Those of us who watch Army Wives remember the first episode when Pamela gave birth to surrogate twins. This morning, Good Morning America, in collaboration with Glamour Magazine, ran a segment on military wives as surrogates.
Click here to see the GMA piece (unfortunately, we're unable to embed it) and here to read Glamour's in-depth article.
Freelance journalists Habiba Nosheen and Hilke Schellmann spent two years investigating the practice of surrogacy by military wives.
Click here for a print version of the GMA video.
There's a lot to digest and plow through here. I'll begin with this:
"They move around a lot, so they really can't get their teeth into a career, and if they want to contribute to society and do something useful, it's a good use of their time," said Brisman, whose agency employs about 20 military surrogate mothers out of more than 200. "A lot of them are just strong family people…and what a better thing to do for somebody than have a baby for somebody who can't."
I feel as if the phrase "contribute to society and do something useful" was a rather unfortunate choice of words, for many reasons. I'm quite sure Ms. Brisman meant no harm. After all, she employs military wives. But, initially I wanted to retort:
Hey, it's a cottage industry….
I also wanted to point out that the volunteerism rate among military spouses is quite high. Being able to bless a couple with a baby is a marvelous, beautiful thing, but I think milspouses –surrogates and non-surrogates alike — contribute to society in a million ways. On a daily basis.
The question of whether TriCare should flip the bill for these births is a legitimate one. But let's remember when we're talking about taxpayers, military families pay into that big federal government pool, just like any other family.
A few things about the GMA video rubbed me the wrong way. Most of them have nothing at all to do with surrogacy. I need much more time to look at the other video and read the Glamour report. As a general rule, I don't like to publish a post until I've really thought it through and spent the requisite time and energy transferring my thoughts into coherent, logical words. Sometimes my initial reaction is raw, and wrong. Perhaps I'll see things differently with time. But, it's Friday and this is a hot topic today, so let's roll with it and get the conversation started.
What are your thoughts about this topic, and this report?
Feel free to discuss here, or on our Facebook Page (or both). We'll pick this up again sometime next week.
Thanks to the Armorer for sending the link.
About Andi
Comments
I think I'm particularly annoyed by how the GMA piece ended: with the question of whether or not taxpayers should foot the bill for surrogacy when the piece talked about a lot more than that.
I think it is wrong for Tricare to pay the costs while the surrogate profits thousands of dollars. The words "fraud, waste and abuse" pop into my head. Tricare is provided for the healthcare of active duty and their dependents, not for people to profit off of.
as far as the tricare recoup I would think that the surrogate would set that up in the beginning, if not the surrogates are being stupid and could end up with a big bill and no money left to pay. However what if it is done for a family member? Is the health of the surrogate mother not important especially if not being paid??? This can be argued many many ways and I see points for each side being valid.
If I need a surrogate in the future, it would make me feel wonderful to have it be another military wife.
I think if Tricare says it does not cover surrogates (I'm not clear if it does) then the honor code should kick in and surrogates should not use Tricare. If they do it would be fraud. It would be interesting to know if civilian insurance covers surrogates.
If the surrogate is having the baby for another military family, then what? Should Tricare pay for the prenatal care and delivery or should the infertile couple foot the bill?
Andi, I think you're right into calling that "contributing to society" issue into question. Who's to say you can't have a career? I have a career. The military makes it challenging, but I have one. I think that's a topic for another post – the way the military says one thing (that it supports working spouses), but the policies, office hours, and expectations say otherwise.
I have to be the "devil's advocate" here… I have never considered surrogacy before,and am not interested in being pregnant again (just to clariry).
Am I not entitled to medical care thru Tricare regardless of how I become pregnant?
If I were to become pregnant thru rape, Tricare would care for me, no questions asked… if I got pregnant from my husband, and we decided to give the baby up for adoption for whatever reason, Tricare would care for me and deliver the baby, no questions asked.
It's still my choice to have a baby, and part of me can't fathom that there's a controversy about whether Tricare should cover it based on who is expected to raise the child…
Tricare absolutely should not pay for surrogacy pregnancy expenses. Rape and surrogacy are not even close to the same issues. surrogacy is someone getting pregnant for someone else, and making money while doing it. I know that many surrogates do this as a way of helping others,but they still make money all the same. They are using military benefits for personal gain. Pure and simple. The surrogates motivation may be kind and honorable, but its still insurance fraud.
i have nothing good to say so i'll keep my thoughts to myself. the only thing i will say is what else should the surrogate do if there's no other system in place to pay for the healthcare? foot the bill herself…for giving someone else a baby??? how does that work?
Being an active duty Soldier and reading these posts, I wonder what exactly people are objecting to. Is it about who's fitting the Tricare bills? Having seen dozens of new recruits come into the military either married or single parents, the overwhelming consensus among them was "for the medical benefits". Some of these new Soldiers were single with up to 6 kids to feed. where do you think the money came from for their medical needs prior to the military? The same place we get the money to float Tricare, the tax payers. Either way you look at it we're all paying in to the same thing, regardless if you're a civilian on the outside, active military, or military dependant.
Retired Military. I have read through these post and can not make up my mind as to which position I could take. There are many good thoughts on here that do make me think though. On one side it says that this is wrong and a fraud case that I'm sure will be tested. On the other I have to agree with some that say it is okay. One post says that it is oaky becasue the taxpayer pays anyway. One goes on to talk about being raped, which is totally out of perspective. And men or women coming into the military for the benefits has always been a draw for the military.
Now to my point. If there is money involved then I beleive it to be fraudulent. Becasue not only is it a free service to the dependent, but they are also getting paid for their "services". Why not let the "sponsor" of the surrogate pay the bill for the services rendered as they would in a civilian hospital with a fee to the surrogate.
I agree w/Vic, a lot of the above postings make good points and it will take some thought on my part to determine which side I am on. Although, I lean towards the couple who is sponsoring the surrogate, bearing the responsiblity for the costs of the pregnancy, just like they would in a civilian hospital or if they were having the baby themselves. It isn't a matter of "spouses are entitled to free care" it is a matter of honor. After all, if you are seen in a military hospital, you are asked if you have other insurance or is it related to workers comp or a car accident so the hospital can recoup the costs from another responsible party such as an alternate insurance plan. It should not be borne by taxpayers. And one other question…Are these women paying taxes on their "income"?
As a past surrogant who is now a military wife I can tell you that from day one these woman need to do there research, tricare does not cover and it is up to the intended parents to have an insurance policy in place for the surro and baby, it is the only safe way to pratice this. And these woman r idiots it is regulated here in the us and many states do not aloow surrogancy.
As both a retired military and retired business type I divide the issue into two parts. First a general comment. Any member of a military family with a deploying spouse is currently contributing so much more to their citizen check list than the average bear …. in the abstract they need not fear they are falling short.
To the primary issue. I see both a human side and a business side to the venture. The business side, as in most business deals, look to insurance to mitigate risk and negotiate the cost of risk reduction up front. The business side of the deal dictates birthing costs are born by one of the two contracting parties either directly or indirectly through insurance. From the Tricare position it could be argued that the government, under military health insurance , never intended to carry birthing expenses to defray the cost of a business venture however humanity based in intent. I feel from this perspective, the folks who seek to raise the child would have to bear the costs as if they became pregnant themselves, so they are primary in this matter. They can either go out of pocket directly of contract for insurance. From this baseline numerous permutations can be developed but as a general rule, as in routine births, the government should not be the prime agency for these costs.
I see from the above posts that the human side will be addressed completely in the abstract.
Military people don't pay taxes because they produce nothing to tax. They are just required to give back some of the money the government gave them.
If it is for profit, then Re-imbursement is the rule, NO taxpayer money should be spent on this business venture???? If GI families are that hard up for money, something is wrong in that family???? What will they "sell" next?????
Steve, Retired
Response to….
Posted by: Eric | 10/19/2010 at 03:29
You have a good point Eric but fraud in one area does not justify destroying another system. Here is one for you and has been turned over to FBI Medicare fraud type who feels too small to prosecute but multiplied times a few million folks it gets to be real money. As I understand the story (fourth hand) a young married couple found themselves preggy (suspect to manage the husband in divorce) when both are employed with, evidently no health insurance but a recently purchased home. The wife works in a doctors office. As the story goes the ladies in the doctors office told her how to lie on government forms (SSI I assume) and he had to move in with his extended family for awhile. Lo & behold baby time had complications and child does as well and good old Uncle Sam came front and center to cover. We really do not need these kinds of folks in the Tricare system …. they can scam the rest more easily but you point is on target and well taken!
Response to….
Posted by: Rhonda | 10/19/2010 at 12:56
Rhonda…..
As a businessman who has been involved in design, manufacture, distribution and selling of hard products I get the concept behind your statement …. taxes are merely a right pocket to left pocket exercise for Uncle Sam relative to the military. My concern is this presents the bleak picture of parasites of no value to society.
Perhaps there can be another take on taxes and the military from the perspective of creating wealth in orderly markets as a result of the collective legs that support society's existence:
1. economic,
2. diplomatic, and
3. military.
I posture that the military creates wealth in the example of the US Navy simply by keeping the sea lanes open so energy resources, food commodities and goods in general can flow freely without fear of WW II type disruption. In this case sea denial to bad governments or other entities creates wealth so under this definition ships afloat and the salaries required that drive the taxes sailors pay are for a very clear benefit to our collective civilization and our liberty.
Another very direct application arose from the cold war when the US Air Force, in conjunction with NASA, elected to pursue a different space strategy from that of the Soviet Union who had a major jump on us in design and production of large rocket motors. This meant they could blast their old fashion electronics along with their weight into space and we could not. However, we went after miniaturization of electronics and developed the transistor that evolved into the chip and the very computer you used to post your response in the blog…..not to mention the genesis of the web itself was the military.
If you dig you can find many more examples where wealth is created by the military so the taxes paid to the folks who develop and run these systems really does have an indirect "make things" logic behind it. Think…would there be an Intel or Microsoft is some NASA/military types had made different strategic decision decades ago?
yup, I had all 5 with the same husband. one at a time. Now that's out of the way….
I heard on another program on this issue that military wives were particularly targeted – even got paid more ( a "bonus" was the word used) because they have Tricare coverage. Tricare providers are under no obligation to ask whose child it is, they simply cover the prenatal care. They cover care, if, for instance, the wife has an extramarital affair and becomes pregnant by a civilian. As long as she is claimed as a dependent (or so I am told), Tricare must cover her medical care. The person on the program I heard (on NPR) compared this to any other medical condition that was job-related – also covered by Tricare.
Another reason they said they target military wives is deployments – no chance (hopefully) of being impregnated by her husband if he's away, right?
While I don't oppose surrogacy, I do oppose people taking advantage of military spouses for a profit. And…..I can't even get into the OB/GYN clinic…..if those clinics have appointments taken up by these surrogates, that leaves the rest of us floundering for appropriate care – care not always best given in family practice.
There are lots of ways for military families to make ends meet. For some, it means not having the latest and greatest electronic equipment or that gas guzzling SUV. just a thought. or two.
Thanks everyone for your input. I've been working on a related, follow-up piece which I'll post next week.
I've meandered thru the posts following my previous post, and it is an enlightening discussion. I think I agree with Vic and Art the most, having presented more facets that I had not considered. Being an Army spouse as well as a retired veteran, I try to look at things from different angles, but lack the "business" background so I miss things.
I do agree that "There are many good thoughts on here that do make me think."
I do want to point out that when I brought up the issue of "being raped," which I don't believe is out of perspective simply because I wanted to point out that as a dependent, I am entitled to care regardless of how I become pregnant. I can see, however, how that seems irrelevent, given the "victim status" a rape victim has versus the "business" status that a surrogate has.
I also agree that people come into the military for the benefits, and that this has always been a draw for the military.
The point that makes sense to me though, now that I see it, is that if there is money involved then it appears to be fraudulent. "Becasue not only is it a free service to the dependent, but they are also getting paid for their "services." That makes direct, obvious sense.
In this light, the "sponsor" of the surrogate, I think, should pay the bill for the services rendered as they would in a civilian hospital with a fee to the surrogate.
Sarah points out too that when we dependents are seen in a military hospital, we are asked if we have other insurance, if it related to workers comp or a car accident, etc., so Tricare can bill the third party, which is usually an insurance plan.
I agree with Steve that it is a for-profit venture, then Re-imbursement is the rule, or that the "buyer" in this case, the couple hiring the surrogate, should pay up front, or be billed directly. Perhaps DOD hospitals should have pregnant spouses fill out and sign forms stating that "yes, they are being paid for this child birth" or "no, they are not being paid for this child birth." People are less likely to lie directly, in writing.
Art, you are an educated doll (are we allowed to say that to men?). I had a hard time not responding to Rhonda's obvious hostility and lack of education. You are a gem. Were you an Elder in another life? ;-)
5kidsmom pointed out the correlation "to any other medical condition that was job-related – also covered by Tricare." I think this is a point, but it is also correct that if your condition/injury is work-related (in this case, for-profit contract-related), the third party, being Workers Comp (or in this case, the party hiring the surrogate) should rightfully bear the costs.
5kidsmom also points other other, separate, but ethical issues:
-the targetting of military wives during deployments – no chance of being impregnated by her husband if he's away. Ouch.
-I also don't oppose surrogacy, I also oppose the taking advantage of military spouses for a profit. But I think there's more to it than just that. Milspouses are taking advantage of some things too. That's a personal issue, I think..
-the clogging of OB/GYN clinics-taking upu appointments for surrogates, leaving others "floundering for appropriate care" in other clinics." I think we've all experienced this at some time. If DOD hospitals were for-profits, I would say that the ability to bill third parties to recoup the debt on surrogates would justify this, but since DOD hospitals ARE NOT for-profit entities, then, logic tells me this is reason alone why surrogate pregnancies should not be handled in DOD hospitals. Since there are some dependents who do not get their care in DOD hospitals, however, this does not apply. In this case, I think that this takes the argument to a completely different level, because, then, non-DOD hospitals, should not even bill Tricare. They should bill only the couple hiring the surrogate, and/or their third-party insurer.
but what if someone is surrogating for a family member and is NOT getting paid to do it? my SIL just found out she cannot have kids (cannot carry the pregnancy) and she is devasted! if i wanted to surrogate for her and NOT get paid for it then why shouldnt tricare cover it!?
I cannot believe Tricare is paying the deliveries for surrogate mothers. If this is what the women want to do, they should pay their own expense off the thousands they are making. I suppose next, Tricare will pay for the child's healthcare. This matter really needs to be looked into and stopped. Where will it all end if it is not stopped now?
what i would like to know is this.. im a military dependent that has 3 children of my own and tricare took care of the bill 100% and i had to do insemination to get pregnant. Now what i want to know is this… if i have a family member who is also a military dependent and can not carry a child and has asked me if i would be a gestational carrier does that mean tricare wont cover anything? I personally wouldnt charge anything all they would have to take care of is the legal part.. ie. the birth certificate and such.. How would it apply?? this couple is willing to foot the bill for the process to get me pregnant so i can carry the child for them but like i said i had to do insemination to get my children (triplets) and all i had to pay out of pocket was $800 for the insemination itself.. tricare covered everything else… so why cant tricare cover the expense, the care of one military dependent helping another military dependent with having a child of their own?
From my experience as a surrogate, my insurance was covered by a separate policy the parents got for me, Tricare did not pay for it.
Dear Rhonda,
I would like to comment on your post stating:
"Military people don't pay taxes because they produce nothing to tax. They are just required to give back some of the money the government gave them."
It seems from your somewhat ignorant (please note ignorant does not mean the same thing as stupid) statement, that you've never taken an economics class, strange since every high school I know requires a half semester in 12th grade.
Income taxes are based on employment, not all of which involves manufacturing. Economic contributions fall into two basic categories: goods (i.e. your use of the word "produce") and services. Anyone whose work involves making something produces a physical commodity for society. Anyone whose work provides a service produces a non-physical benefit for society. Service based jobs include the military, police/emergency responders, medical staff, educational personnel etcetera. The tax is on money earned for your work, not tax on the product created. It is the process, not the end result. A military person earns their pay like everyone else, it isn't a gift, and they pay taxes on it, like everyone else. So, in fact the military does pay taxes.
Just because you don't appear to appreciate the service military people provide (security/protection and freedom) doesn't mean they are not providing it. Your post is insulting and uneducated.
So people on the board has a problem with women using tricare to be a surrogate. Would it be a problem if it was an insurance that we did pay a monthly premium for? Because even in that case each claim and every visit leads to the eventual increase of rates for the coming years for everyone that receives benefits from that particular hmo.
I guess I see it as Tricare is free as a benefit to entice people to volunteer to sign up for the military. It is not like we are on medicaid we work hard and sacrifice a lot for our benefits. Plus we pay the taxes that help pay for the Tricare program just like any civillian. Why should we not be allowed to use our benefits as anyone else would just because we do not have a monthly premium on them?
Also would you feel differently if the woman that the surrogate was carrying for was another military spouse because in that case it is no different from the intended parent using Tricare if she had been able to become pregnant herself.
And to respond to Rhonda, I beg to differ with you but plenty of MOS's do actually produce goods that are dispersed around the country and world when emergencies strike…my husband's shop builds engines that are used on helicopters which are often used to transport goods to others and also to perform rescue missions which they actually just got through pulling American mission workers out of the wreckage in Haiti during the earthquake. So that makes your post that much more uneducated. I would like to know what you think of a cashier…what do they produce? By your definition that would make it an invalid job that doesn't pay taxes.
Rhonda,
How about capital gains taxes? You probably don't know what those are ;)