This story has been making headlines for good reason. A couple travel to Hawaii after purchasing insurance from Blue Cross. The wife who is 6 months pregnant ends up having a premature baby who ends up in the neonatal intensive care unit for 2 months. The financial outcome was far from great though:
The total bill of $950,000 included more than $160,000 for Huculak’s hospital stay and $40,000 for a medical evacuation, she said. The rest of the cost went to care for Huculak’s daughter.
We were told we were covered. We paid our premium. We obviously still feel that Blue Cross should cover the bill,” she said, adding her family is now facing bankruptcy.
Blue Cross denied her claim, citing a pre-existing condition.
She said her doctor sent a letter to Blue Cross confirming that Huculak’s pregnancy was stable when she went on vacation, but the claim was still denied.
That's a shit ton of money that they have to pay back and despite the doctor giving the confirmation that things are fine and they took precautions, it just wasn't enough. I think Mrs. Huculak said it best:
Huculak said she wants to warn people that “when you think you’re covered, you may not be.
You heard her folks. I would highly suggest reading your travel insurance contract carefully next time you travel. They're essentially in debt for the next 15 years or so considering they still have to pay off other bills on top of the hospital costs. I do hope they end up having some fundraiser or find a way to get some money to at least lower it further. Personally, I think they should challenge Blue Cross over this. Probably a good idea to go and hire a lawyer then double check the contract and see if they can build a case. I mean, what's another couple of thousand dollars on top of about $900,000. Discuss!
land of the free, just not in regards to health care
The article actually reveals this is about a canadian couple, and this is about travel insurance.
Also, I can't find any travel-insurance plans on Bluecross that cover more than 50.000$, this is for anual plans, though the article specifically mentions that the couple bought the insurance right before the trip (which would contradict the point below that their policy had expired), which would amount to a insurance sum of a whooping 1469 us dollars (though I am probably completely wrong here, just what I got from skimming over their website).
despite the doctor giving the confirmation that things are fine and they took precautions
Thats some misquote there
green light to travel from her doctor.
is all that is in the article. And a doctor is no insurance agent, all he would tell them is that the risk is acceptable, since mother and child are alive, he was right as far as medical concerns go.
Also, if you pause the video you see that it seems their travel policy was already expired.
I think they should challenge Blue Cross over this.
I think if they had a case they would have went to court. They got shit, and now they throw it at the reputation of blue cross.
1million seems still a much too low fine for stupid people reproducing, and now raise funds for them instead of letting them get punished for their mistakes, oh world...
edit: got carried away by emotions. ps, op, as you said, a few couple thousands on top of a million for a lawyer no big deal, they don't get one, cause no lawyer in their right mind would take them, they clearly got nothing, this is nothing more than begging and defamation imo
Not really sure how the average person could ever be expected to pay close to a million in hospital fees.
@Haruhi:
Are you affiliated with Blue Cross or something? The point is that no-one's expecting to deliver a baby at 6 months old, that's what people get insurance for. Whether they're in the right or wrong bureaucratically isn't even the point. In comparison, a million is peanuts to Blue Cross, where to a family it's a life sentence. It's just pretty sad that you're paying money for the peace of mind in worst case scenarios and that you could arbitrarily be screwed anyways because you're not aware of all the inns and outs of the insurance-machine.
The point is that no-one's expecting to deliver a baby at 6 months old, that's what people get insurance for
If noone expects it, why get they insurance for it. I got some insurances, but I got them because I expect something bad to happen. The woman had a hemorrhage and a blatter infection.
Whether they're in the right or wrong bureaucratically isn't even the point.
It is, because if they aren't, they don't got a case, they don't get a lawyer, all they can do is defamation and begging. I would be ok with either, but the combination of both I don't like. They fucked up.
a million is peanuts to Blue Cross, where to a family it's a life sentence
And a million is peanuts to Bill Gates, yet it would make me very happy. And no, it is not a life sentence, with canadian law, if you would file for private-bankruptcy you don't get to live very pleasantly for 9month until your debt is discharged, but they want donations because they feel entitled to something they are not and they try to get it with publicity stunts, because they are in the wrong.
It's just pretty sad that you're paying money for the peace of mind in worst case scenarios and that you could arbitrarily be screwed anyways because you're not aware of all the inns and outs of the insurance-machine.
That is absolutely true and if they were misled purposely they should get a lawyer, then they have a case. But the whole article seems skewed, because of the low insurance coverage in the first place, the dated policy, the doctor that will never ever go public to say he adviced them on their insurance. Blue Cross surely seems to act wrong with deniying an answer, but either they thought this is not worth their time, efford hence money or this is a case of sensational press and they did some bureaucratic tricks to not even give them a chance for a statement, cause it would ruin the already weak story that shall bring gullible people to give money to people who can't do 9 month without a hawaii vacation(like literally and for the second time).
The point is that no-one's expecting to deliver a baby at 6 months old, that's what people get insurance for
If noone expects it, why get they insurance for it.
Because that's how insurance works? You get insurance *just in case*; you don't only get it when you know you're about to be screwed. That's why it's called insurance... it's risk management.
The point is that no-one's expecting to deliver a baby at 6 months old, that's what people get insurance for
If noone expects it, why get they insurance for it.
Because that's how insurance works? You get insurance *just in case*; you don't only get it when you know you're about to be screwed. That's why it's called insurance... it's risk management.
Yes, you are right, I misread that sentence, maybe even purposely. I am sorry.
They already have the reason for the denial, that she had a pre-existing condition due to the antepartum hemorrhage. You would be hard pressed to find any insurance company to cover that without an authorization. No reason for them to make any comments then because there wont be any "justification" in the public arena. They're already demonized because evil health insurance! Even had they covered it they would have paid for a portion of the delivery and anesthesia and only that. I can't find specifics in the SBC handbook so I'm making an educated guess.
On November 20 2014 13:17 ObviousOne wrote: Cheaper to change your name and phone number
People were recommending that option though I dunno if I would want to turn my life upside down and move etc... to avoid such a situation.
On November 20 2014 19:08 MutantGenepool wrote: The customer's always right. Didn't you know? Ask any insurance company.
While I certainly agree with the idea that the customer is always right should be phased out because it's downright irritating when customers try to use that to get something, I don't think that applies to this case. The couple are pretty much saying, we double check with our doctor that she's stable and got insurance just incase then things went south so we tried to use the insurance but got denied despite the pregnancy being stable.
On November 20 2014 20:25 Pangpootata wrote: Can't she sue her insurance company?
I dunno why they didn't tbh. Could be that they looked into it but a lot more costs or no lawyer wanted to take the case. Maybe they looked at the fine print and saw some exception or they tried and failed but it wasn't mentioned in the article.
land of the free, just not in regards to health care
The article actually reveals this is about a canadian couple, and this is about travel insurance.
Also, I can't find any travel-insurance plans on Bluecross that cover more than 50.000$, this is for anual plans, though the article specifically mentions that the couple bought the insurance right before the trip (which would contradict the point below that their policy had expired), which would amount to a insurance sum of a whooping 1469 us dollars (though I am probably completely wrong here, just what I got from skimming over their website).
is all that is in the article. And a doctor is no insurance agent, all he would tell them is that the risk is acceptable, since mother and child are alive, he was right as far as medical concerns go.
Also, if you pause the video you see that it seems their travel policy was already expired.
I think they should challenge Blue Cross over this.
I think if they had a case they would have went to court. They got shit, and now they throw it at the reputation of blue cross.
1million seems still a much too low fine for stupid people reproducing, and now raise funds for them instead of letting them get punished for their mistakes, oh world...
edit: got carried away by emotions. ps, op, as you said, a few couple thousands on top of a million for a lawyer no big deal, they don't get one, cause no lawyer in their right mind would take them, they clearly got nothing, this is nothing more than begging and defamation imo
The point was that the doctor gave them a low chance of any problems happening based on her history and also:
She said her doctor sent a letter to Blue Cross confirming that Huculak’s pregnancy was stable when she went on vacation, but the claim was still denied.
In other words, that pre-existing condition is just used as a crutch by the insurance company to not pay any of the costs. Also, you do realize going to court means more money spend, right? There's also no guarantee they'll win the case. For all we know, Blue Cross could've had a small exception in small print that just applied to them and I'm sure most people just ask the main questions (am I covered if I'm pregnant and need delivery for ex) and once they hear a 'yes', they're trusting enough and buy the insurance.
As for the expiry thing:
Jennifer Huculak was nearly six months pregnant when her water broke while on vacation in Hawaii in October 2013.
It's from ages past lol.
Finally, dude, please quit bashing the couple. I shared the article because I thought it's interesting to consider the costs of delivery+neonatal intensive care unit and to warn people to make sure to read the fine print on any insurance contracts from now on considering that you wouldn't want to be in this situation.
On November 21 2014 08:45 AdoriVitaVis wrote: They already have the reason for the denial, that she had a pre-existing condition due to the antepartum hemorrhage. You would be hard pressed to find any insurance company to cover that without an authorization. No reason for them to make any comments then because there wont be any "justification" in the public arena. They're already demonized because evil health insurance! Even had they covered it they would have paid for a portion of the delivery and anesthesia and only that. I can't find specifics in the SBC handbook so I'm making an educated guess.
actually, no, I disagree on part of what you wrote. They had the doctor check things out to make sure things were ok so that they can go on vacation and got the insurance from Blue Cross. I think this is the most important part:
We had no questionnaire [from Blue Cross].
Odd if you ask me since insurance companies usually want to find out all the small details because they make a consideration of the person based on everything before deciding whether they are insurable or not (won't insure if they anticipate high costs or just charge you a high premium). Blue Cross took their money and then didn't fulfill their obligations (unless said otherwise in their stupid small prints in contracts). It's funny to see some people actually defend insurance companies in this thread. These companies are notorious for trying to weasel their way out of paying for something. I'm not saying the couple are in the right here but making the companies sound like they are angels is far from the truth.
She said her doctor sent a letter to Blue Cross confirming that Huculak’s pregnancy was stable when she went on vacation, but the claim was still denied.
"My water broke two days into our holiday," Huculak-Kimmel said. "I spent six weeks on bed rest and then baby Reece was delivered by emergency C-section on December 10th."
In a letter to the family, a Blue Cross worker wrote, "We are unable to provide coverage for any medical expenses incurred for Ms. Huculak's baby" and "please note that Ms. Huculak's travel policy expired on Nov. 9, 2013."
Finally, dude, please quit bashing the couple. I shared the article because I thought it's interesting to consider the costs of delivery+neonatal intensive care unit and to warn people to make sure to read the fine print on any insurance contracts from now on considering that you wouldn't want to be in this situation.
Well in the op it read like you wanted to have a fundraiser:
I do hope they end up having some fundraiser or find a way to get some money to at least lower it further.
and wanted to shed some more light on a sensational press article
Discuss!
plus:
Blue Cross took their money and then didn't fulfill their obligations (unless said otherwise in their stupid small prints in contracts).
Thats what we don't know, because we get a one-sided story.
It's funny to see some people actually defend insurance companies in this thread. These companies are notorious for trying to weasel their way out of paying for something. I'm not saying the couple are in the right here but making the companies sound like they are angels is far from the truth.
I don't know about that, then again, I am from a different country and here insurance usually pays up. The only bad things we hear about them comes from american movies.
I should not have bashed the couple. I got tempted to go into the opposite direction of the article to try and restore some neutrality in the thread. I still dislike the combination of begging and defamation. It is nine month in the worst case without money, while everyone is alive and well.
Try for a more neutral thread if you don't want people to even the field for both sides.
The point was that the doctor gave them a low chance of any problems happening based on her history and also:
She said her doctor sent a letter to Blue Cross confirming that Huculak’s pregnancy was stable when she went on vacation, but the claim was still denied.
"My water broke two days into our holiday," Huculak-Kimmel said. "I spent six weeks on bed rest and then baby Reece was delivered by emergency C-section on December 10th."
In a letter to the family, a Blue Cross worker wrote, "We are unable to provide coverage for any medical expenses incurred for Ms. Huculak's baby" and "please note that Ms. Huculak's travel policy expired on Nov. 9, 2013."
Finally, dude, please quit bashing the couple. I shared the article because I thought it's interesting to consider the costs of delivery+neonatal intensive care unit and to warn people to make sure to read the fine print on any insurance contracts from now on considering that you wouldn't want to be in this situation.
Well in the op it read like you wanted to have a fundraiser:
It's funny to see some people actually defend insurance companies in this thread. These companies are notorious for trying to weasel their way out of paying for something. I'm not saying the couple are in the right here but making the companies sound like they are angels is far from the truth.
I don't know about that, then again, I am from a different country and here insurance usually pays up. The only bad things we hear about them comes from american movies.
I should not have bashed the couple. I got tempted to go into the opposite direction of the article to try and restore some neutrality in the thread. I still dislike the combination of begging and defamation. It is nine month in the worst case without money, while everyone is alive and well.
Try for a more neutral thread if you don't want people to even the field for both sides.
Before they left, he gave them the green light, that things are looking good. As DBP mentioned, insurance is for those situations that 'may' happen but not likely to happen which is why people buy it in the first place. If the company deems that there is a high risk of something happening, they would've given them a higher premium or just not insured them in the first place. It's the whole cost vs gains from insuring someone which is why its harder to insure an elderly with several conditions compared to a young fit guy.
She was hospitalized before it expired. If she was hospitalized after Nov 9th then I would agree but I'm pretty sure (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that she was covered. Thinking more about it, I might see why the baby wouldn't be covered (name wasn't on the policy) but I figured that might be under the mother (basically, part of the pregnany costs if premature)..
I never said I wanted to have a fundraiser, I don't even know who these people are -_- I said I hope they have a fundraiser or find a way to lower the costs because $1,000,000 is a crazy amount and they would be debt for a long long long long time. Yes, I wanted a discussion and I don't mind if you want to take the side of the company or the couple. I was under the impression that giving birth prematurely would be covered under the mother's care but I've never dealt with Blue Cross and from further research, it doesn't seem like it which makes me wonder what the person who sold them the insurance told them (if they asked about that).
I wasn't neutral and it should've been obvious when I stated the 'stupid' contract part lol. As I said, I don't have a problem with you taking the insurance side but there's no reason to let emotions get the best of you in this situation especially when you have no direct relations to anyone in this story.
there's no reason to let emotions get the best of you in this situation especially when you have no direct relations to anyone in this story
No direct relation with anyone in the story, but a direct relation with you, as part of the same community. I stick with TL because the standard is just slightly above average. Someone posting a journalistic horific article which seems to have swayed him on TL? I feel obliged to jump in there and try to clarify.
Can we agree that the source in the original post is questionable at best and agree to disagree on the rest? Please? <3
there's no reason to let emotions get the best of you in this situation especially when you have no direct relations to anyone in this story
No direct relation with anyone in the story, but a direct relation with you, as part of the same community. I stick with TL because the standard is just slightly above average. Someone posting a journalistic horific article which seems to have swayed him on TL? I feel obliged to jump in there and try to clarify.
Can we agree that the source in the original post is questionable at best and agree to disagree on the rest? Please? <3
ok, fair enough. I see your point. The article is obviously one sided since all we know from Blue Cross is that they denied based on a pre-existing condition though they should've gave more information or showed the contract or something to make their case stronger for those reading it.
ok, I think the source could've been less one-sided but disagree on the rest <3
EPT
Hopefully they find a way to make it through their newly acquired debt. 
