Free Birth Control; Children Up to 26; Pre-Existing Conditions; Free Mammograms, etc. If these matter to you...

[TranquilMind]

then call your Senators and Members of Congress and let them know.

 

I know many people of all political stripes who rely on these things, have adult kids on their insurance, need pregnancies covered, birth control, mammograms, etc.... so that's why I'm posting here.

 

"During the budget negotiations that took place Wednesday night, Sen. Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) penned an amendment to preserve protections for women that were created under the ACA, but it was voted down. The measure aimed to ensure that women receive birth control and mammograms without charge, required insurance companies to cover maternity care, prevented insurance companies from charging women more for preexisting conditions, and sought to even out health care costs between men and women.

 

 

"If my colleagues destroy the Affordable Care Act, it will have real, direct, and painful consequences for millions of American women and their families," Gillibrand said on the Senate floor on Wednesday.

The Senate also voted down the preexisting-conditions protection, which prevented insurance companies from considering pregnancy as a preexisting condition."

 

 

The House will vote on this tomorrow and then write their own version to send to the Senate.  If these things are important to you and your family, please make sure both your Senators and Members of Congress know that.  If you want them included in any new plan, let them know.  Make your voices heard now before it's too late.

 

Capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121

 

Free birth control?  Someone is paying for it.  Why can't the person using it pay for it, particularly when that person is on his parent's insurance! 

 

[Laura Corin]

Free birth control?  Someone is paying for it.  Why can't the person using it pay for it, particularly when that person is on his parent's insurance! 

 

 

Call it reducing your future school taxes, if you like.  I'd rather have a society full of mostly wanted babies.

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by Laura Corin

[lovinmyboys]

Show your work.

I will when I get to a computer. Routine screening mammography does not save money and only possibly saves lives. One good place to read more is the website Science Based Medicine and use the tag mammography.

 

The issue is still complicated and we don't know everything, but it appears that mass screening over diagnose while also saving a few lives. We as a society (or individuals) need to decide whether the benefits outweigh the associated risks and costs.

 

ETA: part of the issue is that catching cancer early is not as effective as we would all like it to be. Aggressive cancers tend to kill no matter how early they are caught and less aggressive cancers don't lead to death even if they are not caught until much later. So having a mammogram to detect cancer before symptoms are present isn't necessarily helpful.

Edited January 13, 2017 by lovinmyboys

[SparklyUnicorn]

Plus I find it rather ironic.  Some of these same people who are anti funding birth control or requiring maternity coverage are the same people who are dead against abortions.  There is evidence that points to life being sucky and miserable as a general rule in the general population when women don't have control over when they have children. 

[Guest]

Free birth control?  Someone is paying for it.  Why can't the person using it pay for it, particularly when that person is on his parent's insurance! 

 

 

I don't think many people still on their parent's insurance are getting vasectomies, due to age.

[TranquilMind]

I don't think health care or access to health care is political as it affects everybody, regardless if they vote or not, which party they support, even if they are citizens or immigrants. Death surely doesn't care which party you support, nor does disease.  

 

I'm very well aware of "somebody has to pay for it."  I'm married to a physician, as well as the daughter and granddaughter of physicians.  I worked for a large pharmaceutical company.  We pay a lot in taxes.  I guess we pay for somebody, but as my husband has to tell patients that their sight is not likely to come back, due to the complications of diabetes, trust me.... we'd rather increase our taxes than say that to one more person.  Most people will tell you that they'd rather die than lose their sight.  When you get to the point when your diabetes is affecting your eyes, that's not the only part of your body it's affecting.  Your kidneys are likely damaged.  You may have already had an amputation or two.  If you're a man, you probably have ED.  Go into a vitreoretinal surgeon's office and you're likely to see one or more amputees.  That's the reality of diabetes--and it's a far more difficult disease to treat when people can't afford to see even a PCP to find out that they have it.  When they find out about their diabetes because they've been taken to the ER with blood glucose levels over 450 mg/dL.  

 

My husband works in coal country in Eastern Kentucky and is very well aware of how the Affordable Care Act changed the life of people there, regardless of their political affiliations.  When people don't have insurance and cannot afford medical care, people die.  Plain and simple.  Doesn't matter if you're rich or poor, whom you voted for, your education level, etc.   My Dad is dying of leukemia right now.  The drugs that he takes cost $100k/year.  Why does he have leukemia? Probably from working 80 hours a week for 50+ years as a radiologist... serving people who could afford his services and those who could not equally.  For most of his career, being a radiologist back in the days before teleradiology meant that he would drive into the hospital often every night, sometimes more than once, when he was on call to read films, MRIs, CTs, whatever and possible save somebody's life.  Didn't matter if it was a police officer or a "bad guy", he went in.  He covered seven hospitals...some in inner cities....and some in very rural areas.  He taught numerous residents, who today also serve hundreds of thousands of people.   Do you know his political affiliation?  Maybe, maybe not.  Doesn't matter.  He'd be the first to tell you that people die when they don't have insurance.  People can go bankrupt and did even when they did have it, and that included colleagues of his.  Once again, access to health care should not be political.

 

 

But yeah...if you want to make this thread political, fine.  That was not my intent.  I just wanted people to be aware that if these things affect their families, they should take action. I guarantee you that it's not just democrats who have pre-existing conditions, or children who are in their twenties on their plans.    It's not a perfect plan by far.  But I do believe that people should be aware that these benefits that affect so many families may be removed with no replacement (and not a lot of publicity either.)  

I am confused, given your title.  What does free birth control have to do with diabetes and losing your sight?  (See bolded).

 

Sorry about your father.  I don't understand the connection you seem to be making between these other terrible conditions and free birth control though. 

[maize]

Most hospitals and many clinics are non-profit. The insurance company may be a publicly held corporation, but the organizations who are actually giving my family medical treatment for the most part aren't.

 

Insurance companies are the gate keepers to medical care.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I will when I get to a computer. Routine screening mammography does not save money and only possibly saves lives. One good place to read more is the website Science Based Medicine and use the tag mammography.

 

The issue is still complicated and we don't know everything, but it appears that mass screening over diagnose while also saving a few lives. We as a society (or individuals) need to decide whether the benefits outweigh the associated risks and costs.

 

My argument about free mammograms is what about when cancer is found?  Who pays for that?  If someone is so hard up they can't pay a copay on mammograms or they have no insurance whatsoever, what good is it?  Is there a benefit to simply knowing what is going to kill you?

 

To me it has to go well beyond free mammograms.  Maybe that's another discussion though.

[TranquilMind]

Yeah, just on the flip side, it frustrates me to no end that I would have to pay for maternity care I don't want and can't use (because, um, hello, infertility) till I'm in my 50's just because some politician decides everyone MUST have it.

 

There really is room for more opinions. If people want policies with that stuff, let them buy it. Those of us who don't use any of that don't want to.

 

But thanks for the update. I agree, things are being done so quickly, it's hard to keep up, whether you agree with the changes or not! 

 

Agree.  My womb is done and my prostate won't be bothering me either.  But I'm paying for that.  

 

Why can't we buy what we want and need? 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Insurance companies are the gate keepers to medical care.

 

Although doctors aren't really non profit are they?  They certainly work for their own financial self interests too.  I'd say it's often a tug of war between the two (insurance and medical professionals).

[SparklyUnicorn]

Agree.  My womb is done and my prostate won't be bothering me either.  But I'm paying for that.  

 

Why can't we buy what we want and need? 

 

 

Because it doesn't work that way.  In order to keep the cost at a level you can afford, you need to rely on some people paying into something and not using all of it always.  That's basically the deal with pre existing condition.  If you start costing too much, they just drop you (unless they aren't allowed to).

 

Now granted, I kinda wish the insurance industry would go away.  BUT then there is the issue it also employs a lot of people.  So those jobs also would all go away.

[Guest]

Free birth control? Someone is paying for it. Why can't the person using it pay for it, particularly when that person is on his parent's insurance!

 

It boggles my mind how a person can be pro-life and think free BC is a bad idea.

[Guest]

I will when I get to a computer. Routine screening mammography does not save money and only possibly saves lives. One good place to read more is the website Science Based Medicine and use the tag mammography.

 

The issue is still complicated and we don't know everything, but it appears that mass screening over diagnose while also saving a few lives. We as a society (or individuals) need to decide whether the benefits outweigh the associated risks and costs.

That work has been done. The result was that 1 in 1900 would die if they were not screened for bc between age 40 and 50. That was about 49000 women who would have been shoved off the planet. And of course its cheaper, no treatment, no disability, just a few weeks of hospice.

 

Now Contrast that with the savings if the smoking, alcoholism, and excess carb consumption was eliminated.

[TranquilMind]

OhElizabeth, since my parents turned 50 they have had 3 surgeries between them (they are just 56).  Can I say that I don't want to have to pay to have your old joints worked on, all I need is maternity coverage (which is much cheaper than multiple surgeries)?  Can I say taht my BP is good, so I don't want to have to compensate toward your furture heart attack?  This is what is wrong with the whole 'Repeal ACA' cry- this isn't each man for himself, we all need to work together to help everyone cover their medical costs- both when your health is good and when it's bad.  My parents hate the ACA, but don't seem to realize they are going to be in that 'higher risk' category now- there will be no safety net to keep their coverage affordable (or as affordable as it is right now). 

 

Well, the thing is that your parents have paid into insurance for 50 years, year in and year out.  So if they now need some coverage for problems just now arising, they have certainly paid in their fair share and this is how it is intended to work. 

 

You, on the other hand, cannot say you don't want to pay for old joints.

 

You haven't paid your dues yet.  Your parents have, all these years.   

 

[Guest]

Although doctors aren't really non profit are they?  They certainly work for their own financial self interests too.  I'd say it's often a tug of war between the two (insurance and medical professionals).

 

Non-profit is a misnomer. Everyone that works at a non-profit is grinding for scratch, pays taxes etc.

[MEmama]

Agree. My womb is done and my prostate won't be bothering me either. But I'm paying for that.

 

Why can't we buy what we want and need?

 

Because, once again, you can't foretell the future. Your needs or anyone else's. Ask me about our sucky year; I've plenty to share.

[Lady Florida.]

Some preventative care saves money and other preventative care does not. I think as we figure out which is which, costs will come down

 

For instance, from what we know now, widespread mammogram use for women with no symptoms does not save money. Instead, lots of women end up being over treated for a cancer that likely would have never killed them. Not to mention all the extra biopsies that are done. Now, I know the science hasn't advanced to where we know for sure which cancers will kill and which won't. I'm all for saving lives, so I am not necessarily advocating that we get rid of widespread mammogram use yet. I am just pointing out that mammograms as preventative care most certainly cost more money than they save.

 

 

I like evidence-based medicine.  If a particular screening regime saves lives/reduces costs, then it's very worthwhile.  I'm not sure that a tick-box annual visit would do that, but I don't know the figures.  If, on the other hand, bowel cancer screening, mammograms, pap smears, have a decent body of evidence for their efficacy, then do them.

 

And I agree about better use of nurse practitioners.

 

 

While I agree that screening and other preventative care shouldn't be about money but about health, the effectiveness of early mammograms is mixed at best. Overdiagnosis is real. Number of lives saved is iffy. 

 

I believe strongly in science-based medicine. Not surprisingly, I'm a fan of the blog by that name. The blog posts are written by doctors, some retired, some still practicing. All are committed to science-based medicine. The SBM blog doesn't post sound bites. To read an article there is to commit to some time. Here are two articles written about a year and a half apart by an oncologist who specializes in breast cancer surgery. He's not sold on the idea of annual mammograms.

 

From July 2015- 

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-uncertainty-surrounding-mammography-continues/

 

From October 2016

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/overdiagnosis-and-mammography-2016-edition/

[Guest]

Agree.  My womb is done and my prostate won't be bothering me either.  But I'm paying for that.  

 

Why can't we buy what we want and need? 

 

 

Because if you need a hip replacement and so you have to pay for it, you're probably not getting a new hip this year, Maw. Unless you're a lot more wealthy than I think you are.

 

http://health.costhelper.com/hip-replacement.html

[MEmama]

Plus I find it rather ironic. Some of these same people who are anti funding birth control or requiring maternity coverage are the same people who are dead against abortions. There is evidence that points to life being sucky and miserable as a general rule in the general population when women don't have control over when they have children.

I'm giving this one hundred thousand million bajillion likes.

[TranquilMind]

It boggles my mind how a person can be pro-life and think free BC is a bad idea.

 

Um, yeah.  It makes perfect sense (hence, why the RCC holds that position, by the way). 

 

I am pro life.  Have babies.  Don't kill babies.

 

That doesn't mean I am obligated to pay for you to have birth control so you won't kill babies.  Pay for your own birth control; I did. 

 

[maize]

Why can't everyone just buy life insurance when they plan to use it? Think how much money those of us who don't plan to die this year would save!

 

Men surely should never pay for maternity coverage, that's gotta be only on the shoulders of people who might get pregnant.

 

Sigh.

[TranquilMind]

Because if you need a hip replacement and so you have to pay for it, you're probably not getting a new hip this year, Maw. Unless you're a lot more wealthy than I think you are.

 

http://health.costhelper.com/hip-replacement.html

 

That's nonresponsive.  We ALL have hips, so that could be covered for all, as it is a possibility for all. 

 

 

[Wheres Toto]

I think our system sucks and think a Medicare would be a vast improvement.  We currently have insurance through dh's work.  When he didn't have insurance because he was self-employed, I ended up going back to work mainly for the insurance (almost my entire salary went toward the kids teacher).   We are actually pretty well off, have no major health concerns, but we're not that young either.   I do have a bunch of medical bills for things insurance didn't cover (mostly deductible) that we are slowly working our way through.  

 

My oldest will lose her insurance.  She's turning 23 this year and isn't currently a full time student.  She plans to go back to graduate school and is having trouble finding any job, much less one that would include insurance.  What are the options going to be for someone who doesn't have workplace insurance and never has?  I guess if she doesn't have a job she's considered low-income and can get Medicaid?  Will that be affected by living with my mother?  Nobody claims her as a dependent.

[Guest]

I always :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:  at these conversations too because *I* am not paying for anything, my husband--the one with the jobby job-- is...and I am always having them with mostly other stay at home moms.

 

[i really am laughing, not trying to make a case against the one income family  or something hahaha on the contrary]

[TranquilMind]

It boggles my mind how a person can be pro-life and think free BC is a bad idea.

 

Equally, it boggles MY mind how one can think they aren't responsible for their own birth control.  Like seriously. 

 

Even in my teens, I would have never even imagined this was someone else's responsibility to provide me with birth control. 

 

[maize]

Oh, and I most certainly don't want to pay for treatment for inherited disorders that don't run in my family. If I get screened for the gene and don't have it I'm exempt from paying, right? Poor suckers who got a bum gene need to pay for themselves!

Edited January 13, 2017 by maize

[TranquilMind]

Because, once again, you can't foretell the future. Your needs or anyone else's. Ask me about our sucky year; I've plenty to share.

No, we can't foresee all health battles, but we can foretell when we are likely to have babies, and do something to prevent that, which is the point of this thread, given the title. 

 

 

[Guest]

That's nonresponsive.  We ALL have hips, so that could be covered for all, as it is a possibility for all. 

 

All people can parent children.

 

Sooooo, OK let's make it the rule that only heterosexual people need to pay into the insurance pool that covers child care, from maternity to kids with leukemia. Unless Homo- and A-sexual people adopt, and then those SUCKERS are on the line for all that baby cancer, too.

[bolt.]

No. It definitely doesn't work. To tie insurance to one's job--never mind the whims of our politicians-- is a recipe for disaster and this country is living proof.

 

Yes, I lose so so much sleep over it. We've been incredibly fortunate, but it's not all about us, you know? And fortune is tenuous at best, as we are witnessing.

 

Not sure. We had universal coverage in Canada, but it was far from ideal. We paid about the same for insurance but the care was pretty poor compared to what we are accustomed to in the US. However, everyone gets basic care and that's a fundamental human right, IMO. They are on the right track, but the cracks in the system looked very familiar through our lens.

 

I think there must be a combination public-private system that would work here, ensuring complete coverage for all. I don't think it's as difficult as we've made it out to be, but that's our American exceptionalism as work. Sure it might work in all other first world countries, but not here..bah.

I'm surprised that you experienced paying for health insurance in Canada -- particularly that you payed 'about the same' as an American health premium. I think I might be misunderstanding the vocabulary. Do you mean that you paid for the 'insurance' that covers the basic coverage (ie doctors office visits, ER, hospitalization, maternity care, cancer care, broken bones, surgery) and pay that much? If so... When, where, and how did that happen -- I haven't heard of it, and I'd like to understand better.

 

Or, on the other hand, did you buy supplementary medical coverage (for things like perscriptions, physio therapy, dentists, optical, chiropractic, etc.)? And you really found that your premium for only those things was comperable with American premiums for both basic care and that kind of additional care?

 

When you found the care to be 'poor' was it the basic areas that were poor, or the pay-extra types of services? When you say 'pretty poor' do you mean in terms of medical skill and outcomes? Or more on logistics / ease of access / promptness / choices? Or more on customer service and/or level of comfort?

 

(I haven't experienced American style care, so maybe I would be shocked with it movie-star qualities. But, currently, I find it hard to fathom that it can really be 'that much better' medically -- just because that seems to be a fairly level playing field. Logistics totally need improvement, but I think of many 'customer service' elements as unnecessary frills. I welcome your thoughts.)

 

I do agree with you about 'far from ideal' -- but I feel the same way about our values and views on human rights being expressed through universal coverage. Make sure everyone has the basics of staying alive and well... Then work on improvements.

[PeterPan]

I fail to see what's wrong with this TBH.  

 

I don't disagree that it's a debate being had. I just don't happen to have that opinion. Every time I watch people ahead of me in line with stacks of Twinkies and pop while overweight, clearly not making good choices, choices that WILL affect their long-term health, it confirms to me that I don't want universal health care as a right. If I have to pay for your healthcare, I can also dictate the choices you make that affect your health. 

 

And I agree, that's a total debate our society can have about who pays for what and what freedoms people are willing to give up on the way to getting what they want. 

[TranquilMind]

All people can parent children.

 

Sooooo, OK let's make it the rule that only heterosexual people need to pay into the insurance pool that covers child care, from maternity to kids with leukemia. Unless Homo- and A-sexual people adopt, and then those SUCKERS are on the line for all that baby cancer, too.

 

Right.  All people already pay into insurance that covers children.  So?

 

??

 

[Guest]

My argument about free mammograms is what about when cancer is found? Who pays for that? If someone is so hard up they can't pay a copay on mammograms or they have no insurance whatsoever, what good is it? Is there a benefit to simply knowing what is going to kill you?

 

To me it has to go well beyond free mammograms. Maybe that's another discussion though.

They would be in Medicaid if they were in NY.

The issue is really the number of people who have the means but refuse to budget for their own medical care. I see that in my extended family...extraction instead of root canal because the money was spent on nonnecessities such as a Second home rather than an annual exam, for ex.

Edited January 13, 2017 by Heigh Ho

[Carol in Cal.]

The issue is really the number of people who have the means but refuse to budget for their own medical care. 

But the thing is, if you CAN'T KNOW how much things cost, not even a ballpark, how can you budget for it?  

[BrookValley.]

I don't disagree that it's a debate being had. I just don't happen to have that opinion. Every time I watch people ahead of me in line with stacks of Twinkies and pop while overweight, clearly not making good choices, choices that WILL affect their long-term health, it confirms to me that I don't want universal health care as a right. If I have to pay for your healthcare, I can also dictate the choices you make that affect your health. 

 

And I agree, that's a total debate our society can have about who pays for what and what freedoms people are willing to give up on the way to getting what they want. 

 

That's...breathtakingly myopic and judgemental.

 

So, you know that person's health status? As in, why they are overweight? Are you a doctor that can diagnose folks in the grocery story line? Because not everyone who is overweight makes poor health choices, or at least makes poor choices on a regular basis. Also, you have a magic crystal ball that tells you why they are buying those pops and twinkies? Like, maybe it's for a party. Maybe it's grandma's favorite treat, and she's terminal, so you know what? We buy grandma stacks of twinkies and pop (like the McDonald's burgers and fries and beer we bought our friend dying of cancer when all she wanted was burger, fries, and a beer).

 

These things are almost never so black and white.

 

I don't really expect people to care about each other anymore, I really don't. But don't expect me not to be very, very angry about how people do treat each other. It's a disgrace.

Edited January 13, 2017 by BrookValley.

[MEmama]

I'm surprised that you experienced paying for health insurance in Canada -- particularly that you payed 'about the same' as an American health premium. I think I might be misunderstanding the vocabulary. Do you mean that you paid for the 'insurance' that covers the basic coverage (ie doctors office visits, ER, hospitalization, maternity care, cancer care, broken bones, surgery) and pay that much? If so... When, where, and how did that happen -- I haven't heard of it, and I'd like to understand better.

 

Or, on the other hand, did you buy supplementary medical coverage (for things like perscriptions, physio therapy, dentists, optical, chiropractic, etc.)? And you really found that your premium for only those things was comperable with American premiums for both basic care and that kind of additional care?

 

When you found the care to be 'poor' was it the basic areas that were poor, or the pay-extra types of services? When you say 'pretty poor' do you mean in terms of medical skill and outcomes? Or more on logistics / ease of access / promptness / choices? Or more on customer service and/or level of comfort?

 

(I haven't experienced American style care, so maybe I would be shocked with it movie-star qualities. But, currently, I find it hard to fathom that it can really be 'that much better' medically -- just because that seems to be a fairly level playing field. Logistics totally need improvement, but I think of many 'customer service' elements as unnecessary frills. I welcome your thoughts.)

 

I do agree with you about 'far from ideal' -- but I feel the same way about our values and views on human rights being expressed through universal coverage. Make sure everyone has the basics of staying alive and well... Then work on improvements.

Yes, we still paid for insurance through DH's work.

Yes, we were surprised how lacking in services our area was. No, I will not be going into detail because whenever I do I am told I am wrong. Gets old. No, I never indicated that our care here has movie star qualities; that's absurd.

It's ok that there are flaws. I did say many of them look familiar. That's ok too.

Positives and negatives, every country's got 'em.

End.

[shinyhappypeople]

Just so everyone knows, in NY you can get your mammo and your followup ultrasound on the taxpayers dime if you do not have insurance and are poor. New state law in effect this year.

 

California also has an excellent program that's been around for years called Every Woman Counts.  It's for low and middle-income women, and offers free mammograms and Pap tests and, I believe, they cover the cost of treatment if the patient has cancer.  I wish more states would do this.  

[Guest]

I don't disagree that it's a debate being had. I just don't happen to have that opinion. Every time I watch people ahead of me in line with stacks of Twinkies and pop while overweight, clearly not making good choices, choices that WILL affect their long-term health, it confirms to me that I don't want universal health care as a right. If I have to pay for your healthcare, I can also dictate the choices you make that affect your health.

 

And I agree, that's a total debate our society can have about who pays for what and what freedoms people are willing to give up on the way to getting what they want.

Wow. Cold.

[TranquilMind]

I don't disagree that it's a debate being had. I just don't happen to have that opinion. Every time I watch people ahead of me in line with stacks of Twinkies and pop while overweight, clearly not making good choices, choices that WILL affect their long-term health, it confirms to me that I don't want universal health care as a right. If I have to pay for your healthcare, I can also dictate the choices you make that affect your health. 

 

And I agree, that's a total debate our society can have about who pays for what and what freedoms people are willing to give up on the way to getting what they want. 

 

This. 

 

I don't want the government in my business.  I'm already more than capable of making good decisions. 

 

The problem is that if we have the right to oversee Twinkie consumption (which I don't do), that will give government the right to nose around in my health decisions. 

The government does not make better decisions than I do.  Remember when eggs were the worst thing ever and the cholesterol was going to kill everyone? 

 

Some of us knew that was nonsense back then, but would have been penalized for egg consumption, had the government had input. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2017 by TranquilMind

[PeterPan]

That's...breathtakingly myopic and judgemental.

 

 

Actually it's just the opposite. I acknowledge the reality that societies that increase health care coverage as a right also either have to limit coverage or implement restrictions on what people have access to. So they can have rules about supplements, healthy foods, serving sizes, etc. They've done some of this in the US, and other societies do it even moreso. My point is you CAN'T increase coverage to high levels WITHOUT having restrictions like this. 

 

Me, I'd love full coverage as much as the next mom. My ds has autism. I'd be more than happy to have a carte blanche policy with all kinds of amazing stuff. I just don't happen to want the restrictions that logically follow an approach like that. Just me.

[TranquilMind]

Wow. Cold.

 

No, she is just speaking the truth.  There is a cost to everything. 

[Guest]

This.

 

I don't want the government in my business. I'm already more than capable of making good decisions.

 

The problem is that if we have the right to oversee Twinkie consumption (which I don't do), that will give government the right to nose around in my health decisions.

The government does not make better decisions than I do. Remember when eggs were the worst thing ever and the cholesterol was going to kill everyone?

 

Some of us knew that was nonsense back then, but would have been penalized for egg consumption, had the government had input.

We have government healthcare. Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare. The government hasn't stepped and and taken their twinkies.

[AmandaVT]

Absolutely.

 

There would no longer need to be a staff devoted to insurance. Having a full time employee trying review multiple insurance plans that accept billing in differ ways is expensive.

 

I can attest to this since that is my job. I work for a small therapy company and spend hours a day dealing with insurance companies and their "quirks".

[PeterPan]

Wow. Cold.

 

Realistic. Since the majority of health problems are directly linked to lifestyle and dietary choices, it's something we have to acknowledge. Or we're saying we want the freedom to do ANYTHING, eat ANYTHING, etc., with no consequences.

 

I don't think freedom can occur without personal responsibility. So yes, if you want increased benefits, you have to decide what freedoms you're willing to give up. 

[Guest]

But the thing is, if you CAN'T KNOW how much things cost, not even a ballpark, how can you budget for it?

Personally I do the math and endeavor to have the annual oop max set aside. If we don't use it, great.

[Reefgazer]

We have military health insurance, Tricare prime, and I have to say it's the best thing ever. it's strange how everybody has such different experiences with the same healthcare system. not to say it doesn't have downside, but overall I have had excellent care, they can get me in within hours or the next day for an acute appointment, and it is state of the art care. Now granted, I I am near Portsmouth Naval medical Center and not in some remote outpost, and that might have something to do with it.

 

 

am

I was stuck using Army healthcare for 4 years and it was dreadful. No choice in provider- I would call up to make an appointment and would get assigned to someone. At best that person was inexperienced and at worst totally incompetent. There was no ability to go "out of network" for a higher cost-share like there is with private health insurance (even Kaiser HMO had a way to see a non-Kaiser doctor, though it was a hassle). Wait times were long and procedures routine in the civilian world like a 2nd trimester ultrasound were simply not done. Trying to get a referral to a specialist was a nightmare. The prescription formulary was extremely limited (again far worse than Kaiser HMO's). I wound up paying 100% out-of-pocket for a 2nd opinion at UCLA because a quack Army doctor couldn't read a breast ultrasound and wanted to biopsy me (I was 24 and have no family history of breast cancer). Fortunately, the civilian breast oncologist felt sorry for me and charged me the absolute bare minimum for an office visit & not for redoing the ultrasound.

 

I don't like all the costs associated with our PPO but the quality of care is a zillion times better than the Army's, and also better than Kaiser HMO's.

 

My disabled child has Medicaid as secondary to our PPO and it's hard to find providers who will accept it. Several times I've been told that they'll bill Medicaid for the co-pays because it is secondary coverage but if she had it as primary they wouldn't accept her as patient at all.

[PeterPan]

We have government healthcare. Medicaid, Medicare, Tricare. The government hasn't stepped and and taken their twinkies.

 

That's an interesting discussion to have. I read recently online (not sure how true obviously) that the *majority* of the coverage increases were actually people going onto medicare and that only like 1% were actually increasing access to private coverage. I don't know how people feel about medicare who are on it. My dad has full military coverage, and they're moving him over to medicare as well now that he's of age. It's all peter pays paul and paperwork and a logistical nightmare. 

 

I don't know anyone on medicaid who jumps for joy over it or thinks it's ideal. The stories are hear are lack of access, having to search for doctors who will take it, limits that affect ability to receive reasonable basic coverage, etc.

 

My dad, who has 100% disability and a very old gold pass, meaning they'll do EVERYTHING for him, like way beyond what current service members get, still has fidgety coverage. That type of coverage depends on the state structure, and in one state he gets amazing coverage and unlimited service and in the state where we live I can't even bring him here. He would literally have to go between 5 major hospitals, all at least 2-3 hours apart, to get complete coverage. And it would be limited. It's ASTONISHING. I would like to move my dad closer, and I can't because the vet system in our state is unworkable for him.

 

I grew up on military medical and still deal with it through my dad. I know what happens when theres's lack of competition, lack of incentive to do well, lack of innovation. 

 

But, again, that's a debate our culture is having. I agree it's very complicated. 

[Guest]

And by the way, the child under 26 thing...from some of the cancer fundraisers we have been to, we learned that the fine print is that the child is covered, but the parent cant use the hsa money if he isnt a full time student. Plans vary.

[Crimson Wife]

Plus I find it rather ironic.  Some of these same people who are anti funding birth control or requiring maternity coverage are the same people who are dead against abortions.  There is evidence that points to life being sucky and miserable as a general rule in the general population when women don't have control over when they have children. 

 

Availability of contraception and co-pay free contraception are two very different issues. A month's supply of generic birth control pills costs less than a pizza and sixpack. For a certain percentage of the population, that represents a true financial hardship. But for a lot of women, it represents a very negligible part of their budget and as something that is medically unnecessary (pregnancy isn't a disease but rather the way our bodies are supposed to work), it should be paid for by the user absent clear financial hardship.

 

I think birth control should be sold over-the-counter without a prescription and poor women should be able to take it up to the pharmacy window & have Medicaid or Title X billed for the cost (barrier contraceptives too). If a woman has a legitimate medical reason for taking it like endometriosis or whatever, her doctor can write a prescription and the cost covered at whatever the normal prescription co-pay is.

[Dmmetler]

Free birth control? Someone is paying for it. Why can't the person using it pay for it, particularly when that person is on his parent's insurance!

 

FWIW, I was a college student and on BCP's because hormone swings triggered basilar arterial migraines. My parent's health plan covered the migraine meds, and covered most of the ER visits necessitated by the migraines that the meds couldn't control, but the BCP could, but wouldn't cover the BCP. All I can say is that I'm glad the university's health clinic stocked low cost BC for students-which I'm sure the state helped pay for in some way.

[PeterPan]

We have military health insurance, Tricare prime, and I have to say it's the best thing ever. it's strange how everybody has such different experiences with the same healthcare system. not to say it doesn't have downside, but overall I have had excellent care, they can get me in within hours or the next day for an acute appointment, and it is state of the art care. Now granted, I I am near Portsmouth Naval medical Center and not in some remote outpost, and that might have something to do with it.

 

 

am

 

We lived in VA for years, and at that time, living farther out in the country (where my dad put us so we could have the same rural, happy childhood he grew up with), it wasn't the same as your more positive experience. We had to drive quite a ways to a clinic, seldom saw the doctor, and certainly had no personal relation or continuity of care. It was pretty basic and sterile. It was pretty scary as a kid to go to the doctor in that environment.

 

I'm really interested to see the privatization efforts they make with the VA and the medical system. I don't know what it will mean. I'm just curious to see, as I'm still pretty invested, as I want to be able to bring my dad closer and get him complete care locally.

Edited January 13, 2017 by OhElizabeth