If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#151
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#152
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#153
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#154
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#155
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#156
|
|||
|
|||
"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/ |
#157
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#158
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#159
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#160
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Birthing Balls/Spinal adjustments during pregnancy | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | August 18th 04 11:00 PM |
ACOG vs. Homebirth (also: Pregnant FDA employees: Helpful hint) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | May 10th 04 06:25 PM |
Families needed to provide homes for children in need of protection | wexwimpy | Foster Parents | 0 | April 1st 04 06:08 PM |
Homebirth - reasons for transfer... | Buzzy Bee | Pregnancy | 11 | February 11th 04 12:29 AM |
Lydia's Birthstory (long) | Andrea | Pregnancy | 29 | September 7th 03 07:23 AM |