Austin Nesties
romigu
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
what is your opinion on the new healthcare bill?
this may start drama but i'd like to know. just looking at the responses to my earlier post, the average citizen is wildly under or uninsured. are you willing to pay more in taxes to be able to have health care insurance?
Re: what is your opinion on the new healthcare bill?
No. I think there are better alternatives (such as implementing rules/ structure for insurance providers/ medical costs) than a complete government healthcare takeover.
We pay $800 a month through DHs employer for our (crappy) health insurance. Given his income, I can't imagine that increased taxes would cost us more than that.
But I don't understand how a gov't run healthcare would work. First, isn't there a terrible shortage of doctors and nurses already? Doesn't everyone already complain about wait times at the doctors office? That would only get worse under gov't run healthcare. Maybe people are altruistic enough to put that aside so everyone can have healthcare....but I doubt it.
Second...and I've asked this before but nobody really had an answer. My Religious Right parents are terrified that the US is going to become like Canada and start denying old people health care. They live in Detroit and every Republican in Detroit knows somebody who knows somebody who's great aunt was denied - enter simple medical procedure - in Canada because she was too old. Is that true? does that happen?
Third - the only US run healthcare system I'm even remotely familiar with is military healthcare, which DH says is a joke. He and his friends have horror stories about the medical care they received in the military.
Basically, I don't know what to think about the health care issues. Its sucks. That's about all I got
I am willing to pay more in taxes, not because I need insurance, but because there are so many families I know who do need health insurance. I earn a very modest income, but a few more dollars in taxes is not going to substantially affect the quality of my life, and it can help others improve their lives. When I read the earlier post about people who are having to buy their own insurance without any of the benefits of selecting a lower cost group plan, it just depresses me. I also realize that for every person who is able to afford these high cost plans with few benefits, there are many more people who don't bother with health insurance because they simply can't afford it or can't get anyone to insure them. Is the proposed plan perfect? I would not expect any plan to be perfect. But I do think we have to start somewhere.
I wake up every day thankful that I only pay to insure my daughter. My employer provides one of the best insurance plans on the market for me and my husband (he works for the same employer) at no cost to us. Last year I did not even pay a single co-pay because my employer has their own health clinic that we can use for free. While I was pregnant, I paid about $30 extra a month to be covered 100%. I ended up spending almost 8 weeks in the hospital to have a healthy baby, and I walked out paying a grand total of $300 in co-pays. If I had no health care coverage, I would be bankrupt today because the final bill was about half of what my entire house is worth. I can't imagine what I would have done if I had to sit in that hospital and worry about how much it was costing to be there.
This healthcare bill would help my mother, my mother in-law, my father in-law, my best friend's mother and father, and the neighbors that live on either side of me get more affordable insurance that offers better coverage. That's a total of ten people that are in my daily life that I can help by putting a little more money into the system. You won't hear me complain one bit!
Yes.
My Bio (wedding pics added 7/6)
My 101
No I am not willing to pay more in taxes. I also have to disagree with you about many people being under insured for healthcare. I actually think what is more accurate is that people fall into one of two groups: those with no insurance and those who are over-insured. I do not think it is necessary for people to carry high premium insurance to cover every last little doctor's appointment or prescription. The true point of insurance is to prevent a financial crisis. How many people carry homeowners or car insurance that covers every last maintenance bill? No one that I know of. In fact, I don't even think that kind of insurance exsists. However, we feel like we need to have that kind of health insurance coverage. I don't get it.
Anyway, that is just my opinion. I work for the military healthcare system. Trust me, the last thing you want is government run healthcare. You will not be happy with the results.
Ditto this. Especially with all the changes that are being made left and right it seems. But generally I would not be opposed to paying a little more in taxes if healthcare reform would help more people/help people more... even if I do not directly benefit from the reform. I also believe that regulations are necessary since the industry obviously cannot police themselves.
BFP 12.20.2010 :: missed m/c 1/2011 around 8 weeks
BFP @ 9dpo 5.24.2011 :: missed m/c 6/2011 around 7 weeks
positive for ANAs (1:40) with a speckled pattern
MTHFR c677t mutation (heterozygous)
*folic acid, baby asprin, Prometrium, acupuncture, Lovenox*
BFP @ 9dpo 2.1.2012 || HCG = 8 : Progesterone = 19.2
2nd HCG @ 11dpo = 40 || 3rd HCG @ 21dpo = over 5000!
Stick, little one, stick! EDD October 15, 2012
See this is what I don't get. The average doctor's office visit, per all of my explanation of benefit statements, is less than $200. So, if someone is going to pay $500 a month in insurance, they are assuming they will go the doctor on average twice a month, every month. If they don't, then they are paying more for insurance than they really need. That person is much better off with lower cost insurance and investing the remaining insurance premium. The investment will then be available should there ever be a crisis.
I am 35 years old and typically go to the doctor 1 - 3 times per year. Last year (when I had insurance through my now ex-H), I used my health insurance twice. The out of pocket cost to me would have been $250 for the first doctor's visit, $125 for the second doctor's visit and $65 in medicine, if I did not have the insurance. Instead, I paid a total of $50 in office copays and $10 copay a the pharmacy. So, $6000 in insurance premiums saved me $370. That doesn't make sense.
Factcheck.org is a good place to start for deflating the spin. I used them a lot during the campaign and I continue to use them when something from either side strikes me as questionable.They focus mostly on advertisements, speeches, and spin. You probably won't find a general overview of the health care bill, but it's worth looking at to see just how much politicians distort the truth.
I'm with you. I really, really agree with the portion I bolded.
Rarely Updated Blog
Yes, I'd be willing to pay more in taxes. We're covered now - but DH wasn't for 6 years because he couldn't afford healthcare being a full time student. (his dad works for the gvt and they don't allow children - even if full time students past the age of 21). I didn't have it for a year either. I think paying a bit more in taxes to help people (who were like us) would benefit a lot of people. Like pp said - the additional taxes won't change my lifestyle... but the $500/month when DH wasn't employed would have been impossible to come up with. Impossible.
Now, we're covered and feel so blessed that his employer provides this for a cheaper cost. However, my job doesn't and I see many of my co-workers that aren't married struggling with themselves about seeing a dr. for major things... That's not fair and if I can help. Great.
"The House We Built."
A journey of building the dream.
I see your point, and I'm not trying to snark or argue. But what about:
1) $500 a month for an individual is a lot. But for a family plan, that's actually not too bad. Like I said before, we're paying $800 a month.
2) We may be overinsured but that's our only option. Company doesn't offer different plans to choose from. We looked into private health insurance but it was going to be either higher premiums or a really high deductible.
3) Office visit will depend on where you go, right? I've recently learned that Scott & White is the devil and is really expensive. For Layna's 12 Month well visit and shots, they charged a total of $970.
You're right, the average adult isn't going to the doctor enough to really use the insurance benefits. But there's pre-existing condition clauses, so you better be insured before you get sick.
I think there are better alternatives (such as implementing rules/ structure for insurance providers/ medical costs) than a complete government healthcare takeover.
and
This.
First of all, I don't think it will be a matter of a "couple dollars a month." I think it will be a significant tax increase.
I don't want the government having anything to do with my health care. They can't run themselves, why would I want them handle health care, you know ... where my life is at stake? I feel like the government taking over health care will just bring it down, not build it up.
They can't get the tax money I give them now to do what they say it will, I don't think taxing us more to help other people get health insurance is going to solve the problem. I pay about $100 a month for health insurance through my company, but to me it's worth it. I don't feel even slightly over-insured. Insurance is for the things you can't see coming. Health care and insurance is something that people should be willing to pay for. I agree that it's VERY important for people to have health insurance, but I don't think the governement should be taxing me to insure other people with their plan I'm sure will not work.
Something needs to be done, yes. This plan is not the answer.
Is that the negotiated contract price that the insurance company has agreed to with the doctor? My husband makes a pretty nice salary, and even we couldn't afford to go to my OBGYN. Every time I go in its at least $600... and that's the contracted price! I go at least twice a month because I'm being monitored for fertility. Its a sad state of affairs when two lawyers hypothetically wouldn't be able to afford to go to the doctor without insurance.
For pp's who say that government run healthcare would be a disaster... what about Medicare? People on it love it. Did you know that private insurance spends over 30% of their money on administration costs? That's compared to about 3% for Medicare. Its a very efficient plan and most people on it are very satisfied.
I will say that I think its an uphill battle to write a bill that will cover every American's individual needs. But, I'd rather have something that provides coverage to everyone than nothing at all. The arguement that the hospitals and doctors offices are already overwhelmed doesn't hold water with me. It may be a problem, but we should fix it by getting more people in that industry, not being afraid to insure more people because then too many would have access to doctors.
I would love to find a website that has a non-biased explanation of the high points of the bill. I'll play around on google later and see what I can find.
Do they love it because they don't have to pay for it?
Or because they get good, quality care by doctors they trust?
I don't know.
However, here is an interesting article about customer satisfaction.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njonline/mp_20090629_2600.php
I can vouch for the fact that the elderly people in my life who are on Medicare get the best care possible and love it.
My mother spent soooo much time and energy fighting with Medicare/ Medicaid. I won't say she died for not being given proper treatment, but things would have been incredibly different had she been able to actually see doctors when it was imperative.
I guess my thing is I don't understand why they have to TAKE OVER as apposed to trying to regulate the healthcare industry. I get that people need insurance, for sure. Something needs to be done. But government-run healthcare as the first option? That seems like putting out a bonfire with a large lake when hoses haven't even been attempted.
i haven't read the rest of the posts but this one struck me as a common source of misunderstanding. true, the $6000 isn't really adding up right now. I think the current health care crisis is more apparent with people that have no insurance (or just catastrophic insurance) that require more healthcare than they can afford. For example, let's say that you suddenly became ill...maybe with a kidney stone. that's a more common problem for women in our age group. so then you go to the doctor and you pay for that copay. but then the doc tells you to increase your fluid intake and the stone will pass. which happens almost all of the time. BUT the stone gets stuck and creates an infection. and lets say worst case scenario, you kidney function declines. and you need to be admitted to the hospital. and you need the stone lasered for it to normalize your kidney function.
Something so common as a kidney stone could snowball into a huge medical expense if you didn't pay that $6000 each year. Some people play the odds and hope that doesn't happen but if it does, they're stuck with thousands of dollars in medical bills because they have no insurance to cover that problem.
That's what I'm seeing as a huge problem. People of all ages cannot afford the premiums but inevitably do not receive the preventative and/or timely care that they would need for their health. I've seen people without insurance put off going to the doctor because they can't afford that $200 doctor visit out of pocket and they delay evaluation of their health problem resulting in a more advanced problem, which costs more.
I don't know if agree with the healthcare bill but I do think that everyone should be able to have access to healthcare without incurring a huge financial debt. Maybe we should lower health costs, maybe we should provide insurance to everyone. I don't think anyone knows the answer. $6000 is alot to pay for something that may or may not happen but the alternative is much more expensive.
*stepping off my soapbox*
Sorry to hear your mom had a hard time, FCB. No one deserves that. Although, I must say, that I've had fights with my own insurance and heard horror stories about others having to do the same... so who knows if she would have had a different experience with private insurance?
I don't have the impression that the bill is a complete government take-over. Most people will be able to keep the plan they have, there will just be some regulation on the company (as you suggested). What's the difference between a take over and regulating the health industry? A take-over sounds worse, but not everyone would have to sign on to the government insurance plan (if the public option even survives the vote). I guess I need you to explain how you think its a take-over versus regulation.
This was interesting. Scroll to the middle of the page where it talks about private plans being illegal.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/08/seven-falsehoods-about-health-care/
I honestly don't know the details of the bill. I do know that my biggest concern is employer sponsored health insurance. My husband would qualify for individual insurance without too much expense as I suspect our son would. However, with the current qualification practices, I would qualify but at an extremely high rate, about $1100/mo just for me. It's totally unaffordable. Honestly, I like what we have going now, but I don't like that if you have a pre-existing condition and can't afford individual insurance, you're tied to an employer for that coverage.
I have to respectfully disagree with your first statement here. 3 years ago I thought all I had to do to be a responsible adult was "have insurance." My employer offered only one plan. I took it and thought I was golden.
Then I was diagnosed with cancer. When we got the bill for my surgery (I was in the hospital only FOUR HOURS), it was $20,000. I thought, surely there is a mistake. I have insurance. I called. I was informed that my "out patient surgery" ANNUAL cap was $1,000.
Whatthefuck kind of surgery...ANY kind of surgery...is only going to cost $1,000? That insurance plan was a complete joke, and the company offering it should never have been allowed to create an insurance plan like that. That's not insurance.
As for your second statement, I had insurance, and BECAUSE of that insurance I did have a financial crisis. We are still paying off those medical bills and will be for years. The implications of that on our budget and our lives have been profound and far-reaching.
Would a government-run healthcare system have prevented what happened to me? I don't know. I don't know enough about the proposed bill to make an informed decision either way. But I do know that if that insurance company had been regulated by the government...if it hadn't been a private company that could do whatever it wanted in the interest of its own bottom line with complete disregard for the well-being of its customers...I never would have been so woefully under-insured and today would not be facing the financial constraints that my husband and I face just so that I could stay healthy.
my 2 cents: the system is COMPLETELY broken. it's really sad that such a high percentage of citizens are uninsured (whether it's by choice is a different topic, but I don't think most are by choice). every.single.person is one accident/illness away from being bankrupt, whether you have insurance or not. and the fact that you can be denied coverage because of a family history or pre-existing condition is appalling.
it's pretty ironic to hear older generations b!tching about "socialized" healthcare...uh, what exactly is medicare, people?!?! medicare has it's own sets of issues, but it seems to be a pretty decent program.
insurance needs to be available for those who want it and it needs to be affordable.
::getting off of my soapbox::
I guess my point is being missed. I don't advocate having no insurance. I do think it is crazy to pay high premuims for the "what ifs." I carry what some would consider catastrophic health insurance. I pay $103 per month. I have no coverage until I have spent $3000, at which time I have full coverage. So, if I get a kidney stone, I will spend $3000 on top of my annual premium of $1236. So, for a total of $4236 I am covered for a major illness. That is still less than the $400 a month I was quoted for more standard coverage, which still has a deductible. In that situation, more standard health insurance was going to cost me an annual premium of $4800 plus the $3500 deductible before I was covered 100%. As a result, I would be out $8300. Even with higher premiums, you still get socked with a deductible in the event of a major issue.
Regardless, I worked through the various scenarios with a financial advisor and not matter how you work it, it works out better with a lower monthly cost insurance. I just have $3000 in the bank set aside for a medical emergency if it happens. But even with "regular" coverage, I would still need that money for my deductible.
I also think we have to better informed consumers. You have to understand what treatment you are going to be getting and what your insurance coverage actually is. Like pp said, you can still have a financial crisis even when you have insurance.
this. and your situation completely sucks, 1 million percent.
ditto
Medicare for the insured person is a nightmare ... however, not any more of a nightmare than a lot of paid insurance companies out there, I'm sure.
The problem with medicare comes in with the doctors. Doctors hate it. Many won't accept it at all. Those who do, dread seeing a medicare patient come in. Not because of the patient, but because of the paperwork and reimbursement nightmares they know are coming. While it's not directly poor health care from the doctors to the patients ... yes it most certainly can delay coverage for the insured or cause doctors to (however subconsciously) giver poorer treatment to those patients.