I've never thought about this until I just saw JoyS say something about it. Hope you don't mind me calling you out Joy :) You made a good point, and I was just curious what other people thought.

Do you think Tricare should pay for a service member's SO to have a baby if they are NOT married?

Discuss.

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

I agree!

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

I think so also.

My first instinct is to say yes, it's the service members child. That's saying that the child is the service members child...because tricare pays for the child after birth, why not during pregnancy?

It's a big NO for me as well!

I don't mind :)

I am honestly split on it. I think they should because the baby is going to be the servicemember's dependent thus entitled to the best that the military can offer even before he/she is born.

But on the other hand, how many women get pregnant (not talking about anybody on here or in specific or necessarily even military GFs) an then want nothing to do with the dad? Or how many women would blame a military guy for being the father just to find out that he was indeed NOT the father; so then the military is out that money.

Sooo, that being said... I don't honestly know. I know (or would love to think) that 99% of military GFs would not lie about something like that to our service members but at the same time you can never assume anything and I think the military does not cover them simply to cover their rear ends.

That would be nice, the first baby DH and I had (we werent married) wasnt able to be added to his insurance until she was born...sucked cause I had a $250 co-pay due before I had her just to get a spot in the hospital....They arent going to change the rules but its a nice thought.

My first instinct is to say yes, it's the service members child. That's saying that the child is the service members child...because tricare pays for the child after birth, why not during pregnancy?

okay ummm what if this isnt his child then the military would be paying for a child that wasnt his but then again i wonder about some of the kids the "wives" call thier hubs sometimes :lol... :duh:grin: but there is medicaid so i dont know why would you want the milutary pay for it if you can qualify for medicaid...

My first instinct is to say yes, it's the service members child. That's saying that the child is the service members child...because tricare pays for the child after birth, why not during pregnancy?

That's true also. :tired

I don't know. I guess I have mixed feelings but Theresa makes a really good point. If the baby is his from conception (oh but this is another good point... how do we KNOW it's his? and how do we KNOW he'll sign the birth cert?), then caring for the child should be covered from the get go. But, again, you might have issues with women being covered who aren't really pregnant with the service person's baby. So, I don't know. Tough call :dunno

It's for a child that can't help their placement in life. Yes, I think the CHILD deserves care. Whether the military provides it or not. There is free healthcare for unborn children, so it's not like it's the end of the world if the military says no.

I don't mind :)

I am honestly split on it. I think they should because the baby is going to be the servicemember's dependent thus entitled to the best that the military can offer even before he/she is born.

But on the other hand, how many women get pregnant (not talking about anybody on here or in specific or necessarily even military GFs) an then want nothing to do with the dad? Or how many women would blame a military guy for being the father just to find out that he was indeed NOT the father; so then the military is out that money.

Sooo, that being said... I don't honestly know. I know (or would love to think) that 99% of military GFs would not lie about something like that to our service members but at the same time you can never assume anything and I think the military does not cover them simply to cover their rear ends.

Ok good :whew :)

Good points. There are a lot of GF's and fiances that get pregnant, but don't end up staying with the service member. And sadly, there are a lot of women that find out the baby belongs to someone else. I don't think Tricare should be responsible for anyone but the baby, if it indeed belongs to the service member.

BUT, to look at the flip side, it happens to married women too.

The problem therein lies.... Proof of paternity. It's too big of a risk to end up like beckylouwho and her fiance... having tricare pay for another man's baby.

No.

I'm with Bex!

I think Tricare should cover half of the cost of a pregnancy.

I think if Tricare started paying for the pregnancy and birth of girlfriends and fianceés, there'd be a whole lot of insurance fraud going on....

My first instinct is to say yes, it's the service members child. That's saying that the child is the service members child...because tricare pays for the child after birth, why not during pregnancy?

I agree with this. He is obligated to support the child so why not the pregnancy as well? If surrogates have other people's babies (not even the service member's baby) and tricare foots the bill they it's already a messed up system as it is... :dunno

I don't mind :)

I am honestly split on it. I think they should because the baby is going to be the servicemember's dependent thus entitled to the best that the military can offer even before he/she is born.

But on the other hand, how many women get pregnant (not talking about anybody on here or in specific or necessarily even military GFs) an then want nothing to do with the dad? Or how many women would blame a military guy for being the father just to find out that he was indeed NOT the father; so then the military is out that money.

Sooo, that being said... I don't honestly know. I know (or would love to think) that 99% of military GFs would not lie about something like that to our service members but at the same time you can never assume anything and I think the military does not cover them simply to cover their rear ends.

:agree
I am split as well.

I think if Tricare started paying for the birth of girlfriends and fianceés, there'd be a whole lot of insurance fraud going on....
Exactly. Ask the question differently - should a private company have to foot the bill for an employee's girlfriend when she get's pregnant?? No. She's not covered. So - they shouldn't pay for it.

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

:tu

Exactly. Ask the question differently - should a private company have to foot the bill for an employee's girlfriend when she get's pregnant?? No. She's not covered. So - they shouldn't pay for it.

:tu

Also... if proof of paternity shows that the baby was not his then they would get the money from the mother... the government always get their money. They garnish her tax returns, etc... in order to get paid back. Just my thinking maybe but I say the child should have coverage.

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

Agreed. It's very, very easy to say "He's the babydaddy," just to get coverage.

Also... if proof of paternity shows that the baby was not his then they would get the money from the mother... the government always get their money. They garnish her tax returns, etc... in order to get paid back. Just my thinking maybe but I say the child should have coverage.

That sounds easy, and I agree to some extent, but I think that's more paper work than the gov't needs to deal with because mom can't keep track of who the baby-daddy is.

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

I agree!

My first instinct is to say yes, it's the service members child. That's saying that the child is the service members child...because tricare pays for the child after birth, why not during pregnancy?

Because before the birth, it's care for the mother, who is not eligible as a military dependent.

Do BC/BS, Anthem or other health insurance carriers provide coverage for the unmarried girlfriend of a beneficiary?

ALSO--- if Tricare starts providing coverage for pregnancies before marriage, then Tricare should also allow for full coverage of a girlfriend's/boyfriend's/fiancee's cildren that they may be bringing into a marriage with a military member.

I still say no.

If a female gets knocked up by the average guy, then yall would be like he slept with her and now he needs to help take care of that baby!!!

Why is it different because he's military?

It's not always for the Mother. They're measuring the baby, checking weight gain of the baby growing, looking for infections that would affect the growing fetus, blood disorders that would affect the fetus, etc. It's not just about the Mother.

If a female gets knocked up by the average guy, then yall would be like he slept with her and now he needs to help take care of that baby!!!

Why is it different because he's military?

So the man has the option of helping pay for the mother's insurance or healthcare. Why does the insurance company have to take it on?

Okay, correct me if I'm wrong but when you go and get the free government aid during pregnancy (medicaid)... don't they ask you all about the father, getting his work info, personal info, all that jazz so that they can start getting money from him?? I thought that is how it worked if you were not married. He is still responsible for giving support during the pregnancy right? Why else would they ask all his info?

If a female gets knocked up by the average guy, then yall would be like he slept with her and now he needs to help take care of that baby!!!

Why is it different because he's military?


Right, he should help PAY for her insurance.

Tricare is FREE... and at the cost of the GOV'T (us, as taxpayers...)

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

agree

Right, he should help PAY for her insurance.

Tricare is FREE... and at the cost of the GOV'T (us, as taxpayers...)

Just because she's a SO doesn't mean she ISN'T a taxpayer. There are lots of jobs that don't offer healthcare and outside of the military, healthcare is DAMN expensive...especially in todays economy.

I think if Tricare started paying for the pregnancy and birth of girlfriends and fianceés, there'd be a whole lot of insurance fraud going on....
I completely agree. I think a lot of women would start blaming men in the military simply so they could get the free healthcare.


So the man has the option of helping pay for the mother's insurance or healthcare. Why does the insurance company have to take it on?
I think the service member should help pay for the pregnancy, IF it is his baby.

tricare covers the birth and first few weeks after birth then the child cant be covered

Just because she's a SO doesn't mean she ISN'T a taxpayer. There are lots of jobs that don't offer healthcare and outside of the military, healthcare is DAMN expensive...especially in todays economy.


No, what I'm saying is that TRICARE is essentially paid for by taxpayers. It's the GOVERNMENT. It's FREE to servicemembers and their spouses and kids.

If it weren't a military member we were talking about, we'd say he had to help pay for his GFs medical expenses. In this case, it would be the GOVERNMENT paying for his GFs medical expenses.

If someone who isn't married gets preggo, it's not like if their bf had a CIVI job, the civi insurance would pay for it....

Gotcha.

Hopefully that makes more sense :D Sometimes I type too fast before my brain can catch up :D

Prenatal care does not even consider the baby's life till you are already over halfway through the pregnancy!!

There has to be a legal connection in order for the medical care to be covered under insurance. Gawd, I have a whirlwind of thoughts on this, so this may not make sense......

That's the whole thing behind same-sex marriages; these people are committed to each other so they want the union recognized legally so they can be on their partner's insurance, be at their partner's bedside during healthcare, receive notification, BE the partner.

If we want Tricare to recognize the babymomma without benefit of a legal connection (marriage is a legal state), then why shouldn't we allow other connections as determined by the servicemember? Like, family members (without worrying about that whole "51% of the support" business)? My 22 year old will lose her Tricare coverage on her 23rd birthday, but she's still in graduate school. I'd love to keep her on until she's out of school.

How about elderly parents? I had a huge gripe about military members whose parents lived in developing countries; the servicemember could send $200 a month to the parents and that was easily "more than 50% of the support," but in the US a servicemember needed to send a whole lot more than $300 home to show that support. So, why not just let the servicemember say "Yep, that's my mom, she's old, I want her insured."

The point is, all these connections have to be legally proven; there has to be some sort of legal connection of obligation. That's the whole purpose of getting a marriage certificate- to have a legal connection. If we're going to by-pass that for this situation, why not for other situations that are equally heartwrenching?

It's for a child that can't help their placement in life. Yes, I think the CHILD deserves care. Whether the military provides it or not. There is free healthcare for unborn children, so it's not like it's the end of the world if the military says no.

I agree.

I've never thought about this until I just saw JoyS say something about it. Hope you don't mind me calling you out Joy :) You made a good point, and I was just curious what other people thought.

Do you think Tricare should pay for a service member's SO to have a baby if they are NOT married?

Discuss.

I think they should be given the option to pay for the coverage if they want to.

I say no until proof of paternity has been established.

OR they could but then after birth, paternity needs to be established just like they do in CS cases and if it's found that the child is NOT the SN then the women needs to pay back every single penny back to Tricare for fraud.

Why should we waste even more money trying to go after women that lied to get prenatal care?

I think if both the service member and the woman says its his baby then yes tricare should cover it. I don't agree with getting married just because the woman is pregnant and needs health care coverage for the baby.

But then it's just hearsay... that's not proof.

I think if both the service member and the woman says its his baby then yes tricare should cover it. I don't agree with getting married just because the woman is pregnant and needs health care coverage for the baby.

That happens allthe time, whether military or not. Frankly, I think it doesn't happen often enough. Call me old-fashioned, but I think that if there's a committment to have a baby, there should be enough committment to get married.

If she's able to provide her own insurance, I don't care if they get married or not. But if we're looking for insurance coverage for the pregnancy, there should be a legal connection.

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

Just because two people are having a baby, doesn't mean they should get married. I am eternally grateful my mother never married either my or my brothers fathers.

I DO think though that it isn't a big deal if a child can have a good, safe pregnancy and birth on the military's tab. One can argue that it might not be the service member's child, but even if it ISN'T, what if that mom CANT get insurance and something happens during the pregnancy? What if the mom is forced to pay out of pocket and now can't afford to pay rent anywhere and has to either put the child in the foster system (*shudder*) or live in a homeless shelter with the child.

I personally think ALL health care should be universal in this country... but at the very least, I do not think it is horrible if a child's mother gets prenatal and birth care from tricare, whether the child turns out to be the service member's or not.

And I DO think that even if it is just a girlfriend, tricare should cover it if the child IS the service members. The child is still a military dependent, and therefor still deserves to be taken care of.

OK so if my DB breaks my leg does Tricare cover it?

NO!!

Why should him knocking me up be any different?

OK so if my DB breaks my leg does Tricare cover it?

NO!!

Why should him knocking me up be any different?

because there is another living being involved who deserves care.

I don't see this as an issue where the MOM deserves it... I see it where the BABY deserves it.

There has to be a legal connection in order for the medical care to be covered under insurance. Gawd, I have a whirlwind of thoughts on this, so this may not make sense......

That's the whole thing behind same-sex marriages; these people are committed to each other so they want the union recognized legally so they can be on their partner's insurance, be at their partner's bedside during healthcare, receive notification, BE the partner.

If we want Tricare to recognize the babymomma without benefit of a legal connection (marriage is a legal state), then why shouldn't we allow other connections as determined by the servicemember? Like, family members (without worrying about that whole "51% of the support" business)? My 22 year old will lose her Tricare coverage on her 23rd birthday, but she's still in graduate school. I'd love to keep her on until she's out of school.

How about elderly parents? I had a huge gripe about military members whose parents lived in developing countries; the servicemember could send $200 a month to the parents and that was easily "more than 50% of the support," but in the US a servicemember needed to send a whole lot more than $300 home to show that support. So, why not just let the servicemember say "Yep, that's my mom, she's old, I want her insured."

The point is, all these connections have to be legally proven; there has to be some sort of legal connection of obligation. That's the whole purpose of getting a marriage certificate- to have a legal connection. If we're going to by-pass that for this situation, why not for other situations that are equally heartwrenching?


i wholeheartedly agree with this. it's terrible that it has to be that way but technically a woman should have insurance to cover for a baby regardless of if the father is in the military or not. i think paying for it is a moral obligation until the paternity is completely proven, if outside a marriage.

it just wouldn't be fair with everyone else that goes by the legal system for there to be a loophole.

because there is another living being involved who deserves care.

I don't see this as an issue where the MOM deserves it... I see it where the BABY deserves it.

but the baby isnt viable till 23 weeks at most hosps. I was 19 weeks when I started hemmoragging and I was flat told, that till I hit 23 weeks, my dr wasnt even consdering Danica's life it was all me.


Collections are expensive and do you REALLY think that women who LIED to get prenatal care are going to just up and pay? No, it takes a LOT of time and money to put someone through collections to even get to the point of garnishing pay and tax returns.... wouldnt that hurt that baby later on when mommy cant get to her money?

Pre-natal care is available at little or no cost through most states.


Have you ever tried to get an OB appointment at most base hospitals? Tried to get Tricare to approve a civilan provider so that your high risk pregnancy can be seen before your 20th week?

If we start letting people who might be pregnant with servicemember's children have that coverage there will be NO WAY too have everyone taken care of properly.

The obstetric care for military women and spouses in most areas is stretched thin enough as it is.

Just because two people are having a baby, doesn't mean they should get married. I am eternally grateful my mother never married either my or my brothers fathers.

I DO think though that it isn't a big deal if a child can have a good, safe pregnancy and birth on the military's tab. One can argue that it might not be the service member's child, but even if it ISN'T, what if that mom CANT get insurance and something happens during the pregnancy? What if the mom is forced to pay out of pocket and now can't afford to pay rent anywhere and has to either put the child in the foster system (*shudder*) or live in a homeless shelter with the child.

I personally think ALL health care should be universal in this country... but at the very least, I do not think it is horrible if a child's mother gets prenatal and birth care from tricare, whether the child turns out to be the service member's or not.

And I DO think that even if it is just a girlfriend, tricare should cover it if the child IS the service members. The child is still a military dependent, and therefor still deserves to be taken care of.


No but if they expect to get the determined benefits of married people, they should be.

I don't really view marriage as a commitment these days. Marriage is a contract, a legal document. People have committed relationships every day without that contract. This system is broken to begin with really. How can the baby/pregnancy of two non-service members be covered through the surrogate military spouses by Tricare yet the actual baby of the service member be denied because they don't have a legal contract? It's all pretty messed up to me. There is always a loophole in the system and people always find it I guess.

I don't really view marriage as a commitment these days. Marriage is a contract, a legal document. People have committed relationships every day without that contract. This system is broken to begin with really. How can the baby/pregnancy of two non-service members be covered through the surrogate military spouses by Tricare yet the actual baby of the service member be denied because they don't have a legal contract? It's all pretty messed up to me. There is always a loophole in the system and people always find it I guess.
the difference between surrogacy and this is that the spouse is covered by insurance already. In the civi world you usually don't expect your paid for insurance from your job to cover your gf if she happens to get pregnant.
After the child is born then the child is eligible for full tricare coverage. so its not as if the child is left out in the wind.
When a woman gets pregnant sans insurance she is eligible for state aid if she has none period.

Ask the question differently - should a private company have to foot the bill for an employee's girlfriend when she get's pregnant?? No. She's not covered. So - they shouldn't pay for it.

I agree.

the difference between surrogacy and this is that the spouse is covered by insurance already. In the civi world you usually don't expect your paid for insurance from your job to cover your gf if she happens to get pregnant.
After the child is born then the child is eligible for full tricare coverage. so its not as if the child is left out in the wind.
When a woman gets pregnant sans insurance she is eligible for state aid if she has none period.

Right but if your gf goes to the medicaid office and gets government assistance then you would be obligated to the state... so in a sense you are required to take responsibility whether you are married or not, right?

Right but if your gf goes to the medicaid office and gets government assistance then you would be obligated to the state... so in a sense you are required to take responsibility whether you are married or not, right?
not for pregnancy coverage, if she applies for welfare then yes once paternity is established. i guess I don't get what you are going after..

Right but if your gf goes to the medicaid office and gets government assistance then you would be obligated to the state... so in a sense you are required to take responsibility whether you are married or not, right?


but then wouldn't he just be paying out of his pocket instead of seeking tricare for care?

I say get married then get it for Free.. thats what i was did.. DUH!

Yeah, just everyone get married so they can get coverage! Sounds like a wiener! :lol

Civi insurance companies don't cover it, I see no reason why Tricare should. There are reasons that legal relationships are required. It would leave it wide open to fraud and abuse of tax payers' money.

Yeah, just everyone get married so they can get coverage! Sounds like a wiener! :lol

A lot of people do, inside and outside of the military.

I don't care if people get married or not, but if you want to be on the insurance, you've got to have the legal relationship.

Yeah, just everyone get married so they can get coverage! Sounds like a wiener! :lol
not everyone does though, some couples don't. hell some married couples refuse tricare and would rather use the spouses insurance. to each their own. But i think if you are wanting the benefits of a married couple then you need to be married.

I see where ya'll are coming from, I really do. I just think that in this, the child ends up suffering and for ME the life begins at conception (which is a whole new issue really) so I feel like they are entitled to benefits of the parent if applicable. :dunno

I do not believe that they should pay, but if you did end up gettin married I think they should re-emburse you for the bills.

I see where ya'll are coming from, I really do. I just think that in this, the child ends up suffering and for ME the life begins at conception (which is a whole new issue really) so I feel like they are entitled to benefits of the parent if applicable. :dunno

But the child isn't "suffering." Medicaid is available to provide adequate prenatal care for the mother. If he's worried about her care, then he needs to either marry her to get her into the system, or pony up the expense of private medical care.

The thing about this is, it's the girls who carry the babies, we can't do much about that. If the military member is female and pregnant, she is eligible for her prenatal care. If the military memeber is male, he's not carrying the baby, so if he wants coverage for the pregnancy, he needs to make the relationship legal, or he needs to cough up money to get care beyond what Medicaid provides.

Medicaid provides adequate prenatal care. It may not be all puppies and bunnies and rainbows and sunshine, but it's adequate care.

On the other side of this- if a male military member impregnates a civilian female and she gets her prenatal care through medicaid, once paternity is established should medicaid then pursue babydaddy for expenses? I think so.

No, I don't think the baby should be covered. I think the MARRIED mother should be and that is why paternity makes no difference to me. It's the MARRIAGE that counts for coverage of the mother.

I am sure plenty of MARRIED women have babies ALL the time that are not biologically their husbands but Tricare is none the wiser. Being married doesn't mean jack for determining paternity of a child. People cheat and get raped all the time. The marriage license is what makes the mother eligible for coverage not the paternity of the baby.......JMO:D

Now after the baby is born an unmarried person proving paternity of their child (or the father signing the birth cert.) does make a difference to me...the baby should then be covered from that point forward.

I think if Tricare started paying for the pregnancy and birth of girlfriends and fianceés, there'd be a whole lot of insurance fraud going on....


No but if they expect to get the determined benefits of married people, they should be.

Civi insurance companies don't cover it, I see no reason why Tricare should. There are reasons that legal relationships are required. It would leave it wide open to fraud and abuse of tax payers' money.

:agree

Tricare shouldn't cover prenatal care just because someone says that they're carrying a servicemember's baby. If they decide to get married, then they will have Tricare coverage. Otherwise, there are other options.

I rarely agree with Eelo but there are some awesome statements out there.

:tu

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

I agree

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

:yes

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

`I completely agree.

Absolutely not.

It would be stupid, from a business standpoint.

Insurance companies exist to make money. They're not going to pay for shit if they don't have to.

No... They aren't married, the govt shouldn't have to pay for HER medical expenses... Babies expenses after birth yes.

Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread, so I have no idea if this was written or not.
I would think that the military (Navy, Marines, Army, Airforce, CG) would want the service member to take responsibility for their child, so I would think that that would mean during pregnancy.
My initial thought is that yes tricare should cover it regardless of marital status.
Also let me ask this question because I really don't know the answer.. In the civilian world, does a person have to be married to be put on their SO's insurance?
I think that it should be like a POA or a will type of thing. If that person wants you on their insurance, you can be, but maybe they might have to pay a little bit more for the premium. I hope that makes sense. I'm tired!

I don't really view marriage as a commitment these days. Marriage is a contract, a legal document. People have committed relationships every day without that contract. This system is broken to begin with really. How can the baby/pregnancy of two non-service members be covered through the surrogate military spouses by Tricare yet the actual baby of the service member be denied because they don't have a legal contract? It's all pretty messed up to me. There is always a loophole in the system and people always find it I guess.

I have a problem with the bolded part... I consider my marriage a commitment not some piece of paper. I know alot of other couples who feel the same way... Sorry to thread jack.

Now, to the OP. No, the mother should not be covered, unless she is married to the MM. Why do something diff bc tricare is military? Civi insurance companies do not give a rat's ass if some one SO(GF, Fiance) is preg.
Once the child is born I believe tricare then should pay for the child, bc the child is the MM(pending paternity test).

Then the paternity test thing also gets me... bc there are some unfaithful wives out there that tell the MM its his child when in reality its the mailman's. So I believe that every child that is born to a MM couple should have a patrnity test done to ensure the mother is telling the truth.

Then what about the wife that cheated knows she fucked up and the MM still forgives her. (How does adoption work? if a MM marries a woman with children and adopts her kids do they get tricare?)

sorry Im scattered brained tonight. just some thoughts.

I have a problem with the bolded part... I consider my marriage a commitment not some piece of paper. I know alot of other couples who feel the same way... Sorry to thread jack.

Now, to the OP. No, the mother should not be covered, unless she is married to the MM. Why do something diff bc tricare is military? Civi insurance companies do not give a rat's ass if some one SO(GF, Fiance) is preg.
Once the child is born I believe tricare then should pay for the child, bc the child is the MM(pending paternity test).

Then the paternity test thing also gets me... bc there are some unfaithful wives out there that tell the MM its his child when in reality its the mailman's. So I believe that every child that is born to a MM couple should have a patrnity test done to ensure the mother is telling the truth.

Then what about the wife that cheated knows she fucked up and the MM still forgives her. (How does adoption work? if a MM marries a woman with children and adopts her kids do they get tricare?)

sorry Im scattered brained tonight. just some thoughts.

the child doesn't even have to be adopted. it can be a step child and still receive tricare

While it is a nice idea it isn't how life works. We are not married and I do not expect his insurance to pay for the baby. This is one of those things that should not be different from the civilian world when it comes to the military.

Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread, so I have no idea if this was written or not.
I would think that the military (Navy, Marines, Army, Airforce, CG) would want the service member to take responsibility for their child, so I would think that that would mean during pregnancy.
My initial thought is that yes tricare should cover it regardless of marital status.
Also let me ask this question because I really don't know the answer.. In the civilian world, does a person have to be married to be put on their SO's insurance?
I think that it should be like a POA or a will type of thing. If that person wants you on their insurance, you can be, but maybe they might have to pay a little bit more for the premium. I hope that makes sense. I'm tired!

I don't really view marriage as a commitment these days. Marriage is a contract, a legal document. People have committed relationships every day without that contract. This system is broken to begin with really. How can the baby/pregnancy of two non-service members be covered through the surrogate military spouses by Tricare yet the actual baby of the service member be denied because they don't have a legal contract? It's all pretty messed up to me. There is always a loophole in the system and people always find it I guess.

:agree

No. I think if you're making the committment to have the baby, you should get married if you want tricare to cover it.

I agree with this as well. If they werent a service member, it wouldnt be covered. Hvabing a baby is a responsibility from the very beginning.

No. If she was also active duty then obviously it would be covered but if she is not then she has no right to tricare because the AD father is not the one carrying the baby. It's an OB/GYN that takes care of the mother and unborn baby and then a pediatrician takes care of the child after birth. Until that baby is born, it isn't considered a dependent. Shit it isn't even considered human by the government until it's out of the womb.

My first instinct is to say yes, it's the service members child. That's saying that the child is the service members child...because tricare pays for the child after birth, why not during pregnancy?

Also... if proof of paternity shows that the baby was not his then they would get the money from the mother... the government always get their money. They garnish her tax returns, etc... in order to get paid back. Just my thinking maybe but I say the child should have coverage.

:agree

Right, he should help PAY for her insurance.

Tricare is FREE... and at the cost of the GOV'T (us, as taxpayers...)

Tricare is NOT free. Tricare is a service to AD military members and Reservist who pay the copay.

Getting married just cause you are preggo is not always a good idea.