I'm speechless. I can't imagine this: British treatment of premature birth

[astrid]

We are exactly in the same boat. We pay pay pay for the insurance. We have a deductible, coinsurance, and a copay. So you go to the doctor for a problem. Before the insurance even pays one thin dime we have to fork over $500 (per person in the family). And get this, we pay the copay for the visit ($20 for most things). That $20 doesn't count towards the $500 deductible. Then when we reach the deductible, we pay the $20 copay and they don't always pay 100% for the service (it depends on what it is or what kind of doctor it is). So if the service cost $100 we pay $20. Then they only cover 80% of what is left (the coinsurance amount we pay ALSO does not count towards the deductible). And the plan is so confusing that the insurance company (we also have BCBS) doesn't seem to understand it. My husband needed an MRI a couple of years ago. Per the benefit an MRI was not subject to the deductible. Well they processed it as if it was and we were told we had to pay $600 after they kicked in their part. So we did. Which hurt! Then by accident I realized the error. When all was said and done they messed up and we only owed $300. It took us over a year to get it straightened out and another 6 months of begging and screaming to get our $300 back. We even had to call the attorney general's office to seek help.

 

I totally sympathize!

 

About six years ago, I stopped having periods. Cold turkey. No spotting, nothing. Then, I started lactating. Yeah...MILK. NOT pg. Freaked me out, so I broke down and went to the dr. Turns out I've got a pretty large tumor on my pituitary gland. Had an MRI, HUGELY expensive, but had it to confirm that it was there.

 

I need to go back for follow-up MRI's to see whether or not it's growing and affecting my vision. Can't afford to go.

 

I should be taking the meds so my body can absorb calcium and I don't end up with debilitating osteoporosis, but well, they're really expensive and make me feel like I've got the worst case of morning sickness ALL. THE. TIME. So I don't take them.

 

What I really need is to have surgery to remove it; the tumor is quite large. But even contemplating brain surgery is laughable. There's now WAY we could afford to pay our portion of the surgery. What a joke. But money keeps coming out of dh's paycheck, for what, I don't know. It's frustrating.

 

astrid (sorry to vent.)

[sleepymommy]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1212924/Doctors-said-Id-miscarriage-did-premature-baby-fought-life.html

 

I'm kind of in shock after reading this. I just can't imagine it.

 

:crying:

 

I'm fighting back my tears so my LO's won't worry. But that story is so sad. I feel agony for that mother right now.

[Renee in NC]

If you have no health insurance in the US and you are pregnant you can get on presumptive medicaid. The insurance will cover the pregnancy and the hospital stay. Also, the baby and mother are covered for 30 days (with presumptive) and then they will probably go into regular Medicaid.

 

In NC, presumptive was 2 months coverage only.

[katilac]

Yes, because an organ can only be used by one person. Obviously they should pick the person who has the best chance to live as long as possible. You mentioned two separate issues: health care costs and quality of life. Would they really deny a less than ideal candidate on a transplant list if no one else can use the organ, and it will simply go to waste if they don't give it to that individual? If the money isn't available to help someone, then it just isn't available, I guess, but that is a completely different line of thought than deciding someone shouldn't receive help because of potential future disabilities. With this line of thought, we should also deny care to the elderly and people with developmental disabilities because we don't think their lives are of high enough quality.

 

In America, you will certainly be denied a transplant if you don't have the money to pay for it. Generally, you can't even get on the waiting list until you have a certain amount of money set aside. Patients are evaluated before they are allowed to PAY to be on a waiting list, and many transplant centers quite openly state "ability to pay" as a criteria.

 

That's why I never understand the great fuss about universal health care meaning that people will be denied treatment due to cost - - that already happens here in the states, ALL. THE. TIME. In both systems, there is a certain amount of money available (from a combination of sources; insurance, government, private funds, donations). In both systems, some people get the help they need and some don't. In both systems, tragedies sometimes occur because doctors either break the rules or don't apply common sense to them.

 

Proper medical care is denied in America on a daily basis. The debate has been framed in such a way that I sound like an ogre if I say that, yes, there ARE times when the elderly should be denied certain types of care. But, of course, it's not a DENIAL of care, but a denial of paying for it. And if a certain number of people are going to be denied care, no matter what, shouldn't it be partially on the basis of where that care is going to do the most good, and where it's likely to go to waste?

 

I'm putting this out there for the sake of argument and clarity. If people are horrified at denial of proper medical care, they need to be horrified NOW. If denial of care is an acceptable part of the system, then we need to remove the tear-jerking images of tiny babies and elderly grandmas.

[joannqn]

Yes, there is help for the very poor, but to qualify one would have to probably live on the street. My sister is on disability and the measly payments she gets are said to be too much to qualify her for health insurance assistance. How much poorer does she have to be?

 

Here in Washington I found the income guidelines for free and low cost health care to be shockingly high. Our Basic Health here first determines if you are eligible and then determines which income category you fit in. The category determines your monthly premium, which is much lower than private insurance premiums. .

 

For children's health care, the income guidelines are higher still. They have free, $20 a month, and $30 a month options, which each having higher income guidelines.

 

Pregnancy medical has income guidelines that are a bit lower.

[OnTheBrink]

This got me to thinking. In the US 20 weeks is considered a miscarriage (though I don't know if it is set in stone medically or just what my ob said to me years ago), so do the docs do anything to help a baby born before that or all are babies still born before that?

 

That's the way it is here; 20 weeks is the cut off. Birth before 20 weeks is a miscarriage; after is a stillbirth. Before 20 weeks--the hospital "deals with" the remains; after 20 weeks--the family is responsible for burial (or whatever they choose). I had to plan the funeral for a friend who's baby was born at 21 weeks. It is the saddest, most surreal experience. I never want to do it again.

[tdeveson]

Extremely sad! This is what universal health care is all about, saving money is more important than a life.

 

No it's not. Comments like these add nothing to the conversation and serve only to fuel the bitter divide in this country. The United States is the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. We lag behind even some African countries, and behind ALL South American countries. For our decision we have the 37th best health care system in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies among industrialized countries.

 

That is nothing to be proud of.

 

And you should know that as "horrible" as health care is in England, they still live longer than we do.

 

LynnMcCormick, you should know that a fetus born at 22 weeks of gestation has 0% probability of survival. Science is simply not there yet. Do you really belive doctors didn't treat this child because it was too expensive? They would have tortured that innocent child with needles, tubes, cut holes in it to find veins and arteries, and for what? Please tell us exactly what kind of treatment you would have wanted for this child in view of the fact that there is none.

Edited September 12, 2009 by tdeveson

[MomLovesClassics]

If you have no health insurance in the US and you are pregnant you can get on presumptive medicaid. The insurance will cover the pregnancy and the hospital stay. Also, the baby and mother are covered for 30 days (with presumptive) and then they will probably go into regular Medicaid.

 

I was pregnant 2007-2008 and was REFUSED medicaid so no everyone who is pregnant is not offered medicaid. I have over $40,000 woth of medical bills so no medicaid did nothing for me. At least the funeral home took care of my baby.

[ma23peas]

EXACTLY.

We HAVE health insurance. Blue Cross, Blue Shield, in fact. We NEVER use it. Dd goes for checkups, etc, but I cannot remember the last time dh or I went to the doctor. Health insurance is a farce for most. We keep paying out of dh's paycheck, but when we have to use medical facilities, there's a huge copay we are responsible for, and when all is said and done, a staggering portion of the bill is not covered by the insurance for which we pay through the nose.

 

There are better plans even for just $10 more a month..your employer should give you options, you might have just chosen the least expensive, insurance can only do what you choose. You have to take it up with your employer if they only offer one option. If you get it on your own BCBS has many plans. My husband and I have been to the doctor 2x in 10 years...my cost for having 3 children prior to that was a whopping $15. We are amazed at what comes out of his paycheck, but this year we were hit with a slew of health issues with my daughter...missed diagnosis has cost her 9 months of her life and unimaginable pain...if I added up all the expenses (ultrasounds/xrays/blood testing/ekg/etc.) it would have cost us over $50,000. We're looking at a week at the Mayo Clinic in October that will run into the tens of thousands...we have been out maybe $800. I say that's a win/win...am I glad we paid out those high premiums YOU BET..it's an insurance, you don't know if your house will be hit by a tornado but YOU buy insurance to protect yourself, you have the option of not. No one is entitled to health insurance, next we'll be asking for our home insurance to be covered...

 

I also have friends who have only catastrophic coverage...so when their son broke his hand and required surgery they had to cover it all...the bill was over $9,000...she went to each physician/facility and explained she had to pay cash, they knocked her bill down to $3,000....that's life...no one is entitled to health coverage, yet every day thousands hit our ER's and are not refused...mostly due to liability issues...I'm sure many ER physicians would like to refuse all those that are not coming in with emergencies...we have had our share of ER visits this year with my daughter and we mostly saw colds/croup...things our grandmothers never would have dreamed taking a child to the ER for...

 

Tara

[mom2abcd]

Oh, I wish she could've read THIS story before she gave birth. Maybe, just maybe, she could've saved his life on her own like this gal did. So sad.

 

Milovany, this is an awesome story about a 20 oz. baby that survived with mom's help. Thanks for sharing it.

 

I know several people born at 22-27 oz. who are a blessing to the world.

[EKS]

I guess she could have purchased private health insurance if she didn't like the restrictions that the NHS would impose on treatment of preterm babies. Of course, she would have had to do this way before this event occurred. The NHS provides certain benefits and does not provide others *just like private health insurance does*. Anyone who doesn't like that structure can purchase insurance to cover the circumstances that they choose. Or they can save money to cover those circumstances.

 

And I guess those folks who can't afford these things are just out of luck.

 

No system is going to be perfect.

[ma23peas]

No it's not. Comments like these add nothing to the conversation and serve only to fuel the bitter divide in this country. The United States is the ONLY industrialized nation that does not have universal health care. We lag behind even some African countries, and behind ALL South American countries. For our decision we have the 37th best health care system in the world and one of the lowest life expectancies among industrialized countries.

 

This is a hot button with many of late, I am no exception. I would put our health care system/effective treatment/diagnosis against any country. I see many many missionaries/professionals heading to Africa, India, South America as physicians/nurses..I helped with providing free antibiotics/pain medicines to these areas through Angel Flight...I am not aware of any of these other countries who have universal health care flying in drugs to our poorest areas...why? Because we take care of our own...we have agencies (non-profit and federal) that help pick up those in need. We are not here to pick up for every citizen...we have a responsibility to work and provide for ourselves/families....

 

I don't put any stock in life expectancies/rankings..it all depends on who is doing the report and what they want you to take away from it, I could easily show figures where countries with national health care programs have half the life expectancy as our country and 1 out of three children never live to see age 5...does that prove my point?

 

Do I believe that we should allow competition between the thousand health care insurers by allowing them to go across state lines? Absolutely! I buy my auto insurance and it's CHEAP ($750 a year for 2 vehicles)...if there was less competition and I was limited to only buying a policy in my state, it'd be triple that.

 

Do I believe trial attorneys should be slapped and there should be tort reform, absolutely!! Doctors are slammed with liability issues and federal mandates that require this and that...just to avoid a lawsuit...it is out of control..many lawsuits that are necessary are being pushed out 2-3 years because 80% of these lawsuits are frivolous and simply attorneys trying to rob Peter.

 

Health care is an option, not a right.

 

I personally believe 50% of the US being obese/overweight accounts for our life expectancy over any failure in health care..have you been to Holland? Do you see fat people on every corner? I am doing everything I can to get to a healthier lifestyle...but I don't blame the lack of universal healthcare for me not living to 75.

 

Tara

[Sputterduck]

we mostly saw colds/croup...things our grandmothers never would have dreamed taking a child to the ER for...

 

My son has been in the ER for croup. One percent of children with croup end up intubated. Don't judge. Some kids get it rather severely over and over again and need to be in a hospital.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

It is not the medical community's job to decide whose life is worth living. Do your friends think their children would be better off if they had never been born? More importantly, do the CHILDREN feel their lives are not worth living? Where does it say in the job description of any medical professional that they have the training or the right to decide if someone's life is worth living?

 

Actually doctor's are in the best position to know whether medical interventions will be futile and only serve to prolong death or not. Having worked in intensive care for 7 years, I hope that I am blessed to be able to die at home in the arms of a loved one instead of dying in a hospital hooked to many tubes, machines, etc.

 

Do not get me wrong, I think medical interventions can be a good thing when there is hope of meaningful survival. On the other hand, I think that when medical interventions only serve to prolong death, then the interventions can be torture so to speak IMHO.

[Audrey]

Well, to be honest, I am not sure where I stand on universal health care. All I know is to decide that a baby isn't worth trying to save at 26 weeks is heartbreaking to me. I am thankful that the doctors and nurses at the University of Michigan hospital saw fit to use heroic measure to save my three nieces.

 

But it wasn't even 26 weeks, Heather. It was a couple of days shy of 22 weeks. That's a whole gestational month earlier. The developmental difference is vast.

[mom4him]

Extremely sad! This is what universal health care is all about, saving money is more important than a life.

:iagree:

[calandalsmom]

Some of you seem to value living life on earth more than everlasting life, which is odd for a bunch of christians... While its painful to suffer the loss of a child, the efforts that would have to be made to save that child's life might be more painful than anything we could ever imagine and also futile. The fact is that not every baby that was conceived was meant to spend time here. Surrendering a person to God's loving arms is occassionally the kindest most necessary act of love.

 

also that is a tabloid.

Edited September 12, 2009 by calandalsmom

[astrid]

There are better plans even for just $10 more a month..your employer should give you options, you might have just chosen the least expensive, insurance can only do what you choose. You have to take it up with your employer if they only offer one option. If you get it on your own BCBS has many plans. My husband and I have been to the doctor 2x in 10 years...my cost for having 3 children prior to that was a whopping $15. We are amazed at what comes out of his paycheck, but this year we were hit with a slew of health issues with my daughter...missed diagnosis has cost her 9 months of her life and unimaginable pain...if I added up all the expenses (ultrasounds/xrays/blood testing/ekg/etc.) it would have cost us over $50,000. We're looking at a week at the Mayo Clinic in October that will run into the tens of thousands...we have been out maybe $800. I say that's a win/win...am I glad we paid out those high premiums YOU BET..it's an insurance, you don't know if your house will be hit by a tornado but YOU buy insurance to protect yourself, you have the option of not. No one is entitled to health insurance, next we'll be asking for our home insurance to be covered...

 

I also have friends who have only catastrophic coverage...so when their son broke his hand and required surgery they had to cover it all...the bill was over $9,000...she went to each physician/facility and explained she had to pay cash, they knocked her bill down to $3,000....that's life...no one is entitled to health coverage, yet every day thousands hit our ER's and are not refused...mostly due to liability issues...I'm sure many ER physicians would like to refuse all those that are not coming in with emergencies...we have had our share of ER visits this year with my daughter and we mostly saw colds/croup...things our grandmothers never would have dreamed taking a child to the ER for...

 

Tara

 

Thank you for your comments and advice regarding our medical coverage. My husband happens to actually WORK for an insurance company, The Hartford. Yeah...we know there are other plans. But unfortunately, his division is limited to a choice of two. And neither are anything to write home about. I do happen to believe that we shouldn't have to make a choice between groceries and health care.

 

astrid

[Orthodox6]

We have had to choose groceries over health care for about ten years now. I'm open to taking bets on how long my lower teeth will remain attached to my jaw bone. Currently, my children are not seeing their psychiatrist because we cannot afford the visits. I'm so scared that she will stop authorizing the refills for their necessary meds.

 

 

I do happen to believe that we shouldn't have to make a choice between groceries and health care.

astrid

[muffinmom]

Some of you seem to value living life on earth more than everlasting life, which is odd for a bunch of christians... While its painful to suffer the loss of a child, the efforts that would have to be made to save that child's life might be more painful than anything we could ever imagine and also futile. The fact is that not every baby that was conceived was meant to spend time here. Surrendering a person to God's loving arms is occassionally the kindest most necessary act of love.

 

I'm not sure anyone disputes that at some point surrender is the thing to do. But I do believe that the fact that we go to great lengths to save life says that we value it--I don't think it's ever "wrong" to try to save a life, even if the effort fails--and I'd rather someone say about me that I valued life over cost.

[Nicole M]

also that is a tabloid.

 

For me, I think the real issue is compassion, not universal healthcare. I personally feel that there are times when it is an exercise in compassion to let a life go, and this may have been one of those cases. How this particular case was handled, if we can trust the source, does not seem compassionate, but I can see that in some situations, not attempting to "save" a life is the right thing to do. I am not God, but I can only imagine a God that would want us to act with compassion and kindness. I also am glad that I am not someone who has to make those decisions.

[Mabelen]

Milovany, this is an awesome story about a 20 oz. baby that survived with mom's help. Thanks for sharing it.

 

I know several people born at 22-27 oz. who are a blessing to the world.

 

I know this treatment has been used routinely in Latin American countries FOR YEARS. It is proven to work. It has been exported to other poor countries in Africa! I think they call it the kangaroo method.

[Haiku]

I had a friend (old high school teacher) die from a curable disease b/c of the LACK of treatment she received while living in England

 

And this NEVER happens in the US, because health insurance companies are angels anointed by god who have no concern whatsoever for the bottom line and rush to spend as much money as they can treating people, all out of the goodness of their hearts. US health insurance companies would never even CONSIDER denying care, and all those people who had to sue their HMO's to get care are just ... imaginary?

 

Oh, and this month our insurance company decided to drop my son's asthma medicine from coverage. They helpfully provided me with a lost of (less expensive) alternatives to tell my doctor to prescribe. Every single "alternative" has been tried and does not control my son's asthma.

 

Tara

[Orthodox6]

Not a helpful post. (although I'll give benefit of the doubt and assume that the writer genuinely intended consolation) No mother who has lost a child, either pre- or post-birth is going to cheer this one within the context of this specific thread. Not even those of us who hold that very same belief about God's all-knowing providence. Perhaps if the post had not started with the outlandish assertion that Christians participating in this thread place a lesser value on eternal life, I would not be reacting so negatively. (again, I'll try to give benefit of my doubts to the writer)

 

 

Some of you seem to value living life on earth more than everlasting life, which is odd for a bunch of christians... While its painful to suffer the loss of a child, the efforts that would have to be made to save that child's life might be more painful than anything we could ever imagine and also futile. The fact is that not every baby that was conceived was meant to spend time here. Surrendering a person to God's loving arms is occassionally the kindest most necessary act of love.

 

also that is a tabloid.

[Mabelen]

That's true. Don't we need to hold parents accountable for their kids? Shouldn't she have known the rules of her health insurance? If she had been "smart enough" to realize the limits to care, then she would have purchased extra insurance. Why rely on the government, since they're out to screw you whenever they can. Take responsibility for your own family!!!

 

And yes, that's sarcasm, but it just follows the perceived sentiments of so many here...

 

 

You are right, but unfortunately that applies to any kind of health coverage, universal or private. I am wondering, if you have a private health plan, whether you are entirely familiar with the exclusions in your particular plan.

[Terabith]

This is a heartbreaking story, and the lack of compassion is appalling. Comfort care should always be given.

 

However, my understanding is that at least six years ago, similar guidelines were in place. I took a medical ethics class, and a physician came in and talked about how they did not treat babies who were born under 22 weeks and/ or 500 g.

 

I think it is appalling not to at least provide comfort measures, and if a baby responds well to those, offer the option of more aggressive treatment. But I don't think universal health care programs are responsible for the guidelines.

 

And yes, I believe the legality of abortion at various points of gestation is partially responsible for some of these guidelines, although it may be that the guidelines drive abortion laws rather than the other way around.

[Mabelen]

also that is a tabloid.

 

That was the first thing I noticed when I read the news source, definitely an extremely unreliable source of unbiased news. The Dailymail is sensationalist press for sure, that doesn't necessarily mean this story is false, but that it would be wise to verify it through other more reliable newsources.

[ma23peas]

Thank you for your comments and advice regarding our medical coverage. My husband happens to actually WORK for an insurance company, The Hartford. Yeah...we know there are other plans. But unfortunately, his division is limited to a choice of two. And neither are anything to write home about. I do happen to believe that we shouldn't have to make a choice between groceries and health care.

 

astrid

 

My grandparents never had health coverage for any of their children. They chose food. No one at that time had health coverage so why do they need it? My parents only had catastrophic coverage, my mom paid the doctor visit each time and covered our medicine..they paid 20% for my two surgeries as a minor. That's life.

Now that our society has become ridiculously wealthy..how many homes have a personal computer?? How many homes have 2+ automobiles, more than 3 televisions in their homes, central A/C, heat, indoor plumbing...as we progress and gain more people thing they should have more. The constitution states the role of government, making life easier for the citizens is not in there...but the freedom for you to work hard for what you want and feel is necessary is there...if you want better, than work for harder competition to lower the costs, tort reform...those are things your government can do to faciliate a more cost beneficial option...but to say you want it just because you're a citizen (not saying you, just those in favor of universal healthcare)...is not the answer.

I liken this to the housing crisis...so many wanted a bigger home, the banks tried to use responsible lending, but then the government stepped in and said you need to let these people get the house they 'want' not the house they can 'qualify for'...so if you don't approve these loans the government will fine you....my mother is a mortgage lender, while her company tried their best to be responsible, many others took advantage of the free lending and got us in the the bailout...

 

There needs to be a LARGE discussion on this on the national level, not just folks sitting back talking about what they want, action on the part of each side proposing bills that will have impact...not much action is getting done at town halls, just opposing views expressing discontent...it's frustrating that as industrious as we are that we don't have representatives that can overcome politics and do something.

 

Isn't there a soapbox smilie?? Sorry, Astrid, nothing personal to you at all, just a huge frustration at all of us making our points and not getting anything done. Me included!!

 

Tara

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This is a heartbreaking story, and the lack of compassion is appalling. Comfort care should always be given.

 

 

 

 

I agree that comfort care should always be given. However, I think that being able to die in the arms of a loved one is the utmost in comfort care as was the case with this baby who was able to be held by his mother for the last hours of his life. As for the news source of this story, I am not sure if it is reliable and that we have all of the facts. I find it hard to believe that no one tried to provide emotional support for the mother in this case.I also believe that the doctor's believed that medical interventions were futile in this case.

[Haiku]

This is what universal health care is all about, saving money is more important than a life.

 

This comment makes no sense to me. The US healthcare system is based on for-profit companies who are beholden to shareholders, who will only invest if they make money by doing so. How is universal healthcare all about saving money while for-profit healthcare is not??

 

Tara

[Sara R]

valued life over cost.

 

The problem is that cost, in a way, boils down to life as well. Money boils down to someone's labor, life energy. If you spend more money than you have (the condition our country is in now), then you are obligated to labor to pay it off. You could call it debt slavery. That's another form of life, in my opinion.

 

Tough decisions have to be made. Government panels far away are not the right people to make those decisions. Those decisions (including how to pay for it) should be made by the people involved.

[Terabith]

I agree that comfort care should always be given. However, I think that being able to die in the arms of a loved one is the utmost in comfort care as was the case with this baby who was able to be held by his mother for the last hours of his life. As for the news source of this story, I am not sure if it is reliable and that we have all of the facts. I find it hard to believe that no one tried to provide emotional support for the mother in this case.I also believe that the doctor's believed that medical interventions were futile in this case.

 

Yeah. If it were my baby, I think I would want her to die in my arms. But that should have been explained to the poor mom, and she should have been encouraged to do kangaroo care, etc. Not sure how reliable the article is, but as much as comfort care should be given to the baby, at least as much should have been given to the mom. It's actually the care of the mom that I find particularly appalling (as reported), even more so than the lack of care for the poor wee one.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

This comment makes no sense to me. The US healthcare system is based on for-profit companies who are beholden to shareholders, who will only invest if they make money by doing so. How is universal healthcare all about saving money while for-profit healthcare is not??

 

Tara

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

Frankly I am more concerned about private health care insurance companies being between me and my doctor than the government. I believe that private health insurance companies are strictly motivated by the bottom line and fat paychecks, including the so-called non-profit ones.

[astrid]

This comment makes no sense to me. The US healthcare system is based on for-profit companies who are beholden to shareholders, who will only invest if they make money by doing so. How is universal healthcare all about saving money while for-profit healthcare is not??

 

Tara

 

 

EXACT-O-MUNDO!!!

 

astrid

[Haiku]

My grandparents never had health coverage for any of their children. They chose food.

 

Is that our goal as a society, then? To go back to the time when few people saw doctors because they couldn't afford it?

 

I am not one of those people who runs to doctor at the slightest sniffle. My kids generally see the pediatrician for their yearly check-ups, and that's it. But two of my kids have chronic health conditions that require quarterly monitoring. We cannot get their needed medications without a prescription, so we dutifully go to the specialist's office every three months for our 15-minute appointments. My son's specialist charges $185 for that 15-minute appointment. Our insurance company pays $58. My daughter's specialist charges $248 for that 15-minute appointment. Our insurance company pays $72. Where is the justification for charging people without insurance 319% and 344%, respectively, more than they charge an insurance company?

 

There is price gauging on a massive scale going on. My husband works for a small company. We get the same insurance as my friend, whose husband works for a large company. They have the same number of people in their family that we have in ours. Their company gets the policy for about 75% less than my husband's company does.

 

This is not about people wanting handouts from the government. It's about people having equitable treatment in the healthcare marketplace and not being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

 

Tara

[astrid]

My grandparents never had health coverage for any of their children. They chose food. No one at that time had health coverage so why do they need it? My parents only had catastrophic coverage, my mom paid the doctor visit each time and covered our medicine..they paid 20% for my two surgeries as a minor. That's life.

Now that our society has become ridiculously wealthy..how many homes have a personal computer?? How many homes have 2+ automobiles, more than 3 televisions in their homes, central A/C, heat, indoor plumbing...as we progress and gain more people thing they should have more. The constitution states the role of government, making life easier for the citizens is not in there...but the freedom for you to work hard for what you want and feel is necessary is there...if you want better, than work for harder competition to lower the costs, tort reform...those are things your government can do to faciliate a more cost beneficial option...but to say you want it just because you're a citizen (not saying you, just those in favor of universal healthcare)...is not the answer.

I liken this to the housing crisis...so many wanted a bigger home, the banks tried to use responsible lending, but then the government stepped in and said you need to let these people get the house they 'want' not the house they can 'qualify for'...so if you don't approve these loans the government will fine you....my mother is a mortgage lender, while her company tried their best to be responsible, many others took advantage of the free lending and got us in the the bailout...

 

There needs to be a LARGE discussion on this on the national level, not just folks sitting back talking about what they want, action on the part of each side proposing bills that will have impact...not much action is getting done at town halls, just opposing views expressing discontent...it's frustrating that as industrious as we are that we don't have representatives that can overcome politics and do something.

 

Isn't there a soapbox smilie?? Sorry, Astrid, nothing personal to you at all, just a huge frustration at all of us making our points and not getting anything done. Me included!!

 

Tara

 

Okay, so we shall sort out those who are worthy of health coverage by whether or not they have computers, multiple vehicles, large homes? Those who are worthy, and those, who in the opinion of some, "squander" their money on things like vehicles and luxuries? Home inspection, followed by, "Well, if you live more frugally, you CAN afford health care, you just choose not to, so too bad for you?" I'm quite sure you know nothing about me, my family, or our median income and accompanying lifestyle.

 

 

I agree that as a nation we've gone over the top in areas, but comparing the affordability of health hare in our grandparents' time to what we face is absurd. So much has changed--- tort, big pharma, the skyrocketing costs of medical school and malpractice insurance.

 

Yes, it sure would be nice if we could all go back to having kindly Doc Baker dispensing medical and veterinary advice out of his office behind the post office in Walnut Grove, but that horse is waaaay out of the barn.

 

astrid

[Haiku]

 

Yes, it sure would be nice if we could all go back to having kindly Doc Baker dispensing medical and veterinary advice out of his office behind the post office in Walnut Grove, but that horse is waaaay out of the barn.

 

 

Not to mention that Doc Baker wouldn't know what the hell to do with my kids. ;)

 

Tara

[astrid]

Yeah, and consider that "back in the day" people could keep running tabs at the doctor's office when they couldn't pay. My mother did. Our doctor never turned us away. Fast forward to now. The first thing a doctor wants to know is how one will pay for the visit. They want payment up front. My sister broke her knee cap and jaw and when she called to get an appointment (because she was turned away from the emergency room for not having insurance) she was told she needed to have $350 in cash up front.

 

Yes, but does she have a computer? If so, perhaps instead she should have just saved the money she used to buy the computer for a rainy day, or a broken kneecap and jaw! At the very least, she could just hawk it and take the cash with her to the dr!

 

Astrid (kidding! I'm kidding!)

[astrid]

You are right, but unfortunately that applies to any kind of health coverage, universal or private. I am wondering, if you have a private health plan, whether you are entirely familiar with the exclusions in your particular plan.

 

 

In our experience, it's nearly impossible to be entirely familiar with the plan. It changes quarterly, it seems, and even when I call the company, rarely does the person on the other end of the line have what I would call a firm grasp on the plan.

 

astrid

[Mommy22alyns]

This comment makes no sense to me. The US healthcare system is based on for-profit companies who are beholden to shareholders, who will only invest if they make money by doing so. How is universal healthcare all about saving money while for-profit healthcare is not??

 

Tara

 

 

THANK you! :iagree:

[Ibbygirl]

Is that our goal as a society, then? To go back to the time when few people saw doctors because they couldn't afford it?

 

I am not one of those people who runs to doctor at the slightest sniffle. My kids generally see the pediatrician for their yearly check-ups, and that's it. But two of my kids have chronic health conditions that require quarterly monitoring. We cannot get their needed medications without a prescription, so we dutifully go to the specialist's office every three months for our 15-minute appointments. My son's specialist charges $185 for that 15-minute appointment. Our insurance company pays $58. My daughter's specialist charges $248 for that 15-minute appointment. Our insurance company pays $72. Where is the justification for charging people without insurance 319% and 344%, respectively, more than they charge an insurance company?

 

There is price gauging on a massive scale going on. My husband works for a small company. We get the same insurance as my friend, whose husband works for a large company. They have the same number of people in their family that we have in ours. Their company gets the policy for about 75% less than my husband's company does.

 

This is not about people wanting handouts from the government. It's about people having equitable treatment in the healthcare marketplace and not being denied coverage because of pre-existing conditions.

 

Tara

 

:iagree: There are so many problems with the health care system. The doctors charge exorbitant amounts because of malpractice insurance (at least that is what I have been told). The malpractice insurance is so expensive because we live in a country where you can sue for millions and millions of dollars. A person sometimes is in a position to sue for millions and millions of dollars because that is the only way they can get a company to change unfair practices and everybodys rates go up. :(

 

There was a time when people didn't have medical insurance to be sure, but the doctor also accepted chickens or pigs as payments too. (this is to ma23peas) Your dear grandparents didn't have the same medical environment that we are living in today. My son is severely Autistic. All of the studies that have been funded (and yes I say that funded bitterly) show that early treatment can greatly improve the person's quality of life and even help them to overcome their Autism and lead a normal life. But guess what, therapy isn't covered under my husband's insurance and we cannot afford the weekly therapy that my son needs. What good are a bazillion studies that all say yes we need early intervention when there is no help offered to the families who are raising these kids?? (And I'm not asking this to you Tara or ma23peas to answer this question, but just rather lamenting in general. ;)) I cannot go out and get a full time job in order to be able to pay for my son's therapies. Whatever money I would make would have to go to a pay for the person who would take care of my son after he got out of school. My dd who is also on the Autism spectrum and has ADHD and OCD needs me to homeschool her because it is the only environment in which she can flourish. If I could afford the costs of the therapy I would gladly pay it out of pocket to get the help that my son needs but I cannot. It's too expensive. These are not our grandparent's times.

 

I do not know the answers. I don't know what the best solution is for our nation. I do know though that there are a lot of people who are not living in the medical mainstream who are stuck between a rock and a hard place and are really suffering. What should become of us?? Should we not have the same right to quality of life as the rest of the nation who doesn't have children or family members with special medical needs?? Should we just be allowed to rot away because we don't fit in the general medical practice plan?? The words "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are supposed to be for all of us. Aren't they?

[Ibbygirl]

The key is that you are only allowed to pursue happiness. If you have any expectations beyond that it is because you are anti-American and have a false sense of entitlement.

 

 

LOL Silly me! hehe

[thescrappyhomeschooler]

:iagree: There are so many problems with the health care system. The doctors charge exorbitant amounts because of malpractice insurance (at least that is what I have been told). The malpractice insurance is so expensive because we live in a country where you can sue for millions and millions of dollars. A person sometimes is in a position to sue for millions and millions of dollars because that is the only way they can get a company to change unfair practices and everybodys rates go up. :(

 

 

I have to disagree on this. My dh is a lawyer, and most reputable lawyers will not take a case unless they are positive there is actual malpractice, so the number of suits that actually make it to trial are very limited. I also have 2 doctors in my family, and even though we passed caps on pain and suffering damages in Ohio a few years back, their malpractice insurance premiums have continued to rise. Also, the percentage of health care costs that can be attributed to malpractice payouts and insurance is minimal compared to all the other costs of healthcare.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

I have to disagree on this. My dh is a lawyer, and most reputable lawyers will not take a case unless they are positive there is actual malpractice, so the number of suits that actually make it to trial are very limited. I also have 2 doctors in my family, and even though we passed caps on pain and suffering damages in Ohio a few years back, their malpractice insurance premiums have continued to rise. Also, the percentage of health care costs that can be attributed to malpractice payouts and insurance is minimal compared to all the other costs of healthcare.

 

:iagree:

This is why I agree with President Obama when he said that tort reform is not a silver bullet for health care costs. In PA, medical malpractice cases require medical certification that there is a case of malpractice or negligence which helps a lot in preventing law suit abuse. I am against frivolous law suits as well and for reasonable tort reform. However, I do not believe that law suits are contributing to a significant percentage of health care costs.

[GoVanGogh]

My son was born premature in 2001. He was ~ 34 weeks. It was touch and go on whether he would make it, then whether he would ever be able to breath on his own.

 

'My son could have been saved, but doctors simply chose not to,' says the 23-year-old from Farnmouth.

The quote above (from the original link) upsets me greatly.

 

If her doctors HAD attempted to save his life, there is never any way of knowing that he "could have been saved," as she is quoted as saying. The majority of premature babies born at that stage do NOT survive. Just because some have lived does not mean that ALL will.

 

Ask any NICU doctor or nurse and they will tell you openly that studies show white males have the lowest survival rate for preemies. White females have the highest rate of survival. Every other race/gender mix lies somewhere between the two extremes. It is wonderful that Heather's nieces survived. The link re: kangaroo care also focuses on a girl. But - honestly - premature boys (the focus of this article) have a very low survival rate. So for the mother to say that he "could have been saved" is truly speculation.

Survival also depends on the hospital. Some hospitals are equipped for premature births, others are not.

The reason for the premature birth also plays into the survival rate. The neonatologists we dealt with said that babies that undergo a great deal of stress prior to their premature birth have a higher survival rate, as something in their body kicks in and speeds up lung development. If the mother has several weeks or months of premature labor than that aids the baby. Sudden premature labor does not.

Premature twins generally do better (we were told - and have witnessed with friends) than premature singletons. Again, the added stress of the pregnancy is thought to speed up lung development.

 

As we were told, every single premature baby is different. Just because one makes it does not mean that another born the same size/same gestation will make it.

[astrid]

She does not have a computer.

 

Ah, I see. Hmm.....okay, how about jewelry? Or more than one pair of shoes?

 

astrid

[Donna T.]

This would be illegal in America. Someone with a medical need cannot be turned away from an emergency room. The way the system is set up, many people show up at the ER with psych problems, seeking narcotic drugs, or minor problems that they don't want to see a family doc about (because they'd have to pay). Even all those people cannot be refused. They may not get what they want, but they will at least be seen by someone.

 

That is true. I just heard a radio program about this very thing earlier today. It's what is breaking the hospitals financially. Not that I have a better solution. I don't want to see anyone being turned away but the consensus on the program was that this is the #1 issue that has to be solved as a part of true reform.

[Ibbygirl]

I have to disagree on this. My dh is a lawyer, and most reputable lawyers will not take a case unless they are positive there is actual malpractice, so the number of suits that actually make it to trial are very limited. I also have 2 doctors in my family, and even though we passed caps on pain and suffering damages in Ohio a few years back, their malpractice insurance premiums have continued to rise. Also, the percentage of health care costs that can be attributed to malpractice payouts and insurance is minimal compared to all the other costs of healthcare.

 

 

I never said I knew why the rates are so high. That is why I put in parenthesis that medical malpractice is what I have been told is the reason. I am not a doctor and nor do I have experience working in the medical field which is why I put the disclaimer if you will. You seem to be much more informed in this area then I so can you tell me why the medical costs are so high all around?? I mean don't hospitals even charge you like $10.00 or something similiar for 2 tylenol??

[justamouse]

Likewise, the US system is far from perfect. But I, and the vast majority of Americans, wouldn't prefer the present Aussie system.

 

Most Americans have health insurance...and most are satisfied with it, according to reliable polls by Rasmussen & others.

 

I have insurance, some of the best, and I hate it. HATE IT. HATE.

 

Post the poll, please.

 

As for me, I'll take the Aussie system, and I'm an American.

[Renee in NC]

The key is that you are only allowed to pursue happiness. If you have any expectations beyond that it is because you are anti-American and have a false sense of entitlement.

 

Well call me anti-American and entitled.:tongue_smilie:

 

Wouldn't basic healthcare fall under *life* anyway?

 

My true fears lie in something else - my father and stepmother both have serious health problems. My stepmother has multiple sclerosis and my father has blood clots in his legs. He has a good job with benefits, but no job is safe - what if he were laid off or fired? He got a job when his health premiums went up to $2500 a month and that was *before* my stepmother was diagnosed with MS.

 

I guess I don't really expect an answer, but I can't imagine letting people simply suffer and/or die because they don't have health insurance.

 

ETA: I thought you were being serious, but now I realize you were being sarcastic. Sorry!

Edited September 12, 2009 by Renee in FL