reputable homebirth info/stats needed

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
Sue wrote:

Unadulterated Me" wrote in message

But again you must pay insurance to get that so you are paying out of
pocket.


Yes, it comes out weekly from hubby's check. It's about $160 a month.
But,
you have the higher taxes for medical coverage and I have it taken out of
the check, that's pretty much the same thing. It's not free for either of
us.

The differences a

1) The total cost of healthcare is higher in the US (per capita and
per service--we pay more overall and we pay more for the same
service).

2) You would still get healthcare under a universal coverage
system even if you weren't receiving a paycheck or even if
your employer didn't offer health insurance as a benefit.

Also note that the $160 is not the full price that you are paying
for premiums. Most likely the company is subsidizing much more
than that (which money would potentially be available for more direct
compensation were the company not spending it on health
insurance premiums). Right now, the average cost of employer
provided group health insurance for a family is about $10k/year (with
employees, on average, paying $2700 of it).


*snip*

Yes! We are only paying a small portion of the premiums and the state pays
the rest for ours. I was amazed when I saw them itemized on DH's paycheck
stub. There is no way we could afford these if we had to pay the whole
premiums....

--
JennL
DS 06/26/98
1 tiny angel 11/03
EDD December 4 2004

aka CatnipSlayer @ livin-it-up.net
--
Leader of the Cult of Worshippers of BiPolar Long-Haired Sexy Anime Guys
with Swords

On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:47:18 -0500, "Sue"
wrote:

Yes, it comes out weekly from hubby's check. It's about $160 a month. But,
you have the higher taxes for medical coverage and I have it taken out of
the check, that's pretty much the same thing. It's not free for either of
us.

However, if you or DH had a crap job where you made too much to
qualify for Medicaid and you couldn't afford to take out your own
health insurance, you would be screwed.

Living in Australia, I never have to worry about whether or not I can
see a doctor because I know that I have Medicare to cover me. I don't
have to worry about my DH losing his job or whether or not our
insurance premiums go up. I just have to have my Medicare card, and I
can walk into a doctor's office to get the treatment I need.

--
Daye

"Elfanie" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:02:21 +1100, Daye wrote:


Have you ever lived without
insurance in the US? I have. It is HORRIBLE.

we lived and had a baby in the US without health insurance 9 years
ago. Got AHCCCS - which stands for Arizona Health Care Cost
Containment System....in other words, public health care. paid 100%
of all prenatal care, all tests, all hospital and delivery costs....
very easy to get on, not a problem.

Yep, but when I wasn't pregnant, and had no health insurance, I ended up
with bronchitis that turned into pneumonia for 9 solid weeks, all because I
couldn't afford to treat my allergies or asthma. My mother finally bought me
the antibiotics and I ended up taking a leave of absence from work until I
qualified for state assistance on medical so I could at least afford to
treat the infections I kept getting because I couldn't afford, on my income,
to buy the drugs to prevent getting sick in the first place.

We can barely, barely afford the insurance we have right now, and if we
could not, we would not qualify for any state assistance even though I'm
pregnant--they would expect us to deplete all retirement plans and assets,
even the non-liquid ones, first. I suspect we'd even have to sell our home,
as we have just a little bit too much equity in it.

Jenrose

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
.. .
One of the hospitals has a plan where you can get standard pre-natal care
and delivery support for $2500-paid in monthly installments for a year. Of
course, it doesn't cover anything but the regular OB/CNM appointments and
a
standard delivery, but at least it means that you're not hit with a big
bill
all at once. The idea is that it's supposed to reach people who don't
qualify for the health plan for low-income people, but who don't have
health
insurance through an employer or privately, either.

I'm spending $400/month for insurance now, which is quite low, because I'm
still considered to be a school district employee and am therefore paying
what the district would pay, not what I'd pay privately for the same plan
(not Cobra-just part of the contract for leave that the district offers to
tenured certificated personnel)-and I'm glad I have it, because ONE
perinatal visit would cost more than that. So far, we've paid about $800
out
in co-pays for this pregnancy, including a $400 one for the hospital stay,
but everything else looks to be covered. I don't see how anyone can do a
high-risk pregnancy without health insurance, given that the protocols
call
for so many visits for monitoring purposes-which add up even with
nurse-midwives providing most of the regular care.



And with my insurance, I couldn't do this high-risk pregnancy "their way"
even with the health insurance. We would have had to put off getting
pregnant for another 3 years to afford it... between Lovenox (which is
actually a first tier, less expensive copay on my insurance) and the
monitoring they'd do, copays, etc... we'd be looking at $4,000 *after*
insurance.

Jenrose

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Mum of Two wrote:

*Sorry to reply to my own post, but I can't believe I forgot to add amnio
&
*CVS, which it seems are way over-used in the US and killed my friend's
*daughter (amnio). Amnio is available here when you are over 35 or there
is a
*strong indication there could be something wrong with your baby, but
there
*certainly isn't the pressure to have it and I could count on half a hand
the
*number of women I've heard of who've had it.

Pressure to have it? Well, I'm 34 and have not been pressured to have it.
Or do you mean you think women over 35 are pressured to have it? That
would surprise me. My doc has repeatedly made comments to the effect that
"if you were over 35 of course we'd offer an amniocentesis..." (this in
the context of my having raised the subject of prenatal testing options)
but that's just it - would OFFER, not would URGE or SUGGEST or whatever.
OFFER does not sound like pressuring to me. but who knows.

It certainly seems the pressure increases after 35, yes. But I've heard of
women going for amnio for all kinds of daft reasons, because they felt they
'should'. I'm talking about social pressure here too. It's just worrying
IMHO when a potentially dangerous and usually unnecessary procedure like
this becomes the 'norm' in healthy pregnancies which are low risk, but where
the mother perceives risk because of misinformation/dramatisation from her
OB & other people she knows.
--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/

"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Mum of Two wrote:

*of. To name a few differences off the top of my head:
**Circumcision - far from routine here in NZ, in fact would be hard to
find a
*Dr. to do it.

Whereas here in my area of the USA, they ask you "do you want the baby
circumcised in the hospital, yes or no," and if you say "no," that's the
end of it. None of this "THEY STOLE MY BABY AND GAVE HIM BACK WITH NO
FORESKIN OMG OMG OMG" crap goes on in my area!

Yeah, and here, if you said, "I want my baby circumcised", they'd say "You
want him WHAT? Oh, you want his head circumference? Here it is." Or
something to that effect.

--
Amy,
Mum to Carlos born sleeping 20/11/02,
& Ana born screaming 30/06/04
email: barton . souto @ clear . net . nz (join the dots!)
http://www.babiesonline.com/babies/c/carlos2002/

"Marie" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 19:47:18 -0500, "Sue"
wrote:
Yes, it comes out weekly from hubby's check. It's about $160 a month.
But,
you have the higher taxes for medical coverage and I have it taken out of
the check, that's pretty much the same thing. It's not free for either of
us.

Insurance for just the three kids through Jason's job would be over
$400 a month. That is insane for how healthy the kids are, and we just
can't afford that much out of his paycheck for a just-in-case
emergency. We need to eat too lol
Marie

Also, be aware that a good part of the cost is being paid by the employer,
which means that salaries are lower, even though it's not visible. I was
paying $15 a month as my piece of my insurance while I was working
full-time, but the actual cost is about $400 a month for me alone once I had
to start paying the employer's portion. To add family coverage would double
that.

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...
ModernMiko wrote:


MD has a kids and pregnant women insurance program and I believe the
income
limits are pretty lenient

Hmmm...their program requires that pregnant women be
at or under 200 percent of federal poverty level. That would
be about $25k/year for a couple expecting their first child.
That ain't much. There are a lot of folks making more than
that who don't feel they can afford health care, especially if
they have to buy it privately.

The other thing sad about it is that it can easily force a woman to work due
to insurance issues, when she'd rather be at home. One of my co-workers had
premature twins, but since her husband was self-employed, the only way
insurance was feasible was for her to continue working with the school
system. He made too much for the low income programs, and too little to be
able to afford private coverage for a family of four with two members
considered high risk.

Her first year back, she missed 30 days of work, just because of illnesses
in the babies-illnesses they wouldn't have been exposed to had she been able
to stay home. She also found continuing breastfeeding nearly impossible,
because there simply wasn't a private place to pump in the building (our
staff lounge has long since become a classroom, and classroom doors cannot
be locked from the inside, so you get kids bursting in on you even on your
lunch or planning time), which meant that the babies got fewer months of
that extra support, and they could have used as much as possible.

Fortunately, she was tenured so the absenses, while an issue, didn't cost
her as far as employment goes-but for the first three years after those
babies were born, her students suffered simply because she had to be out so
often, and I know she suffered every time one of the twins got sick because
she felt she should be at home with them so that they wouldn't have to be
placed at risk.

Best wishes,
Ericka

"Jenrose" wrote in message
news:1099641730.AX5osGX0H0147TNtRKelLg@teranews...

"Donna Metler" wrote in message
.. .
One of the hospitals has a plan where you can get standard pre-natal
care
and delivery support for $2500-paid in monthly installments for a year.
Of
course, it doesn't cover anything but the regular OB/CNM appointments
and
a
standard delivery, but at least it means that you're not hit with a big
bill
all at once. The idea is that it's supposed to reach people who don't
qualify for the health plan for low-income people, but who don't have
health
insurance through an employer or privately, either.

I'm spending $400/month for insurance now, which is quite low, because
I'm
still considered to be a school district employee and am therefore
paying
what the district would pay, not what I'd pay privately for the same
plan
(not Cobra-just part of the contract for leave that the district offers
to
tenured certificated personnel)-and I'm glad I have it, because ONE
perinatal visit would cost more than that. So far, we've paid about $800
out
in co-pays for this pregnancy, including a $400 one for the hospital
stay,
but everything else looks to be covered. I don't see how anyone can do a
high-risk pregnancy without health insurance, given that the protocols
call
for so many visits for monitoring purposes-which add up even with
nurse-midwives providing most of the regular care.



And with my insurance, I couldn't do this high-risk pregnancy "their way"
even with the health insurance. We would have had to put off getting
pregnant for another 3 years to afford it... between Lovenox (which is
actually a first tier, less expensive copay on my insurance) and the
monitoring they'd do, copays, etc... we'd be looking at $4,000 *after*
insurance.

The scary thing is that I have the plan that the maternal-fetal center here
considers to be the single best out there as far as coverage for high-risk
pregnancy (it doesn't have limits on a lot of things which other plans do,
and has caps on out of pocket expenses, so that after you've spent the cap
amount, you don't have to spend anything else-I reached that with my
perinatologist by about 26 weeks this time).


Jenrose

In ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote:

*1) Regardless of whether you answer yes or no to the question, what is
* being offered is still *routine* neonatal circumcision. In other
* words, the circ. is being offered for no medical reason. This is,
* I believe, a common medical usage of the word "routine" meaning
* "not medically indicated."

I would agree in a medical sense that the word "routine" would describe
the procedure - just as a veterinarian might discuss a "routine" feline
declaw, even though he or she does not believe the procedure should be
done "routinely." But in the sense we were discussing obstetric/infant
care in the US, I had the feeling the previous poster talked about
circumcision being done routinely as I hear the anti-circ activists claim
it is done - that is to say, it is done automatically as part of the
postpartum routine, unless someone demands it not be done. That is what I
was trying to say is not happening, at least in my geographic region.

I mean, to make a somewhat egregious example - if I have a bit of luck and
a good surgical team, I can undergo a "routine rhinoplasty," but that does
not mean that rhinoplasty is routine for 34 yr old suburban moms to
undergo

You see what I mean, I'm sure

* off. I know several folks IRL whose caregivers actively
* campaigned for circumcision. I also know of people whose
* hospitals assumed circumcision as the default position.

Well, I was just saying that isn't how it is around here. I interviewed a
buttload of peds and several hospitals and really, none of them were
anything like that.

h.

--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx