A question for Candadians and UK folks and the Universal Healthcare

[PineappleMama]

Medicaid is a government program (varies by state I think) for children and for pregnant women. It's there to protect and help children, and since ones in utero are counted (for Medicaid only, not for food stamps) then mom's covered until the baby's on it's own.

I've never heard of anyone wanting to have kids and getting Medicaid to pay for it... mostly I've heard of folks who end up pregnant and can't afford health care and so the state, for the baby's sake, pays for their care, delivery, etc. They WILL pay for a tubal after delivery.... other birth control isn't covered that I know of because adults aren't on the plan until after they're pregnant... but I donno maybe in that month after your doc could at least get that started?? I've never heard of it, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist... I just don't know.

But, considering that their primary focus is children's health... children already born (or at least conceived) to parents completely incapable of supporting them... well it makes no sense for them to pay for infertility treatments so that these people who show plainly that they cannot afford to feed, clothe, etc a child can have one/another one... that the government WILL have to support... as evidenced by the fact that they're applying for assistance WITHOUT that added dependent. But, again, that's Texas, donno about other states.

But that is specifically for the welfare insurance plan, specifically for poor people (not necessarily citizens), or more specifically for poor children. That is NOT a plan that every citizen has access to.... like the national plans in UK, Canada, etc.

Likewise I doubt that fertility treatments would be covered in Medicare... seeing as how it's only available to retirement age folks... most who're already past menopause... though I wouldn't be surprised to hear that viagra is covered...

That's really a tough issue... but, in the end having kids is a choice. You aren't required to have kids, no one forces you to reproduce... you choose to do that... and from there to keep the kiddo or not... all your choice. So why wouldn't the other side of the coin also qualify as a choice... an option? You might really really really want one... and not want to adopt/HAS to be YOURS... want to go through pregnancy... etc... plenty feel that way... but I can see why folks would ask why they should have to pay for your choices.

I might really want a tummy tuck, just to improve the fit of my pants... feel better about myself... improve marital relations... plenty of reasons people get those... but in the end it's absolutely something I can live without... totally optional, won't kill me not to have one... (actually COULD kill me if I do!) but I have options... I could just buy bigger pants, a girdle, or hey go on a diet (ohhh I said the four letter D word)... or I could save up and pay for it myself... all my choice... I don't expect insurance to pay for a new wardrobe, or all my food so I can do the slime diet... so why should they pay for a surgery I don't need ... but just want?

Yes I realize that having a baby and a tummy tuck aren't the same thing... but boiling it down to choices, need vs want... there are similarities... but I can see that kind of example being used if this was being debated... if they were writing up the rules for a system like elsewhere and were deciding what's covered and not and voting on each issue... well it's not too hard to see that they'll be making the same 'scratch mine I scratch yours' stuff they've been doing... you want your fertility treatments... well then give me a free boob job for my mistress... you want birth control... I want Viagra... you want contacts (instead of only glasses covered)... give me hair plugs... you see how this could go on and on.

Seems to me like we'd be better off if they could come up with a bare bones system (annual exams, emergency, glasses) NOW and work out the OPTIONAL, non-life-threatening, stuff later in the day... but when has that happened... Defense Bill for instance had something like 1720 earmarks... one of which was a $5,000,000.00 check to the Kennedy Family... so, I'm not too hopeful on the odds of any health care thing without a bunch of crap attached is ever gonna happen... considering it took 30+ years to pass this one... *sigh* Boggles me it does.

 

[redhen]

Nope.. PM.. you're wrong.. Its NOT a choice... You dont know what your talking about.. sorry.
Its a REAL medical (genetic) condition that i have... which prevents my eggs from being viable... so... no, no CHOICE involved for me.... its not like i'm an old bag that already went through menopause and then meets a some young boy toy.. and they want kids together...
THATS a choice...
Not my condition... and MOST other women that are infertile too...
Its a REAL medical condition.. but yet.. in most states its not covered.. (im Mass..i'm lucky.. insurance companies (like BC/BS..) have to cover infertility..its mandated..) but i see so many women from other states that need IVF and their state does NOT mandate coverage... so insurance companies dont cover...
Which is what WILL happen with this new universal healthcare crap...

ETA: Okay..okay.. so i admit i AM an old bag... but still..

 

[rebelcowboysnb]

Quote:
Going to say this again.... I am a guy... I have MEDICAID. Its not just for pregnant women. Its much bigger than that.

Fertility would be the same as prosthetics. Things don't need to be a requirement to live to still be medically necessary for equality. Making them something that should be covered.

 

[PineappleMama]

I didn't mean you being infertile was a choice... MINE is, I chose to have a tubal... but that is SO not the same thing as what you're dealing with... didn't mean to imply I thought it was... wasn't even going there at all actually.

I mean specifically bringing a child into the world or not is a choice... you have sex or don't... you use BC or don't... you continue a pregnancy or don't... those ARE choices... even in the case of rape the victim has the choice of continuing the pregnancy or not and keeping the child (if continued) or not... no choice on the conception, NOT implying that... but after that there is a choice involved. Sucks to be put in that position, especially when dealing with the trauma of the event... UNDERSTATEMENT but still there's a choice to make. But that's a bit afield.

Thousands of years people have been fertile or not... having kids or not... by choice or not... not having a baby will not kill you. Cancer can kill you... Diabetes can kill you... AIDS will kill you... but not being able to conceive and carry your own child will not kill you. Sucks royally, for those that want kids, but not having kids isn't fatal. If it was I doubt my brothers would both be so against having them... if they knew they would DIE if they didn't father a child... I think they'd suck it up and do it. But that is NOT the case. You might be unhappy... miserable even... but there's plenty of stuff in life that makes people miserable... being stuck in a dead end job is one... being married to someone you hate... but just because they're unhappy with their lot in life doesn't mean it's MY responsibility to pay for them to attend college, pay for their divorce... etc. Especially not when there are options that they could do... scholarships, pro bono help... or in the case of infertility many folks adopt (or try to, that system needs an overhaul too IMO)... save up for treatments, save to hire a surrogate... if it's not my job to pay for your adoption process why should it be my job to pay for your fertility treatments?

I think that the issue of fertility treatments definitely falls into the elected procedures part of the program... thus, like boob jobs, they are NOT my primary concern when it comes to a national health plan that applies to all. Cover anything that threatens life, cover annuals and tests to catch those things... that's really all I would ask for if I was writing it up... everyone could get their insulin, the BP meds, their inhalers... everyone could get chemo, a transplant, or a quadruple bypass.... those to me are the priority... get that done, get every single citizen protected. And then, when you know what the budget will be... what revenues will be... when you know what funds are available for optional stuff THEN you can start nitpicking and bargaining for boob jobs.

Just my opinion... and I'll be the first to admit that it's biased since I already have kids, have never been in the position you're in... well, there were the nightmares and what not before DS and between the two... but that turned out to be moot... I never actually had a doctor tell me anything was wrong... just all in my head... so not the same at all... I have an inkling, but I cannot say I understand your feelings... and I'm not so arrogant that I'd claim I do.

 

[redhen]

You blabber on too much..

What i'm trying to say is... It IS a medical condition.. and therefore had better be covered in this new health care reform crud because i am covered NOW.....
I had better not lose coverage because some selfish ignorant person thinks thay shouldnt have to "pay" for it...
And what do you mean "you" pay for it?? When..how?? Do you mean paying for welfare folks insurance?? Because THATS a totally different thing...
We're talking about the health care reform bill...
So which are you talking about?...
Bah.. nevermind.. you confuse me..

 

[PineappleMama]

Don't feel bad, I confuse myself.

Okay... like my SIL had 'issues' and had to have a hysterectomy... no choice, had to do it or it'd woulda killed her. That's medically required... to save her life... 100% agree that that should totally be paid for in this hypothetical national system...

Say that BIL & SIL still want kids and her being unable (even before that^) they want to snag a surrogate so it can still at least be BIL's kiddo... heard folks do that... or even use eggs too and just need an incubator so to speak... either way... surrogate wants money, doctor to do the do costs money... say it costs 10000 dollars... and that is 10000 that BIL/SIL do not have... sorry, really, but I 100% feel should be paid for by them.... they WANT a kid, they do not need one to survive. In fact, having one would put more strain on their finances than is already there... suppose the well off don't have that concern... but then, they can afford to pay thousands of dollars for a baby too so it's kind of moot...

Of course... last year Sis gets pregnant again... can't afford the kids she has, already have them on Medicaid... she is NOT on it, being an adult... but once pregnant -for the baby's sake- she gets signed up. That's the system now... totally agree that it isn't the baby's fault he's there, totally deserves a shot at a decent life and good prenatal care and delivery is a good start... 100% paid for works for me... in a national plan I'd want this as well, no matter WHAT the choice was that led to conception... no matter why (religious, financial, marital issues)... whatever one's reasons for continuing a pregnancy (or not, you should't be forced or guilted into keeping a baby you can't support, that the system can't afford, that will end up in a "group home" or foster care if you do not want to, women are not brood mares) that should be 100% paid for because no prenatal care can kill, mother and/or child, can result in permanent damage, etc... thus it's just preventative medicine to cover it... wouldn't deny a diabetic their insulin, won't deny a preggers woman or the baby care either. Not that that's really a question... I think we can all agree that prenatal dern well better be covered... sorry for yet another tangent...

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Read what you're writing. Mass covers your care because the state mandates it. Other states don't mandate coverage and the insurance companies therefore do not cover it. This universal health care crap would cover a lot more than what most plans cover. IVF is indeed a condition that is genetic. It is not something that is required for a healthy life though. I still think it should be covered. Most health plans cover Viagra. Sex for an impotent man is not required. So if Viagra is covered IVF should be. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by anyone except in the case of problems like cleft pallet or something.

The problem with the mandated coverage is that it require the companies to provide all the bells and whistles. Because of that the coverage is more expensive than it needs to be. The reason for the mandated coverage is that they have made denial because of prior conditions illegal. That means you could live without coverage for years and years and then when you get diagnosed with cancer the insurance company would have to cover you. That is obviously not fair. So the insurance companies agreed not to fight that portion of the bill if insurance for all was mandated.

If they had universal care you would have the same doctors, hospitals, prescriptions and everything else. The biggest difference you would see is less people suffering from illnesses that can't afford insurance. It would all be on a sliding scale based on income.

There was a lot of very untrue information put out by some of the most popular talk people to keep health care from happening. This health care plan we now have is a stripped down mess. The original plan had everything in it, but politicians only care about getting re-elected. So the majority of them allowed it to turn in to what we now have.

They started out with the majority of people wanting universal health care for all. By the time all the pundits were done telling lies it was down to about 48%. I'm still hearing a lot of misconceptions on here.

By the way. We fostered for 10 years and Medicaid was fantastic. There are different levels of Medicaid coverage and foster kids get the very top level. The state is responsible for the health of those kids while they are in foster care and they get only the best. As a foster parent you are required to take them in for the slightest problem. If a cold turns in to pneumonia you will get investigated and possibly lose your license. No excuses. The resources are there.

 

[thaiturkey]

For anyone interested, here's a link to a few pics. of typical NHS hospital open wards. I searched for privately taken pics. but I imagine that they are discouraged fro reason of privacy.

http://www.stockphotography.co.uk/Store/Zoom.aspx?Prodid=8623

 

[redhen]

Quote:
Read what you're writing. Mass covers your care because the state mandates it. Other states don't mandate coverage and the insurance companies therefore do not cover it. This universal health care crap would cover a lot more than what most plans cover. IVF is indeed a condition that is genetic. It is not something that is required for a healthy life though. I still think it should be covered. Most health plans cover Viagra. Sex for an impotent man is not required. So if Viagra is covered IVF should be. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by anyone except in the case of problems like cleft pallet or something.

The problem with the mandated coverage is that it require the companies to provide all the bells and whistles. Because of that the coverage is more expensive than it needs to be. The reason for the mandated coverage is that they have made denial because of prior conditions illegal. That means you could live without coverage for years and years and then when you get diagnosed with cancer the insurance company would have to cover you. That is obviously not fair. So the insurance companies agreed not to fight that portion of the bill if insurance for all was mandated.

If they had universal care you would have the same doctors, hospitals, prescriptions and everything else. The biggest difference you would see is less people suffering from illnesses that can't afford insurance. It would all be on a sliding scale based on income.

There was a lot of very untrue information put out by some of the most popular talk people to keep health care from happening. This health care plan we now have is a stripped down mess. The original plan had everything in it, but politicians only care about getting re-elected. So the majority of them allowed it to turn in to what we now have.

They started out with the majority of people wanting universal health care for all. By the time all the pundits were done telling lies it was down to about 48%. I'm still hearing a lot of misconceptions on here.

By the way. We fostered for 10 years and Medicaid was fantastic. There are different levels of Medicaid coverage and foster kids get the very top level. The state is responsible for the health of those kids while they are in foster care and they get only the best. As a foster parent you are required to take them in for the slightest problem. If a cold turns in to pneumonia you will get investigated and possibly lose your license. No excuses. The resources are there.

I know what my job is as a foster parent.. thanks very much..

My kids go in when its needed.. i'm not an idiot.. and i truly dont need you to tell me about my job...

Try finding a provider that takes mass health? (not many choices in this town..) Try finding a dentist for them?? Many doctors simply WONT take Mass health... becuase they DONT pay AND they fight them about everything... "Is this REALLY needed ... do it THIS way.. its cheaper."..
I have to travel to the city an hour away for a dentist for the kids.(and we have 4 dentist right here in my town..)... and they dont cover much at all.. IMO..
Nothing like MY dental and health insurance covers... its a big difference...
Please dont presume that you know everything ...

 

[Dunkopf]

Quote:
Read what you're writing. Mass covers your care because the state mandates it. Other states don't mandate coverage and the insurance companies therefore do not cover it. This universal health care crap would cover a lot more than what most plans cover. IVF is indeed a condition that is genetic. It is not something that is required for a healthy life though. I still think it should be covered. Most health plans cover Viagra. Sex for an impotent man is not required. So if Viagra is covered IVF should be. Cosmetic surgery is not covered by anyone except in the case of problems like cleft pallet or something.

The problem with the mandated coverage is that it require the companies to provide all the bells and whistles. Because of that the coverage is more expensive than it needs to be. The reason for the mandated coverage is that they have made denial because of prior conditions illegal. That means you could live without coverage for years and years and then when you get diagnosed with cancer the insurance company would have to cover you. That is obviously not fair. So the insurance companies agreed not to fight that portion of the bill if insurance for all was mandated.

If they had universal care you would have the same doctors, hospitals, prescriptions and everything else. The biggest difference you would see is less people suffering from illnesses that can't afford insurance. It would all be on a sliding scale based on income.

There was a lot of very untrue information put out by some of the most popular talk people to keep health care from happening. This health care plan we now have is a stripped down mess. The original plan had everything in it, but politicians only care about getting re-elected. So the majority of them allowed it to turn in to what we now have.

They started out with the majority of people wanting universal health care for all. By the time all the pundits were done telling lies it was down to about 48%. I'm still hearing a lot of misconceptions on here.

By the way. We fostered for 10 years and Medicaid was fantastic. There are different levels of Medicaid coverage and foster kids get the very top level. The state is responsible for the health of those kids while they are in foster care and they get only the best. As a foster parent you are required to take them in for the slightest problem. If a cold turns in to pneumonia you will get investigated and possibly lose your license. No excuses. The resources are there.

I know what my job is as a foster parent.. thanks very much..

My kids go in when its needed.. i'm not an idiot.. and i truly dont need you to tell me about my job...

Try finding a provider that takes mass health? (not many choices in this town..) Try finding a dentist for them?? Many doctors simply WONT take Mass health... becuase they DONT pay AND they fight them about everything... "Is this REALLY needed ... do it THIS way.. its cheaper."..
I have to travel to the city an hour away for a dentist for the kids.(and we have 4 dentist right here in my town..)... and they dont cover much at all.. IMO..
Nothing like MY dental and health insurance covers... its a big difference...
Please dont presume that you know everything ...

Sorry, I don't presume to know everything. I fostered for 10 years and I happen to know quite a bit about it in my state. My post was not directed at you. It was simply in response to your post. I wan't saying you would get investigated. I was saying that we would if that happened. Try not to be so touchy.

Sorry Mass health is so crummy. Remember that the person who created it will probably be on the ticket in 2012. As PM says another thing to check out.

I was saying that in my state if you don't get the kids in and they get sick because of it you will be investigated and possibly have your license revoked. Yes only certain doctors and dentist except Medicaid. We have to drive 30 minutes to get our kids to a doctor that accepts Medicaid. It's a fact of life when you live in the boonies. When we lived in the metro area we could find multiple doctors within 5 minutes away.

You do prove my point though. Universal health care would have your local doctors on the same page as everyone else. You could use a doctor closer to you. Thanks