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

[mommyrooch]

Yes, I see the problem with that. What I fail to understand is your emphasis that you will pay the insurance company extra money for the coverage. It makes no sense that you would see that as acceptable, given that you are finding paying for it yourself unacceptable.

 

I don't see it as acceptable to have to pay more than I'm already paying for services that should already be covered. In fact, it's insulting that I would have to. I was making a point that I was willing to pay for it. A lot of people keep arguing that people should pay their own way without expecting help from others. I was emphasizing that I am paying my own way and would even be willing to pay more if only I could get my daughters therapy covered. It was about the lack of coverage in general. Not the monetary amount. I was making a point that in this case no matter what I pay I cannot get the help my daughter needs covered. In other words, under our current system even if someone is willing to pay their own way they still sometimes cannot get coverage. Does that make sense? It is hard to explain on a message board. :tongue_smilie:

 

I admit that I was being a bit facetious. ;) I was emphasizing my willingness to pay my own way yet still not be able to obtain coverage for my daughter.

 

I hope this clears up the confusion. :001_smile:

[mommyrooch]

Today my husband and I decided to split the family into two insurance groups: he and my child with chronic health problems would stay on his employer-sponsored insurance, and I and the other two kids would buy our own private insurance.

 

I called the insurance broker to talk to him about affordable plans.

 

They won't cover us because my son has asthma.

 

Ok, jettison the son back to the employer-sponsored health insurance. Now it's just me and one child. Ok, let's get going. We go through this whole rigamorole to get us set up and ... guess what? (I bet you'll NEVER guess!)

 

They won't cover us because, nine years ago, I saw a doctor a few times about some migraines.

 

I haven't seen a doctor or taken medication for this in NINE YEARS.

 

I am dead serious. I am not joking. This really happened. We are truly stuck.

 

Tara

 

Tara, I am so sorry. :crying: This just shoots the crud out of peoples arguments that anyone can get a personal plan huh?

 

I am devastated at how adversely our current system is affecting our people. It just isn't right.

 

:grouphug:

[Impish]

I'll have to take your word for it because I'm no expert on the military's health care, but I find it hard to believe that the reason this procedure wasn't provided was because it was considered an abortion.

I had surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, and its considered an abortion.

[NoPlaceLikeHome]

 

If it has been more than 5 years, you are under no obligation to tell them about it. I am sorry this happened to you. :( Usually, under any insurance plan the children make very little difference in the premiums. It was the case when we shopped around.

 

Actually I am not sure if that is true since insurance companies have cancelled policies for the most ridiculous reasons such as undisclosed acne, gallbladder problems that the person was unaware, etc. that were unrelated to the problem they needed payment of service for. In fact, there has been many cases of documented unjust cancellations of policies that have no fraud on the part of the individual.

[Janet in WA]

 

I had surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, and its considered an abortion.

Is that the term your insurance company used? Did they deny coverage because of it? I'm only curious about the answers to these questions, but they wouldn't change my doubts about the story Mrs. Mungo relates, which does not involve a live fetus. Edited September 16, 2009 by Janet in WA

[Impish]

Is that the term your insurance company used? Did they deny coverage because of it? I'm only curious about the answers to these questions, but they wouldn't change my doubts about the story Mrs. Mungo relates, which does not involve a live fetus.

I'm Canadian. I cannot answer your questions as I don't have to deal with the whims of an insurance company.

 

The term 'abortion' is used in my medical file, including admission procedures when I was going in to give birth to my last two children.

[Mabelen]

I'm Canadian. I cannot answer your questions as I don't have to deal with the whims of an insurance company.

 

The term 'abortion' is used in my medical file, including admission procedures when I was going in to give birth to my last two children.

 

On the same vein, as far as I know, medically speaking, miscarriages are also abortions albeit spontaneous. In my medical file it reads I have had two abortions because I had two miscarriages.

[Peek a Boo]

I think an emphatic statement that you will never cover abortions is a horrible policy.

 

I had a friend whose dh has testicular cancer when they were first married. They stored some of his sperm. Later, when he was in remission and they were ready to conceive they discovered that she also had health conditions that would make it difficult for her to conceive. So, they did in vitro. They really only had one shot at it. The doctors implanted embryos, 3 developed. A few months into her pregnancy one of the babies died. They needed to remove the dead baby in order to insure the survival of the other two. Because federal dollars cannot pay for an abortion they had to pay for that procedure out of pocket.

 

"horrible policy"??

They already paid for procedures out of pocket: this is a natural consequence of those actions.

 

From the military health insurance handbook:

 

"Abortions are covered only when the life of the mother would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. The attending physician must certify in writing that the abortion was performed because a lifethreatening condition existed. Medical documentation must be provided."

 

And:

 

"Excluded from coverage: Artificial insemination, including invitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and

all other such reproductive technologies"

Edited September 17, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Mrs Mungo]

"horrible policy"??

They already paid for procedures out of pocket: this is a natural consequence of those actions.

 

The natural consequence of their actions is that they have two beautiful sons, whom they adore. And you are dead wrong that they paid for this completely out of pocket.

 

http://cinchouse.com/Blogs/JaceyEckhart/tabid/71/ID/494/categoryId/29/Tricares_Fertility_Coverage.aspx

 

. . .there are four military medical centers that offer In-Vitro Fertilization programs; Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas; Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC; Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego, Calif. and Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. Though these programs exist mostly for medical training, they are available for use by military members and their families.

 

ETA: There are actually a *lot* of procedures that fall under this category, from tummy tucks to lasik.

 

 

 

From the military health insurance handbook:

 

"Abortions are covered only when the life of the mother would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term. The attending physician must certify in writing that the abortion was performed because a lifethreatening condition existed. Medical documentation must be provided."

Right, the life of the mother was not in danger. Therefore, they would not perform the procedure, just as I stated. The life of the other two babies was irrelevant as far as the policy is concerned. Does a policy refusing to remove a dead fetus so that the other two babies can develop and thrive a good or bad policy? I say it's a bad policy.

 

 

"Excluded from coverage: Artificial insemination, including invitro fertilization, gamete intrafallopian transfer, and

all other such reproductive technologies"

How is this relevant? Even if they *had* paid out of pocket, her pregnancy would have been covered by Tricare once she was pregnant. Edited September 17, 2009 by Mrs Mungo
fixing link

[Elizabeth Conley]

With each of my pregnancies I've known when my children were conceived. In spite of my certain knowledge, doctors assumed goofy smirks every time I explained this to them, and assigned arbitrary "due dates" for the kids.

 

Each time the children were born exactly when I expected them, but weeks or even months off from the "due dates" the doctors had "calculated". Further, each child was born at a healthy weight, though usually pounds and inches off from the statistics predicted by the doctors.

 

Given how absurdly inaccurate the "official due dates" were, I am glad nothing went wrong with my pregnancies, so no one was denied treatment based on my doctors' delusions. If I hadn't had rock solid faith in real science, rather than doctors' supposed omniscience, I would have been scared out of my wits when I went into labor "prematurely", according to my doctors' calculations. As it was, it was somewhat distracting to deal with their panic-stricken pronouncements that I "shouldn't" be giving birth "so early".

 

Self-confidence is a good thing in a medical practitioner, up to a point. Arrogance on the other hand, can kill. I dread a socialized system where the arbitrary pronouncements of doctors and bean-counters is given more weight than the legitimate well being of patients. There's got to be a better way to repair American health care than universal socialized medicine.

[mommyrooch]

Self-confidence is a good thing in a medical practitioner, up to a point. Arrogance on the other hand, can kill. I dread a socialized system where the arbitrary pronouncements of doctors and bean-counters is given more weight than the legitimate well being of patients. There's got to be a better way to repair American health care than universal socialized medicine.

 

Oh my, my, my , my ,my.

 

When will people realize that universal socialized medicine will not be the cause of a physicians arrogance.

 

Elizabeth, we do not have socialized medicine now and you said yourself that you already ran into this very thing with you own doctors. Whether or not the coverage is offered through public or private options will not change the arrogance of certain doctors. Some doctros just have God complexes irregardless.

 

I lost my first son in 1997 due to medical negligence. The doctor and the "private" bean counters were the cause.

 

I had a pefect pregnancy with my son. I didn't even have morning sickness. When it came time to deliver him I wasn't going into labor. At 1 week overdue my doctor tried to induce. I was in the hospital for three days on artificial pitossin and I didn't even dialate to a 1. At this point we started asking our doctor about just taking the baby by c-section. She told us that the insurance companies were trying to get them to cut back on the number of C-sections so she was going to send me home and see if I could go into labor naturally.

 

She sent me home for another 2 weeks! I was now 3 weeks overdue. She finally brought me back in and I was put on the pitossin yet again. The only difference was that this time she manually broke my water. It never broke on it's own. When she broke my water they saw a massive amount of mechonium. My son had already started to have bowel movements because he had been in there so long.

 

The first thing we said was "why don't we just take the baby". Yet again I was told that everything was fine, we would try to have him naturally.

 

Many hours went by. Approx. 17 hours after she broke my water I started running a 103% fever. The baby was also in stress. His heartrate started running in the 200 range. We asked why the fever and were told that I probably had group-B strep. I didn't know what that was. My doctor assured me however that it was pretty common and a lot of moms have it. She never once told me that it could affect my baby!

 

Hours and more house went by. My son's heartrate started jumping around all over the place. It would go up to 230 down to 90 then back up to 190 all within a 20 second window. The nurse was looking scared an I knew something was wrong. I was begging them to just take the baby. Long story short, approx. 29 hours after she originally broke my water my son finally crashed. I will never forget the words my doctor said to me. She looked me in the face and said "well Mrs. ****. It looks like we're going to have to take him the new way after all."

 

Lines were ripped out of me and I was rushed into surgery. I had to have an emergency C-section. They were cutting me open before I was even under. I felt all of that. They finally did the c-section that my family had been asking for for 2+ weeks.

 

They worked on my son for 58 minutes in NICU but were not able to save him. I will always be so greatful to the NICU team. They tried so hard to save him but by the time they got him it was too late. We had an autopsy performed and found out that the immediate cause of death was that he choked to death. He had been in there so long with my water broke that he was ingesting the mechonium. While my water was in there it was diluting the mechonium but when it got broken he started sucking it down his throat. His airways were packet with it. When they finally go it all suctioned out his airways were green tinged from the mechonium. They also found out that he had contracted the group-B strep. It was even in his heart tissue.

 

My son did not die peacefully. He suffered a lot. The autopsy reported that the official cause of death was mechonium aspiration aggravated by stress caused by the group-B stress. He got very sick from the group-B strep. The sicker he got, the heavier he breathed, the heavier he breathed the more mechonium he aspirated. The more mechonium he aspirated the more he became stressed. The more he became stressed the heavier he breathed. The heavier he breathed the more mechonium he aspirated. And the vicious cycle went on and on until his little body finally gave up and he crashed.

 

I'm sure that the way my son died was a horrible way to die for him. I live with that nightmare everyday.

 

I did get to hold my son. He was so beautiful. He had my nose and his daddy's blond hair. He weighed 8 lbs. 12 oz. when he was born. He was perfect but he was dead! Can you guys even begin to imagine what my family went through? Had she just taken him after that first induction failed he would be alive and here with me today. Had "bean counters" not been trying to get doctors to cut down on the number of c-sections they performed he would have been with me today. :crying: Crying now, please forgive me.

 

We left our home with a completed nursery, a car seat in the car and the belief that we would be coming back with our baby. We left the hospital without our son to put in that seat, no baby to fill the nursery and funeral plans to be made.

 

My son was born and died on Sept. 16 1997. Yesterday was his birthday. He would have been 12 years old. We went to the cemetary yesterday to see him. We have never missed a year. Both of my kids know they had a brother. My 11 year old son and my 8 year old daughter talk of him like he has always been here with us. When they are asked how many brothers and sisters they have they always include their brother in that count. He is gone but will never be forgotten.

 

All we were able to have of my son were some pictures which are tough to look at because he was dead. I also got a lock of his hair and I got his handprints and his footprints.

 

Anyway, I didn't mean to go on. I am just so upset when people actually believe that a universal healthcare system will somehow be the down fall of our healthcare in this country. It is already in the basement people!

 

I lost my son because of the arrogance of a doctor. She had been practicing for 10 years. She was board certified and had never lost a baby. She truly believed that no matter what happened she would be able to control it. Despite ALL of the warning signs she still would not take my baby. You know why? Because the bean counters (i.e. the insurance companies) were trying to get them to cut back on the number of c-sections they performend!

 

I was 20 years old and this was my first pregnancy. I didn't know about everthing that could go wrong. I skimmed over them in my pregnancy books but I never really learned it because I didn't think those things would apply to me. I didn't know what group-B strep was. I didn't know that 25% of all women are carriers of it. I didn't know that if a baby gets it that it can be fatal to the baby. I "trusted" my doctor. Isn't that why we have them? I didn't know that I would have to be schooled in my own babies birth.

 

I'm a quick study though. I now will NEVER blindly put the lifes of my loved ones in the hands of a doctor again. I realize that I need them but they can and will screw up. I also will never believe that my insurance provider gives a rats patootie about what is best for my family. They are often just looking and the financial side of healthcare and most times do not base their decisions on what is best for the patients.

 

Okay, I'm going off to have a good cry now. :crying: Thank you for letting me share my story.

[LisaKinVA]

Is that the term your insurance company used? Did they deny coverage because of it? I'm only curious about the answers to these questions, but they wouldn't change my doubts about the story Mrs. Mungo relates, which does not involve a live fetus.

 

Janet, My 2nd pregnancy... my son died in utero after 20 weeks -- they estimated he had already 2 weeks, and wanted me to have a D&C. The local hospital wouldn't perform the procedure, because it was considered an abortion, and they didn't "do" abortions there.

[Janet in WA]

Janet, My 2nd pregnancy... my son died in utero after 20 weeks -- they estimated he had already 2 weeks, and wanted me to have a D&C. The local hospital wouldn't perform the procedure, because it was considered an abortion, and they didn't "do" abortions there.

That's interesting and unfortunate. I've been doing some research and I can't find anywhere that this process is termed "abortion". The term I find is stillbirth. Regardless of the method of delivering the deceased fetus.

[Impish]

That's interesting and unfortunate. I've been doing some research and I can't find anywhere that this process is termed "abortion". The term I find is stillbirth. Regardless of the method of delivering the deceased fetus.

"Stillbirth" depends on the age of the fetus.

 

Mommyrooch, I am so incredibly sorry for the loss of your son :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug: I know I mourn the loss of the first child with my husband, but its nowhere near what you experienced. I'm so sorry :grouphug::grouphug:

[Phred]

So many posts in this thread are just tragic. And so many are...

 

I can't help but wonder... why are so many people who claim to be moral out to deny people healthcare?

 

On the one hand I hear people say that profit is good. That things should cost a certain amount and we should expect to pay for them. Then I hear the same people saying that this woman mentioned in the article that started this thread should have gotten care from this hospital for her son. Yet, the cost of this care would have been far beyond what she or, I'm guessing, any of us could afford.

 

Unless we're honestly willing to let people die we already have socialized medicine. We already pay for people who come to the ER and want to be seen when they don't have insurance. And it costs us much more in the end because they only go there when they are really sick.

 

So what's it going to be? Are we going to accept that we already have socialized medicine and we should do it right? Or are we going to continue to deny care to those who need it most, the sick and the needy? Some don't want the government in charge of healthcare but then they turn around and they want someone to pay for this poor child's care when he's born prematurely.

 

Who else but government is going to do that?

[mommyrooch]

 

Mommyrooch, I am so incredibly sorry for the loss of your son :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug: I know I mourn the loss of the first child with my husband, but its nowhere near what you experienced. I'm so sorry :grouphug::grouphug:

 

 

 

Thanks Impish. I just hope that it helps others to see what our current system is already doing to it's people. I refuse to believe that a universal healthcare system here in America will be worse than it already is.

 

I am also so very sorry to hear that you too lost a child. While I did loose my son tragically it is a very painful experience no matter how it happens. The loss of a child is tragic. I'm sorry you had to experience that too.

 

:grouphug::grouphug::grouphug:

[mommyrooch]

So many posts in this thread are just tragic. And so many are...

 

I can't help but wonder... why are so many people who claim to be moral out to deny people healthcare?

 

On the one hand I hear people say that profit is good. That things should cost a certain amount and we should expect to pay for them. Then I hear the same people saying that this woman mentioned in the article that started this thread should have gotten care from this hospital for her son. Yet, the cost of this care would have been far beyond what she or, I'm guessing, any of us could afford.

 

Unless we're honestly willing to let people die we already have socialized medicine. We already pay for people who come to the ER and want to be seen when they don't have insurance. And it costs us much more in the end because they only go there when they are really sick.

 

So what's it going to be? Are we going to accept that we already have socialized medicine and we should do it right? Or are we going to continue to deny care to those who need it most, the sick and the needy? Some don't want the government in charge of healthcare but then they turn around and they want someone to pay for this poor child's care when he's born prematurely.

 

Who else but government is going to do that?

 

:iagree: and AMEN! We are already footing the bill for the uninsured every single time they come into an ER. Do people not realize that? You are right in stating that this is already a form of socialized medicne. Why not pay a small percentage of that cost in order to provide proper care to our citizens up front so that they don't end up so sick that they have to go to the ER which is MUCH more costly than standard preventative care.

 

I don't get it. :confused: It seems so logical to me. Not only does it make financial sense but the moral side of it is undisputable. At least in my book it is.

 

Every person should be able to get healthcare no matter what the circumstance. If I have to help foot the bill to pay for that then sign me up! ;)

[Spy Car]

So many posts in this thread are just tragic. And so many are...

 

I can't help but wonder... why are so many people who claim to be moral out to deny people healthcare?

 

Good question Phred. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to understand this situation myself.

 

On the one hand I hear people say that profit is good. That things should cost a certain amount and we should expect to pay for them. Then I hear the same people saying that this woman mentioned in the article that started this thread should have gotten care from this hospital for her son. Yet, the cost of this care would have been far beyond what she or, I'm guessing, any of us could afford.

 

Quite right. Almost no one could afford the cost of a 21 week old premie, and the logic of those who oppose health insurance offers no alternative to letting people die. Is this a moral position? I think not.

 

Unless we're honestly willing to let people die we already have socialized medicine. We already pay for people who come to the ER and want to be seen when they don't have insurance. And it costs us much more in the end because they only go there when they are really sick.

 

Unfortunately if you read back threads there are some on this forum who would let fellow human beings perish if they couldn't afford the medical costs. The same people attack (fabricated) "death panels". What hypocrisy!

 

So what's it going to be? Are we going to accept that we already have socialized medicine and we should do it right? Or are we going to continue to deny care to those who need it most, the sick and the needy? Some don't want the government in charge of healthcare but then they turn around and they want someone to pay for this poor child's care when he's born prematurely.

 

Who else but government is going to do that?

 

We clearly need a mechanism to spread the costs and financial risks from medical catastrophes. The current system is deeply broken. I believe we have a moral duty to find a solution.

 

Bill

[Janet in WA]

"Stillbirth" depends on the age of the fetus.

 

Mommyrooch, I am so incredibly sorry for the loss of your son :grouphug::grouphug::grouphug: I know I mourn the loss of the first child with my husband, but its nowhere near what you experienced. I'm so sorry :grouphug::grouphug:

 

Yes it does. And in the US, the death of a fetus at 20 weeks is legally defined as a stillbirth.

[Impish]

Yes it does. And in the US, the death of a fetus at 20 weeks is legally defined as a stillbirth.

Indeed. But, with the exception of Mommyrooch, all of the babies were less than 20 weeks gestation, therefore the term 'abortion'.

 

I mean no offence, Janet, but you're arguing something that you're not really understanding, or perhaps have misread. Removal of a dead baby before 20 wks so the other babies could grow, thrive, survive, isn't a stillbirth, its considered abortion.

 

Surgery for an ectopic pregnancy, where the baby was in the fallopian tube, growing, alive, with a heartbeat, is also considered abortion, despite the fact there was no chance of the baby's survival, and only my life in question.

 

You really need to understand the vast difference in before and after 20 weeks. At least as it stands to the medical community/insurance.

 

I don't know of a parent that makes a difference in the loss of their baby in before or after 20 weeks though. Their child is dead, before drawing his/her first breath.

[ma23peas]

 

1. Almost no one could afford the cost of a 21 week old premie, and the logic of those who oppose health insurance offers no alternative to letting people die. Is this a moral position? I think not.

 

We will never come up with answers unless we stop offering conjecture.

A friend of mine is a NICU nurse..she has been for 20 years...her greatest pain is seeing the Crack addicted mother's baby live and going through extremely high costs to save the preemie knowing it will most likely be raised in a home of drugs. That mother had no insurance, who is dying? Where are the moral positions when there are rampant abuses of the system...folks calling 911 b/c they need a ride, a refill on their blood pressure medication, illegal immigrants in our ER for a common cold...I've seen it, know it exists. I say fix what is WRONG with all the money that is seeping out of the holes and use that money to strengthen the system...the option of universal healthcare will not address these problems however removing mandates and offering competition within the market will free up the hands of private industry...it is the only thing that has worked...Medicaid and Social Security are doomed...I trust our citizens more than I trust another bureau or administrative office telling 3 other administrative offices what they can/can't do.

 

 

 

2. Unfortunately if you read back threads there are some on this forum who would let fellow human beings perish if they couldn't afford the medical costs. The same people attack (fabricated) "death panels". What hypocrisy!

 

A point I see being missed whether you buy into death panels or not is WHO do you want determining your options, do YOU want the option or do you want an office in another state making that call for you. I see hypocrisy in the senate/congress opting out of a national healthcare program for themselves...huh?

 

 

 

3. We clearly need a mechanism to spread the costs and financial risks from medical catastrophes. The current system is deeply broken. I believe we have a moral duty to find a solution.

 

I argue the current system has its hands tied because of overreaching mandates passed by the government over the past 30 years...open up interstate competition, go after tort reform..here are some facts, "the average mean medical malpractice verdict increased from $220,000 in 1975 to $1,100,000 in 1985 a 363% increase. Average product liability jury verdicts during this same period increased from $393,000 to $1,850,000"..guys this was 1985...I have seen websites from trial attornies BRAGGING that their firm easily gets settlements in the 1,000,000 range...one example they cited was a 4 year old who went into the ER and had pneumonia, it was misdiagnosed and the child died from complications to pneumonia, they won a $2.1 million settlement. I am SORRY! She was treated, people do make mistakes and I have friends whose mother just died two weeks ago from a flu like illness...will they sue her doctor for 2.1 million?? She died the day after seeing her doctor..I am sorry, but this is WRONG...so where is all the outrage?? The trial attorneys are doing everything in their power to keep their pockets from being affected, meanwhile healthcare is breaking under the burden...you tell me who is amoral??

 

Bill

 

Unfortunately we have to do more than our legislators AND hold down a full time job to support our families to suggest these changes...don't we pay them to do this??

Tara

[LizzyBee]

So many posts in this thread are just tragic. And so many are...

 

I can't help but wonder... why are so many people who claim to be moral out to deny people healthcare?

 

.....

 

So what's it going to be? Are we going to accept that we already have socialized medicine and we should do it right? Or are we going to continue to deny care to those who need it most, the sick and the needy? Some don't want the government in charge of healthcare but then they turn around and they want someone to pay for this poor child's care when he's born prematurely.

 

Who else but government is going to do that?

 

You are right that some people have experienced tragedies under our current health care system. But I think that govt intervention will only increase, not decrease, those tragedies. The US govt has proven its ineptness to manage so many things - why do we want to give it one more thing to screw up?

 

I don't want to deny anyone healthcare. There are other solutions; it doesn't have to be either/or.

 

You think the govt will "do it right." I don't.

 

The govt already pays for poor children's care. There is already a system in place for that. Just last week, a friend's granddaughter-in-law was taken to Duke to deliver her premature baby. The baby died; the parents have no insurance; medicaid is paying the bill; but this woman was taken to one of the best hospitals in the world and treated very well by the staff (as it should be).

 

We have other friends who could not bring themselves to end life-support for their baby who was oxygen-deprived for 19 minutes at birth. He is 7 years old now and profoundly brain-damaged; but they are able to keep him at home because medicaid pays for his medical care, including home nursing care. But I have to tell you, this boy's mom has to fight for every thing they have. They've had to go to court numerous times; they were penalized for missing a court date when J. was in the hospital fighting for his life; medicaid social workers have used deception to try to trick them into ending their benefits. It's scary to watch, knowing that at some point in the future, the govt could control health care for all of us.

 

Some of the cases we've heard about have been distorted. The President spoke about a guy who was dropped from his insurance due to a gallstone that he was unaware of, denied treatment, and died as a result of not receiving the treatment he needed. The real story? The gentleman's insurance company dropped him; his sister and the IL attorney general went to work getting insurance reinstated; his insurance company reinstated his policy after a 3-wk lapse; the man received the treatment his doctors wanted him to have (a stem-cell transplant); the gentleman lost his battle and died 3 years later, but not because of lack of treatment. This is a case where the existing system worked!

Edited September 18, 2009 by LizzyBee

[Phred]

A point I see being missed whether you buy into death panels or not is WHO do you want determining your options, do YOU want the option or do you want an office in another state making that call for you. I see hypocrisy in the senate/congress opting out of a national healthcare program for themselves...huh?

 

I see no hypocrisy as they are already in a government-run healthcare plan. I want to be in that plan myself. You're not making any decisions for yourself, you just get to decide if you'll pay for it yourself when the insurance company won't.

[Phred]

You are right that some people have experienced tragedies under our current health care system. But I think that govt intervention will only increase, not decrease, those tragedies. The US govt has proven its ineptness to manage so many things - why do we want to give it one more thing to screw up?

 

I don't want to deny anyone healthcare. There are other solutions; it doesn't have to be either/or.

 

You think the govt will "do it right." I don't.

 

The govt already pays for poor children's care. There is already a system in place for that. Just last week, a friend's granddaughter-in-law was taken to Duke to deliver her premature baby. The baby died; the parents have no insurance; medicaid is paying the bill; but this woman was taken to one of the best hospitals in the world and treated very well by the staff (as it should be).

 

We have other friends who could not bring themselves to end life-support for their baby who was oxygen-deprived for 19 minutes at birth. He is 7 years old now and profoundly brain-damaged; but they are able to keep him at home because medicaid pays for his medical care, including home nursing care. But I have to tell you, this boy's mom has to fight for every thing they have. They've had to go to court numerous times; they were penalized for missing a court date when J. was in the hospital fighting for his life; medicaid social workers have used deception to try to trick them into ending their benefits. It's scary to watch, knowing that at some point in the future, the govt could control health care for all of us.

 

Some of the cases we've heard about have been distorted. The President spoke about a guy who was dropped from his insurance due to a gallstone that he was unaware of, denied treatment, and died as a result of not receiving the treatment he needed. The rest of the story? The gentleman's insurance company dropped him; his sister and the IL attorney general went to work getting insurance reinstated; his insurance company reinstated his policy after a 3-wk lapse; the man received the treatment his doctors wanted him to have (a stem-cell transplant); the gentleman lost his battle and died 3 years later, but not because of lack of treatment. This is a case where the existing system worked!

 

If the current bills go the way they are going, with Republican opposition to every little thing then yes, it's going to be screwed up. We need to work together to get this right. First there needs to be a serious understanding of the difference between insurance and care. The government should set up an insurance plan and stay out of care.

 

You see, you're absolutely right. The main difference is you think government will "screw it up" and I hope and pray they won't. But here's what I know. You say this is a case where the system worked. I say I don't care if it worked because we can't afford the current system any longer. It's going to bankrupt us. General Motors spends more on health care than they do on steel. How can they compete with Toyota who doesn't spend a cent on health care in Japan? Every American car comes with a premium added to it... the cost of paying for the health care of all the workers who made it. The Japanese cars have that paid for by the government of Japan. We've hamstrung American companies.

 

We simply cannot afford this system any longer. American companies need to have this burden taken off of them. And we need to remove the extra percentage off of our heathcare costs that goes to administration of an organization dedicated to denying our claims. Like I've said before, using a government organization that works, Medicare puts 3% toward administrative costs, insurance companies put 28%. That's a 25% savings we can realize immediately.

 

We have no choice, we have to try. It works in Japan, in Australia, in France... why not here?

[stripe]

Apparently the only people's whose healthcare needs matter are unborn children and the elderly!

 

Middle aged single people, for example, have no value of any kind, and we shouldn't care at all about them. Children who are born with health problems or have already conquered various diseases should be branded for LIFE as sickies and therefore become uninsurable -- they should never receive assistance in treating for their conditions.

 

I am so tired of this hysterical objection to having healthy Americans, that I think we should just forget it. Let healthcare insurance premiums (not actual costs, but insurance premiums only) cost 50% of your budget, and let Americans continue to become sicker and sicker, and less able to work. I no longer think healthcare is a moral issue. I think it is a simple matter of whether we want our country to be productive at all. Look towards why the South African government got involved in HIV treatment and prevention -- all the workers were becoming ill, and the entire economy had the center fall out of it. What would happen if everyone was chronically ill? What would this country look like?

[Mrs Mungo]

A point I see being missed whether you buy into death panels or not is WHO do you want determining your options, do YOU want the option or do you want an office in another state making that call for you. I see hypocrisy in the senate/congress opting out of a national healthcare program for themselves...huh?

 

I see no hypocrisy as they are already in a government-run healthcare plan. I want to be in that plan myself. You're not making any decisions for yourself, you just get to decide if you'll pay for it yourself when the insurance company won't.

 

Exactly. There are certain medications that Congress requires a higher co-pay on. If we can get a medication from the military pharmacy it's free. If not, usually, it's $5. However, Congress has mandated a $27 co-pay on certain medications. There have been times we opted for the higher cost because the doctor thought it would work better and we didn't want to try something else out first. That was our choice.

 

Our dental insurance is also a good example. I paid extra for my kids to get nitrous at their dentist when they had dental work because the insurance doesn't cover it. I've paid extra for middle dd to have a white filling instead of a gray filling.

[Spy Car]

We will never come up with answers unless we stop offering conjecture.

 

What conjecture?

 

There are 3 basic ways to treat access and payment for medical services:

 

1) Only treat people with insurance or a proven ability to pay regardless of the threat a situation presents to a persons survival.

 

2) Treat a person regardless of their ability to pay and make the hospital (or others) eat the cost.

 

3) Have a mechanism where all have access to medical insurance and/or universal healthcare.

 

Currently we are stuck with option #2. It's a pretty irrational way to deliver healthcare, and I doubt anyone debates that.

 

I have seen posters on this forum argue for option 1. No insurance, no ability to pay, no treatment. You die? Too bad.

 

That is not conjecture.

 

A friend of mine is a NICU nurse..she has been for 20 years...her greatest pain is seeing the Crack addicted mother's baby live and going through extremely high costs to save the preemie knowing it will most likely be raised in a home of drugs. That mother had no insurance, who is dying?

 

I may be missing the point. Is this an argument in favor of letting the premies perish because their drug addict mother lacks health insurance?

 

A point I see being missed whether you buy into death panels or not is WHO do you want determining your options, do YOU want the option or do you want an office in another state making that call for you. I see hypocrisy in the senate/congress opting out of a national healthcare program for themselves...huh?

 

Individuals seldom have the options now to determine their medical fates. Insurance company bureaucrats decide what will (and will not) be paid for.

 

At some point any system of heath care is going to involve some "rationing". But I had little faith that a for profit insurance company worker will make better judgements that a board of doctors. I know I'd prefer having trained physicians making decisions about my medical needs rather than an insurance company employee whose mission is to cut costs.

 

Bill

[Peek a Boo]

:iagree: and AMEN! We are already footing the bill for the uninsured every single time they come into an ER. Do people not realize that? You are right in stating that this is already a form of socialized medicne. Why not pay a small percentage of that cost in order to provide proper care to our citizens up front so that they don't end up so sick that they have to go to the ER which is MUCH more costly than standard preventative care.

 

I don't get it. :confused: It seems so logical to me. Not only does it make financial sense but the moral side of it is undisputable. At least in my book it is.

 

Every person should be able to get healthcare no matter what the circumstance. If I have to help foot the bill to pay for that then sign me up! ;)

 

If this is sooo important, then why aren't they simply allowing people to join this public program voluntarily???? THAT seems logical, easy to implement, and will address the immediate problem instead of wasting time shoving it down other people's throats??:confused:

 

why are they deliberately stifling the private options?

[Peek a Boo]

The natural consequence of their actions is that they have two beautiful sons, whom they adore. And you are dead wrong that they paid for this completely out of pocket.

 

http://cinchouse.com/Blogs/JaceyEckhart/tabid/71/ID/494/categoryId/29/Tricares_Fertility_Coverage.aspx

 

. . .there are four military medical centers that offer In-Vitro Fertilization programs; Wilford Hall Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas; Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC; Balboa Naval Hospital in San Diego, Calif. and Tripler Army Medical Center in Honolulu, Hawaii. Though these programs exist mostly for medical training, they are available for use by military members and their families.

 

ETA: There are actually a *lot* of procedures that fall under this category, from tummy tucks to lasik.

 

 

the "natural consequence" is that they should have known that a fetus in-utero dying was a possibility, and that unless it was a life-threatening situation for the mother, an abortion would NOT be paid for.

So, how much of this WAS out of pocket general percentage-wise....

 

Right, the life of the mother was not in danger. Therefore, they would not perform the procedure, just as I stated. The life of the other two babies was irrelevant as far as the policy is concerned. Does a policy refusing to remove a dead fetus so that the other two babies can develop and thrive a good or bad policy? I say it's a bad policy.

 

well of course the "life of the other two babies was irrelevant" --the pro-abortion rights crowd refuses --REFUSES!-- to allow policy that would make the lives of those precious in utero BABIES legally relevant. this is kind of a DUH moment here.

 

so let me get this straight: it's ok to use public funds to remove a healthy live baby on demand regardless the health of the mother, but it's NOT ok to refuse to remove a dead baby via public funds to prevent possible problems?

 

I do agree there's a fair share of "horrible, bad policy" in America.

How is this relevant? Even if they *had* paid out of pocket, her pregnancy would have been covered by Tricare once she was pregnant.

we were discussing how much of their situation was entered into voluntarily by their own planning and funds. A procedure like the one they did has a known variable [possible abortion of deceased in utero fetus] that they should have been ready to cover, knowing Tricare wouldn't.

[mommyrooch]

If this is sooo important, then why aren't they simply allowing people to join this public program voluntarily???? THAT seems logical, easy to implement, and will address the immediate problem instead of wasting time shoving it down other people's throats??:confused:

 

why are they deliberately stifling the private options?

 

I'm sorry but I either don't understand your question or I am way off on what has been proposed. :confused:

 

Has it not been said over and over and over again that if people wanted to keep their current plans they could?

 

How is that "wasting time and shoving it down other people's throats?" :001_huh:

 

Or are you just "assuming" that things will play out that way? You seem awfully upset about something that looks to me as if it's an assumption and not based on fact. OTOH, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ;)

[lionfamily1999]

I'm sorry but I either don't understand your question or I am way off on what has been proposed. :confused:

 

Has it not been said over and over and over again that if people wanted to keep their current plans they could?

 

How is that "wasting time and shoving it down other people's throats?" :001_huh:

 

Or are you just "assuming" that things will play out that way? You seem awfully upset about something that looks to me as if it's an assumption and not based on fact. OTOH, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ;)

Because if you don't WANT insurance, you don't have a choice.

[Peek a Boo]

I'm sorry but I either don't understand your question or I am way off on what has been proposed. :confused:

 

Has it not been said over and over and over again that if people wanted to keep their current plans they could?

 

How is that "wasting time and shoving it down other people's throats?" :001_huh:

 

Or are you just "assuming" that things will play out that way? You seem awfully upset about something that looks to me as if it's an assumption and not based on fact. OTOH, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. ;)

 

You are way off on what has been proposed.

 

The fact is that the companies you "get" to keep will be tightly limited in what they can and can't offer [read the bill yourself, don't assume], and as lionfamily pointed out, you are STILL being FORCED to have a plan, period.

 

That's akin to saying "oh no --you can still homeschool, you just have to use our curriculum and follow state standards." That is NOT a choice based in freedom that protects individual rights.

 

Did you miss the part in the bill about PENALTIES if you aren't on a plan? or did you assume that was a fear-mongering thing?

 

There's a LOT based on fact that is being dismissed as "fear-mongering":

read the bill.

 

They are spending YEARS getting this shoved through Congress instead of implementing a private plan that supposedly people would "sign up for in a heartbeat." So they are wasting time and people are dying from no health coverage because the very people who whine and gripe about the mean evil insurance companies won't spend their own millions to set up something NOW.

 

but nobody seems to want to explore that issue. Telling indeed.

[mommyrooch]

You are way off on what has been proposed.

 

Am I now? Thanks for pointing that out because I sure wouldn't want to be "misled."

 

The fact is that the companies you "get" to keep will be tightly limited in what they can and can't offer [read the bill yourself, don't assume], and as lionfamily pointed out, you are STILL being FORCED to have a plan, period.

 

Actually I would say that you are assuming. Just because restrictions will be placed on these companies will not guarantee their demise. Stating that it will as fact is an "assumption" on your part. I would say that perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

That's akin to saying "oh no --you can still homeschool, you just have to use our curriculum and follow state standards." That is NOT a choice based in freedom that protects individual rights..

 

I suppose I am more concerned about making sure that everyone gets access to healthcare if they are sick than I am about individual rights at this point. It seems that this is the root cause of our debates. You are pushing for individual rights. I am pushing for providing healthcare for everyone that needs it. Since we can't agree on that I'm certain there is very little on this topic that we'll agree on.

 

Did you miss the part in the bill about PENALTIES if you aren't on a plan? or did you assume that was a fear-mongering thing?.

 

Nope to the first part of the question. I didn't miss it. "Read" it loud and clear. Also, nope to the second part. I never assumed that it was "fear mongering." It does say that. Yep, it certainly does. :001_smile:

 

Ooh, and guess what, I agree with people being penalized if they aren't on a plan. Surprised? You shouldn't be. Like I said, you're pushing for individual rights. I'm pushing for everyone getting coverage. Penalizing everyone that opts out of coverage will help ensure that everyone gets covered so it supports what I'm hoping for.

 

There's a LOT based on fact that is being dismissed as "fear-mongering": read the bill..

 

And there is a LOT of "fear-mongering" that is being disguised as facts!

 

Oh, and by the way. I have read the bill thank you very much. I just don't agree with you on what parts are right and what parts are wrong. ;)

[Peek a Boo]

Am I now? Thanks for pointing that out because I sure wouldn't want to be "misled."

 

you are very welcome :)

 

 

 

Actually I would say that you are assuming. Just because restrictions will be placed on these companies will not guarantee their demise. Stating that it will as fact is an "assumption" on your part. I would say that perhaps you should take your own advice.

 

you are inserting an assumption that was never there to begin with:

I didn't say it would guarantee their demise. i said it would STIFLE them with severe limitations.

 

of course, since the bill stated that private companies could not add new people, and 100% of their members are guaranteed to DIE, then yes, the bill guarantees the demise of the private companies. I hadn't thought about that before your statement.

 

It also states that they can not change their benefits. That is severely limiting to a free market --backed up by years of studying how the free market works. That is NOT "a little healthy competition." There is no "assumption" that companies would be severely limited in how they can serve their customers. That is a basic fact. You can agree that that fact is good in your opinion, but my statement is not an assumption. There's a difference between an assumption vs an opinion.

 

 

 

I suppose I am more concerned about making sure that everyone gets access to healthcare if they are sick than I am about individual rights at this point. It seems that this is the root cause of our debates. You are pushing for individual rights. I am pushing for providing healthcare for everyone that needs it. Since we can't agree on that I'm certain there is very little on this topic that we'll agree on.

 

see, i don't think this needs to be an "either/or" thing!

 

if indeed y'all were "more concerned about getting people access to healthcare" why are you letting them spin their wheels trying to shove this down our throats while people die/suffer instead of calling on the rich liberal elite to set up a charitable private plan that would cover the needy IMMEDIATELY!??:confused:

It would be a win/win situation that would protect private rights AND serve people. It is the leftist situation that refuses to help person A unless you're trampling the rights of person B. And as long as that philosophy endures, yeah, we likely won't agree on this topic.

 

Nope to the first part of the question. I didn't miss it. "Read" it loud and clear. Also, nope to the second part. I never assumed that it was "fear mongering." It does say that. Yep, it certainly does. :001_smile:

 

Ooh, and guess what, I agree with people being penalized if they aren't on a plan. Surprised? You shouldn't be. Like I said, you're pushing for individual rights. I'm pushing for everyone getting coverage. Penalizing everyone that opts out of coverage will help ensure that everyone gets covered so it supports what I'm hoping for.

 

No, I'm not surprised. What makes me fear for our country is that even tho you realize it penalizes EVERYONE you refuse to see how that makes this plan "shoved down our throats."

 

I'm hoping we get a plan that covers the people who need it and allows others to do as they wish.

You're hoping for a plan that covers the people who need it and tramples individual rights.

 

Why aren't you willing to consider a plan that accomplishes two goals instead of one?

 

 

And there is a LOT of "fear-mongering" that is being disguised as facts!

 

like what? the whole death panel thing?

let's see.......

you will be REQUIRED to consult with a panel that will discuss end of life [death] options.

That some people don't like that mandated fact is "fear mongering" --o...k.... got it.

 

Oh, and by the way. I have read the bill thank you very much. I just don't agree with you on what parts are right and what parts are wrong. ;)

 

I understand that.

I'm simply looking to have basic facts established.

whether you AGREE that the facts are "good" or "wrong" are opinion. Whether they are being MANDATED ["shoved down people's throats"] is fact.

That you don't care that they are being shoved down people's throats is certainly your call to make.

 

Fact:

private companies are deliberately stifled in how they can compete: they are not allowed to change benefits.

 

Fact: private companies will not be allowed to add new members: their membership is guaranteed to DIE because people DIE.

Fact: people will not be able to opt out: this plan will be shoved down their throats.

 

Fact: It would be possible for several rich liberals to set up a charitable PRIVATE plan and let anyone join and make sure people are covered NOW.

 

Fact: the more time that passes while liberals try to get this plan shoved down the throats of the public via Congress, the more people will die/suffer.

 

now, what you THINK about those facts is one thing.

But they are FACTS.

 

you were the one who asked/stated

 

Has it not been said over and over and over again that if people wanted to keep their current plans they could?

 

How is that "wasting time and shoving it down other people's throats?"

 

Or are you just "assuming" that things will play out that way? You seem awfully upset about something that looks to me as if it's an assumption and not based on fact.

 

The facts have been established.

They do exactly what i don't want to see done.

 

you agree with the facts even tho they do exactly what i stated.

This is not a matter of whether i'm being factual because I clearly AM being factual.

--it is a philosophical debate that we simply will not agree on.

 

But I will say it's a breath of [fresh?] air to see someone admit that they simply don't care enough about individual rights on this issue. Most people keep trying to dance around the use of force/mandated/penalize/loss of individual rights issue and cry "wrong assumption on the facts/that's not what the bill says" instead......

[mommyrooch]

Why aren't you willing to consider a plan that accomplishes two goals instead of one?

 

Wow Peek. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to respectfully bow out of this debate now because you are obviously really upset.

 

It is a shame that we can't have a cival debate without it turning into your yelling at me with your super bolded text. It's not the first time you have done that and obviously it won't be the last.

 

It is very sad that my "opinions" have upset you so much. I won't even attempt to defend myself because at this point it would be a moot point considering your emotional response to it.

 

Warmest regards and adios. :seeya:

[Peek a Boo]

Wow Peek. I'm afraid that I'm going to have to respectfully bow out of this debate now because you are obviously really upset.

 

It is a shame that we can't have a cival debate without it turning into your yelling at me with your super bolded text. It's not the first time you have done that and obviously it won't be the last.

 

It is very sad that my "opinions" have upset you so much. I won't even attempt to defend myself because at this point it would be a moot point considering your emotional response to it.

 

 

The reason it's in bolded, big text is because nobody will bother considering an answer. And millions of uninsured people suffer.

 

and it won't be the last time.

 

That's too bad.

[Karenciavo]

Every person should be able to get healthcare no matter what the circumstance. If I have to help foot the bill to pay for that then sign me up! ;)

 

No one is stopping you from helping to foot a bill for a neighbor now. Are you doing it?

[mommyrooch]

The reason it's in bolded, big text is because nobody will bother considering an answer. And millions of uninsured people suffer.

 

and it won't be the last time.

 

That's too bad.

 

We consider answers Peek. They're just not "your" answers. That's the problem. It seems to be a pattern with you that if people don't agee with "your" answers then you respond aggressively. That's what's too bad. :sad:

[Peek a Boo]

We consider answers Peek. They're just not "your" answers. That's the problem. It seems to be a pattern with you that if people don't agee with "your" answers then you respond aggressively. That's what's too bad. :sad:

 

you haven't even ANSWERED the question so i can't agree or disagree with whatever answer you may put forth!

 

I absolutely respond in accord w/ a philosophy of individual rights. i would consider your intent and agreement to force an entire healthplan on a nation to be "aggressive", but since you think it's "moral" of course you don't see YOUR response as "aggressive" even tho many of us DO.

 

one thing I do have a pattern of doing is investigating FACTS. If I'm factually wrong, I'll admit it.

 

but if you simply don't want to consider an answer or work to find a goal that will suit both of us, then that's a whole nuther ball of wax.

[mommyrooch]

No one is stopping you from helping to foot a bill for a neighbor now. Are you doing it?

 

Yes maam. I am

 

I am very active in "helping my neighbors"

 

Every Wednesday my church has what we call "Wednesdays are for others" I work there every Wednesday night.

 

We serve many of the poor families in our community a free meal that night. While they are there eating they get to go and "shop" in our clothes closet. We are also partnered with a local Wal-Mart and we receive over 1100 lbs. of food that we distribute to those families. This provides the entire weeks food for them until they come back the next week to get more. They never have to worry about food. We are currently serving 47 families and always striving for more.

 

We also have a free medical clinic that we open up every other Wednesday. This clinic is complete with a Pharmacy. We provide medical care for the less fortunite people in our community. Everything from the doctors visit to the medication is completely free. I work in there too. ;)

 

In addition to this I also go up to the Jesus house and feed the homeless.

 

I not only give my time to "my neighbors" but I give more than my 10% to my church in order to help fund these causes.

 

You see, I actually "practice what I preach." I'm sorry to let you down but I do put my money (and my time) where my mouth is. I believe in it that much.

 

It is because I do work so closely with these families that I am so motivated to help them and others like them. I have seen how these families are devasted by our current system.

 

Most of these families are amazing people. They work hard are are quite ashamed that they have to come there. They often ask us if there is anything they can do to repay us. They are not free loaders. They are just down on their luck and they need help.

 

This is why I get so irritated at the common misconception that if healthcare were free many people would become free loaders and take advantage of the system. There will always be advantage takes but it is wrong to punish the many because of the actions of a few.

 

It is a wonderful thing that my church does but it is simply not enough. Too many people are falling through the cracks and there are not enough people out there willing to step up and fix this. There are some that are willing but unfortunitaly it's not enough.

 

This is why I want universal healthcare. And obviously I'm willing to "put my money where my mouth is." In addition to everything I already do and everything I already give I have absolutely no problem (in fact I want to) with giving more into a system that would provide healthcare to everyone. I want to see these people helped and I am (and do) willing to give up of myself to accomplish that.

[Lovedtodeath]

This is why I get so irritated at the common misconception that if healthcare were free many people would become free loaders and take advantage of the system. There will always be advantage takes but it is wrong to punish the many because of the actions of a few.

I know what you are saying here. What's wierd is that people are already doing it. So how is making it universal going to change things? For one, I know many who do not work because they would lose their health care if they did. I know of others who get paid under the table for the same reason. Then there are those on Medicaid that have never worked and never will. The free loaders are already freeloading! It's the middle class that is being left out in the cold.

[mommyrooch]

I know what you are saying here. What's wierd is that people are already doing it. So how is making it universal going to change things? For one, I know many who do not work because they would lose their health care if they did. I know of others who get paid under the table for the same reason. Then there are those on Medicaid that have never worked and never will. The free loaders are already freeloading! It's the middle class that is being left out in the cold.

 

I agree with much of this Carmen. You make some very good points. These are all things that need to be addressed.

 

There is no way that I could guarantee that making healthcare universal would change these things but from what I have researched and from what I have seen it presents the best chance of it.

 

As for the middle class being hit the hardest. I completely agree. Many times the very poor are offered help because they qualify for Medicaid. The rich don't need the help because they can pay it.

 

The middle class are most times the ones being hit the worst. They make way too much money to qualify for assitance but not enough to pay the bills.

 

This is the category my family fell into. When my son was diagnosed with Leukemia my husband made too much money to get help but not enough to pay the medical bills. Needless to say, things were pretty scary back then and we had insurance. I can only imagine what would have happened to our son had we not been insured. I cringe and it makes me sick to my stomach when I think about it.

 

Not only were we worried about saving our son's life but we were in constant fear of not being able to get him the care he needed because of an inability to pay. We made it through it but it branded our family in more ways than I can count.

 

All of this occured and we had insurance. I thank God to this day that we did because it could have been a whole lot worse.

 

I saw so many families without insurance told that their child would not be receiving the standard therapy because of an inability to pay. The only option they were given was to go into a phase 2 double blind study. These studies were experimental and the toxity issues were undetermined.

 

Can you imagine? They were using these children as lab rats because they were poor and couldn't pay. The rich and the insured got quality care but the the poor were treated like animals. This is what I am advocating against. It is not only unfair but it is inhumane. My heart breaks every time I imagine the personal hells these families went through.

 

No one should ever be denied "quality" medical care because of an inability to pay. I will never be swayed on that issue and I make no apologies for it.

 

As for freeloaders, yes. It is unfortunate that this occurs. However, as I stated, from my experience with working with poor families "most" of them are not "choosing" to get help. They are at the end of their ropes and they have no other option. They often try to help us some way in return. They "want" to earn their way. Circumstances have just inhibited them from doing that.

 

I don't believe that the sins of the few should be used to punish the many. Just my 2 cents. :001_smile:

[mommyrooch]

you haven't even ANSWERED the question so i can't agree or disagree with whatever answer you may put forth!

 

Yes I have Peek. Over and over and over again. You just don't like my answer and you have proven that with your aggressive responses typed in superbold. You have obviously already disagreed.

 

It is no secret on this board by now that my answer is universal healthcare. That just doesn't line up with "your" views so it is not an "appropriate" answer.

 

:seeya:

[Peek a Boo]

Yes I have Peek. Over and over and over again. You just don't like my answer and you have proven that with your aggressive responses typed in superbold. You have obviously already disagreed.

 

It is no secret on this board by now that my answer is universal healthcare. That just doesn't line up with "your" views so it is not an "appropriate" answer.

 

:seeya:

 

 

huh?? :confused:

 

explain to me like I'm 2yo:

 

so.... you are against a voluntary system that would cover anyone who needs healthcare, whenever they need it, if it allows a few people to opt out???

eta: even if it allows people to join immediately when they are injured or sick, even if they were never covered before?

 

because you want to force people to be covered, even if they won't use or don't need the coverage?

 

i understand that you agree with the proposed plan because you want those who need the coverage to BE covered.

 

But would you consider a plan that was voluntary if it still allowed those who needed the coverage to get coverage?

Edited September 19, 2009 by Peek a Boo

[Peek a Boo]

We also have a free medical clinic that we open up every other Wednesday. This clinic is complete with a Pharmacy. We provide medical care for the less fortunite people in our community. Everything from the doctors visit to the medication is completely free.

 

how is this funded?

[Lovedtodeath]

so.... you are against a voluntary system that would cover anyone who needs healthcare, whenever they need it, if it allows a few people to opt out???

eta: even if it allows people to join immediately when they are injured or sick, even if they were never covered before?

 

because you want to force people to be covered, even if they won't use or don't need the coverage?

 

i understand that you agree with the proposed plan because you want those who need the coverage to BE covered.

 

But would you consider a plan that was voluntary if it still allowed those who needed the coverage to get coverage?

I don't see that working. There wouldn't be enough money because most people would opt out. I know I would.

[Peek a Boo]

I don't see that working. There wouldn't be enough money because most people would opt out. I know I would.

 

You don't need everyone paying into it.

We have HOW MANY millions of people that voted for Obama? surely THEY would all opt to join it, right?

 

eta: the people who aren't on the plan wouldn't be sucking $$ out of it. And certainly there would be plenty of rich[er] liberals that would be all too happy to offer more than "their fair share" to pick up the slack, right?

[asta]

Dang.

 

I've agreed with Peek on, I think, the last 5 "hot" issues on this board.

 

I think the world is coming to an end. ;)

 

 

a

[Lovedtodeath]

You don't need everyone paying into it.

We have HOW MANY millions of people that voted for Obama? surely THEY would all opt to join it, right?

 

eta: the people who aren't on the plan wouldn't be sucking $$ out of it. And certainly there would be plenty of rich[er] liberals that would be all too happy to offer more than "their fair share" to pick up the slack, right?

But you said that I could opt in if I needed to, therefore I can suck money out of it. Ah, but you see... many of those millions really like handouts, but don't like to pay for them. Maybe Oprah will finance your plan?;)

[kiana]

This thread (and other similars) really make me think of this.

 

http://xkcd.com/386/

 

:)