Health Insurance and National Health Care

[endsleigh03]

I don't think people having to turn to bankruptcy over medical bills is a good thing at all.

Not at all. And it happens all the time when people get smacked with the ginormous hospital costs.

There are alot of people looking for healthcare insurance that will fit into their budgets, so they can be insured and avoid the above mentioned scenario. I don't think that many people are running around yelling for free care.

And if you don't get it thru work the premiums will just go up and up as you age, if you sicken.

[Paulination]

I don't think people having to turn to bankruptcy over medical bills is a good thing at all.

Not at all. And it happens all the time when people get smacked with the ginormous hospital costs.

There are alot of people looking for healthcare insurance that will fit into their budgets, so they can be insured and avoid the above mentioned scenario. I don't think that many people are running around yelling for free care.

And if you don't get it thru work the premiums will just go up and up as you age, if you sicken.

I agree that these are problems and I don't want to make light of bankruptcy. My point is that everyone has access if they need it.

My second point is that Obamacare won't solve any of this for very long if at all. Just read the bill. I can't say I have read it all but I have about half and it is loaded with regulations that will drive up costs, not bring them down. You can't tax people and businesses enough to keep up with it.

Mandating people get insured won't help because the penalty is smaller than the cost of the coverage by 100+% . People won't buy it until they are sick and have claims. The whole private insurance industry will collapse.

[endsleigh03]

An uninsured couple with 2 kids filed a lawsuit regarding the Health Care Law.

They dropped their health care back in 2001 when their premiums exceeded their monthly mortgage payment.

It says they have been paying for their medical since then which only says nobody in the family has had any serious medical issues.

Something that stuck out:


But Conner rejected an argument by the plaintiffs â?? a York County couple, Barbara Goudy-Bachman and Gregory Bachman â?? that the mandate is "disastrous to this nation's future, such as the Bachmans' prediction of America evolving into a socialist state. These suggestions of cataclysmic results ... are both unproductive and unpersuasive."


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0...3_lnk3%7C95369

[endsleigh03]

The percentage of people who had health insurance through their employers fell to 55.3% in 2010 from 56.1% the year before, continuing a long, downward trend. In 2000, 64.1% of the population received health insurance through their employers.
"As the job market remains weak, Americans can no longer depend on their workplace for consistent affordable coverage," said Elise Gould, Director of Health Policy Research for the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The average health insurance premium for family coverage has more than doubled over the past decade to $13,770 a year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit which focuses on health care policy and issues.


From this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news...ance/index.htm

[Paulination]

The percentage of people who had health insurance through their employers fell to 55.3% in 2010 from 56.1% the year before, continuing a long, downward trend. In 2000, 64.1% of the population received health insurance through their employers.
"As the job market remains weak, Americans can no longer depend on their workplace for consistent affordable coverage," said Elise Gould, Director of Health Policy Research for the Economic Policy Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

The average health insurance premium for family coverage has more than doubled over the past decade to $13,770 a year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit which focuses on health care policy and issues.


From this article:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/13/news...ance/index.htm

As always, you bring up excellent points in regards to this subject and I don't have much to add since your post is based on fact but after reading the article I noticed something interesting. The article states that the uninsured fall primarily into three groups:

1) Foreign people who are not citizens
2) Young people in their 20's
3) Families making less then 25,000

For non citizens it is an issue until they are here for six months. Once they establish residency for six months then most insurance company's will issue an individual policy with underwriting of course.

Young people in their 20's overwhelmingly do not get insurance not because they can't, its because they won't. A mandate won't change that attitude.

For families making under 25,000, they certainly qualify for aid (at least in CA) and can get insurance for a fraction of the real cost. I have spoken at length in another thread about how my ex-wife did it for years.

My point is, there is a mechanism in place to take care of 2/3 of the problem groups and probable a large amount of the remaining 1/3.

Ofcouse for most of this they'll need to be able to get underwritten.

[endsleigh03]

As always, you bring up excellent points in regards to this subject and I don't have much to add since your post is based on fact but after reading the article I noticed something interesting. The article states that the uninsured fall primarily into three groups:

1) Foreign people who are not citizens
2) Young people in their 20's
3) Families making less then 25,000

For non citizens it is an issue until they are here for six months. Once they establish residency for six months then most insurance company's will issue an individual policy with underwriting of course.

Young people in their 20's overwhelmingly do not get insurance not because they can't, its because they won't. A mandate won't change that attitude.

For families making under 25,000, they certainly qualify for aid (at least in CA) and can get insurance for a fraction of the real cost. I have spoken at length in another thread about how my ex-wife did it for years.

My point is, there is a mechanism in place to take care of 2/3 of the problem groups and probable a large amount of the remaining 1/3.

Ofcouse for most of this they'll need to be able to get underwritten.

It says the bulk falls into these categories, that does not include all of the uninsured out there.

[endsleigh03]

Pauli, if there were not serious (and growing quickly) problems with people being uninsured in this country the President and some admins before him wouldn't have been trying so long to introduce a health care plan.

I think there is some denial here.

[endsleigh03]

The average health insurance premium for family coverage has more than doubled over the past decade to $13,770 a year, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation, a non-profit which focuses on health care policy and issues.


For those who fall thru the gap, this amount of money yearly is not affordable for many, many working families.

Come on.

[slingshot]

As always, you bring up excellent points in regards to this subject and I don't have much to add since your post is based on fact but after reading the article I noticed something interesting. The article states that the uninsured fall primarily into three groups:

1) Foreign people who are not citizens
2) Young people in their 20's
3) Families making less then 25,000

For non citizens it is an issue until they are here for six months. Once they establish residency for six months then most insurance company's will issue an individual policy with underwriting of course.

Young people in their 20's overwhelmingly do not get insurance not because they can't, its because they won't. A mandate won't change that attitude.

For families making under 25,000, they certainly qualify for aid (at least in CA) and can get insurance for a fraction of the real cost. I have spoken at length in another thread about how my ex-wife did it for years.

My point is, there is a mechanism in place to take care of 2/3 of the problem groups and probable a large amount of the remaining 1/3.

Ofcouse for most of this they'll need to be able to get underwritten.

I really dont know enough about this subject to engage with you folks, but this sentence caught my eye.

I think the tide is changing here though. Childhood obesity is on the rise and when you couple that with sedentary lifestyles many have; well, people in their 20s (generally speaking) will need insurance much more in the coming years. I think we will see an onslaught of diabetes, heart disease and hypertension in this age bracket. And Obama has tried to throw some stuff out there like better lunches for schools. Or those people who have tried to restrict salt from restaurants (for example) - this is all stuff in the news the past year but it seems to always be met with the same response: DONT tell me what to feed me or my kids. So I dunno..... JMO

[endsleigh03]

Don't tell them what to feed the kid but also don't tell them they have to buy insurance from the Govt. when the kid gets sick from all the salt and junkfood?

[Paulination]

Pauli, if there were not serious (and growing quickly) problems with people being uninsured in this country the President and some admins before him wouldn't have been trying so long to introduce a health care plan.

I think there is some denial here.

I know that you sincerely believe that but all heal care reform is, or ever has been when presented in this form or similar form is a means to an end. The end being universal healthcare which is not for your benefit, but the benefit of the governments desire for growth and control. Any one that doesn't see that may suffer from the denial.

I know this because I can prove it, can you prove its not?

I've done this before but I'll do it again and then you can tell me how this will not happen.

The government mandates everyone gets coverage or they will be penalized. Likewise no one can be denied based on medical condition.

The penalty: at worse $750.00 per year. Thats 62.50 a month.
The penalty for a family caps out at 2250.00.

The average cost for an individual policy is about 420/mo or 5049.00 per year.

The average family insurance premium according to you is 13,000 a year or 1083 per month.

Heres the math:

Individual:

5049.00-750.00 = 4299.00 savings by not being insured

Family:

13,000.00-2250.00 = 10750.00 savings by not being insured

Who in their right mind will buy coverage if they are healthy?

and the cherry is that as soon as you get sick, you can enroll in a private health insurance plan and they have to take you.

Cancer, Aids, hepatitis, hemorroids or whatever else you get, they have to take you an pay for the cost of your care.

The second cherry is you get to cancel your policy once again when your healthy.

There is no risk for the person, all of the risk for the private carrier.

The carriers will all fail within 2 years and then the mommy daddy government will have to swoop in and save us all for which at that point we will all be greatful. Masterful.

Now if a dumb insurance guy making 100K a year in San Diego see what will happen why can't the elites in Washington? The truth is ofcourse they just think the american people are too stupid to see through it. Time will tell if they are right.

Now, if universal healthcare is the goal, then they should run on it and defend it instead using smoke and mirrors.

Our health care system is broken and needs fixing but this won't fix anything. The cost of care will still rise with no other way to keep up but through taxes.

[endsleigh03]

If the penalties aren't enough then maybe they need to be raised.

The things I never really see you addressing are things like what pre-existing people were supposed to do before this plan, or the fact that premiums are ridiculous, or that so many go without insurance, or that medical costs themselves have gone to the moon.

All it ever is is shouting that it won't work, it won't work from everyone who doesn't really have to worry about it.

Could we get a little compassion for those that DO have to worry about it from behind the conservative lines?

Insurance is big business, it's about money. Fair enough, but health care is also a basic human need that many go without, often resulting in earlier deaths and for certain in unnecessary suffering.

BTW, those numbers are not mine, they came from the articles.

[endsleigh03]

Also, better add this.....

I do not for one second believe that Obama's health care plan is about the govt. trying to gain control over us.

That is right up there with Area 51 and us blowing things up at the twin towers.

It's paranoia, and I have a bucketful on other issues concerning the govt. but this isn't one of them

[Paulination]

Also, better add this.....

I do not for one second believe that Obama's health care plan is about the govt. trying to gain control over us.

That is right up there with Area 51 and us blowing things up at the twin towers.

It's paranoia, and I have a bucketful on other issues concerning the govt. but this isn't one of them

Well then can you agree that they devised a system that will fail and if so, why would they do that.

And we should define control. I don't mean mind control or something wierd, I mean control over 1/6 of the economy which will give them incredible leverage in some personal matters.

Have you read the health care bill? It is littered with statements like "The Secretary will determine this, The Secretary will decide that..."

The secretary they are referring to is a bearocrat making very personal determinations about your health and what you will pay to maintain it as well as who and when you can see for health problems. How is that not control?

[Paulination]

it.

Could we get a little compassion for those that DO have to worry about it from behind the conservative lines?

You misunderstand me. This is not a conservative view, it is a mathmatical one. I have all of the compassion in the world and I feel there should be a safety net for those who can't get insured. What should that look like, I'm not sure but if the government is willing to pay me to try and figure it out I'll quit my job and get to work. As it is I have a hard enough time working and contributing the little I do here.

I only comment on it that it won't work because that is the part I can prove.

My argument with you is not whether there is a problem because I have conceded that time and time again. My disagreement stems from the fact that people accept this legislation simply because Obama is trying something and don't take the time to understand that it will fail and when it does, Obama will be long gone because of term limits with his "waiver" healthcare while you and I are screwed.

Excuse me on the "your number" remark, I should have same "the number you provided".

[Paulination]

The issue of constitutionality could come sooner than later.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...reme-court/?ap

[radiojane]

Doctors at a Canadian hospital went to court to have this baby's breathing tube removed against his parents wishes because they had determined he had no chance for recovery.
The parents wanted the hospital to perform a tracheotomy in the hopes the boy could live a few months longer and die at home. The hospital refused and their decision was supported by the courts.

An AMERICAN hospital agreed to do the procedure and the boy was transferred by an AMERICAN helicopter paid for by an AMERICAN charity.

When you have socialized medicine these are the decisions you get. The boy cost too much money to keep alive when in their minds there was no hope. Maybe it was a lost cause, but at least perform the procedure so he can at a minimal, die at home.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2...heotomy-in-mo/#

This was from way way back but I thought I'd let you know that the child did get to pass away in his home. I am glad the parents got what they wanted/needed to make his death easier, the child was going either way. I still don't think it's a black mark on Canada's socialized medicine record (though there are many others)

http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://...6sku5g&cad=rja

[ichabodius]

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-me-...6799675.column

[endsleigh03]

That article is informing and sickening at the same time.

I like where this Dr. Schwarzmann uses the phrase about restoring some sanity to the pricing.

[Bbeelzebub]

I'm personally against what the media has labeled, "Obamacare". It's much too half assed and only benefits a small group of people to the fullest extent. That so much time was wasted to do what will likely be overturned by the supreme court is ridiculous.
I'm embarrassed that I voted for the dude who was responsible for this catastrophe. (Yes, I know the politics of why it worked out the way it did, but to waste so much time on this was dumb.)


That being said, most polls show nearly a 70 percent majority support for a single payer system. I too support a single payer system. I think people from both party lines would be able to agree on this if they stopped the partisan rhetoric and looked at the facts of the amount of money it could save.

I saw numerous articles today about three states that are looking into a backup plan after the SCOTUS decision comes. California is one of them. They want to attempt a true single payer system. I think a single payer system is fair to everybody in that it covers everybody regardless of socio-economic status and uses the governments authority to tax rather than mandate that somebody purchase a high priced plan while others get a supposed, "discounted" rate. I pay through the nose right now for good healthcare and I still have high deductibles, etc. My rates have gone up three times this past year because of new changes going into effect. None of them benefit me in any way. Of course, being that I live in California an already broke state, who knows where this will go and if we will also be paying for our friends who live here illegally. (If they pay in too, I don't see the harm in covering them, but how do we do that if we can't track who is here?) It will be interesting to see. I would also like to see it include a waver system for people that do not want to take part and choose to get insurance on their own because no matter how great it is, there will always be those people who scream the loudest about how they don't want to foot the bill for others. (Just a note, you are already doing that now if you haven't figured it out yet. Why not get in on the benefits?)

Meanwhile, I anxiously await the majority of this law being thrown out in a few hours.

(Just for the record, I consider myself a libertarian for the most part now, formerly a "conservative democrat". I'm too red to be blue and too blue to be red.)

[JefeStone]

I am STUNNED by Chief Justice Roberts siding with the Majority. That guy is so conservative he thinks Nixon is a liberal.

[Bidmor]

From what I'm hearing now from some talking heads, this Court's decision on Obamacare is a melluva hess and I don't blame the court.

Going back to Nancy Bellowsi's infamous statement we've discovered more what's in the bill today, namely intentional very convoluted language so to be interpreted as B.O and his mob (and his bosses) need under any given circumstance in order to further the big brother state and elimination of the middle class.

[theotherlondon]

Passing this health care act will so help the
Americans who can't find a good Doctor.

Also it's a good thing for hard working people
who go broke paying their Doctor's bills.

[Bbeelzebub]

I'm still scratching my head at today's decision. I wonder if somewhere in Crawford, George W. Bush is sitting in a drunken stupor trying to figure out who Chief Justice John Roberts is and where the guy he appointed is.

[Bidmor]

I'm still scratching my head at today's decision. I wonder if somewhere in Crawford, George W. Bush is sitting in a drunken stupor trying to figure out who Chief Justice John Roberts is and where the guy he appointed is.

Well here's one guy's perspective on Roberts and the SC in general...
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...es/114582.html

[Sulamith]

I'm still scratching my head at today's decision. I wonder if somewhere in Crawford, George W. Bush is sitting in a drunken stupor trying to figure out who Chief Justice John Roberts is and where the guy he appointed is.

Last I heard, George Bush sold his fake ranch in Crawford and is now living in Dallas.

[Bbeelzebub]

Last I heard, George Bush sold his fake ranch in Crawford and is now living in Dallas.

Well, that should work out nicely for Laura. Now she is closer to the bars and doesn't have to worry about running into (or over) an ex boyfriend on her way back.

[endsleigh03]

Interesting. It squeaked by. Barely.

[Jenivere2011]

I try not to get too "political," because frankly, I get sick of arguing with morons. I'll copy and paste what I wrote one of my friends on Facebook who was bitching about "extra" taxes for "Obamacare."


Just be patient and don't panic. Do you honestly think we're not paying for the uninsured, now? My premium's going up, yearly and I won't even BEGIN to talk about the skyrocketing medical costs. It's not all ironed-out, but I think the part about insurance companies being FORCED to insure those with pre-existing conditions is a great start. My uncle was paying nearly $1000/month for health insurance, just to be dropped after he had heart surgery. Now, he's gone without insurance for almost 10 years. SOMETHING has to be done with the healthcare system in this country. Though Obamacare may not be perfect, I believe it's a step in the right direction that no other pres. has even attempted.

Over and out......

[Maxster]

I am STUNNED by Chief Justice Roberts siding with the Majority. That guy is so conservative he thinks Nixon is a liberal.

Nixon WAS a liberal by today's standards.

[Paulination]

The problem with healthcare is that no matter what system you use, cost is the same. The only thing that changes is who pays what. If Obamacare stays you will get your single payer eventually but the cost of healthcare won't change. So in order for the government to pay for it your taxes will go up, way, way up and what the goverment pays the doctors will go down. How many doctors will want to rack 200K in student loans and spend 12 years in school to make 65,000 a year?

[Maxster]

Doctors in Canada are well-paid, despite the state-run insurance system.

The Financial Post had an example of a doctor, working for the public service in British Columbia, who cleared nearly $280K after taxes, and looked forward to a $177K (after taxes) pension upon retirement.

[SomeChick]

Passing this health care act will so help the
Americans who can't find a good Doctor.

Also it's a good thing for hard working people
who go broke paying their Doctor's bills.

This is true.

Not too long ago I was taken to the hospital by ambulance and even though I have great health insurance that covers ER 100% and 50% of ambulance bills, my portion of the ambulance bill was almost $900. To go less than 10 miles.

Because of the circumstances of my injury, I don't have to pay it. The person who caused the injury does. But it took a lot of work on my part just to make sure that would happen. I'm still dealing with it in fact, as beauracracy is slow. I have to make sure person A, B and C all keep in contact with eachother and follow up on what they tell me they are going to do or need from someone else. I deal with them all. Every one of them over-worked and in highly specialized fields. Pain in my ass but better than getting stuck with an irresponsible person's $900 bill. Or the other bills their irresponsibilty created. One for $5,600, another for $11,000, another for $6,000 and that's not all.

Point is, in this country you can have great insurance and still get screwed except in certain circumstances and then only if you stay on top of the mind-numbing amount of work that requires. If you don't have the ability to handle it - run all over town, writing letters, requesting copies, working with a variety of medical and legal entities without blowing your top, paying for phone calls, copies, going to the post office, becoming your own lawyer, having your mailbox explode daily with shit you must deal with while busy people don't have time to follow up promptly, running to post offices, purchasing office supplies, getting a quick understanding of legalese, writing lengthy responses and summaries and dealing with constant deadlines - if you can't do all of that by yourself, you are gonna be fucked. In this country, you must also manage the bigshots via phone, mail and email to get the shit done. With no landline phone or computer. Attending court hearings too. Many.

For want of being put in a coma instead of having to deal with this shit at times. Every day. For six months now. But then I laugh and say I'm still alive so life is good - when I have ten seconds between juggling acts with this shit.

There needs to be a better system. I agree.

[Bbeelzebub]

The problem with healthcare is that no matter what system you use, cost is the same. The only thing that changes is who pays what. If Obamacare stays you will get your single payer eventually but the cost of healthcare won't change. So in order for the government to pay for it your taxes will go up, way, way up and what the goverment pays the doctors will go down. How many doctors will want to rack 200K in student loans and spend 12 years in school to make 65,000 a year?

That's the thing though, if we're paying for it, wouldn't it be nice if we actually got to partake in the full benefits of it? It chaps my hide how many people on facebook today were going on and on about how great it is and how they will finally get healthcare....... I don't think a single person realized that in order to obtain it, you have to make less than X amount of dollars (to get a subsidized rate) and you still have premiums and a deductible to pay. So I'm paying my premium, my deductible and a portion of theirs. Doesn't seem fair to me.

I hear both sides of the argument..... the poor think the rich are entitled and owe them something and the rich think the poor are leaching off the system. How about this for a change? How about everybody is treated the same, pays the same taxes (I'm a fan of the flat tax) and gets the same benefits. If we choose to pay more, we get better services, etc. Perhaps even allow vouchers for those who think they could get it better on their own. I know many will disagree, but I see this as an attack on the average American middle class than the rich or the poor.


I see these folks on the news who live in Michigan, Ohio, Cleveland, other cities across America who were really hit hard by the recession. They aren't "poor", but they are working their asses off to stay afloat. The last thing they need is to pay more taxes when they are already living check to check trying not to lose their homes, their kids and keep food on the tables.


I'm kind of an asshole, well, not kind of... I am. A friend (now probably former) was bitching at me because I said I was against it and told me how I don't deserve better healthcare than him. My response, "You're 40, an alcoholic, have a minimum wage job and no future..... Why am I supposed to feel sorry for your failures in life when you had just as much of a chance as the next guy to not end up there???" Compassion is a great thing to have. Compassion that ends up straining other shmucks working check to check is an entirely different thing.

[Redbelle]

I guarantee you're already carrying the burden of financing the underprivileged. Society only works when there is a safety net for the bottom of the barrel. That's not to say that Obamacare doesn't have major problems. I live half the year in the US and have in Canada. I have dual citizenship. And I do none of my doctoring in the states unless it's an emergency, and I carry very basic insurance for such an instance. It would take a major overhaul of the US system for me to consider going back to my "Home" doctors.

The problem with healthcare is that no matter what system you use, cost is the same. The only thing that changes is who pays what. If Obamacare stays you will get your single payer eventually but the cost of healthcare won't change. So in order for the government to pay for it your taxes will go up, way, way up and what the goverment pays the doctors will go down. How many doctors will want to rack 200K in student loans and spend 12 years in school to make 65,000 a year?

Doctors in Canada are well-paid, despite the state-run insurance system.

The Financial Post had an example of a doctor, working for the public service in British Columbia, who cleared nearly $280K after taxes, and looked forward to a $177K (after taxes) pension upon retirement.

They don't necessarily feel that they are though, which is why so many areas have doctor shortages in Canada, particularly in rural areas. They still make a great deal of money, but under the current set up in the US, they have the opportunity to make more. In three different stays in Canada, in three vastly different areas, I ran into doctors who were eagerly working their last few months before heading down south to the "big bucks". Granted that was a few years back, but it was a major issue.

There is no perfect system, in fact most Canadians (over 70 percent I believe) favor having private healthcare added as an option to the universal system to reduce wait times and ease the tax payer burden. There will always be those that believe they will get better care if they're paying through the nose for it it, and it still has a safety net for the rest of the citizenry.

[shipmatekate]

Well, that should work out nicely for Laura. Now she is closer to the bars and doesn't have to worry about running into (or over) an ex boyfriend on her way back.

LMAO!!

[Paulination]

Beginning tomorrow all individual health insurance in California plans must offer maternity. When I sell an individual plan to a woman I ask her "is there any chance whatsoever you could get pregnant" and if the answer is no, I show her plans that exclude it and save her 40% on her premium. If it is "maybe" than I show her both plans with maternity and plans without so she has the freedom to choose what is best for her.

Individual plans must tell you whether they cover maternity or not so I don't understand the need to take that right away from a women. Government doing what government does.

[shipmatekate]

Beginning tomorrow all individual health insurance in California plans must offer maternity. When I sell an individual plan to a woman I ask her "is there any chance whatsoever you could get pregnant" and if the answer is no, I show her plans that exclude it and save her 40% on her premium. If it is "maybe" than I show her both plans with maternity and plans without so she has the freedom to choose what is best for her.

Individual plans must tell you whether they cover maternity or not so I don't understand the need to take that right away from a women. Government doing what government does.

A lot of insurers are dropping Maternity care
Government protecting expectant mothers
How is that bad?

[Paulination]

A lot of insurers are dropping Maternity care
Government protecting expectant mothers
How is that bad?

I can only speak for California but there are two sets of plans that every carrier offering individual plans carry. Ones with maternity and ones without. The ones with maternity cost more because women buy those expecting they may get pregnant. Women who know they won't get pregnant or are willing to risk not getting pregnant buy the less expensive no maternity plans. Its called freedom of choice. Now that all plans must offer maternity the women who know they won't be having a baby still must pay for it.

BTW, I haven't seen one insurer in California drop maternity altogether.

[SomeChick]

The costs associated with having a baby are mind-boggling, even if everything goes right. And when they don't it's in the stratosphere.

I don't know how people without insurance manage those bills. I do know things they've told me though. For instance, many will skip prenatal visits - some only in the beginning and others altogether. Some will get the barest essential bloodwork done and only get results by phone. Others will say "I can tell everything's fine so who needs it.". Many things like this.

If you don't have money or insurance in most places, no doctor will see or bill you. Here there's a sliding scale clinic (fee is income-based = sliding scale, jik anyone is unfamiliar with the term). But one must have an income of some kind to be seen there. I think indigent people can go on the dole to be seen at the sliding scale clinic because it takes the state government plan. It's something like California's ACCCS (who knows if I have that acronym right, lol. But Pauli is likely to know the right one if it's wrong) plan but not as good from what they tell me.

So with what has been available compared to what is needed, I don't mind paying a bit more to help cover women who are or may become pregnant (my state of residence is still considered California instead of Oregon from my insurance company's perspective, because of the way the policy works and who my insurer is).

Anyway, I do not mind paying a little extra to help those people. Hell, I just paid $15 for over $50 worth of meat because of my savvy shoppin' skills. I seek out, plan and get those kinds of deals every week. So if my rate goes up some, I know I'll be ok. And it's nice to know that I will be helping people if it does.

[Redbelle]

The problem is, too many people DO mind. If they're 114% sure that they'll never have a child, they'll carp about paying more across the board to make sure those who do end up in the family way are covered. It's a baffling attitude as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to be growing.

Are there exceptions to this rule for women above a certain age or who can prove a hysterectomy, permanent birth control or a tubal ligation?

[Miho]

IMHO people need to pay if they want kids. They are a privilege and not a right and I think it is unfair that everyone has to pay extra to take care of those who choose to have children. Maybe if we held people financially accountable for what they breed people would think twice about having one or would take more care in using Birth control.

[Redbelle]

Breed? Really? What a perfectly awful attitude to have about one of the greatest blessings and most trying journeys a person can take in their lifetime.

I certainly hope your "pay extra" philosophy extends to smokers, drinkers, those who walk down dark alleys at night and anyone who gets in a motor vehicle.

When did children become a vice or a risky behavior?

[Paulination]

I certainly hope your "pay extra" philosophy extends to smokers, drinkers, those who walk down dark alleys at night and anyone who gets in a motor vehicle.

I understand what you are saying but it is not quite analogous. Some people can drink and smoke their whole life and end up fine. Most don't but you can't underwrite a risk that has that many variables. With pregnancy, the associated costs of pre-natal through birth are very consistant for most women. That is why you can discount the policies that don't have it or but a premium on the ones that do.

If you are going to have a baby, you need to plan it. Do unplanned pregnancies occur when someone trying to avoid one does everything right? Ofcourse but those are far and away the minority and all women shouldn't have to pay for it. Most unexpected pregnancies are not really that unexpected if you look at the behavior of the participants. It comes down to personal responsibility and if it is an affordability issue, then you really shouldn't be having kids in the first place.

[Redbelle]

I see what you're saying, and of course it makes sense. But I would have a far larger objection to baring the burden of costs for health care related to smoking or drinking than I would motherhood.

What I was objecting to was what I found to be an offensive and ill informed statement about the value of those who parent, not to the idea of coverage itself.


I ask again, is there any exception made for those who absolutely will not be giving birth?

[artymorty]

I see this thread began a few years ago when things here in the UK looked pretty good having the NHS .However ,having very recently been in hospital with a small bowel obstruction ,I no longer think we should be the envy of others. The reason being that the treatment was appalling - huge numbers of frontline staff have been cut resulting in very hit and miss care.I had an N.G.tube fitted (up the nose and into the stomach ) it was supposed to have been aspirated straight away to ease all the toxins that had built up in my stomach.As it was my sister had to drive 150 miles to come running onto the ward -sees my hugely swollen belly,and screams for someone to do something.Only then did they drain off the fluid.It was a harrowing 4 days of being with 3 unhappy crying women who couldn't wait to get off the ward and back to someone who cared and had the time to look after them

Y'day in the daily mail, a 22 year old rang the police as he was dying of thirst on the ward .When they arrived the nurses sent them away saying they were looking after him.He did die .His mother is suing the hospital.Patients go unwashed ,unfed ,no one is suprised anymore. The NHS was a great institution once but sadly in my opinion , it is no more.

[Redbelle]

There are very similiar stories in the US, believe me. That's not the fault of public care, that's mismanagement and it can happen in any system.

[theotherlondon]

Must say I'm glad the American's are one step
closer to we here in Canada and Western Europe
have good health care for all.

[Paulination]

The NHS was a great institution once but sadly in my opinion , it is no more.

Thats because a public system will at some point eat itself up. There are only so many tax dollars you can spend and when the economy goes south the resources dry up.

[Paulination]

So after the Obama administration argued that the penalty for not complying with the mandate was not a tax, the supreme court rules it is which ironically is what allows the bill to stand. Fine. But there are a bunch of other taxes littered through the bill that will effect everyone at some point. The least impacted is the rich because they can afford it. The worse will be the middle class which this bill was in part intending to protect. The lower income folks will be OK because the medicaid expansion will cover more of them. Heres some of the taxes:

"â?¢ A 2.3% excise tax on U.S. sales of medical devices that's already devastating the medical supply industry and its workforce. The levy is a $20 billion blow to an industry that employs roughly 400,000.

â?¢ A 3.8% surtax on investment income from capital gains and dividends that applies to single filers earning more than $200,000 and married couples filing jointly earning more than $250,000.
â?¢ A $50,000 excise tax on charitable hospitals that fail to meet new "community health assessment needs," "financial assistance" and other rules set by the Health and Human Services Dept.

â?¢ A $24 billion tax on the paper industry to control a pollutant known as black liquor.

â?¢ A $2.3 billion-a-year tax on drug companies.

â?¢ A 10% excise tax on indoor tanning salons.

â?¢ An $87 billion hike in Medicare payroll taxes for employees, as well as the self-employed.

â?¢ A hike in the threshold for writing off medical expenses to 10% of adjusted gross income from 7.5%.

â?¢ A new cap on flexible spending accounts of $2,500 a year.

â?¢ Elimination of the tax deduction for employer-provided prescription drug coverage for Medicare recipients.

â?¢ An income surtax of 1% of adjusted gross income, rising to 2.5% by 2016, on individuals who refuse to go along with ObamaCare by buying a policy not OK'd by the government.

â?¢ A $2,000 tax charged to employers with 50 or more workers for every full-time worker not offered health coverage.

â?¢ A $60 billion tax on health insurers.

â?¢ A 40% excise tax on so-called Cadillac, or higher cost, health insurance plans."


http://news.investors.com/article/61...den.htm?p=full