.

I do hope someone puts together a collection to help pay this woman's medical bills. I will gladly contribute.

[ceile]

100. .....

:hug: for your tough decision and your healthy daughter.

[uncommon]

102. ...

:hug:

[mstinamotorcity]

97. I guess it lets us know

that the health care reform fight is not over.

[Greyhound]

114. Wake me up when it starts, please.