Canadian Mother Gives Birth While On Vacation In The U.S., Faces $1 Million Hospital Bill
BY TARA CULP-RESSLER POSTED ON
Jennifer Huculak, who lives in the Canadian province Saskatchewan, was six months pregnant when she flew to Hawaii to go on a vacation with her husband. But two days into her 2013 trip, her water unexpectedly broke; she spent the next six weeks on bed rest, and her daughter was delivered prematurely via an emergency C-section.
A year later, the Huculaks and their daughter are healthy and back at home. But they’re now facing medical billsthat total $950,000 for the hospital care they received in the United States last fall. “It makes you sick to your stomach,” Huculak told CTV News. “Who can pay a million-dollar medical bill? Who can afford that?”
Although the couple purchased travel insurance from Blue Cross before their vacation, the insurance company says that Huculak’s previous pregnancy complications — she had a bladder infection when she was four months pregnant — amounted to a pre-existing condition, so her medical expenses won’t be covered. Blue Cross also maintains that the Huculaks’ plan expired while they were still in Hawaii.
Jennifer Huculak told CBC News that she’s frustrated with Blue Cross because she thought she did everything right. She had approval from her doctor to travel, and after her water broke, she tried to figure out how to return to Canada. But she couldn’t find a medical evacuation company that was willing to transport her home in her condition.
It’s not entirely uncommon for visitors to the U.S. to accrue big medical bills if they suffer from a health condition while they’re here. Travel insurance isn’t currently subject to all of the regulations under the Affordable Care Act — and the health reform law doesn’t apply to people who aren’t U.S. residents — so there can be confusion about how exactly these plans will work in practice. Other Canadian travelers have been stuck with hefty bills after unexpectedly suffering from kidney failure and struggling with high blood pressure while in the United States.
Outspoken critic of Obamacare
helped to turn LePage against
state exchange
by Steve Mistler
One of the nation’s most dogged and successful opponents of the Affordable Care
Act helped dissuade the LePage administration from creating a state-run exchange
where residents could buy health insurance last year, according to documents
obtained by the Maine Sunday Telegram.
Michael F. Cannon, director of health policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute
in Washington, D.C., met with LePage and other administration officials more than
two years ago and persuaded LePage to rely on a federally operated exchange to offer
coverage for uninsured Mainers.
As a result, Maine became one of the 36 states that
sent residents to healthcare.gov, the poorly prepared federal website that nearly imploded under the demand, heightening public skepticism over the ACA, also known as Obamacare, and fueling conservative calls to kill it.
sent residents to healthcare.gov, the poorly prepared federal website that nearly imploded under the demand, heightening public skepticism over the ACA, also known as Obamacare, and fueling conservative calls to kill it.
The second enrollment period for Obamacare began
last Saturday. Early reports indicate that
healthcare.gov is operating more smoothly and
public interest is high. However, a new threat that
Cannon foresaw as early as 2011 now looms – likely
Cannon has been described in recent national news reports as the man who could kill
Obamacare. He told the Telegram last week that his ultimate goal is for Congress to
repeal the law “root and branch,” an ambition reflected in his visits to dozens of
statehouses in 2012 to urge Republican lawmakers to reject the state-run exchanges.
Cannon said he offered several reasons to states for rejecting a state exchange, but in
2011 he and other critics of the law discovered a new weapon that jumped to the top of
the list.
The discovery focused on language in the 1,000-page ACA that bears on the health
exchange subsidies. Depending on how that language is interpreted by a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling next year, the law could be dealt a crippling blow.
No comments:
Post a Comment