right off the bat it sounds like there’s a huge basic contractual issue, since no one could possibly have foreseen a roughly $1million bill, and they were never notified of such beforehand (they couldn’t have been, it takes days for the hospital to tally prices when they find out insurance isn’t paying, from what I understand)
so right there they have some strong elements to their case
I wonder what would have happened if it had been the other way around - Hawaiian woman in Canada. Would the Canadians pick up the tab, or would they bill her?
She would be billed.
If she had come to the UK, she **may **have been billed for some costs, but would not, as far as I know, be pursued if she failed to pay.
No one is ever charged for emergency treatment in the UK.
When you allow a company to charge whatever it wants for a service people have no choice to refuse, they will charge whatever they want. I’ll never understand why we allow this. If price controls are ever appropriate and required for anything, it’s healthcare. Presumption of the free market is seriously rebutted in this case.
Not really. The problem is the disconnect between the payer and the consumer. The average health-cared person has no connection to what is charged. The health insurance provider is happy with large bills to some extent, since the more money flowing through their hands, the bigger their rake-off too. The only incentive for lower bills is to make the amount below industry average so they can also retain the difference. The employer has no choice, they must pay whatever the insurer charges and can’t argue individual bills. It’s the capitalist perfect storm. “That guy over there will take that other guy’s money and give you whatever you ask for my treatment”.
I shudder now to think I drove across the USA several times on a motorcycle with no health insurance in the early 80’s. But then, I had the kamikaze defence… sue me, I have nothing. IIRC, Canadian law has no escape clauses like the USA for student loans, VISA bills and other debt being exempt from bankruptcy; the hospital would have to sue them in Canada I assume.
I wonder if signing away rights for a child that did not exist yet (not a person until born?) is really legal?
Here’s a factual question related to the situation being discussed in this thread.
If someone brought a baby into the hospital for something urgent, and the hospital presented the parent with things to sign, and the parent actually read these things, and started making annotations etc before signing, then the hospital refused to accept the annotations, and during the process of this negotiation the baby died because he didn’t get the needed care, would someone be held legally responsible for the baby’s death?
IANAL but I think the hospital would be liable. If a baby is brought in by an ambulance (without the parents present) or is brought in by a stranger, the hospital will treat the urgent need without needing those documents signed. So if the parents are there and are attempting to negotiate the terms of the documents, I’d expect the hospital to treat the urgent condition without waiting for the signatures.
This is a really interesting question. It involves a collision, or a potential collision, between two important aspects of law:
Contracts must be agreed to, even if nominally. If you, by positive action, declare your lack of acceptance of a contract that you have been offered, and the offeror decides to continue to deal with you, you aren’t bound by the “form”. In effect, by not shutting you out, they have consented to your refusal or modification of the contract.
Health care providers are required by law to provide emergency medical assistance.
Has this ever gone to court?
Suddenly, I have an idea of getting a medical alert bracelet with the clause “By treating this person, the provider agrees that any care provided will be subject to a maximum $100 charge per day. The provider further agrees that any dispute involving payment will be settled by binding arbitration at McMurdo Station in Antarctica, and the healthcare provider will be responsible for all direct and incidental travel costs for all parties. Providing diagnosis, care, or treatment to this person shall constitute your agreement to these terms.”
The changes brought by the Affordable Care Act don’t govern health insurance contracts made in another country. (Just another failure of Obamacare! 
)
The Blue Cross contract in this case would be governed by Saskatchewan law, since that’s where the couple bought the contract.
There was a lawyer on CBC radio this morning talking about this. There’s the issue mentioned above that the mother had had some bleeding due to a bladder infection, making this a pre-existing condition. However, aside from that, the baby’s care after birth wouldn’t have been covered anyway, because the travel insurance was only for the parents. I’ve never heard of the idea of taking out travel insurance for an unborn child (and the lawyer said he hadn’t previously either) but apparently such a thing exists.
It’s not that hard to get a Canadian judgment domesticated in the US, and I assume the reverse is also true. I mean relatively speaking; if this was a $5000 case it certainly wouldn’t be worth it.
Well, in this case the lady had purchased travel insurance before, the specific purpose of which is to cover out-of-country treatment. She wasn’t relying on the regular publicly funded Canadian health care to cover medical expenses in the U.S. The article is quite clear about that.
He was responding to Dewey Finn.
Ah, OK, I hadn’t noticed. Sorry.
Tsk. 
Exactly.
I am genuinely curious to know how something like this would work out.
It is too bad someone has to put their life at stake to carry out the experiment. But it’s sort of the next step below a DNR so I imagine there could be some takers out there.
This cite specifically mentions Ontario, but I see no reason to assume it would be any different in other provinces.
Except there’s one exception to that rule, and that’s urgent medical care. In general, a court will create a quasi-contract between the parties involved. There’s plenty of caselaw in that area.
What am I missing? I thought travel insurance covered the cost of your missed trip if you have a medical emergency and you are not able to go on said trip. Sounds like the OP is talking about the cost of the pregnancy and hospital stay while they were on the vacation. That is not something that is normally covered by travel insurance.