United States is the worst country could health care.

[deafgal]

I had to apply for Medicaid for pregnant women. I probably won't even get to be seen for this pregnancy until I'm out if my first trimester. It driving me crazy!

Most clinics won't see you until you are 8 weeks pregnant anyhow, insurance or no insurance.
they made me wait.
you should apply for WIC (women, children, infant) while you are at it.

 

[deafgal]

I only have to pay for a co-pay ($25) if I go in for a non-routine pregnancy scan. And then $250 for the hospital stay for birth. All my prenatal appointments and postnatal are covered.

Do you guys have healthcare coverage through your employer? I spend about $300/month for both my DH and myself (and that includes dental).

that's pretty much the same for us. Except our insurance will not cover everything 100% (it is more 30%-80% range) we pay $500 a month through my husband's job.

 

[LucyLake]

But at the same time so many people in the USA don't want public health care? I just don't understand that whole Republican debate? The longer the system exists, the more robust it becomes and the better quality of care you'll get (doubts? See first hand in Britain or any other Common Wealth country). You don't get better health care by whining that not enough pay into it or people cheat or abuse it or how many times have I heard a redneck say I take care of myself (while sipping a rye & coke), I don't want to pay for some fat guys healthcare who refuses to take care of himself. Palleeeeaaase, enough excuses already, some people are simply brainwashed by the rich wanting to get richer. And likely can't make the connection of how a lack of public healthcare contributes to that model (rich getting richer, poor getting poorer -and by design of the system less educated and healthy).

Petzy, the PC's in Canada are trying furiously (in Alberta anyway) to implement private USA style only-for-the-rich healthcare (as they slowly kill the public system). In the past 5 years they bankrupt a long term knee/hip surgery hospital here in Calgary, they've tied the hands of Fertility clinics allowing only 1 embryo to be put back, closed a mentally handicapped long term care hospital and forced those autistic/handicapped people back onto their families forcing ppl to quit their jobs to take care of them, cut palliative care nurses down to nothing (those people need the most care in our entire health care system -cancer patients on their deathbeds). Etc etc, I could go on and on.

There's so much going on under Harpers' watch we have no clue at the totality of it all. Kind of like Bush Jr.

Agreed on all points EXCEPT that with a very high risk identical twin pregnancy where the babies share so much and are at risk for twin to twin transfusion syndrome, the United States is much preferred. There is more of a medicalized approach here and I've had about 50 scans so far to be on the safe side. Up until 2007 in the UK, if twins had TTTS you were out of luck and they simply died. The UK since it's universal--didn't want to pay $20K just for one woman's TTTS laser surgery. Canada was similar.

 

[2have4kids]

But at the same time so many people in the USA don't want public health care? I just don't understand that whole Republican debate? The longer the system exists, the more robust it becomes and the better quality of care you'll get (doubts? See first hand in Britain or any other Common Wealth country). You don't get better health care by whining that not enough pay into it or people cheat or abuse it or how many times have I heard a redneck say I take care of myself (while sipping a rye & coke), I don't want to pay for some fat guys healthcare who refuses to take care of himself. Palleeeeaaase, enough excuses already, some people are simply brainwashed by the rich wanting to get richer. And likely can't make the connection of how a lack of public healthcare contributes to that model (rich getting richer, poor getting poorer -and by design of the system less educated and healthy).

Petzy, the PC's in Canada are trying furiously (in Alberta anyway) to implement private USA style only-for-the-rich healthcare (as they slowly kill the public system). In the past 5 years they bankrupt a long term knee/hip surgery hospital here in Calgary, they've tied the hands of Fertility clinics allowing only 1 embryo to be put back, closed a mentally handicapped long term care hospital and forced those autistic/handicapped people back onto their families forcing ppl to quit their jobs to take care of them, cut palliative care nurses down to nothing (those people need the most care in our entire health care system -cancer patients on their deathbeds). Etc etc, I could go on and on.

There's so much going on under Harpers' watch we have no clue at the totality of it all. Kind of like Bush Jr.

Agreed on all points EXCEPT that with a very high risk identical twin pregnancy where the babies share so much and are at risk for twin to twin transfusion syndrome, the United States is much preferred. There is more of a medicalized approach here and I've had about 50 scans so far to be on the safe side. Up until 2007 in the UK, if twins had TTTS you were out of luck and they simply died. The UK since it's universal--didn't want to pay $20K just for one woman's TTTS laser surgery. Canada was similar.

So it'd be paid for by insurance/Medicare in the States?

 

[deafgal]

Posts like this frustrate me. Was this not a planned pregnancy?

You know, just the other day, my husband blamed himself for not climbing the corporation ladder. He was saying if he did this or that and he would have better paying jobs to this day (believe me he did go to 4 yrs college and graduated) and I told him so someone beat you to it...it doesn't mean our kids deserve lack of healthcare (we were talking about it. He is very conservative).Our son have asthma and it is expensive. I wanted him to understand he want the same access to healthcare as everyone else and question if he really would watch our son suffer more because he did not climb the corporation ladder. I wouldn't.

And baby making should not be just for the wealthy.

 

[LucyLake]

But at the same time so many people in the USA don't want public health care? I just don't understand that whole Republican debate? The longer the system exists, the more robust it becomes and the better quality of care you'll get (doubts? See first hand in Britain or any other Common Wealth country). You don't get better health care by whining that not enough pay into it or people cheat or abuse it or how many times have I heard a redneck say I take care of myself (while sipping a rye & coke), I don't want to pay for some fat guys healthcare who refuses to take care of himself. Palleeeeaaase, enough excuses already, some people are simply brainwashed by the rich wanting to get richer. And likely can't make the connection of how a lack of public healthcare contributes to that model (rich getting richer, poor getting poorer -and by design of the system less educated and healthy).

Petzy, the PC's in Canada are trying furiously (in Alberta anyway) to implement private USA style only-for-the-rich healthcare (as they slowly kill the public system). In the past 5 years they bankrupt a long term knee/hip surgery hospital here in Calgary, they've tied the hands of Fertility clinics allowing only 1 embryo to be put back, closed a mentally handicapped long term care hospital and forced those autistic/handicapped people back onto their families forcing ppl to quit their jobs to take care of them, cut palliative care nurses down to nothing (those people need the most care in our entire health care system -cancer patients on their deathbeds). Etc etc, I could go on and on.

There's so much going on under Harpers' watch we have no clue at the totality of it all. Kind of like Bush Jr.

Agreed on all points EXCEPT that with a very high risk identical twin pregnancy where the babies share so much and are at risk for twin to twin transfusion syndrome, the United States is much preferred. There is more of a medicalized approach here and I've had about 50 scans so far to be on the safe side. Up until 2007 in the UK, if twins had TTTS you were out of luck and they simply died. The UK since it's universal--didn't want to pay $20K just for one woman's TTTS laser surgery. Canada was similar.

So it'd be paid for by insurance/Medicare in the States?

100% along with entire NICU bill. It would be great to take European universal model, but ALSO the same level of exceedingly amazing specialized care we have now for our risky moms. Under Medicaid, you can be seen in the ER everyday of your pregnancy should you choose. In Canada and the UK, you have to wait and sometimes even bleed before very scheduled scans in certain wks.

 

[OpheliaVY]

I don't want government run healthcare. I'll gladly shell out $10,000 to make sure I receive the healthcare I want. I don't have anything negative to say about other countries who have public healthcare but the USA is a hot mess right now and has
No business trying to run the personal lives of it's citizens. IMO. Each state has it's own public assistance program regulated by the government but not ran on a federal level, if that makes since. Tennessee's state run program is called TNcare.

I believe we need more of a reform on medical costs. I believe there needs to be a cap on how much a doctor or facility can charge for a certain procedure. What would cost $10,000 in my state could cost $200,000 in another state. I know it sounds unreal but that was the case with a man in California who had a gallbladder removed.

My pregnancy was definitely planned and I can afford it I was just saying the cost is ridiculous and I understand where others are coming from. As far as women being on public assistance.. As long as they're getting the proper care that's all that matters. It lasts only months and health is more important than any red/blue agenda.

 

[2have4kids]

I don't want government run healthcare. I'll gladly shell out $10,000 to make sure I receive the healthcare I want.

It's nice to know that at least you, on this thread, would receive healthcare if there were no government-run healthcare in the USA. At least 1 person is deserving.

 

[OpheliaVY]

I didn't say anything negative about the people who couldn't afford healthcare so I think it's unfair to be criticized because I'm fortunate enough to afford private healthcare.

All pregnant women have access to healthcare on a state level. I don't believe it's something that should be handed over to the government to control. The Affordable Care act (obamacare) hasn't made insurance or healthcare affordable at all, it's just made it mandatory or else a fine will be issued. So now insurance companies can charge whatever fee they want knowing we have to have it and they all inflated their premiums. That's what happens in America when the government tries to make things better, it made it worse. To make things affordable, a cap needs to be placed on hospitals, doctors and corporate insurance companies so they're not squeezing the little guy just because the government makes it mandatory.

 

[JJsmom]

I had to apply for medicaid as well. They back date up to 90 days but in the mean time you have to pay for your care. I had to go to a health clinic and pay cash then they want labs done and told me I have to bring extra money on top of the doc fees to pay for the labs. I said but I'm pending medicaid, they said what I have to do is pay for them cash, then try to get medicaid to reimburse me for the money I have to pay for the labs. I don't agree with that at all. Once I get the approval for medicaid, then I can go to my regular doc and get the better care with them.

 

[2have4kids]

I didn't say anything negative about the people who couldn't afford healthcare so I think it's unfair to be criticized because I'm fortunate enough to afford private healthcare.

All pregnant women have access to healthcare on a state level. I don't believe it's something that should be handed over to the government to control. The Affordable Care act (obamacare) hasn't made insurance or healthcare affordable at all, it's just made it mandatory or else a fine will be issued. So now insurance companies can charge whatever fee they want knowing we have to have it and they all inflated their premiums. That's what happens in America when the government tries to make things better, it made it worse. To make things affordable, a cap needs to be placed on hospitals, doctors and corporate insurance companies so they're not squeezing the little guy just because the government makes it mandatory.

I guess I understood that healthcare, run by state level or federal level, is what they coin public healthcare. The NHS is federal for Britain for example while Alberta Healthcare is provincial in Canada, both provide healthcare for pregnancies, broken legs, cancer etc. and the only way I'm spending $10,000 is to do some sort of special health procedure (medical tourism) outside the country that's not offered in Canada. It's not for the rich here, it's for the people. My premiums are $40/month, for this public service. So far I've had a scan at 6 & 7 weeks because I miscarried an embryo, I have another one at 12 weeks, I've had 3 hcg tests and I have 3 different drugs that are keeping my pregnancy healthy for an public healthcare expense of to me of $35/month. I had to wait a whopping 3 hours for my first scan to be arranged and I already had papers for the second drawn up, just in case. Government run public healthcare ensures the middle class and poor are taken care of. Most of us here fall into that category. It doesn't get rid of private insurance, it brings a little humanity to a society.

Sometimes I find it's people who've never had anything happen to them are the haters of public healthcare. Once something happens and your insurance refuses to pay for it, well the learning curve is steep, isn't it?

 

[mara16jade]

Every person will have a different experience with our healthcare system. I have never had an issue, and I too would rather pay what I do so that I can keep my options and variety of insurance types.

 

[kimmy04]

But at the same time so many people in the USA don't want public health care? I just don't understand that whole Republican debate? The longer the system exists, the more robust it becomes and the better quality of care you'll get (doubts? See first hand in Britain or any other Common Wealth country). You don't get better health care by whining that not enough pay into it or people cheat or abuse it or how many times have I heard a redneck say I take care of myself (while sipping a rye & coke), I don't want to pay for some fat guys healthcare who refuses to take care of himself. Palleeeeaaase, enough excuses already, some people are simply brainwashed by the rich wanting to get richer. And likely can't make the connection of how a lack of public healthcare contributes to that model (rich getting richer, poor getting poorer -and by design of the system less educated and healthy).

Petzy, the PC's in Canada are trying furiously (in Alberta anyway) to implement private USA style only-for-the-rich healthcare (as they slowly kill the public system). In the past 5 years they bankrupt a long term knee/hip surgery hospital here in Calgary, they've tied the hands of Fertility clinics allowing only 1 embryo to be put back, closed a mentally handicapped long term care hospital and forced those autistic/handicapped people back onto their families forcing ppl to quit their jobs to take care of them, cut palliative care nurses down to nothing (those people need the most care in our entire health care system -cancer patients on their deathbeds). Etc etc, I could go on and on.

There's so much going on under Harpers' watch we have no clue at the totality of it all. Kind of like Bush Jr.

Agreed on all points EXCEPT that with a very high risk identical twin pregnancy where the babies share so much and are at risk for twin to twin transfusion syndrome, the United States is much preferred. There is more of a medicalized approach here and I've had about 50 scans so far to be on the safe side. Up until 2007 in the UK, if twins had TTTS you were out of luck and they simply died. The UK since it's universal--didn't want to pay $20K just for one woman's TTTS laser surgery. Canada was similar.

So it'd be paid for by insurance/Medicare in the States?

100% along with entire NICU bill. It would be great to take European universal model, but ALSO the same level of exceedingly amazing specialized care we have now for our risky moms. Under Medicaid, you can be seen in the ER everyday of your pregnancy should you choose. In Canada and the UK, you have to wait and sometimes even bleed before very scheduled scans in certain wks.

I'm not exactly sure how everything works in the states and the UK, and I'm very aware there are benefits and drawbacks to every system. However, I live in Canada (Vancouver) and my experiences being pregnant have been wonderful. We are seen usually between 6-8 weeks for a dating scan, then not until 20 weeks unless you have reason to believe another scan would be beneficial. I had a few extra scans with my son because they thought he was breech, but he wasn't. I've also experienced a miscarriage at 9 weeks and my doctor and the hospital were amazing. I had an early scan, bloods taken every 48 hours, doctor phoning me on his days off to tell me the results, and when I went to the ER with bleeding they saw me right away and took it very seriously and did everything they could to ease my mind and make me feel comfortable. I am just feeling very blessed to be in Canada right now! (Don't get me wrong, I love the states too!) .. And never been to the UK sadly.

 

[2have4kids]

Kimmy, I agree with you, I've had wonderful coverage. Who on earth can email their doctor for prednisone, estrogen and progesterone prescriptions and call in for your doc to set up a scan?

But we have to understand the big picture right now in Canada, the PC's are running our healthcare into USA style coverage-down the pooper for public care. as Harper goes to Germany to negotiate with big drug companies (he made it impossible for generics to come onto the market for 5 years as opposed to 2/3 years as it's always been) it's now going to cost us millions more for drug coverage. It's either out of taxpayers pockets now or shortages of drugs (which has already happened). It's widening the income gap. We Should be moving towards better coverage and looking to countries like Britain, Norway, Sweden, etc, countries with better systems rather than take-care-of-the-rich-only-systems.Just read about some of the things they've done to chip away at public healthcare. The things we are enjoying won't last if they keep going like this.

 

[messica]

I don't want government run healthcare. I'll gladly shell out $10,000 to make sure I receive the healthcare I want.

It's nice to know that at least you, on this thread, would receive healthcare if there were no government-run healthcare in the USA. At least 1 person is deserving.

It's not about being deserving or not. It's about having the freedom of choice which is exactly what this country was founded on.

I had Medicare during the duration of my pregnancies and it covered my children through the first two years of their lives. I wouldn't have had a bad word to say about it when I was on it because I didn't know the differences. I was just grateful to have any coverage at all at that point and I certainly never complained about it. 10 years later now having private insurance, the difference is night and day as far as options and quality go. It should be there for those who need it, but it should not be a service forced on people who do not want it.

While a socialist government program requiring mandated participation may work for some, that doesn't mean it would work for all or should be the rule across the board.


So I guess you can add me and make it two.

Lots of liberal minded individuals like to claim no one would be able to afford private insurance, when fact is most of the population simply *chooses* not to make it a priority.

In this country, that's a right (or rather was and still should be).

 

[2have4kids]

* It's about having the freedom of choice which is exactly what this country was founded on.

* but it should not be a service forced on people who do not want it.

* Lots of liberal minded individuals like to claim no one would be able to afford private insurance, when fact is most of the population simply *chooses* not to make it a priority.
.

By removing a public system you remove choice, exactly what the USA was founded on. Choice means you can get on the healthcare bus even when you don't have gold bricks in your pockets.

Services are never forced on people, that's quite a thought there you never have to go to the hospital if you don't want to.

Funny that no one who is paying for private insurance has offered up exactly what they're actually paying. We've had an uber rich $10,000 number kicked out from a wealthy lady, but nothing that sounds factual. So until we know the costs, that private insurance is affordable and people just neglect to make it a priority, this is an opinion, anecdotal evidence, a rumour, or what I prefer a republican 'bubble' statement (have to watch Bill Maher to get that one) rather than the truth. You're saying that the majority of American's choose to not make healthcare a priority-they just don't want it/care enough. It's quite a far out argument. The rest of the world looks at this, that Americans prefer same healthcare quality for people as impoverished nations (which was where it'd be at in your ideal system) just a little strange. Argument doesn't hold water-sorry.

 

[OpheliaVY]

I'm no longer discussing politics. To the OP. I hope your Medicaid comes through in a timely fashion so you're able to get the care you need and deserve. I hope no one makes you feel like less of a person because you're seeking a public program out for assistance. You're putting the health of you and your baby above any negative stereotype it may carry. Until now, I didn't know there was a negative stereotype for us "wealthy ladies" offering our support. I guess it works both ways. Happy and healthy 9 months!

 

[2have4kids]

I'm sorry you're offended by wealthy, you're example smacked of opulence and privilege. When you say you'd remove public, government-run healthcare in a post where the OP is upset at the lack of healthcare due to lack of public government-run system (which now is unique to the States and most impoverished nations), I find that offensive especially to OP. She's needing that system to get better not torn down. But that I said wealthy, I didn't mean to offend you, just going with how you've described yourself.

 

[messica]

* It's about having the freedom of choice which is exactly what this country was founded on.

* but it should not be a service forced on people who do not want it.

* Lots of liberal minded individuals like to claim no one would be able to afford private insurance, when fact is most of the population simply *chooses* not to make it a priority.
.

By removing a public system you remove choice, exactly what the USA was founded on. Choice means you can get healthcare even when you don't have gold bricks in your pockets.

Services are never forced on people, that's quite a thought there you never have to go to the hospital if you don't want to.

Funny that no one who is paying for private insurance has offered up exactly what they're actually paying. We've had an uber rich $10,000 number kicked out from a wealthy lady, but nothing that sounds factual. So until we know the costs, that private insurance is affordable and people just neglect to make it a priority, this is an opinion, anecdotal evidence, a rumour, or what I prefer a republican 'bubble' statement (have to watch Bill Maher to get that one) rather than the truth. You're saying that the majority of American's choose to not make healthcare a priority-they just don't want it/care enough. It's quite a far out argument. The rest of the world looks at this, that Americans prefer same healthcare quality for people as impoverished nations (which was where it'd be at in your ideal system) just a little strange. Argument doesn't hold water-sorry.

I'm not sure why you seem so hostile and bitter about others believing differently than you do but I'd be happy to offer up any details you're curious about.

No one is proposing Medicare be stripped from public option. I'm not sure where on earth you're getting that from??? No one is arguing it shouldn't continue to be available. What freedom **is** currently being stripped is the right to refrain from having coverage at all in this country.

As far as what it costs....my husband gets coverage through his work for a $34/month premium. Our family coverage (covers me and my two children from my previous marriage) is an additional $120/month premium. $2,500 annual deductible with a $5,000 family deductible cap. Most services are 90/10 post deductible if not covered 100%. HealthPartners is our carrier, look it up if you'd like.

I couldn't have skated by on my states sliding scale fee for less than that as a single mother (MNCare, because even as a single mother of two children I ran a licensed home daycare and made too much to qualify for continued Medicare). Instead I chose to refrain from purchasing any coverage at all and opted to pay out of pocket for our healthcare expenses (were there emergencies? yes. at times did it get expensive? yes. but it was still cheaper for me to go this route and I was fine with it).

I looked up what it would cost to get the newly required mandated "ObamaCare" purely out of curiosity. The cheapest plan available would have forced me to fork over more than $600/month for coverage for just the three of us or face a mandated fine come my annual taxes to the tune of a few thousand dollars. Annual deductible **per individual covered** was $10,000 and the coverage was sparse at best covering only the very basic of services. No vision, dental or prescription coverage. I said a prayer of thanks as I read over the numbers that I am remarried and my spouse has affordable coverage because ObamaCare is most definitely not anything I would declare as such.

In the United States you are currently required by law to fall into one of three categories:

1). Be poor enough to qualify for Medicare
2). Make enough and budget for private insurance
3). Enroll in ObamaCare

-or- face massive tax fines

Where there used to be freedom to refrain, there is now force under threats to comply with one of the above and that is absolutely a concern.


I don't watch tv to gather information on the state of my country or it's politics although it sounds like you do, which may explain a lot of your misinformation.

I am not a republican btw, I consider myself libertarian.


Just as an aside - I would prefer you refrain from speaking for "the rest of the world." You are one person with one opinion (which you're entitled to I'll give and respect, but not when you attempt to be a supposed voice for the rest of the world whom I really think could give a rats patoot about the state of healthcare here when they've got bigger fish to fry in and amongst their own I'm sure).

 

[OpheliaVY]

I'm sorry you're offended by wealthy, you're example smacked of opulence and privilege. When you say you'd remove public, government-run healthcare in a post where the OP is upset at the lack of healthcare due to lack of public government-run system (which now is unique to the States and most impoverished nations), I find that offensive especially to OP. She's needing that system to get better not torn down. But that I said wealthy, I didn't mean to offend you, just going with how you've described yourself.

It's obvious you are ignorant in your assumption of how things work in the US. I've tried to draw you a pretty picture in crayon so you understand. OP is trying to sign up under her state run health program for pregnant women called Medicaid and is having difficulties with the timeframe. Another poster was able to sign up with no difficulties in a matter of days. I'm against a federally run program as I believe it would make the red tape that much more difficult. Federal and state are completely different. I'm all for it staying on a state level not removing it entirely. I'm not wealthy by any means. I'm considered upper middle class for my area but could be at poverty level in another. Just because I'm fortunate not to require the food stamp program or state healthcare doesn't mean I'm against their existence. You're taking my posts and twisting them to further your own political banter. I don't plan on moving to Canada so I don't care how things are done up there. Why you care so much about the US healthcare system is your business but I actually live here and have more of a right to say how I believe things should be done than you.