Medical bills?

Ensuring the mother signs up and has insurance should be part of the $20K - should they not actually work for their fee? How else do they justify that amount of money?

Amen, Dickons!! While I agree in theory that aparents should cover medical bills, the sad fact is not everyone can. We would have passed on any situation where we would have been stuck with them because we just couldn't afford $25K in adoption expenses PLUS a $10K hospital bill on top of it. If anything, it should be possible for aparents' insurance to cover it retroactively when the baby officially becomes their responsibility. But I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way.As far as whether the state should pay - well there are a lot dumber things that the government pays for so I have no problem with tax dollars going to hospital bills for a woman who can't afford to pay them. But that's just me and probably not the popular view...

Brooklyn, If she qualifies for Medicaid and would go on medicaid anyway then I do not see an issue. I think AP's should be liable if they adopt but with the caveat that paying someone to facilitate (i.e. deal with everything) that should land on their (facilitators) shoulders and be their responsiblity. An AP (if you can afford to adopt) would have insurance to cover their birth but obviously can't get private insurance for the mother as it would be a pre-exisiting condition I do not think an insurance company would allow so the they are basically stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I guess for me it's the stigma that goes with being on medicaid coupled with the stigma of being a birth mom that makes me want to stand up and protect birth moms going through this and say that the adoptive parents should take care of the medical bills regardless. And if you can't or won't pay for the hospital bills then find a match that better suits what you are and are not willing to provide. But the bigger issue is here is that it should not cost 20k plus to adopt a child, it just shouldn't!

Each and every situation is differnt. We looked at some prospective matches that required we pay medical, and others possible matches in which all medical was covered by private insurance held by the emom or other assistance. The thing that turned us off about the ones that needed the PAP to provide medical assistance is that to ensure continued care by the doctor choosen by the emom we would need to pay as you go... co-pays, medical testing, ultra sounds, weekly appointments the cost add up... and if the emom/bmom decided to parent all of that money would be a "gift" and lost. It would be really unfair for a PAP to loose all of that money, but I would hate for a bmom to go through with an adoption because she felt like she had to because medical cost had been paid by the PAP's We opted to only go with cases in which the emom had insurance or was covered by medicaid. My insurance company picked up the cost of the baby from birth forward so the bmom's insurance only was responsible for her care. DD was 7 days old when we took custody. Our insurance paid for her 6 day NICU stay even prior to being placed with us. I was thankful for that. I REALLY hate that adoption has become about the money.

I guess my question about emoms and medicaid would be: what would they do to pay their bill if they chose to parent? Emoms can't become bmoms until they tpr and that can't happen until after birth so what was the "plan"? The PAP's did not force her to become pregnant - it's not a surrogacy contract. I think that if an emom is eligible for medicaid and cannot afford her own medical or have private insurance than she has a responsibility to herself to apply for medicaid. A couple who plans on parenting their baby, but the baby dies during childbirth is still responsible for their hospital bill. No one says, sorry you're not going home with a baby so you get a pass. The emom is her own person with her own medical situation, yes it involves the baby, but again until she signs tpr, what is her plan to take care of her financial responsibilities? I know my opinion won't be popular, but again, emoms shouldn't feel coerced. I can only imagine how coerced a person would feel if someone picked up their hospital bill. Medicaid exists for people who meet the criteria - they should use it if they need it. PAPs don't have money trees in their backyards - many have to take loans just to afford to adopt. My last point thought is this: every dollar I have to give an emom for her personal expenses, bills, medical, etc... is one less dollar I have for our new child, for their education, care, needs, etc.... We are more than happy to assume the responsibilities for our child (at tpr, they become our child), but I'm not adopting the emom. Again, I know my opinion won't be popular. I'm not trying to insult bmoms, but I don't feel like PAPs should have to shoulder all the responsibility for a situation that they are a 3rd party to. I do apologize in advance if anyone feels slighted or insulted by my view - it's not my intent at all, just another viewpoint.

ErinandWill, Youre certainly entitled to your point of view on this. The point you make in your post echo the points my mom made to me 28 years ago when I called begging her to help me find a way to parent. ғPaige, how would you even pay the doctor and hospital bills? Let alone everything else a child needs. After my father passed away I discovered that he made payments for a couple of years to cover both mine and my childԒs medical bills. So I guess in my case my family subsidized the adoptive family, much like we do today with the adoption tax credit. Since adoption is a multi-billion dollar per year industry, I believe the agencies and facilitators who are profiting the most should have a fund to take care of these parents who fall between the cracks of private insurance and Medicaid. I believe this should also be true of expectant parent expenses and even those should be very, very limited. I hate the high cost of domestic infant adoption in this country. I really agree with you that I would much rather see those dollars going for all the things a child needs during their lifetime. So many reforms neededso little progress!

Adoption as we know it today (post WWII) has always been about the money...if you do the math an adoption from my era if you went through an agency came out the same as it costs today. Using what the dollar would buy then vs now. Today though you have an adoption tax credit to offset and there wasn't that then. Sorry to take the thread off tangent. Kind regards,Dickons

Not everyone can qualify for the Tax Credit. We had 3 different tax attorneys look at our information and all three said it was a NO. I really don't like that many people assume that all who adopt get the tax credit. We just had the "perfect storm" of things going on that made it to where we did not qualify.

And not everyone qualifies for Medicaid. I don't think anyone here makes the assumption that "everyone" qualifies for either...but those that do are getting a healthy tax payer subsidy.

I don't have a problem with PAPs covering necessary expenses. However, not wanting to be on Medicaid is not a necessity. It is a matter of pride. No matter how important pride is, it is not my responsibility. I do think that bmoms should not be responsible for medical expenses. One reason I went with the agency I did is that they covered those expenses for bmoms who did not qualify for Medicaid or have other insurance.

Personally, I feel that if prisoners get health care, the American public should. Yes, I am a fan of socialized medicine. Health care isn't a privilege, it's a right. That said... in America, each individual is responsible for his/her medical bills. Some people are fortunate enough to be have private insurance. (My son's birthmom did, through her dad. She was a minor.) Some people are fortunate enough to qualify for Medicaid. If they do, they should avail themselves of these options. The fact that health care institutions can reduce the bills of people who don't have insurance points to the real problem - insurance bureaucracy. If the facility doesn't have to deal with the insurance agencies, they can charge less. It's partially due to insurance that costs are so high. Anyway... I feel the government should pay for health care for all of us, so I have no problem with a woman getting her medical care paid for by the state in an adoption situation. It benefits the state to ensure that all of its people are healthy.

What I find interesting about this thread is how it seems to directly contradict other threads about adoption costs. So many threads have people railing against high adoption costs. If aps or paps pay medical expenses for the bmom, then adoption costs WILL be higher. A hospital bill (or doctor's bill) for a birth which has gone smoothly can be over 5k. If something goes wrong, or there are complications, that number can skyrocket to over 20k. So, which is it? Are bmoms covered for medical by aps? Or are we hoping for lower adoption costs?

There's a big difference between APs paying full medical costs and reimbursing costs not covered by insurance. For example, co-pays and deductibles are clearly pregnancy-related expenses. I believe all states allow APs to pay for these. Someone said that Medicaid shouldn't pay for expenses when an adoption is involved. I don't think most APs would agree. :) :hippie:

Agreed. When adopting a baby your medical bill responsibility should begin for the baby after the baby is born and/or legally yours. How would one pay for their medical bills if they weren’t giving their baby up for adoption??Adoption is already expensive when it shouldn’t be in the first place. It’s sickening how people try to make money off of anything and everything. Giving a baby a loving home should not cost 20K upfront at all.