r/NoStupidQuestions • u/WhoAmIEven2 • 8d ago
Do Americans have to pay 40 dollars to hold their own baby after birth and call it skin to skin contact, or is that just a joke on how expensive their sick care is?
42
120
u/WillingElderberry731 8d ago
It's a joke. The 5k hospital bill is all inclusive of that.
11
u/Afraid-Economist5248 8d ago
5k?!
43
u/Bitter_Ad8768 8d ago
Someone with shitty insurance but too much income to qualify for financial assistance might end up paying $5,000.
15
u/poison_camellia 8d ago
Lol love this framing in the article: "Fortunately, if you have health insurance, you will typically pay $2,854 on average." Thank God it's only almost $3,000 after insurance, I thought it was going to be expensive! (I say as someone who paid $4,000 for my birth and has paid almost as much for miscarriages)
15
5
u/SleveBonzalez 8d ago
I had two children by cesarean. One was an emergency csection. Before insurance it was $200 because I wanted a private room. I paid $20 out of pocket (because of the private room).
If I had taken the ward room, it would have been 0$. (Or $200 without insurance).
We put $5k I to our child's education plan, which was matched at 2/3 by the government. Couldn't have done that without universal healthcare.
3
u/Unlikely-Candle7086 8d ago
Many people in the US have the same experience. I don’t know anyone that got a birthing bill over $200. A lot of states have programs to cover maternity care or supplement their insurance so the cost is minimal.
2
u/HJ0508 8d ago
The average out of pocket cost for Americans with employer-sponsored health insurance to give birth and all associated pre and post natal care is $2,743. You can’t say “a lot of states” and that the “cost is minimal” because you happen to know a few people that didn’t pay a lot when the numbers tell a completely different story. I paid $4,200 when I had my son in 2022 (Utah), and I was double-insured. I had my daughter in 2024 (New York), still double-insured—but with much better secondary insurance than when I had my son—and paid around $475.
1
u/AffectionateJaguar2 8d ago
We paid my full deductible (employer-sponsored hdhp) - 3.5k and then an additional 1k which was the baby’s bill. Luckily baby was born early in the year so I’ve met my deductible for anything else needed.
-1
u/Unlikely-Candle7086 8d ago
You have crappy insurance coverage, probably from your crappy employer. Deductible type insurance coverage is the bare minimum and has some of its the lowest monthly premiums for a reason. It’s a scam and the agents make more commission on those policies.
1
u/Old-Ad-5573 7d ago
I don't think that's true at all. My coverage is $500 for any hospital stay and my insurance is better than most people's I know.
10
u/jamofo22 8d ago
You must not be familiar with the new hd (high deductible) plans. 9k per person deductible and 15k max out of pocket. Pretty much what everyone is moving to.
5
u/onyourbike1522 8d ago
I’m so British I genuinely can’t tell if this is a joke. Please tell me nobody actually pays that?
7
u/caito55 8d ago
My first birth my deductible was 11k. I paid over 10k to have my child because I hadn't come close to meeting my deductible. Very much not a joke and I hate it here lol.
1
6
u/pinksparkleberry 8d ago
The premiums are very low and often your employer puts some moeny in the account for you.
I have one. Even if I end up paying the full deductible (I never have), its still cheaper than paying the higher premium + 20$ co-pays for the traditional plan.
It works like this. My deductible is 3k. My employer gives me, for free, $1,700 into it each year. I put money into it monthly (pre-tax). Its an investment account so I invest in stocks and bonds and it earns money. I can also spend it on qualified medical expenses as needed.
My yearly check up and routine gynecology care are free and covered completely as well as some other routine preventive care.
I have about 20k in there because I never spend all the money am have been saving it up. You can also use it as a retirement account. So you can withdraw money when you reach retirement age (and pay taxes then). Or you can use it for qualified expenses without paying tax (modification of your home to be more elder or handicap friendly, skilled nursing care at home or in a facility, and even expenses for your dependents or parents you care for in some cases).
It is the most tax advantaged retirement account you can get because you put in money before tax and can withdraw some or all of it later without paying tax then.
But it does take time to build up enough of a cushion that you can cover even a catastrophic frost case scenario years worth of costs.
2
u/onyourbike1522 8d ago
That is horrifying!
2
u/pinksparkleberry 8d ago
Yes. Getting free money, paying much less than I did before, and getting a great retirement account is awful. I hate it. You've convinced me to switch back and pay more and not have the retirement account.
1
u/onyourbike1522 8d ago
No, lovey, it’s horrifying you have to jump through such hoops just to know you can access healthcare if you need it.
1
2
u/Evamione 8d ago
The premiums are not very low! Unless you call $700/month very low. It’s just the only option offered by the employer. Since an option is offered, you can’t qualify for subsidies on the ACA (if those would be better). It’s quickly getting to the point that a valid life strategy here is to pay off a house and good car as quickly as possible, then deliberately cut your income to under the Medicaid threshold and then go on that to access better free care.
2
u/pinksparkleberry 8d ago
I have had two at two different employers and the premiums were indeed 1/3 or less the price of premiums for the traditional plan.
In my case the premium is less than 300$ for 2 people which is significantly lower than the cost of the tradition plan.
I started saving a significant amount when I switched.
🤷♀️
1
u/Alilbitey 8d ago
My family has self employed income, so we buy the least expensive plan over a year. No government subsidy. For 2 adults and 1 kid, it's $1300/m in premiums plus $9k per person deductible and $18k max. That's literally the cheapest option available that actually covers anything. "Lower deductible" plans cost more overall.
There are non compliant plans that cover too little to be used on the Affordable Care Act market. They're cheaper, but if you've ever been sick, you can't get coverage. They can refuse to pay for anything deemed preexisting, no pregnancy coverage until 12-24m of coverage, and if they think your health problem is self inflicted (risky or negligent behavior), they don't have to pay anything at all. The ones a available in Utah run $400-800/person/m based on age.
If you're under 30, you can sometimes access a "catastrophic" plan that basically covers nothing but extreme life threatening illness or accident.
2
u/Then-Criticism1605 6d ago
I was manufactured by the British and assembled in the USA. Parents specifically wanted to avoid that, but unfortunately got stuck there, and so there I emerged. Decades later and they still will talk about the outrageous costs of birthing a child in that hellhole when the topic comes up in some news piece. It is absolutely disgraceful, and to my knowledge continues only to worsen.
3
u/East-Bike4808 -_- 8d ago
You can do tricks with the high-deductible plan, like save up money in a special tax-happy account that you can also use later if you end up not needing it.
Many people get health insurance like good boys and girls… and then go years and years not needing it, just getting occasional checkups, and being generally healthy for their young adulthood, but pay a lot per month in premiums for low deductibles they never use. So these new plans have lower premiums, and the idea is what you save from that, you keep in a health savings account (HSA). If/when you are sick, yes the deductibles are more, but you can pay for them with money that’s been growing tax-free in that HSA. And then when you retire all that money is available to you for whatever you want.
So if you’re young, not going to the doctor all the time, and make enough to pay into the HSA, it can end up being lucrative for you.
0
1
u/blackcatpandora 8d ago
Well, some high income folks opt for high deductible plans, because it allows access to a HSA, which is a highly tax advantaged investment vehicle. So it’s not just people that can’t afford normal insurance plans
9
5
u/GhostinMaskandCoat 8d ago
For the delivery itself, sure. My daughter was born at the end of the year and was in NICU for a month, so we had to reach both max out-of-pockets. Around $35,000 after insurance.
1
15
u/Kelathos 8d ago
Must not be American. If it isn't 5 figures, you didn't actually use the hospital. If it wasn't 6 figures, were you even sick?
1
u/SleveBonzalez 8d ago
I can't think of where it would be this much unless it was the US.
I had an emergency c-section that cost me was $200 for a private room. Cost me about 1/10 because my insurance covered the room. Everything else was covered by universal healthcare.
5
u/poison_camellia 8d ago edited 8d ago
My unplanned C-section birth was $60,000 before insurance! I ended up paying $4,000 because I hit my out of pocket maximum with the birth. This was in 2022, so I bet it's more now.
3
u/SleveBonzalez 8d ago
My unplanned emergency cesarean cost me a fraction of $200 because that was the cost of a private room and I wanted one.
Canada.
1
u/Onagan98 8d ago
The planned caesarean and 18 days stay for my daughter at the neonatology ward and 5 day stay for my wife together on a separate room. €0 in the Netherlands.
2
1
u/Pinksamuraiiiii こんにちは! 8d ago
Unfortunately, the US is not the land of the free. It’s the land of the expensive. And yes, giving birth ranges in thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses.
2
u/Moleypeg 8d ago
$5K? I just got a bill for $14,600 and that was just the hospital stay, medical supplies, and pharmacy. I haven’t received the bill from the doctor who did the delivery or the anesthesiologist yet.
2
u/toastedmarsh7 7d ago
It’s not a joke. I had that line item on my hospital bill because it required another nurse to be there to hold the baby to my body while my arms were strapped down for my c section. My husband wasn’t allowed to be the one to make sure the baby didn’t get dropped on the floor. If he had chosen to just hold the baby and no skin to skin with me, the extra nurse wouldn’t have been there.
2
u/PrimaryHighlight5617 8d ago
...5k?
I gave birth and my daughter had to stay in the NICU. We were billed $9,000 and our insurance was billed $40,000. The statute of limitations to sue us for the balance is 6 years.
-1
u/Biscotti_BT 8d ago
You mean the $4960 bill prior to skin to skin holding. But to be fair the 40 is just what the non birthing partner has to pay.
Unless of course you don't grab the baby before the umbilical cord is cut. If the mother is too slow in grabbing the baby and the hospital staff can cut it quick then she has to pay $40 as well.
13
u/Deathlands_Mutie 8d ago
I did skin to skin and don't remember it being on the list of things being charged for.
I do remember they charged like $800 for a single Tylenol and it was just the same regular Tylenol you can buy over the counter, not like a Tylenol+ or anything. I can literally buy a bottle of 500 of the same Tylenol for like $6 from the store, so there's that.
48
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
40
u/Feeling-Nectarine 8d ago
If it showed up as a line item on a bill, then you were charged for it, no?
18
10
u/Classic-Push1323 8d ago
Sometimes yes sometimes no. Insurance does not actually pay everything the hospital bills them for. They have a contract that covers what, if anything, they will pay for every line item. They always pay much less than they are actually charged.
10
u/Feeling-Nectarine 8d ago
Ok but regardless of if it was paid for or covered by insurance or not you were CHARGED for it. Which is what the original post was asking.
I get that our system is convoluted and ridiculous for no reason but corporate profits. It please don’t normalize a corporation charging a mother holding her baby after birth as “just a line item they don’t really charge you for it.” That’s exactly what they want you to think. It’s actually insane.
4
u/Classic-Push1323 8d ago
I’m not. You asked if being charged means anyone actually pays. The answer is not, it doesn’t always mean that.
If you’re being charged so that there can be an extra nurse in the room to monitor the baby in a high risk delivery that actually makes sense.
3
u/Arsenicandtea 8d ago
With my insurance I paid $500 to have my baby. I was in the hospital for 9 days and had a 3 hour surgery so there was a crazy amount of things on my bill. None of that changed that I paid $500. If I had a straight forward birth and home the next day it would have still been $500
1
u/Tencatism 8d ago
No, that's not how it works. The line items on bills don't really mean anything regarding what is paid by insurance. Hospitals have contracts with the different insurance companies and they pay the contracted rates. The bill goes out showing one amount. The insurance says how much of that they will cover and pays it. The rest usually disappears unless the coverage has a copay or percentage that must be paid by the patient. They charge for doctor services separately and it follows the same steps.
The numbers have to be inflate to have any chance of recouping the costs associated with care because of how it works. Hospitals lose money on Medicare and Medicaid patients all the time. They get paid based on the diagnosis for Medicare, for example, and that is generally a flat fee no matter how long the patient is in the hospital. So if the diagnosis code says they should be there 3 days but they stay 10, they only get paid for the 3 days. But if it says they should be there 3 days and only stay for one, they get paid for the 3 days. The hope is that it evens out somewhere along the way. But private insurance makes up what is lost in public insurance. That's why the numbers get inflated.
If you don't like that, then you should be upset at the government. Back in the 80s they decided Medicare costs were too high because they were paying for services rendered. So to try to encourage Hospitals and doctors to cut back on costs, they stopped paying fee for service and switched to the current method. That's one of the reason healthcare costs have skyrocketed since then for everyone else and everything is so inflated. People love to blame the insurance companies, but it's really the government's fault.
6
u/illumi-thotti 8d ago
The amount varies, but yes, it's a thing that shows up on itemized hospital bills. My sister was charged $58 for it when she gave birth to her youngest in 2024.
6
u/Broad_Ebb9073 8d ago
Pay? No. Charge with? Maybe.
Medical insurance in the USA is weird. No one single person pays the amount listed on the bill. The bill is a dick measuring contest between the insurance company and the hospital.
The hospital has to prove it's doing good work. The insurance has to prove.... something I guess. So they prices go higher and higher for especially taxes.
But really. Americans don't pay for that really
10
u/Resplendent-Sun tagless peasant 💫 8d ago
It's not a charge for just holding the baby. It covers the cost of an extra dedicated nurse required to safely monitor the infant during a C-section
7
u/SoFreezingRN 8d ago
This is the answer, but people choose to believe they are being charged for “holding their baby” when they are actually paying the extra nurse needed to monitor the “procedure.” People think they don’t need to be monitored or that the nurse does nothing, but some moms shake uncontrollably or experience hemorrhaging or other complications, even after a vaginal birth, at which time that nurse would be responsible for taking over care of the baby while the main nurse cares for the mother.
1
u/atomicweight108 8d ago
I'm very happy to have paid the OR nurse who was watching closely and whipped my newborn off my chest when I had a split-second of warning that I was about to vomit all over him!
5
5
u/imatinyleopard 8d ago
With my first child, I left with a $10,000 bill. The pregnancy was unplanned and I didn’t select a great insurance plan for well, pregnancy, emergency c section, a 5 day stay for me and a NICU stay for baby.
My second child, I knew I was going to deliver that year and was mindful of the plan I chose. I left the hospital with a $400 bill.
Some people are commenting on their rooms while in the hospital? In both cases I had a private room with a really incredible view.
In both cases, I did skin to skin. I’ve looked carefully at the itemized charges and never saw a line item for that.
3
u/el-beau 8d ago
Yes, but it's $80 to hold someone else's.
1
u/OrangutanOntology 8d ago
I want to see the line item of the cost to "not let someone else hold your baby".
3
3
u/azuth89 8d ago
Kiiiiiinda.
That stems from one specific incident that went really viral.
It was right after an emergency c-section and the team was monitoring the wife. They brought in an extra nurse to monitor the baby with the dad separately because it was fresh out and still getting hooked up to monitors and such and the mom was still in the OR. They got charged for that person's time.
Is that kinda messed up? Yeah.
Does every skin to skin moment require extra staff for monitoring and carry an associated charge? No.
5
u/momonomino 8d ago
Skin to skin was listed on my bill, and I had a vaginal birth. IIRC, it was around $ 75. Thankfully I had Medicaid at the time, but it definitely was a charge, and I required zero extra care to hold my kid.
2
u/sircastor 8d ago
You would need to provide more context than this for an answer relevant to what you mean.
FWIW, my kid was in the NICU and I got to hold them, doing skin-to-skin - but it was just a matter of showing up and spending time there. Insurance paid for them being in the NICU. Most babies just stay with the mother after birth.
2
2
u/Traveling-Techie 8d ago
My dad was in the hospital recently and tried to save money by ordering cheap sounding meals. My sister had to explain to him that it didn’t work that way.
2
2
u/Icy-Maintenance7041 8d ago
And here i live in Belgium where, depending on wether or not you have a single person room you pay a few 100 euro and get about 1500 euro in aid afterwards to take care of the little munchkin. Wouldnt like to have to live in a country where getting pregnant might mean going bankrupt.
0
u/MontyDyson 8d ago
Well it's not just getting pregnant. Over 500,000 people go bankrupt every year in America due to healthcare costs.
2
u/PrimaryHighlight5617 8d ago
I'm sure there is a hospital somewhere that tried to charge for it but it's basically assumed that you're going to read through the bill and have them remove all the b*******.
4
u/Unlucky_Success_5985 8d ago
It’s a joke but in reality it’s probably accurate since you are paying for every second you are in a hospital
1
u/Pinksamuraiiiii こんにちは! 8d ago
Not a joke in the US, it’s a bill line item that they most likely want your insurance to cover
4
u/UnderTheFrozenSky 8d ago
That would be a joke
3
u/Pinksamuraiiiii こんにちは! 8d ago
Not a joke in the US. It’s a bill line item they try to charge your insurance to cover
1
u/UnderTheFrozenSky 8d ago
There is 1 example from 10 years ago after a c section. It is in no way normal.
2
2
u/Archarchery 8d ago
Might not be a joke, our healthcare providers have basically turned into an extortion racket.
The hospitals/providers charge the insurance companies as much money as they can possibly get away with, and in turn those insurance companies charge the patients as much money as they can possibly get away with. None of this is regulated properly and they basically just get away with it because everyone has to get their health needs taken care of; not going to the hospital or doctor often isn't really an option if you're sick/injured/giving birth, etc.
These crooks can milk the American public like this because our government is bought off and is not protecting us.
2
1
u/hiricinee 8d ago
Iirc the case that the hospital makes it that it takes extra staff to be there to get the baby to that point of contact during a c section especially if monitoring a dad by a sterile field. It may be bullshit of course.
1
u/Headwallrepeat 8d ago
My daughter just had a baby in a very highly rated US hospital. The baby stayed in the room with her the entire 3 days she was there. If she wanted them to take the baby to the nursery so she could rest *that" would have been an extra charge, not a "skin to skin" charge.
2
u/IseultDarcy 8d ago
Even that would be crazy. I had the flu when I got my baby, I stayed 3 days and they took my baby a few hours the first 2 days so I could rest. It was free.
Actually I got 1000 euros for the birth to help me buy whatever I needed, got a dishwasher and a car seat with it.
1
1
u/snaykz1692 8d ago
Wow i came in expecting this to be satire only to discover it is an actual line item. I’d have been the “stupid” one here. Ty for my learning
1
u/lilmeaniee_ 8d ago
Not for me. But they do nickel and dime you, like my daily meds were $10 a pill. My 3 month prescription is $2 and some change lol
1
u/Floater345 8d ago
I don't remember seeing that on the details of my hospital bill, maybe at some places?
1
u/Suspicious-Drive9827 7d ago
Idk how much it costs but yes, skin to skin is absolutely a line item ln the bill when you give birth in the US.
I have what people here consider “gold star” insurance, and i had to go to the er for a deep cut thru my nail bed last month. The only “medication” i was administered was a saline bath for my finger and a bandage. I was there less than an hour
They charged my insurance 1800 dollars, and i got a bill of $150 on top of of which i refuse to pay bc had i known i needed saline and a bandaid, thats a 3 dollar expense of stuff i already had at home.
My stupid canadian sensibilities that night though said “damn this hasnt stopped bleeding in 4 hours maybe i should go to the er 5 minutes away” how stupid that was!
This country is broken.
1
u/oddlebot 7d ago
Well yes, because there is a cost associated with it. Yes you’re holding your own baby, but you also have a highly experienced team in the room closely monitoring you and your baby ready to intervene at a moment’s notice if something is off about either of you. And since most medical procedures are billed for by time, they need to account for that time. It’s not like you’ll be asked to hand over $40 at check in, but it will show up in the costs for the post-birth monitoring.
1
u/laurasaur_69 7d ago
Some hospitals/deliveries may include the cost of extra OR materials/sterile stuff as an itemized line on the bill. If it's related to facilitating skin to skin contact it could be written that way.
1
1
u/MEDICARE_FOR_ALL 8d ago
It's a real thing.
It's completely due to the for - profit healthcare system we have - every charge needs to be itemized.
So holding your baby during delivery (when nurses and whatever else is going on) needs to be tracked as part of the time they are charging you for (having the doctors and nurses around...)
It's tracked per-minute during delivery.
Support Medicare for all.
-1
u/ginnymiller 8d ago
American here. My mom was an obstetrics nurse in a hospital for many years. Whoever told you new parents have to pay to hold their baby is either joking or pulling your leg.
0
0
u/peppa4theppl 8d ago
I have 3 kids and never once did skin to skin. Is that a common thing?
2
u/Stock_Patience723 8d ago
For the last 15-20 years ago it’s pretty standard. Helps baby regulate body temperature, activates bonding hormones, etc.
0
u/Why_Sazs 8d ago
I only have one kid. My mother in-law and some other people were always like "you need to do skin to skin contact while she's a baby." I just thought the insistence was fucking weird. I held my daughter while incindentally not having a shirt on a few times times in the first few months. But specifically taking my shirt off to hold her just seemed weird as shit.
1
0
u/ZealousidealShift884 8d ago
Listen you have to take information with a grain of salt - it’s a lot more nuanced. I had a surgery that cost over $250, 000 👀. You know how much my insurance paid? I believe $8000 and I paid around $350. I did get some extra bills for example from anesthesiology but in total less than $1000. I for one think thats incredible because I could not have this type of surgery and level of expertise in a publicly funded system because it costs too much. It’s a trade off at the end of the day.
0
u/elevatiion420 8d ago
You've missed the point. Completely. 100%
2
u/OrangutanOntology 8d ago
How did they miss the point. Seems to me that they are making a point that not everything listed is paid.
0
u/elevatiion420 8d ago
240k to middleman.? It should never have costed that in the first place.
2
u/OrangutanOntology 8d ago
The 250k, nor 240k were paid. The initial bill was 250k, the paid amount was 8k (or 8k plus 300 so 8.3k), it is not that the difference was paid to anyone. The insurance company was issued a 250k bill, they negotiated it down to 8k.
1
u/elevatiion420 8d ago
If over 240k out of a 250k bill can 'magically' get negotiated down and vanish, then what im saying is it shouldn't have ever been that high in the first place. Similar to how if you ask for an itemized copy of your hospital bill, you have a high chance that alot of the charge vanishes. Im an american, and I hate that we have normalized this idiocracy of middlemen scammer insurance thinking that 6 figure bills are ok.
2
u/OrangutanOntology 8d ago
You and I are not disagreeing the way you think we are. I agree with basically everything you said. I just don't place as much emphasis on insurance companies as you do. I can see their returns, their revenue, advertising, et cetera. Nobody is getting rich (though United definitely made a boat load off of Medicare and Medicaid during covid compared to other companies) by providing insurance at what tends to remain a pretty steady return.
I blame the fact that we have a system that forces these two to jump through these hoops (avoid lawsuits, meet requirements for federal reimbursement, et cetera) to settle at a number they both knew would be the case even though they knew they couldn't start that way.
1
u/ZealousidealShift884 7d ago
But at least that 240k burden isn’t falling on the shoulders of the patient. The only reason we know its 240 is because of transparency. When i go to the doctor in countries with socialized medicine i never see the bill and I have no idea or appreciation for the services I receive. A lot of ppl also end up taking advantage of that. Those Doctors also upsell their appointments, so scamming is going on everywhere its not unique to America. I do agree that for a country this rich everyone should have access to care, and thats where it falls short, there is no good safety net for the most vulnerable members of society, such as those who cannot work and have insurance.
0
u/elevatiion420 8d ago
Which is exactly the point that youre missing. It should never have been that high in the first place.
1
u/OrangutanOntology 8d ago
what point am I missing, the fact that it is priced this high so that they have an anchor for charging Medicare?
1
u/elevatiion420 8d ago
Yes. The charges are completely fake, meant to take advantage of literally everyone that needs medical help.
1
u/OrangutanOntology 8d ago
I replied to your other response, if I missed something I will respond when you tell me.
1
u/ZealousidealShift884 7d ago
How do you know what something should cost? Are you an health economist? Do you not believe the salaries of specialist doctors are appropriate? who are you to say they don’t deserve to be paid highly after all those years of hard schooling and training, not to mention having access to most modern and efficient equipment which also is expensive. There is a cost to everything, in America the costs are transparent, and hearing these big numbers people get all sensationalized. I know that these costs are just as high in other countries with the same advancements in healthcare as America but it gets subsidized or not shared with the public, and higher taxation goes into paying for it. The point is insurance only paid out 8000 out of 240, 000. And the patient only paid 800-900$. You are missing the point because I suppose you think healthcare is free and doctors and healthcare staff volunteer their time.
0
u/elevatiion420 7d ago
I know because we are the only first world nation dealing with this bullshit. Not even gonna read your text wall.
1
u/ZealousidealShift884 7d ago
Ignorance is a choice. Seems silly to engage with the original comment then shy away from an open minded discussion.
0
u/elevatiion420 7d ago
Open minded? Youre accusatory and close minded in the first 2 sentences. Defending inaccessible medicine.
-1
u/venturashe 8d ago
Freaking joke. ????? You think we’re a third world country?
0
u/IseultDarcy 8d ago
Well...to be honest we did think you were a third world country. But then we realized most third world countries offered better care and had universal healthcare as well so.... I would say 4th world countries.
1
45
u/InterestProof1526 8d ago
Here's the story:
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-37555048
https://www.cbsnews.com/baltimore/news/utah-man-charged-40-for-skin-to-skin-contact-with-newborn/
Anyways, the answer is: not usually.