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.
How would you vote if?
My son was born with a genetic disorder. We did not know until he was born. We have private insurance through my husbands job. The insurance company(BCBS) tried to kick him off twice before he turned 2 years old for pre-existing conditions. We had to fight to prove that he came out of the womb disabled.
When the law was passed that insurance companies can no longer do this I cried for joy and relief.
Mitt Romney has said that if elected one of his first priorities would be to get rid of the affordable healthcare law.
My son would once again be at risk for getting removed from our insurance and God forbid my husband lose his job, a future health insurance company can just deny a 3 year disabled boy. How would you vote? How should millions of other parents and adults in my situation vote? This is a life or death election for some people. Again I ask how would you vote?
Re: How would you vote if?
First, ((hugs)). I hate that you've had to fight for coverage. You shouldn't have to stress about that.
Second, if the choice is between a candidate who cares about people, and candidate who cares about more money for businesses, I'm going to have to say I'd vote for people every time. People shouldn't have to struggle for health care.
We all have our anecdotes.
My husband was born with a congenital heart disorder. He had operations at a few days old, at five years old, and in eighth grade. He was listed on the heart transplant list in 1999, and failed a cardiac test in 2004 and was 1A. He got a heart transplant that same year.
We are scared to death that our great insurance, the private insurance we love that allows him to go to the #1 heart center in the US, could be eliminated because of the PPACA. At some juncture my employer might decide that it's easier to eliminate our insurance coverage rather than pay for the increased coverage. (Also, if not for a sweetheart deal, my health care plan, under which my husband gets his care, might have been taxed quite a bit.)
I know a husband might not tug at the heartstrings the way a kid might, but like I said, we all have our anecdotes.
I worry that the uninsured are going to be covered, but those who have their insurance and like it are going to lose theirs, and the #s might even out.
This is one of the big reasons why I AM voting for Barack Obama. He CARES about your son and his health. He doesn't think you or your son just need to pull yourselves up by your bootstraps and if you can't, well survival of the fittest, I guess.
I think the Jesus the right clings so hard to would feel the same way about your son. He would be disgusted with the people trying to deny him care.
::HUGS:: for your battle. I hope this country doesn't do your family a disservice and injustice come November.
The law is designed so that your private insurance will not be affected.
But for argument's sake, let's say that through some strange turn of events the uninsured gaining coverage causes you to lose your insurance. Then you become one of the uninsured... getting coverage. So even under that bizarre scenario - you would still be fine.
So you want to deny some people their only shot at health care because you're scared you might lose yours, despite the fact that you will assuredly not lose yours, and even though you would still get coverage if you did?
It's a valid concern to an extend. But when you look at independent studies, the reality is that Americans pay a lot more to 1) not be healthier and 2) not live longer than countries who have healthcare systems that are actually ranked HIGHER while spending LESS. So a lot of the $$ that is spent in our healthcare system is not creating better outcomes overall anyway.
There will always be anecdotes, 'tis true. I hear anecdotes all the time about how terrible the Canadian healthcare system is...from Americans. Meanwhile the Candians I interract with feel sorry for us and our healthcare/insurance system.
I dont' think Obamacare is perfect. But I have more sympathy for the parent of a disabled 3 year old who might get NO coverage than for the heart patient who's coverage might be decreased slightly to allow for more Americans to have any coverage at all.
And I am one of those Americans who could be affected. I believe that we need to do what's right for the country as a whole.
How would I vote if I were you, do you mean?
This is just an awful situation. I don't know where you stand on principle, but in this case, I could understand voting for something that would uphold the healthcare law even if you were against it in principle.
I would vote Obama.
What is Romney's plan for the people who are unable to afford insurance and have to have illnesses that are untreated due to not being able to afford it?
Looking back at my post I know see I should have asked if "you" were a conservative how would you vote. I am strongly supporting President Obama. I guess I wanted to share that there are some very important reasons why individuals vote. I dont give a shiz about, birth certificates, who is or who is not a Muslim or how somebodys personality might suck. I care about the policies and how they effect my family.
And I agree with other posters that every one has a story. And every one should make a choice about how they want that story to continue and the policies that can change that story....not silly conspiracies or unfound rumors.
It really bothers me when people's sole reason for not voting for Obama is because he may have a fake BC.
Ok vent over!
I am glad you clarified. I am a registered Republican. I also have a child with a genetic disorder. We have good health insurance and have only been denied once (so far) for speech therapy. I am glad you were able to get your child's coverage figured out.
While there are some things in the ACA I like (pre-existing conditions being one of them) there are other things in the program that scare the crap out of me.
One example is the "evidence based care" clause. I understand that as your child will get care coverage for treatments proven to be effective for that particular diagnosis. How are you supposed to prove evidence based care for a child who's genetic signature is completely unique to them? There is NO ONE ELSE on this planet with our son's microdeletions. Also, sometimes a therapy or drug for one diagnosis shows promising results for another, but is not necessarily "officially" backed up by research. I guess people with diseases such as Crohn's will have to pay 10 grand a month out-of-pocket for the chemotherapy drugs that are off-label use for their condition.
The other thing that the ACA has impacted is our out of pocket costs for procedures. DH wants us to schedule all 'expensive stuff" to happen before the end of the year because our deductable and premiums are going way, way, up. His companys' self-insured policy is having to make a lot of adjustments for ACA. They are passing those on to us.
As far as the "Obama caring MORE for your child than Romney" comments. Please. Obama doesn't even help out people who are related to him by blood.
Could you please clarify your last sentence?
She also needed thousands of dollars worth of dental care.
I am also talking about his half brother whose child needed $1000 for medical care. He got the money he needed from a Republican.
Where are you getting this information? I'm genuinely interested.
First of all, I am so, so sorry that you've had to fight this battle with your insurance company.
Possibly losing our primary healthcare for my daughter is a nightmare situation for our family, and I'm very grateful for the ACA. We do have medicaid as a secondary (her condition is an automatic qualifier), and we can fall back on that if need be, but I worry about how much would not end up being covered if that happened. Many families with SN children aren't as lucky to be able to qualify for medicaid as a secondary, and it scares the crap out of me to think about the ACA being struck down, causing parents to have to fight the battles you have fought.
If you are talking about that brother, then why in the world should Obama pay for his child's dental care? They're brothers by blood only. I can't find any evidence that they've even ever met and George is Obama's father's son by his fourth wife. Obama was born to his second wife.
So if your dad had four wives you, as the child of the second wife, should be responsible for the dental care of the child of the youngest child of the fourth wife?
Sorry, but that's a pretty silly thing to judge Obama about.
I can't remember: is this clause already in place, or is it one that will be implemented in 2014?
Well, I found this
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9389851/Baracks-Obama-half-brother-George-hes-got-other-issues-to-deal-with.html
"In the clip published by the Hollywood Reporter, D?Souza asks George Obama why the half-brother of the most powerful man on the planet lives in poverty. The president's half-brother refuses to criticise him.
?I think he has a family of his own,? George Obama says. ?I?m a member of his family, but I?m over-age, so I help myself.??He?s got other issues to deal with,? he says. ?He?s taking care of the world, so he?s taking care of me.?"Now, I don't know how legit that site is, but the interview is definitely legit. Doesn't sound like his brother is upset, so why should you be?I should have been more clear. The dental care was for auntie. The half brother's child needed surgery.
My point is that telling people that Obama CARES for their children more than Romney is a ridiculous arguement. We could trade stories all damn day long and get nowhere.
In my mind, Obama should at least care for someone related to him by blood a bit more than some random person's child in the midwest. You can say all you want about how much he cares. When the opportunity has presented itself in a very real way, he has not stepped up to the plate. I don't consider it "silly" at all.
Also, doesn't that make Obama more appealing to Republicans? Him letting his brother pull himself up by his own bootstraps and all?
I was totally with you and respecting your opinion....until the last part. the silliness kills me. What does Obama giving money to a distant half cousin he has never met have to do with him passing the ACA? seriously?
I still don't see why Obama should have to care more about his half-brother than people he's never met.
I think Obama does care about the people of this country but nobody is asking him personally to foot the bill for their care by himself.
I have to sign off ladies before this gets any "sillier". My kid is waking up.
Good luck on keeping the conversation going.
my question is how Obama plans to cover the people who work for employers who are NOT part of the mandate who have been priced out of providing insurance for their employees? Our insurance went up 20% every.single.year for the last 17 years but our earnings didn't. Finally our employer had to either give up paying health ins. for us or go out of business. Living in the 2nd highest unemployment rate county in my state, we all opted to lose our insurance. My spouse owns his own business so I cannot simply piggyback on any kind of employer plan there. To provide insurance for our family is almost to the dollar what I make per month. How in the WORLD did the Obama plan do anything to bring down costs? *That* is the key to getting more people insured. Actually make health care affordable. If you could cure something by simply mandating people do it then we would fix homelessness by ordering everyone to rent or buy a residence.
Just because a business is a recognizable name doesn't mean it's going to fall under the mandate. Your local brand name sub shop, insurance agent, dentist, lawyer, copy shop, dry cleaners, gas station, accounting firm and so many more are likely small businesses with less than 50 employees because they are franchises or independent. Just because it says Exxon, Hallmark or State Farm doesn't mean that they have more than 50 employees. At one point the SBA estimated 19.6 million Americans work for businesses with 20 or fewer employees. None of them are under the mandate.These are also most likely to be the people without access to affordable insurance already. SO instead of doing anything for them you are simply going to penalize them more of what they already don't have and make it more expensive for them to get it by telling them to do it anyway. Who's the genius that came up with THAT plan? It's STILL a more palatable alternative to pay the penalty for not having insurance than to pay $1600+ per month for insurance and have your family not get by. I guess it's really just a plan to bring in more tax revenue? The only logical thing would be for people to all stop working for small businesses and get jobs in corporate America. Wait, I think corporate America is evil or something aren't they?
My local non-profit hospital gets ZERO dollars in any kind of federal subsidy or other assistance. Now that this tax that is supposed to offset the cost of care for the uninsured is in place will they be getting those dollars?
When I was young, health insurance wasn't anywhere near as expensive. Then again it mostly covered major issues and catastrophes. Kind of like every other kind of insurance we use on a regular basis in our lives.
I do like the provision for children and pre-existing conditions. I'd like to see that stay or in the event the law is repealed in full that doesn't mean that you can't mandate that particular aspect. Then again the issue is not really with *insurance* because the definition of insurance is a contract against losses. You pay premiums and they measure and assume risk. That's why it's more expensive for car insurance if you have tickets. You are a bad risk. Meanwhile there are hundreds of thousands of people who will take more out of the health insurance system than they will EVER put in in premiums. It's a bad business model insurance-wise to have limitless risk. That's no longer insurance but an entitlement program. Until you actually control what the end provider is receiving and the amount people are consuming, costs will continue to spiral no matter how many people you mandate to have insurance. That is basic economics.
Since I'm still not sure if this clause in place currently, I'm going to offer this (and I apologize in advance if I'm wrong/this isn't valid because this has taken effect):
The bolded is already happening. Example: in the CF community, Kalydeco was FDA approved in January of this year for approximately 4% of the population that has the G551D mutation. It's been discovered that the drug can also help people with select other mutations, one of them being 621+1G->T, but people with that mutation have to get it off-label and pay tens of thousands of dollars a month OOP for it. So I think it's moot to argue the bolded as a consequence of the ACA.