Scathing criticism of the lack of maternity care insurance for women in the United States recently appeared in the
Cleveland Plain Dealer
:
"Barely two months into her pregnancy, an ultrasound triggered some alarming news for Meagan Armington. The fetus, thankfully, was fine, but Armington's health insurance was not. To Armington's dismay, the policy she bought from Aetna about three years ago did not provide maternity coverage, forcing the 31 year old single-mom-to-be to pay for the prenatal visits out of pocket. Due to give birth in April, Armington faces labor and delivery costs of at least $7,500."
I know a lot of folks don't want reality to interfere with their completely unfettered personal activities, but the main point of this article should have been that she's not married - and not that the insurance companies are bad guys. The sure-fire method for avoiding financial issues during pregnancy and child-rearing is a marriage. She bought the insurance for her single lifestyle. At thirty-one, you'd think she'd know about birth control, adoption, or marriage. Instead, we have the same nonsense that defends irresponsible behavior and looks for some institution to blame for not coming to the rescue.At best, this is irresponsibility and journalistic nonsense. At worst, this is irresponsibility and journalistic nonsense.
