View original post

View original postIt WAS a pre-existing condition! She was pregnant when they bought the insurance. That is a well-known issue, that insurance companies often do not cover pre-exiting conditions, unless they charge much higher rates. The point of insurance is protection against unforeseen expenses, not to stick someone else with the bill. No other kind of insurance routinely pays for expenses incurred prior to taking on the client. Try going out and getting car insurance, and then asking Gieco or State Farm to pay for the accident you had the day before. Or try to get life insurance for a dead person. Try to insure a home that just burned down, or a cargo ship that has sunk. All this talk about evil health insurance companies denying preexisting conditions is just moralistic disguising of attempted fraud.

View original postAn insurance policy is a contract. Either a pair of idiot Canucks bought a policy that did not cover the pregnancy, or the insurance company is failing to fulfill their contract, in which case they have an actionable position. What is much more likely is that they bought insurance against accidents or illnesses that might occur on their vacation, while stupidly accepting their doctor's assurances that there would be no problems with their pregnancy.

View original post













So much for that superior Canadian health care system. They cleared that woman for travel, and look what happens.

View original post

View original postBecause Canadians, like so many other socialized medical systems juke the stats and use different terminology to conceal their failures. Canadians have a low infant mortality rate, because they label infant deaths as stillbirths, if the birth weight is low enough. They probably use similar terminology gimmicks to explain away high risk pregnancies so as to avoid the expense of increased care such pregnancies entail.

View original postAnd yet, something went wrong. I am more inclined to believe a diagnosis of high risk pregnancy than the opinion of the doctor who told her it was okay to fly to Hawaii two days before she almost lost her baby.

View original post

So, prove them wrong. Preferably using some standard other than melodramatic pity, and wishful thinking.

View original post Hawaii has medical centers, not centres. Ooops. Shouldn't have skimped and bought the cheap temporary policy. If you buy a cheaper car without airbags, you don't get to do your crash over and skip the spinal injury. If you buy a sandwich from a shady diner, you don't get to replace it with a better one when you get food poisoning.

View original postSo much for universal health care. Why aren't they taking care of their citizens?

View original post











Not well enough.

View original post

View original postOh, all right then. Because no one EVER denies fault that rightfully belongs to them. No one EVER claims they checked something thoroughly, when in fact they overlooked something that bit them in the ass. Here's a thought, why don't we see what the policy actually is, rather than what a couple of people unfamiliar with the practice of buying health insurance claims it is.

View original postThis article, like just about every one moondog references, does not offer support for its claims. It portrays the parents as saying "We were covered," and the insurance company as saying "No they were not." We also have the couple claiming there was nothing wrong with their pregnancy despite a history of complications. It is literally a case of he-said, she-said, with no evidence offered in support of either side, no neutral or objective opinions or perspectives given, and nothing but arbitrary emotional identification in support of the couple's claim.