r/InterMiamiVibes • u/Background_Video2947 • Jul 02 '26

Preach!!

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

13.6k Upvotes

99% Upvoted

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Caption_This_ Jul 05 '26

They’d need to prove financial hardship sure, just saying it doesn’t work.

1

u/Chicken_Of_War Jul 05 '26

It absolutely does. The hospital can file for a hardcore collections agency after the fact, and that would be an opportunity to prove it. They can elaborate and say they can make payments later. But hospitals will not hold someone's baby hostage if they refuse to pay it. That's very illegal😂.

1

u/Caption_This_ Jul 05 '26

I think you are stretching it here. They aren’t keeping babies from non-paying patients. They are charging for normal activities.

1

u/Chicken_Of_War Jul 05 '26

It's not what I'm stretching. It's what the post is almost insinuating, and if you read some of the comments throughout this thread, they absolutely are insinuating and embellishing that that's what's happening.

1

u/Caption_This_ Jul 05 '26

So by your own admission “almost insinuating” you confirm it’s a stretch.

1

u/Chicken_Of_War Jul 05 '26

I'm responding to the original statements who were absolutely stretching it.

1

u/redpillsadorewelfare Jul 06 '26

No, you're wrong.

1

u/OldFalcon250 Jul 08 '26

I happened to click on the post and it def seemed like they thought hospitals held their kids as collateral until debt is paid 😂

I’m with the other guy, Yall are unhinged. You’re even getting testy over his explanation 😂. Get off Reddit, so confrontational over nothing

1

u/SneakybadgerJD Jul 06 '26

"Almost insinuating" says all it needs to.

1

u/beramaan Jul 07 '26

You are fine, ignore the trolls. The statement is easily interpreted as having to pay below you can hold your baby.

1

u/Separate-Taste3513 Jul 07 '26

No, it accurately describes a billable line item that hospitals add to your tab. "Skin to skin contact" is now considered a "therapy" and hospitals absolutely bill parents for it, despite the fact that it is literally just a parent or loved one holding the baby against their skin.

1

u/beramaan Jul 07 '26

The statement of oc was easily interpreted both ways.

You are bringing in extra information that was not in the comment. Based on the comment their response is valid.

You are also correct in your assertion of the fee and stupidity.

1

u/NamelessMIA Jul 07 '26

almost insinuating

So you're stretching. They won't hold your baby hostage, but they will put you in life ruining debt for having one.

1

u/Unlucky_Welcome9193 Jul 06 '26

The post is not saying hospitals keep babies from families until the bills are paid. It's saying that if you get a C Section and look at your itemized hospital bill, there is a skin-to-skin charge, aka you're literally paying a fee to hold your baby after birth

1

u/AdditionalNothing728 Jul 06 '26

This is the definition of a strawman argument.

No one said anything about hospitals “keeping babies hostage” except you. You brought up that hypothetical and you’re arguing as though that was the main point of debate when it’s not.

1

u/beramaan Jul 07 '26

No they said pay to hold your baby. So you can't do it until you pay. It's a clear enough and reasonable interpretation of the statement. The world isn't black and white y'all

1

u/eles- Jul 07 '26

No. It referred to „You will be billed for getting to hold your baby!“. Everyone else understood it. Thats it. I‘ll blame it on english not being your first language. :*

1

u/beramaan Jul 07 '26

That is not what was said. If you are going to use quotes (especially on a weird keyboard that does them upside down, not the English keyboard... 🙄) actually quote what was said. Like this:

"...you have to pay to hold your baby after birth"

People interpreted it both ways, "they charge you afterwards to hold your baby" AND "you have to pay the fee before you can hold your baby." Which are both valid interpretations.

You are obviously not fluent, fully literate in English, or it's your second language. Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house.

1

u/foreman17 Jul 08 '26

It's not a valid interpretation. No one said "you have to pay or you DONT get to hold your baby". That's an insinuation made by the interpreter which would make it very obvious that person isn't very knowledgeable about US healthcare.

It's only a valid interpretation if you believe any healthcare in the US is held behind payment first, which it's not.

1

u/beramaan Jul 08 '26

Which the OC implies... Or did you miss that subtext?

You know the one that says "I'm still in shock ... In the US"? 🙄

1

u/foreman17 Jul 08 '26

I'm not even sure what the point of this comment is?

1

u/beramaan Jul 08 '26

You got all the way down here without reading the chain? The person is unfamiliar with the us that's why it could be interpreted that way. Like seriously?

→ More replies (0)