S/O Debate: Healthcare - Right or Responsibility?

[ccouch]

Last night Brokaw asked the candidates if health care was a privilege, a right or a reponsibility. What do you think??

ETA: Sorry if this was already addressed in another thread here in politics - - I wasn't sure :)

[vegaschristina]

Health care is all 3 at various times. As a mom, it's my responsibility to my kids, as a human being, it's a right, and as an American, living with the best health care available in the world, IMHO, it's a privilege.

[clikchic]

It is all three if you ask me. We have a very good although sometimes strained health care system in Australia. NO-ONE is denied health care because they cannot afford it. You do not have to have insurance if you cannot afford it, and if you need treatment, you will always get it in a puplic hospital. If you need cancer treatment, you can get it for free (no wait list) through the public system, or any other treatment or surgery. (other than cosmetic)

The main drawback is that with elective surgery (for eg. knee reconstruction) there can be long waiting lists.

If you have private health cover you are afforded the luxury of choosing from any private or public hospita, being able to choose your doctor, and being able to most times get a private room. There are also no waiting lists and the only wait is the length of time it takes for a surgeon to fit you into his/her schedule, which is normally only a matter of weeks, depending on the speciality.

Does everyone have access to free hospital treatment in the US? I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly so) that you either had to pay or have private health cover?

[EveRecinella]

I agree all three! The healthcare in Denmark is pretty top notch also and everyone is entitled to it. Dr. even make house calls at 3am if you need them which is SO nice when you have a sick child!!

[Gina.Maria]

About this: I think McCain misinterpreted the concept of Healthcare as a responsibility. I took it to mean that, as Christina suggested, I'm responsible for ensuring that I provide myself and my family with adequate access to reasonable healthcare without burdening society with the cost of my treatment and care. A laudable idea if costs could have been contained way back in the 70s, permitting most of us to afford cash payment at the doctor's office and catastrophic coverage for emergent care. As it is, the basic care costs have skyrocketed beyond affordability for the average working family so insurance has had to expand to cover even well-visits. I remember, as a child, my family and most of our neighbors had no need of insurance to cover the cost of an emergency room visit to handle a broken limb. At most, they had to scrape up a hundred dollars (inclusive of follow-up visits) and they continued on without worry. Those days are gone.

To ensure that we don't make our country a divided one with the wealthy/well-off on one side of the care spectrum and the low-income/working poor in the graveyard, we need to adjust our thinking to include access and coverage for healthcare as a basic human right. If we could pay our doctor for the delivery of a baby with a chicken and basket of vegetables, this wouldn't be an issue.

And to answer the question about free hospital treatment - not really. I'm not sure, exactly, how those in extreme poverty and undocumented aliens manage the free care, but we've undergone intensive sessions with the triage nurse at every visit and they can and will track you down for payment - often sending it directly to collection instead of attempting collection directly (even though we had insurance coverage and the unpaid portion was pre-negotiated by the insurance to be written off.) Honestly, some of the personal credit problems people face are created by these kinds of misunderstandings because you're indebted until proven otherwise in our system.

[Inkspots]

Is the US the only country that pays outrageous amounts for healthcare? I'm trying to think of another country that has the problems we have, and can't.

[Gina.Maria]

We're supposed to accept the concept that our high prices pay for research that benefits the world. As if that's consolation as our loved ones lay dying of preventable or treatable diseases. My aunt died of colon cancer at 52 in a county hospital after having relinquished her home, car and savings in order to qualify for state healthcare. Basic health insurance and medical care was beyond her means so she ignored her flu-like symptoms for 6 months, treating herself with high doses of Vitamin C. Her health had always been excellent and she exercised and ate well so she had no reason to suspect that she'd succumb to a disease that didn't even show in her family's history. She wasn't a parasite. She worked hard all her life, paid her bills on time, didn't splurge on luxuries like cable, eating out or going to the movies. But she had the poor luck to choose to work for herself in a service industry that afforded no benefits. I think she had a right to the dignity that adequate health insurance affords to each of us. Her death and the utter indignity of her eventual treatment haunts me to this day.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

I'm not sure, exactly, how those in extreme poverty and undocumented aliens manage the free care, but we've undergone intensive sessions with the triage nurse at every visit and they can and will track you down for payment - often sending it directly to collection instead of attempting collection directly (even though we had insurance coverage and the unpaid portion was pre-negotiated by the insurance to be written off.)

Well, I will say this. When my husband was out of work for a year due to reconstructive surgery on his leg, we had to receive food stamps, cash assistance & Medicaid. The VA was supposed to pay my husband convalescence pay (like maternity leave) while he was laid up, but a week after the surgery they sent him a letter saying that the leg he got surgery on was not the service connected disability leg ... it was the other. That's a whole other story. On Medicaid, EVERYTHING was paid for. I had to get 2 root canals - completely paid for. No co-pays at the doctors office. No bills whatsoever. Undocumented aliens (which was big in the area we used to live) were receiving it along with us. It's just like there are loan companies out there for undocumented aliens that will let you buy a house, even with no social security number.

I believe we should all have access to affordable health care, but I will not approve of a nationalized system. Do you see the problems we have with the VA? That would be way the reg. health care would be.

[kjbstevens]

Does everyone have access to free hospital treatment in the US? I was under the impression (perhaps wrongly so) that you either had to pay or have private health cover?
No. Low income people do not have to pay insurance for their children or while pregnant if they make under around $40k depending on the number of kids they have. I think it's even higher at $55k for while you are pregnant. They even offer plans with only $35 copays for people that make a little more than that with no copay insurance. It has no choices and for us to see a specialist we have to drive all the way 2 1/2 hours to Johns Hopkins but they do make sure you get care for free. There is major strings but no one is left out if you are willing to fill out the forms. For anyone here in that group with no insurance check out your states Children's Health Plan.

I believe above that it's a responsibility. They make it so the lowest incomes aren't paying out but above that is above 250% of the poverty line which they consider able to find coverage themselves. Sad, but I don't believe it should be a no strings attached right since it isn't something you *have* to have even though medical costs are just insane. :shrugI agree though something really has to be done. $5 bandaids at the ER is just not right.

[4noisyboys]

Well, I will say this. When my husband was out of work for a year due to reconstructive surgery on his leg, we had to receive food stamps, cash assistance & Medicaid. The VA was supposed to pay my husband convalescence pay (like maternity leave) while he was laid up, but a week after the surgery they sent him a letter saying that the leg he got surgery on was not the service connected disability leg ... it was the other. That's a whole other story. On Medicaid, EVERYTHING was paid for. I had to get 2 root canals - completely paid for. No co-pays at the doctors office. No bills whatsoever. Undocumented aliens (which was big in the area we used to live) were receiving it along with us. It's just like there are loan companies out there for undocumented aliens that will let you buy a house, even with no social security number.

I believe we should all have access to affordable health care, but I will not approve of a nationalized system. Do you see the problems we have with the VA? That would be way the reg. health care would be.

It is great to hear that our government programs helped you in a time of need. Maybe what we need is a president that would make these programs better and run more efficiently rather than have a president that would want to cut them all.

[kjbstevens]

It is great to hear that our government programs helped you in a time of need. Maybe what we need is a president that would make these programs better and run more efficiently rather than have a president that would want to cut them all.
The way the children's part of Medicaid works is that they pay for your membership to a big insurance company. We had United Healthcare and Priority Partners. They limit your doctors and your treatment to the cheapest possible result and you take it or leave it. They will do it free but don't expect the care you get with private insurance. They refused to pay for the Lovenox shots that I need and instead only would cover heparin while I was pregnant. I had to give double the shots with a medicine that has known side effects while you are pregnant. My youngest was born with the heart problem it is well known to cause so then they ended up having to pay for the testing and everything went along with that because they refused to pay for the no side effect medicine a private insurance would have given for my clotting problems. It isn't all sunshine and roses but can really help if you don't have anything complicated wrong or can't afford anything at all. The gov't just picks up the bill, they don't really run the medical aspect of it like the VA which is a good thing or it would be even worse.

[Gina.Maria]

No. Low income people do not have to pay insurance for their children or while pregnant if they make under around $40k depending on the number of kids they have. I think it's even higher at $55k for while you are pregnant. They even offer plans with only $35 copays for people that make a little more than that with no copay insurance. It has no choices and for us to see a specialist we have to drive all the way 2 1/2 hours to Johns Hopkins but they do make sure you get care for free. There is major strings but no one is left out if you are willing to fill out the forms. For anyone here in that group with no insurance check out your states Children's Health Plan.

I believe above that it's a responsibility. They make it so the lowest incomes aren't paying out but above that is above 250% of the poverty line which they consider able to find coverage themselves. Sad, but I don't believe it should be a no strings attached right since it isn't something you *have* to have even though medical costs are just insane. :shrugI agree though something really has to be done. $5 bandaids at the ER is just not right.

I think you have to remember that your state could very well be the exception. Other states aren't so generous with their subsidized health care and you are required to be well below the poverty line ($40,000 is considered a very healthy living wage in many areas of the U.S.) in order to partake. Additionally, there may be restrictions to home and/or vehicle ownership. I had a friend who was the sole support of her three boys and her income never exceeded $32,000. She did not qualify for the lower-cost insurance for children and was left with the options of leaving the boys uninsured or paying half her paycheck to cover them through her employer-provided plan.

[kjbstevens]

If she had employer based insurance no she would not be eligible unless she was pregnant. It's for people that have no chance at insurance and can not afford it on their own for their children as their first priorities. It's not meant to cover those with options unfortunately.

[4noisyboys]

Our government programs help us in that I have an adult son who is bipolar, and he receives his psychiatric care through the county mental health. Our private insurance only covers a small amount if we were to go to our own doctors, plus the cost of the blood work he has to have done, and then we'd have to have our own insurance for his medication. He goes to college, but only has 9 units, and insurance requires 12. He also has learning difficulties, so he is in the disabled student program, and they don't want him taking more than 9, along with the fact that he has to take a commuter bus to and from school, and it doesn't run in the evening, which is when he'd have to take his other classes that are needed for the program he's taking.

So, I've never paid a dime for his mental health care, blood work is now covered that we aren't able to go through our private insurance, and the drug companies are covering his medication right now. We've had to self pay, and it was $800 a month, so this is extrememly helpful. The paperwork we have to file is incredible though, and he had to get denied medi-cal before he could get any of this. The men and women that work there are saints. They have to deal with so much, and I know I would have no patience for a job like that!!

[Gina.Maria]

Those aren't options. They're bondage.

[NellieRose]

Well, I will say this. When my husband was out of work for a year due to reconstructive surgery on his leg, we had to receive food stamps, cash assistance & Medicaid. The VA was supposed to pay my husband convalescence pay (like maternity leave) while he was laid up, but a week after the surgery they sent him a letter saying that the leg he got surgery on was not the service connected disability leg ... it was the other. That's a whole other story. On Medicaid, EVERYTHING was paid for. I had to get 2 root canals - completely paid for. No co-pays at the doctors office. No bills whatsoever. Undocumented aliens (which was big in the area we used to live) were receiving it along with us. It's just like there are loan companies out there for undocumented aliens that will let you buy a house, even with no social security number.

I believe we should all have access to affordable health care, but I will not approve of a nationalized system. Do you see the problems we have with the VA? That would be way the reg. health care would be.

Sorry for the health & related troubles your family has had. It is interesting that you have found the need to use government assistance to make it through yet would vote for candidate that would freeze & slash many of these programs that you needed.

So, if Medicaid paid for everything then what would be wrong with a nationalized healthcare system? Seems to me the troubles you mention are the result of the VA's system which is separate from Medicaid & Medicare which is basically a nationalized system to assist the poor and the elderly.

Wait, maybe I should ask just what you mean by "nationalized healthcare" when you refer to your unwillingness to support it? Everyone does see it as something different.

Nobody should have to spend a moment of their time worry about how to pay for medical treatment and/or not obtaining medical treatment b/c they can't afford it...our health is NOT a luxury.

[tsaria]

I'm in perfect health. No one in my family has faced financial ruin b/c of medical costs. But I still would not mind paying to make sure that those who *do* need the medical care get it.

But it is possible that the people who disagree with national health care do so for reasons other than not wanting to be helpful to their neighbors. The US is HUGE. CA is bigger than a lot of *countries*, and that's only 1 state out of 50. My DH thinks health care should be national b/c there would prob be disparities in care if it were done on a state level. But while I don't disagree w/the possibility, I think it would be a good thing to leave it with the states anyway.

There's not one single way to arrange state health care. One system might work great in one state, and another state might find that another way works better for them. And I think it would be a much better thing if people came to care about their neighbors on their own, rather than being forced & getting resentful. People in MD are ready for the change? Great! People in AZ not so much? Well, give them time.

The decisions made on a state level speak volumes about the people living there. I am researching states to find the best fit for my family, and I'm very glad that they're not all alike. If it's a choice between a uniform I don't agree with and a variety of choices, I'll take the choices any day. I know nothing is ever going to please *everyone* but having choices means if something is that important to you, you can either try to influence your area to adopt it, or go where it is already valued if your area doesn't value it. Especially since expatriation is a lot harder than you might think.

[ina]

Is the US the only country that pays outrageous amounts for healthcare? I'm trying to think of another country that has the problems we have, and can't.
Oh, I can think of many, the Philippines (where I'm from) being one of them. Over there, if you can't afford healthcare, you don't get it. There are a few government hospitals, but those are overfull and underfunded. I remember seeing a 16-year old girl with meningitis and severe contractures (her limbs were fixed in bent positions and couldn't straighten) that was in a pediatric bed too small for her which *worsened* her contractions, because she technically was still a pediatric case. And that wasn't the worst of it. Breaks your heart.

I guess that isn't exactly what you meant, as those aren't the same problems here. I know the healthcare system here in the US is severely flawed (I work in the field), but I don't know how to fix it. That's why I'm following this thread with interest. But I'm grateful that at least there *is* a system here.

[newfiemountiewife]

I live in Canada, and agree totally with Robyn, our system is pretty much identical.

I do not think our system as it is, would work in the US, partly because of the huge difference in population. It is a much higher number and would require much more attention because of this.

Also, it should be noted that in Canada, each province does things differently to a point, so while we do have national healthcare, it is maintained by our provinces, not by our federal government, though there is federal funding included.

I have read that many Americans would not want to pay the tax we do, which is why many of them don't want standardized healthcare (in the debates I've read). I often wonder though if the actual insurance that you pay monthly is that much different than what we pay in taxes? I honestly don't know, and wonder if it's comparable.

[dgreenshield]

How much do you pay in taxes for your health care in Canada? I know that when I waas teaching, if I wanted to buy insurance for myself and my son, it would have been 500.00 a month for the basic plan.

Here in Singapore, they have national health care and you have the option of buying additional coverage that will let you choose different hospitals. That being said, as an American living here, we have used the services of cardiologists for my son and a surgeon for myself. I was amazed at the difference in cost from the US.

[txmusicmom]

I believe we should all have access to affordable health care, but I will not approve of a nationalized system. Do you see the problems we have with the VA? That would be way the reg. health care would be.

Absolutely!

[Sara Ellis]

one reason why our insurance is so expensive is because of malpractice lawsuits ...
it doesn't seem that anybody considers this at all........
if people weren't suit greedy, the insurance costs would be considerably lower

[Tiffikat]

one reason why our insurance is so expensive is because of malpractice lawsuits ...
it doesn't seem that anybody considers this at all........
if people weren't suit greedy, the insurance costs would be considerably lower

This is likely true, however, I wouldn't say all malpractice suits are due to greed. It does happen where doctors truly mess something important up or do messed up things for whatever reason. I remember reading a few years back about a doctor who was cutting/stitching his initials into his surgical patients to show that he had done the surgery. Doctors like that deserve to be sued. However, our country also seems lawsuit happy and I know there are people who get up literally looking for someone to sue (staging car accidents, medical issues, etc). Sad, but true.

[Gina.Maria]

This is likely true, however, I wouldn't say all malpractice suits are due to greed. It does happen where doctors truly mess something important up or do messed up things for whatever reason. I remember reading a few years back about a doctor who was cutting/stitching his initials into his surgical patients to show that he had done the surgery. Doctors like that deserve to be sued. However, our country also seems lawsuit happy and I know there are people who get up literally looking for someone to sue (staging car accidents, medical issues, etc). Sad, but true.

I'm of the opinion that doctors are human and, as humans, make mistakes. It's our responsibility as patients to ensure the capability of our doctors by researching their record and accepting the risks involved with treatment. As for a surgeon who uses his patients to embroider his monogram, that's criminal and should be prosecuted in the criminal courts.

[Sara Ellis]

This is likely true, however, I wouldn't say all malpractice suits are due to greed. It does happen where doctors truly mess something important up or do messed up things for whatever reason. I remember reading a few years back about a doctor who was cutting/stitching his initials into his surgical patients to show that he had done the surgery. Doctors like that deserve to be sued. However, our country also seems lawsuit happy and I know there are people who get up literally looking for someone to sue (staging car accidents, medical issues, etc). Sad, but true.


oh i know there are some that are truly justifiable............ BUT..... so many are not

my dad was an OB/GYN and half of his income literally went towards malpractice insurance ........... he never had any case whatsoever against him, it's just all of the other bad apples out there................
which in turn makes our medical costs higher, along with the insurance costs

[kjbstevens]

Most of the OBGYNs here have quit delivering because of the malpractice stuff. They only do GYN stuff now so everyone within a 100 mile radius has 2 offices to pack into and everyone gets less personal care because everyone is just passed around. That does awesome for the healthcare system too.

[Tiffikat]

I'm of the opinion that doctors are human and, as humans, make mistakes. It's our responsibility as patients to ensure the capability of our doctors by researching their record and accepting the risks involved with treatment. As for a surgeon who uses his patients to embroider his monogram, that's criminal and should be prosecuted in the criminal courts.

It was the surgeon lost his license I believe and was prosecuted. The entire case was really messed up from what i remember.

[hazelsmrf]

I was reading somewhere that Americans spend so much more on health care because they seek treatment when people in other countries would not continue treatment. They said that Americans will not die without fighting till the end and will seek more controversial procedures and more (costly) treatments even if the chance is slim to none that it will work. On the flip side, they also said that that is in a large part the reason why the American doctors make so many medical breakthroughs, 1) the amount of money the American people spend on healthcare make research etc possible and 2) the amount of people willing to undergo experimental procedures. I think in a socialized healthcare system these procedures would not even be offered, hence the lower cost... the money the insurance payed out for that procedure that had a 5% chance of working, would *maybe* be better off paying for some other procedure (please note that is note my opinion, just the counter argument).

[Gina.Maria]

I was reading somewhere that Americans spend so much more on health care because they seek treatment when people in other countries would not continue treatment. They said that Americans will not die without fighting till the end and will seek more controversial procedures and more (costly) treatments even if the chance is slim to none that it will work. On the flip side, they also said that that is in a large part the reason why the American doctors make so many medical breakthroughs, 1) the amount of money the American people spend on healthcare make research etc possible and 2) the amount of people willing to undergo experimental procedures. I think in a socialized healthcare system these procedures would not even be offered, hence the lower cost... the money the insurance payed out for that procedure that had a 5% chance of working, would *maybe* be better off paying for some other procedure (please note that is note my opinion, just the counter argument).

Well, I've only experienced U.S. and German Healthcare and I can tell you that I went to the doctor and sought treatment much less in the U.S. than here because I couldn't afford even the copays in the U.S. Most people here get well-checks every year and problems are identified quickly and treated while they're still in the early stages. That, of course, means less expense overall. Too often, in the U.S., people wait until their situation is acute and the treatment is more expensive, more involved and longer. I have a really long story about my daughter that illustrates a glaring difference between U.S. "care" and German caring but no one reads long posts. Suffice it to say, Germans have, in my opinion, the best health care system in the world. It was the one thing that scared me to death about moving here but I've come to appreciate it in the three years I've been here.

[cheribear]

Suffice it to say, Germans have, in my opinion, the best health care system in the world.

With my sister-in-law due to give birth in Germany any day now - I can't tell you how glad I am to hear she's in good hands. :)

[Gina.Maria]

Well, I haven't given birth here, but reports are generally positive. The main complaints are that modesty is not particularly... available. Moms are allowed and expected to remain in hospital for several days - unlike the U.S. and babies are checked thoroughly so there's little chance of getting home and discovering a life-threatening condition that hadn't shown itself in the first 24 hours.

[Inkspots]

Well, I haven't given birth here, but reports are generally positive. The main complaints are that modesty is not particularly... available. Moms are allowed and expected to remain in hospital for several days - unlike the U.S. and babies are checked thoroughly so there's little chance of getting home and discovering a life-threatening condition that hadn't shown itself in the first 24 hours.

I wonder how much of that is due to expenses though, getting US women and infants in and out of the hospital. It seems no one is in the hospital very long in the US unless it's very severe. In Korea, it is common for women to remain in the hospital for several weeks after giving birth. They're also known to keep most people there quite awhile. When DH broke his finger, he needed surgery and they wanted to keep him 10 days! Cost wise though, they're not that bad. DS had to go for cardiology tests at one of the major hospitals in Seoul, his bill--had to be paid upfront--was well under $400. This included an EKG, sonogram, and numerous other tests with a pediatric cardiologist. They were up there all day, but also got a diagnosis before they left.

I will never understand why there can't be more programs like what they have for the military. I know it may not be the best and I have heard a lot of complaints but we have never had an issue with our coverage. DH was rushed to the military ER once and they did all sorts of tests to find out what was going on. The doctor even told us that unlike civilian care, there was no need for insurance approval before things were done. They just did what was needed at that time.

We had civilian care for two years and it was unbelieveable. Not only were we paying a third of DH's paycheck for it, but every appoint cost us a copay and we had to pay for every prescription. This was as a teacher, with the plans offered by the district. I guess the only bright side of that is that we did get our money worth in the end since I needed gall-bladder surgery. But, there was more than once that we actually thought about dropping me due to the expense. Those were some hard times for us.

[Gina.Maria]

Oh, I absolutely agree that the U.S. pushes women out the door because the insurance companies are profit-driven and the expenses mount up when everyone's in a private room and diapers cost about $25 for a small newborn package of 10. (That was the cost in 1991 - I can't imagine how high it is now!) If we learned to accept small inconveniences - like a roommate or bringing our own gowns (for exams, too) - we'd realize a tremendous cost savings that could be injected back into healthcare as a whole. Everything needs an overhaul, down to the last scrap of paper.

[suejones]

Giving birth from an Australian perspective....

I have given birth in both the private sector (private health cover, choice of OB, choice of hospital etc) and in the public sector (limited choices etc).
Public - I had regular appointments at the hospital prior to giving birth but the dr/midwife was different each time. When it came time to give birth, my doctor changed during shift changeover time. I was kept in for several days (and was given the option of staying longer with my second child as I wasn't coping terribly well). At the time that I gave birth - everything was supplied for my baby and myself. My daughter gave birth last year in the public sector and she supplied all clothing, pads, nappies etc for herself and the baby for her 3 days in hospital. She had wonderful care during this time. She paid next to nothing during her pregnancy, birth and hospital stay (some ultrasounds were required and those were paid by her - she got some of it back from medicare though).
Private - I had my choice of OB. I had to pay an upfront fee for his services but was able to claim most of this back through both my health fund and medicare. I had a private room, spa, tv etc during labour and afterwards had a private room on the ward (although the shower was shared with the lady next door). I was in for almost a week and physio was supplied (hurt my back during labour). The only cost that I had for my entire stay was the $250 excess required by my health care fund. Everything else was covered.

We have a national healthcare system here in Australia. It has its problems - sure. But I know that I can count on good quality care should I ever need it.
Actually, my daughter spent a week in a major children's hospital in Brisbane last year. Our only outlay during all of this was our petrol/travel costs and food. And I was able to sleep beside her the whole time.

[Gina.Maria]

Sounds like your system is as bloated as our own.

[newfiemountiewife]

Giving birth from a Canadian perspective:

I chose my family doctor, and saw the same one for each appt. If anything was worrysome or a problem, I was referred to an OB, and was seen same day/next day. When I didn't have problems, I was still referred to an OB to be seen at a few different points throughout my pregnancy, and also during the last few weeks. This was the same OB each time, and was the same one that would deliver my baby. There was no fee for this.

I had several ultrasounds with my babies and didn't pay for any of them.

I had a horrid forceps delivery (4 times applied), accompanied by a longer hospital stay, epidurals with two of my three, didn't pay a cent.

During delivery, all pads, diapers, etc, were supplied at no charge.

Was readmitted after my last baby about 10 days later due to hemmorage, didn't have to pay.

I was roomed in a semi private room with my first (2 per room), that didn't cost anything. I opted for a private room with the second two (the option wasn't there for my first) and paid $70 a day out of pocket (my extra health insurance covered it).

Aside from gas getting to/from hospital, the birth of my three babies cost me $280 (for 4 hospital nights in private rooms).

I wouldn't change this for anything.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

And, if I were to become pregnant in one calendar year and be billed for some of the services, and give birth during the insurance company's NEXT calendar year, I could incur up to $12,000.00 in the 2 years' worth of deductibles on our HSA plan, Yes, twelve-thousand dollars. Plus whatever we pay in premiums for that drec of a plan.

Wish we still had our HMO. You had a few hoops to jump through, but it worked for me ;-)

[Gina.Maria]

Whoa! When I first gave birth in 1991, hospitals in Phoenix had pre-paid cash plans for vaginal deliveries of $2500. If your delivery resulted in a c-section and you were paid in full, the final charge would be $4,000. What's wrong with doing something like that? $12,000! Outrageous!

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

Our health care plan has a $6,000.00 per year family deductible.
My last pregnancy resulted in PROM (premature rupture of membranes) and I was hospitalized for 3 weeks and 5 days before going into labor, and then stayed for 2½ days after my c section (it was my 4th). Luckily, I opted for tubal ligation due to extensive internal scarring and adhesion formation.
But it's always in the back of my mind that any major health crisis will cost at least $6,000.00-and $12,000.00 if it straddles the insurance company's calender year.

[clikchic]

Giving Birth in Australia..
I had private health cover for both of my children. We got the private healthcover to help fund the cost of IVF which was unaffordable for us without it. Things have changed since however and IVF is now covered a lot more extensively by the medicare system.

I saw my ob/gyn for each of my monthly visits which I did have to pay for, however medicare covered a reasonable portion of the cost of each of these as we had already reached our threshold in medicare (due to IVF and other medical expenses) to get the maximum refundable amount which works out to be around 85% of your expenses.

For the actual birth I had my own doctor and private room. Both of my children were c-sect as my daughter was breech and my son was my third c-sect. (had a stillborn baby by c-sect 12mths prior to his birth) I had the private room for both my children and stayed in hospital for 5 nights and 6 days. We had full nursing support with learning how to breastfeed and bath the baby etc. Nappies and clothes (optional) were supplied for my daughter but not for my son. Meals were FANTASTIC! Staff were excellent. I had an extremely good experience in hospital for both my children.

For the hospital fees I only had to pay $250 excess. I had to pay the gap for my ob/gyn which was around $500 or $600 I think first time round but was dearer second time round due to the rise in the cost of doctors insurance. The anesthetist was about $250 gap.

My hysterotomy however (the c-sect for my stillborn son) was only $250 excess in the private hospital. Although having said, that I have a feeling I had already paid the excess for a D & C so probably didn't pay it for the hysterotomy. (it is only once per year per person) I did not have to pay my doctor or anesthetist fees as they very kindly bulk billed them to medicare. (they then only receive the scheduled (medicare refundable) fee instead of their normal full fee)

If I had gone public, I would have gotten it all for free, but not be able to choose my doctor or have the same doctor each monthly visit. I would also have been in a ward with several other women and been booted out of the hospital a lot quicker.

[cheribear]

Not only were we paying a third of DH's paycheck for it, but every appoint cost us a copay and we had to pay for every prescription. This was as a teacher, with the plans offered by the district.This is what I want to know - is this typical? And is the employer contributing to the health care plan IN ADDITION to what the employee pays in?

My head is spinning, because I just keep reading posts and assuming - okay, these thousands of dollars being paid out of pocket have to be for people who don't have coverage - but, no? Does this also happen to people who do have 'good' coverage and are paying through the nose for it personally, plus whatever their employer contributes on their behalf, plus whatever they pay in copays, etc.

All I know is, if there was a couple hundred dollars a month going out of my pocket monthly for 'health insurance' I'd be pretty ripped to have to pay for ANYTHING, EVER at a hospital or doctor's office. And I wouldn't consider myself 'covered' really, though I guess compared to the alternative, you might be. If an unplanned illness or a pregnancy or something can still cost me to the tune of several thousand dollars, what the heck am I paying several thousand dollars a year FOR? Its almost like blackmail, you get to give away a good portion of your pay every month, just to insure against the catastropic - because they seem to have no problem finding ways to charge you for being healthy or having typical health problems requiring regular medical care. You pay the first $6000 or whatever in expenses and they cover the rest? Oh, thanks! That's mighty nice of them after they're already charging you for the 'plan' every month, and probably charging your employer as well?

Please, someone - tell me there's 'coverage' out there where you don't have to worry, at all, about getting sick or hurt or pregnant and having it take a dent out of your finances. Or, is it only the really rich people who can afford such plans? (and probably don't need them anyway, because I am sure they can suck up a few copays or a deductible :lol )

Goodness, and here I think it would just be the end of the world if I had to take an ambulance somewhere - because it costs $500 and that's not covered by our universal health care. Or the time I got a $20 bill for a doctor visit because I forgot for six months to tell one province that I wasn't living in the other province anymore. I am starting to feel bad for whining about that...

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

We pay $150, and the company pays around $600 per month for premiums- and for this we get a $6,000.00 per year family deductible.
It DOES cover well care- so annual physicals for adults, PAP tests, mammograms over 40, well child and immunizations ARE covered for free if your provider is on the list.
But EVERYTHING else is applied to your deductible: sick care office calls, prescriptions, lab work, x rays and other tests, urgent care, emergency, in-patient, ambulances, etc.
Oh- and this is the push that Bush has made for HSAs and FSAs to take employee health care insurance out of the benefit package and onto the employees much like pensions went the way of IRAs and 401Ks.

[Tiffikat]

I don't know about others but we pay about $300/month to health insurance and that is with my DH's employer paying half. That covers DH, me, and DS. In addition we pay $30 for a co-pay for all regular doctor visits and we have to meet a $2500 deductible/family member before anything other than basic well checks are covered. In addition to that they consider my GYN a specialist that is "not necessary" so I have to pay a $40 co-pay instead of the normal $30.

We end up paying thousands of dollars each year to medical bills. Unfortunately last year DS had a medical issue and I had to have my appendix removed with emergency surgery. We are still making payments on bills for both of these and will be for the next year or two at least even though we are paying around $300 a month total on medical bills.

To top that off we are expecting our second and final child and my OB-GYN requires that we pay the deductible up front since it is so high so we are making payments of $400 per month on that until December.

It certainly makes it hard to get ahead. We are lucky that we do okay money wise or we would be swamped in debt just from all of this. Supposedly we have good health insurance too.... :eyeroll

[Miss Chris]

My husband and I are both educators in the same district. If we added DS to our plan it would be over $400 a month. We would still have copays and costs for ER visits and over night hospital stays. So instead we buy an individual plan for around $100 a month. But with this plan we have copays and a deductible to meet. When Ds had to have eartubes and an adenoidectomy it cost us a pretty penny. This insurnace we have is supposed to be good so I cringe to think what is considered bad.

[clikchic]

UGH, the Australian system does have it's problems but at least everyone can get free hospital care if they need it. The medicare system covers a large portion of our regular doctors bills, and if you have enough of them, it covers even more.

Our private health insurance costs us around $220/mth and this ensures that we can choose our own doctor if we need to go to hospital, and go to a private hospital (or public) without having to wait on the waiting list for elective surgery etc. It also means we can have a private room where available, in public or private hospital.

This is also for extras cover including dental and physiotherapy, chiropractic amongst other things. For extras it usually covers about 25-30% of the cost. It also covers pharmacy scripts that are not on the public subsidised list, I forget the name! (most of our perscribed medications are guaranteed to be under a certain amount and the rest is subsidised by the government.)

LIke I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a $250 per person, per year excess. We have made good use of our cover, and it has paid for itself many times over. However, if you don't have cover you can still have free hospital care, you just dont' get to choose your doctor or what kind of a room you are in. (usually a ward).

[HLWalter725]

I pay just about $1,500 a year for my contribution to my employers plan. It covers my family.

We have $15 co-pays for most visits, no co-pay for in-patient hospital stays/surgery/etc.

Prescription costs run between $10-$40 co-pays each.

I consider this GOOD coverage and I'm very happy to have it.

Even with this very good coverage, my out of pocket costs add up fast. And we each have a million dollar lifetime cap.. . . my 2 year old daughter is already one quarter of the way there and will likely reach her lifetime cap by the time she is 10. I really hope we will have other options at that point.

[cheribear]

Even with this very good coverage, my out of pocket costs add up fast. And we each have a million dollar lifetime cap.. . . my 2 year old daughter is already one quarter of the way there and will likely reach her lifetime cap by the time she is 10. I really hope we will have other options at that point.

Oh, my goodness, so in addition to all that I mentioned in the last post - you don't even have the security of knowing you're covered for catastrophic, really expensive medical care because being the good sports they are, they cap that too.

Great.

Thanks everyone for clarifying how their plans work. This is truly eye-opening. I've spent most of my time lurking in these threads thinking how horribly unfortunate the system seems to be for those without coverage, or those who can't afford coverage. Now I have a whole new aspect to ponder - even those of you who have access to 'good' coverage are paying a whole lot for it (or your employer is) - and still don't have much peace of mind that a healthcare problem or diagnosis wouldn't be a huge drain on you financially.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

You summed that up well Cheri- at least from what I see in our plan and those of people we know!

[Inkspots]

This is what I want to know - is this typical?* And is the employer contributing to the health care plan IN ADDITION to what the employee pays in?...

I have nothing else to really base it on, but I think it's fairly typical, maybe not to the extreme ours was. DH had just gotten out of the navy and this was our first real "civilian" experience in CO. He paid just about $600 a month for medical and dental with a second year teacher salery. The district covered 90% of his costs, but very little of ours--mine and two sons. The well-checks, one a year, were free, but every other visit was $10. If you had to be seen at urgent care on weekends it was $50--don't know how my DS always managed to hurt himself on Friday nights and Saturdays.:shrug--emergancy room was at least $100. I belive specialists and lab work was also between $25 and $50, prescriptions $10--this included preventitive stuff like birth control too, but only three months at a time. Like I said, the only thing that makes us feel "good" about it if you can say as much is my having surgery which could have cost us $25,000+. Since DH is also a reservist, we can now get the same medical we had on active duty but for $200 or so a month for all of us. We haven't gotten all the details, but it sure is better than the $300 every two weeks that we saw for the plan that's been offered us here.

My dad's parents were Canadian and it was such a relief to them when my grandfather was given care for his Alzheimers and my grandma was taken care of. After my grandpa's death, they moved my grandma back to CA to look after her--she would have been all alone in Toronto. Her insurance here nearly put them in shock. Her plan apparently didn't cover the medications she was given in Canada and I want to say just one cost them over $200 in the states for each month. The US health "care" system really needs a good overhaul and I wish so many wouldn't see what the rest of the world does as "bad." How can having peace of mind and know you'll be taken care of as bad???

[Inkspots]

Oh, my goodness, so in addition to all that I mentioned in the last post - you don't even have the security of knowing you're covered for catastrophic, really expensive medical care because being the good sports they are, they cap that too.

That's where the problems are, #&(^#@ if you do, $)(&*# if you don't. I cannot understand one bit of it. I have no problem paying for insurance, but why should you pay, and keep on paying? Seems like the insurance companies have quite a thing going on.

[~ashleigh]

from the National Coalition on Health Care (http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml):
By several measures, health care spending continues to rise at the fastest rate in our history.

In 2007, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent — two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.3 TRILLION in 2007, or $7600 per person.1 Total health care spending represented 16 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.2 TRILLION in 2016, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2007, employer health insurance premiums increased by 6.1 percent - two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,100. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,400.2

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

$7600 per person, in addition to our premiums, co-pays, deductables, payment plans, credit card debt, bankruptcies...

Health Care IS a right. Heck, we are already paying for it! We must fix our system, focus on preventive care, make insurance affordable, reign in the insurance companies, and guarantee insurance for EVERYONE.

We must elect a president and a government who takes this issue seriously. WE CAN FIX THIS PROBLEM.

And for the fiscally conservative, it may interest you to learn that for 2007, in Canada "health expenditures are forecast to reach $4,867 per person." (http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_13nov2007_e)

[cheribear]

That is what I am seeing, too. Being Canadian I see healthcare as a right (in response to the original question) but I understand that not every country will feel that way. To me its like education - people need options but you have to have a very good system for everyone to use - it will have flaws and will not be what everyone wants, but those who want something different can pay for what they see as better quality or whatever.

As a Canadian, we lack those options in our healthcare - and that can be a problem because lots of people want things that not everyone should have to pay for - like access to the 'front of the line' or experimental treatments or whatever. The sad thing about health care is that most people have absolutely no control over what will happen to them that way - you can't just be a hard worker and guarantee you won't have a life-threatening costly condition, and it seems the average person working all their lives and paying for insurance throughout their lifetime *still* can't buy enough insurance to make sure it won't be a huge financial drain or even bankrupt them in the end if it they have a serious problem.

[lunafaerie]

Oh, my goodness, so in addition to all that I mentioned in the last post - you don't even have the security of knowing you're covered for catastrophic, really expensive medical care because being the good sports they are, they cap that too.

Great.

Thanks everyone for clarifying how their plans work. This is truly eye-opening. I've spent most of my time lurking in these threads thinking how horribly unfortunate the system seems to be for those without coverage, or those who can't afford coverage. Now I have a whole new aspect to ponder - even those of you who have access to 'good' coverage are paying a whole lot for it (or your employer is) - and still don't have much peace of mind that a healthcare problem or diagnosis wouldn't be a huge drain on you financially.

You hit the nail on the head.

I didn't go into it in the other thread but I feel compelled to share our story. My step-dad had a good union job with relatively great coverage, worked his ass off everyday of his life, bought a house, saved money, supported my Mom, welcomed me and my sister into his home. When I was 19 he got a very rare cancer, his insurance capped out on the amount they would pay a year after the treatment. He didn't die of cancer, he died from a LACK OF AFTER-TREATMENT because his insurance company wouldn't pay it. The treatments poisoned his organs, and his system failed. My mom lost the house, lost their savings, lost everything except social security.
So when conservatives say that people should just get a tax cut, or save more money, or find a better plan, my head spins.
It's got to change, and honestly I won't rest until it does. No one should have to go through what my step-dad and Mom went through (she's been through 2 cancers herself!).

[cheribear]

I'm so sorry to hear that - I know we say we have our own health care 'horror stories' - but they are more to the tune of how long someone had to wait for hip surgery or hospitals being full and waiting on stretchers in the hallway or wait times for an MRI appointment - not having a 'family doctor' of your own - stuff like that. Our horrors are more inconveniences, in the grand scheme of things. Not to discount anyone's suffering - because its just awful for anyone who can't get the care they need when they need it - but at least we don't have financial worries to add to the stress of dealing with the flaws in our system.

[lunafaerie]

but they are more to the tune of how long someone had to wait for hip surgery or hospitals being full and waiting on stretchers in the hallway or wait times for an MRI appointment - not having a 'family doctor' of your own - stuff like that.

That's what kills me the most, in a lot of areas we have those kinds of problems too. People in the US use those stories of Canadian Healthcare as a "this is what will happen if we 'nationalize' our health care", but they fail to realize it already is happening, and then we have insurance companies dictating who gets what care when. Our system is beyond broken IMO. Beyond broken :shrug.

I'm so sorry to hear that

Thanks. I did warn everyone in the other thread, that this topic gets me going, probably because it's so personal to me.

[Gina.Maria]

::snip::

If I had gone public, I would have gotten it all for free, but not be able to choose my doctor or have the same doctor each monthly visit. I would also have been in a ward with several other women and been booted out of the hospital a lot quicker.

Even when I had excellent private coverage (my entire 2nd pregnancy and birth cost a grand total of $20 and the insurance company sent me a $40 baby monitor for filling out their customer service survey) I saw a different doctor (any one of 5) for each prenatal visit and without a scheduled c-section wouldn't have been guaranteed my chosen doctor at the time of birth. It certainly puts the myth of doctor choice to lie.

I don't know about others but we pay about $300/month to health insurance and that is with my DH's employer paying half. That covers DH, me, and DS. In addition we pay $30 for a co-pay for all regular doctor visits and we have to meet a $2500 deductible/family member before anything other than basic well checks are covered. In addition to that they consider my GYN a specialist that is "not necessary" so I have to pay a $40 co-pay instead of the normal $30.

We end up paying thousands of dollars each year to medical bills. Unfortunately last year DS had a medical issue and I had to have my appendix removed with emergency surgery. We are still making payments on bills for both of these and will be for the next year or two at least even though we are paying around $300 a month total on medical bills.

To top that off we are expecting our second and final child and my OB-GYN requires that we pay the deductible up front since it is so high so we are making payments of $400 per month on that until December.

It certainly makes it hard to get ahead. We are lucky that we do okay money wise or we would be swamped in debt just from all of this. Supposedly we have good health insurance too.... :eyeroll

Here's my thought on this - it's terrible! I'd be willing to negotiate with my family doctor for paying out-of-pocket for annual well-visits in return for real coverage of sickness and emergent care. When your children are sick you don't need the added stress of wondering how you're going to afford to pay the deductible, the co-pay, the medication and the hospital bills (if it comes to that.) That's the beauty of the German system - regardless of your insurance type (public or private), the treatment of children is 100% free. NO EXCEPTIONS.

I've experienced so many different medical options here - regular doctor visits (scheduled and unscheduled), urgent care, emergency care, hospital stay, cardiac testing, MRI - and the only stress I experience is the same stress you should have when someone you love is hurting or miserable. When you consider how much we spend on coverage, deductibles and copays, I think you'd be surprised to learn that your effective cost of existing is MUCH HIGHER than that of the heavily-taxed Germans. We just don't call it a tax when we pay for health insurance.

[cheribear]

Well, there's also the example that is often given that people from Canada will come to the US to get care, and are willing to pay for it, and that is true. But its a one-time thing for most people, when they get into a jam where they seem to be falling through the cracks, or that in a paid system, money would get this taken care of sooner rather than later. They only do that when they find that the Canadian system isn't meeting their needs, in their particular situation. As a general rule, they are interested in one aspect of the US system (the ability to pay for something better/faster/different) and not in the overall idea of a private system.

I also hear concerns about not wanting the government involved in healthcare decisions, which is understandable. However, you currently have people in insurance companies making decisions about healthcare, many of which are obviously based on profit - and I can't think they would always have the patient's best interest at heart.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but at least the gov't isn't involved in our personal healthcare decisions the way the insurance companies seem to be all up in your business and dictating the type of care you are eligible for based on your coverage. The government pays for the doctors and hospitals and their staff - and then those people always make the decisions that affect you as the patient.

[Inkspots]

When your children are sick you don't need the added stress of wondering how you're going to afford to pay the deductible, the co-pay, the medication and the hospital bills (if it comes to that.)

Isn't that the truth! I'm actually embarrassed to say that at one point, it was the end of the month and my DS had one of his many follow-up appointments and I didn't have the money to get his prescription. The pharmisist covered it for me!:blush Although at the time I thought we were getting good care--being able to see the same pediatrician, taking time to listen to our concerns--I wonder just how good it was. AFTER we got to Korea and had our first doctor's appointment I was asked about my son's murmmur. WHAT???? Not once had this ever come up before. I seriously asked the doctor if this was something he could get on a trans-oceanic flight since he had a full medical check-up before we were even able to leave the US. Not once had our stateside doctor mentioned the possiblity of having to have our son's tonisls removed because they were so big it was affecting his breathing--oh, he'd just outgrow the snoring. I truly believe that our son was the reason behind our being activated again. Had he had the tests, appointments and surgery that had while we were in the states, I am sure we would have gone broke and who knows what would have happened. Would they have even told us about his conditions?

[Gina.Maria]

Isn't that the truth! I'm actually embarrassed to say that at one point, it was the end of the month and my DS had one of his many follow-up appointments and I didn't have the money to get his prescription. The pharmisist covered it for me!:blush Although at the time I thought we were getting good care--being able to see the same pediatrician, taking time to listen to our concerns--I wonder just how good it was. AFTER we got to Korea and had our first doctor's appointment I was asked about my son's murmmur. WHAT???? Not once had this ever come up before. I seriously asked the doctor if this was something he could get on a trans-oceanic flight since he had a full medical check-up before we were even able to leave the US. Not once had our stateside doctor mentioned the possiblity of having to have our son's tonisls removed because they were so big it was affecting his breathing--oh, he'd just outgrow the snoring. I truly believe that our son was the reason behind our being activated again. Had he had the tests, appointments and surgery that had while we were in the states, I am sure we would have gone broke and who knows what would have happened. Would they have even told us about his conditions?

Oh, I know what you mean! My kids had all their well-checks in the U.S. and they were weighed and measured, poked a bit, asked a few questions, given appropriate immunizations and we were sent on our way. Not so in Germany! My daughter just had an annual well-check and they checked her hearing, her vision, some kind of sonogram-ear-beeping-vibrating-thingamajig test (I haven't the foggiest idea what they were testing for but it didn't hurt and wasn't invasive so I didn't protest), they weighed and measured her, tested her urine, tested her balance, coordination, gait, reflexes and spine, then asked a long series of questions about habits, followed by shots (one that hadn't been available in our doctor's office in the States, due to shortages.) They were so thorough and no one rushed us through any procedure or made us feel as though they wre in a hurry to meet quotas.

Also, related to your experience, I took my daughter to our local hospital's Emergency Eye Clinic because she'd had an eye injury that resulted in a significant blind spot. She was tested as thoroughly as they could manage on a Sunday with limited staff (4 separate tests) and the department head was called in (from home) to consult. They couldn't determine the problem and told us to return the following day for further testing.

The next day, they still couldn't determine a cause (though the blindness was, by now, well-documented) and she was admitted, through Emergency, to the Children's hospital for an MRI. Nothing was found on the MRI and it was concluded that it was most likely that she had swelling around her optic nerve that would have to be treated with a 3-day course of IV steroids in order to save her sight and prevent permanent damage.

But, before starting treatment, they ran several more tests to rule out infection as the cause. During the course of all this, they detected a heart valve condition that, while not serious in the normal course of life, requires that she receive antibiotics before any invasive dental treatment to rule out cardiac infection. And they pursued it to its end and informed us of it.

We went in because her friend tossed a hairbrush to her and she missed! The eye didn't even hurt. This is the extensive care given to children to ensure their well-being.

[Inkspots]

WOW! I don't think my kids have had half those tests. Although DS is going to audiology tomorrow for a follow-up to his tubes. With the exception of a couple trips to Korean doctors, most of our healthcare has been with the military. Some doctors are better than others, but I get you with the not being rushed and checking everything. Had doctors done a more thourough urine test when I went in, I probably wouldn't have gotten jaundice and hence the surgery. (I think they just checked for dehydration.)

[clikchic]

Even when I had excellent private coverage (my entire 2nd pregnancy and birth cost a grand total of $20 and the insurance company sent me a $40 baby monitor for filling out their customer service survey) I saw a different doctor (any one of 5) for each prenatal visit and without a scheduled c-section wouldn't have been guaranteed my chosen doctor at the time of birth. It certainly puts the myth of doctor choice to lie.



Well at our private hospital they have 5 ob/gyn's who share a roster for the weekend or cover each other when they are on holiday's, so if I had happened to give birth naturally on a weekend or his holiday I would have had one of the other 4 excellent ob/gyn's. None of my births were around my ob/gyn's holidays however I may have given birth on a weekend and had 1 in 5 chance of getting my own doctor.

With one of my miscarriages it did happen when my ob/gyn was away for a conference, so I had to go to who was covering him while he was away. As it happened, I had been to this ob/gyn before and wasn't concerned with having to go to someone else for the curette. I wouldn't have been worried about going with one of the other ob/gyn's either tho as they all have very good reputations in our city.

I do love my own ob/gyn tho, he is up with all the latest treatments and was WONDERFUL when I had the c-sect for my stillborn baby. I love him to bits. He has a really gentle and re-assuring manner.

I imagine there are different systems at other private hospitals, so I am not sure how they work.

[Gina.Maria]

Mine was a similar situation but there were at least two doctors in the practice that would have made me incredibly uncomfortale if I'd had to deliver with them. Had I been able to deliver naturally or had an emergency when my own doctor was not scheduled, I'd have had no choice except to choose an unrelated ER doc in their stead. What I'm saying is this - I CHOSE Dr. Gomez, not his practice. I wanted my care handled by him throughout my pregnancy and afterward but his practice's policies didn't allow that choice. It's no different with our GP or our Pediatrician back home. They belong, as most doctors do, to a large practice and we rarely see the doctor we signed up with. Sometimes we don't even see a real doctor - we get a PA - but the bill is still the same. :(

[Tiffikat]

Gina that's how my OB-GYN practice is. I have to see all of the doctors even though I chose it for a particular doctor. I'm lucky enough to be having a scheduled c-section so unless I go into labor early I'm scheduling with my doctor two days before my due date.

[Chreamps]

When I had my son I only saw my doctor during all the visits, but when it came time to deliver him, my doctor was on vacation so I had a different doctor whom I had never met. It turned out okay, but I can see both sides. Yes, I would have liked to have had my doctor.

Tiffany, I didn't know you were pregnant - congratulations! How much longer?

[newfiemountiewife]

I don't know if this makes any sense, but at least the gov't isn't involved in our personal healthcare decisions the way the insurance companies seem to be all up in your business and dictating the type of care you are eligible for based on your coverage. The government pays for the doctors and hospitals and their staff - and then those people always make the decisions that affect you as the patient.

This makes total sense to me. The government pays for our health care, but they do NOT make decisions on what treatment you can and can't have. The doctors make those decisions, and anything I've ever needed, I've gotten, no questions asked anywhere.

I can see how a bit of a two tiered system *MAY* work here, because there are times when wait times are long for NON ESSENTIAL services. I feel if you have the money, go and pay for it if you don't want to wait to have it done for free. But to be honest, I have never had a problem getting what I needed when I needed it.

[Tiffikat]

Tiffany, I didn't know you were pregnant - congratulations! How much longer?

I'm due January 25th. Which on one hand would suck because I have that two calendar year thing going, but my OB-GYN office is awesome and they bill everything together when you have the baby regardless of when treatment started. It's all put in one bill and you only pay one co-pay the whole time which is also nice. So I won't be billed until January and then I should have our deductible deposit paid so we won't owe too much beyond what we're paying already.

Now, unless I go into labor early (which I'm really hoping I won't I want to have the baby as far from Christmas as possible) I am having a scheduled c-section on January 23rd. I tried labor for 26 hours with Dom and had all kinds of complications and an emergency c-section partially due to a reaction I had with my epidural. This time we've decided it's best not to take any chances and just go straight to the c-section.

[Miss Chris]

Here is another example of a major problem with our system. DS stuck a craisin up his nose this summer. We were unable to see it or dislodge it. Although I was pretty certain it had gone down the back of his throat and that he had swallowed it, I made an appointment, upon the advice of my pediatrician, to have it checked to avoid a potentially nasty infection if it was way up there. So we wait an hour and a half, get sent to three different floors of the hospital. Finally, get into a patient room, wait another half an hour, and are finally seen by a med student (this is a teaching hospital so I don't mind that part). She tries to turn on the equipment and it is broken and we have to move to another room. Finally she turns on the equipment and looks up his nose for all of fifteen seconds and declares that he is fine. We wait another half hour for her to get the real doctor to sign off which entailed him hollering down the hall to ask if she had looked all the way into his sinuses. She answers yes and DS gets a cheap plastic truck to take with him. Well, I am annoyed at the experience but I quickly forget all about it until I get the bill. They charged $76.00 for the office visit and then $540 for outpatient surgery. I am confident it is a mistake and I call the billing office to get it straightened out. It was no mistake. They contended that they did a nasal endoscopy and that was in fact outpatient surgery. Now, the equipment they used was the same as used for an endoscopy, but there was no use of vaso-constrictors or numbing agents. They did not insert the instrument more than an inch into his nasal cavity and certainly did not scope all the way to the back of his throat. After about a billion calls I was able to get the cost written off, but they insisted it was a courtesy for patient satisfaction not becauase their billing practices are way out of line. How is the avg consumer supposed to protect themselves from that?

[Tiffikat]

That is ridiculous Chris! I would have been livid.

BTW one of my biggest worries is Dom sticking something up his nose. I am sooooo paranoid about that happening.

[Miss Chris]

That is ridiculous Chris! I would have been livid.

BTW one of my biggest worries is Dom sticking something up his nose. I am sooooo paranoid about that happening.
LOL You should be! He did it once with peas when he was little. I never dreamed we would be dealing with the same issue when he is 4 and a half!! When I talked to the nurse she said they are always taking things out of kids noses and ears. The week before a teenager had gotten a pencil eraser so far down her ear canal they had to have the doctor remove it!!

[Tiffikat]

A teenager?! Wtf?

Dom's 3.5 now and I just see it coming. My other fear is him swallowing something. When I was 4 I almost had to have a tracheotomy (sp?) because I swallowed a penny and they thought they wouldn't be able to get it out.

[cheribear]

I can see how a bit of a two tiered system *MAY* work here, because there are times when wait times are long for NON ESSENTIAL services. I feel if you have the money, go and pay for it if you don't want to wait to have it done for free. But to be honest, I have never had a problem getting what I needed when I needed it.

Yes, I have nothing against for-profit healthcare options, because I can see in examples like this where it would free up some resources - if some people opted to pay for private care, then the line-ups for those services in the public system would be much shorter. But I fear the government cutting back in those areas just *because* there is private care offered. They can't have it both ways.

[suejones]

Chris, I had a similar experience when my DD was 4. She put a bead up each nostril. I managed to get one out myself but the other was firmly lodged.
I took her to one of the local doctors (who knew us). He got it out within 2 minutes and the whole thing was bulk billed to Medicare so it didn't cost a cent.

I may pay higher taxes in Australia but I'm happy for the care we receive here. I used to have private health cover when we were trying to conceive and during pregnancy. I was pleased to have my choice of OB/GYN (only one in his office). I was lucky enough to have him when I nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy as well.
We discontinued our private health cover when we decided that the money we were paying on the insurance was better going into an account and staying there should we need access to anything other than the public health system. I have had good and bad experiences with the public health system but like I said in an earlier post - my DD spent a week in a major children's hospital in Brisbane last year. Her care was top notch and it didn't cost us a cent (in medical costs).
We currently have a dental issue with my oldest DD's partner. He needs urgent dental work done and can't wait on the public system so he has found a dental surgeon that is going to do the work. They have cut costs for him by billing a lot of it to medicare and also cutting their fees to base rates but it is still going to cost them $1500.
When things are urgent, then I don't mind paying the money rather than waiting. And fwiw any out of pocket medical costs over $2100 for a financial year can be claimed as a deduction on your taxes.

[clikchic]

Chris, I had a similar experience when my DD was 4. She put a bead up each nostril. I managed to get one out myself but the other was firmly lodged.
I took her to one of the local doctors (who knew us). He got it out within 2 minutes and the whole thing was bulk billed to Medicare so it didn't cost a cent.

I may pay higher taxes in Australia but I'm happy for the care we receive here. I used to have private health cover when we were trying to conceive and during pregnancy. I was pleased to have my choice of OB/GYN (only one in his office). I was lucky enough to have him when I nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy as well.
We discontinued our private health cover when we decided that the money we were paying on the insurance was better going into an account and staying there should we need access to anything other than the public health system. I have had good and bad experiences with the public health system but like I said in an earlier post - my DD spent a week in a major children's hospital in Brisbane last year. Her care was top notch and it didn't cost us a cent (in medical costs).
We currently have a dental issue with my oldest DD's partner. He needs urgent dental work done and can't wait on the public system so he has found a dental surgeon that is going to do the work. They have cut costs for him by billing a lot of it to medicare and also cutting their fees to base rates but it is still going to cost them $1500.
When things are urgent, then I don't mind paying the money rather than waiting. And fwiw any out of pocket medical costs over $2100 for a financial year can be claimed as a deduction on your taxes.

I have to agree with Sue, I would rather pay higher taxes and know that everyone has access to free healthcare regardless of how poor they are. You do not need insurance unless you want it to receive faster care and choice of doctors, private room/hospital etc.

To me it is worth it to know that everyone in this country gets the care they need. Maybe not as quickly as they should for elective surgeries etc but at least they can still get it.

Many doctors will bulk bill you if you have a health care card, (generally pensioners, unemployed and low income earners) which means you can get free doctors visits in many areas also.

If you are over the threshold for a health care card, you have to co pay with medicare, but costs are generally quite reasonable. If you go over the medicare threshold, then medicare pays a larger percentage and your costs are extremely small. Due to health issues I am currently having, I have had a lot of tests and doctors visits. We have therefore gone above the threshold for the year and for a recent initial private Rhematologist visit that costs $200 at full price, we were refunded $183 by medicare.

I quite honestly believe Australia's health care system even with all it's faults is one of the best in the world.

[newfiemountiewife]

But I fear the government cutting back in those areas just *because* there is private care offered. They can't have it both ways.

This is also my fear. Which is why I highlighted the "may" part...because this is exactly what I was thinking.

[cheribear]

I have to agree with Sue, I would rather pay higher taxes and know that everyone has access to free healthcare regardless of how poor they are. You do not need insurance unless you want it to receive faster care and choice of doctors, private room/hospital etc.

To me it is worth it to know that everyone in this country gets the care they need. Maybe not as quickly as they should for elective surgeries etc but at least they can still get it.

It seems to me even if you have insurance, just due to the nature of insurance - unless you are one of the people who is getting a lot more out than you're putting in - you're paying for a lot of other people's healthcare anyway. And since its for profit, you're paying for other people to make a profit. AND, no matter how you slice it, I would imagine you're still paying for the poor people who can't afford it in one way or another, either through taxes, or through the hospitals writing off their bills, or whatever. Because they don't turn people away, do they?

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Our government programs help us in that I have an adult son who is bipolar, and he receives his psychiatric care through the county mental health. Our private insurance only covers a small amount if we were to go to our own doctors, plus the cost of the blood work he has to have done, and then we'd have to have our own insurance for his medication. He goes to college, but only has 9 units, and insurance requires 12. He also has learning difficulties, so he is in the disabled student program, and they don't want him taking more than 9, along with the fact that he has to take a commuter bus to and from school, and it doesn't run in the evening, which is when he'd have to take his other classes that are needed for the program he's taking.

So, I've never paid a dime for his mental health care, blood work is now covered that we aren't able to go through our private insurance, and the drug companies are covering his medication right now. We've had to self pay, and it was $800 a month, so this is extrememly helpful. The paperwork we have to file is incredible though, and he had to get denied medi-cal before he could get any of this. The men and women that work there are saints. They have to deal with so much, and I know I would have no patience for a job like that!!

I think that is absolutely fantastic that your son is able to get the care he deserves!

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Sorry for the health & related troubles your family has had. It is interesting that you have found the need to use government assistance to make it through yet would vote for candidate that would freeze & slash many of these programs that you needed.

So, if Medicaid paid for everything then what would be wrong with a nationalized healthcare system? Seems to me the troubles you mention are the result of the VA's system which is separate from Medicaid & Medicare which is basically a nationalized system to assist the poor and the elderly.

Wait, maybe I should ask just what you mean by "nationalized healthcare" when you refer to your unwillingness to support it? Everyone does see it as something different.

Nobody should have to spend a moment of their time worry about how to pay for medical treatment and/or not obtaining medical treatment b/c they can't afford it...our health is NOT a luxury.

First of all ... I never said I supported either candidate ... just that I do not care for Obama. Secondly ... I was explaining the differences from Medicaid and the VA. Medicaid was awesome in our time of need ... the VA screwed us and left us fighting to get a $150,000 surgery paid for because they made a mistake and wouldn't admit it - until we got Congressman LaTourette involved.

Medicaid was and is fantastic - although I did have to do alot of calling around to find a doctor that accepted it. If a nationalized health care system could be ran the way Medicaid is ... I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it believe it would be more like the VA, and that I am not for.

[clikchic]

It seems to me even if you have insurance, just due to the nature of insurance - unless you are one of the people who is getting a lot more out than you're putting in - you're paying for a lot of other people's healthcare anyway. And since its for profit, you're paying for other people to make a profit. AND, no matter how you slice it, I would imagine you're still paying for the poor people who can't afford it in one way or another, either through taxes, or through the hospitals writing off their bills, or whatever. Because they don't turn people away, do they?

That's right, we pay for it out of our taxes, and higher income earners who don't contribute to a health fund also have to pay a medicare levy. Actually they may pay it anyway, it might just be reduced, I can't remember now. Our medicare levy has always been wiped out by the fact we pay for our insurance.

And yes, they don't turn ANYONE away, every resident of this country needs a medicare card however, to access medicare. Granted I can't remember if you even have to produce the card in emergency at the hospital. You do have to produce it everywhere else.

At the time we did IVF, medicare covered only a very small portion of IVF, however it was still a huge amount cheaper than it is in the US. After medicare and our health insurance I think we paid about $2000 for our first cycle and because the system changed it was only about $1200 for our second cycle. Now I think it is closer to $800, or even less.

Like I said tho, I don't mind paying through taxes for our entire nation to have access to health care, I believe it is our right and our responsiblity.

No one in this country NEEDS to have private health cover although they do encourage it to take the burden off the public system. We get rebates for our health insurance to help cover the cost and have the medicare levy waved.

The main reason we personally have it, is we don't want to have to wait for elective surgery if we need it. My parents don't have private health cover and my father had gall stones and was quite sick and in enourmous pain. He had to wait several months to have his gall bladder removed through the public system and endured a lot of pain in the process. In my opinion that shouldn't be considered an elective proceedure but it is and that meant he was not deemed an urgent surgery and had to wait till they could fit him in.

I had gallstones about 6 years ago now however, I went private because I had private health cover and also had a huge amount of pain and was very ill with it. I had mine out within 2wks from first seeing my gp, having an ultrasound, seeing the specialist and booking my surgery.

So I am the first to admit that our system is not perfect, far from it, but at least we ALL have access to free health care if we need it. I really don't care that I am paying for other people's health. I see that as a GOOD thing. We all pitch in for something that I see is necessary for our country. I do not want to see anyone's child denied necessary health care because their parents can't afford to pay for it. Hell, I don't want to see ANYONE denied health care because they can't afford to pay for it. To me that is quite simply wrong.

[newfiemountiewife]

So I am the first to admit that our system is not perfect, far from it, but at least we ALL have access to free health care if we need it. I really don't care that I am paying for other people's health. I see that as a GOOD thing. We all pitch in for something that I see is necessary for our country. I do not want to see anyone's child denied necessary health care because their parents can't afford to pay for it. Hell, I don't want to see ANYONE denied health care because they can't afford to pay for it. To me that is quite simply wrong.

It seems like I don't have a thought of my own in this thread because I agree with all of you.

I don't feel like I'm "paying" for someone else's health care. I feel that we all put the money into a pot, so to speak, and we all dip in when we need it. I have been on boards on the internet, like mom's boards, etc, and am sad when I hear a mom say that she is sick, but can't afford to take herself to the doctor, and just sticks it out. Then a small sinus infection can blow up into something so much worse when left unattended.

It breaks my heart that there are kids going without, and here, if the kids go without medical care, it's only because their parents are too stupid to take them to the doctor, because it doesn't cost anything.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Please, someone - tell me there's 'coverage' out there where you don't have to worry, at all, about getting sick or hurt or pregnant and having it take a dent out of your finances. Or, is it only the really rich people who can afford such plans? (and probably don't need them anyway, because I am sure they can suck up a few copays or a deductible :lol )


My husband works for the post office. We pay about $90 a paycheck (bi-weekly) for our health insurance. We just purchased an eye and dental plan as well that averages an extra $55 a paycheck. So about $145 bi-weekly, $290 a month.

When I was pregnant with both of my kids ... I never received a bill for anything. No bill for co-pays for the check-ups, no bills for the birth itself, the ultrasounds, the circumcision, etc. We pay $15 brand name and $7 generic prescriptions as stated in our plan. When my husband was on Zoloft, we paid $3 for a month supply. When I was on Paxil, I paid $9 for a 3 month supply. It cost me $.80 for Atropine for my youngest to dilate his eyes when he wouldn't wear a patch. Co-pays are $30, but they will bill you instead of making you pay at the time of service.

We have been very lucky I guess. We do pay alot out of pocket when it comes to the dentist. That is why we purchased a separate plan because we know my oldest will need braces and my husband and I need to get some work done that we have neglected due to the cost. I cannot afford $800 for a root canal - I'd rather them pull it for $60. We purchased the eye plan because my youngest has glasses and we have gone through 19 frames in the last 3 years - mostly out of pocket at $60 each. With this plan, he gets a new frame and set of lens every 12 months and if they break - they replace them at no cost.

[Scorpiosue1102]

If you don't like your insurance plan or your office mates (generalization) don't like it go to your Human Resources director, union boss, etc. They need to know that you are dissatisfied because they can change the plan during the next enrollment. The plan may cost a bit more money per paycheck, but you could have less out of pocket, deductible, lifetime amount, co-pay's etc. The insurance company may offer a better plan for an extra $20. I think we need to rise up to what we want and need.

[Microferk ~ Miki Ferkul]

My husband owns part of his shop- but he's outvoted by the other partners who want the savings to the company in the form of HSAs over traditional and PPO plans.

[Miss Chris]

If you don't like your insurance plan or your office mates (generalization) don't like it go to your Human Resources director, union boss, etc. They need to know that you are dissatisfied because they can change the plan during the next enrollment. The plan may cost a bit more money per paycheck, but you could have less out of pocket, deductible, lifetime amount, co-pay's etc. The insurance company may offer a better plan for an extra $20. I think we need to rise up to what we want and need.

I so wish this were true! We have been fighting for better insurance in my school district forever. We suffer from a fairly old workforce, many of whom are overweight and/or smokers. Leaves those of that are younger and that make better lifestyle choices to bear the burden. In the newer districts further south they have better insurance because their teaching force in general is much younger. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it would be over $400 a month to insure DS through our work plan. Many teachers I work with opt out of the program and just use their spouse's better coverage. But both DH and I work for the same district so we are stuck.

[cheribear]

I really don't care that I am paying for other people's health. I see that as a GOOD thing. We all pitch in for something that I see is necessary for our country.

Yes, I far prefer my money to go to provide healthcare for everyone, than to think the money is lining the pockets of the top of the food chain in the health care industry. I'm much more bothered by the idea of ANYONE making big money off of health care than worrying about who is getting care and not paying as much as I am for it.

~Cheri

[Gina.Maria]

First of all ... I never said I supported either candidate ... just that I do not care for Obama. Secondly ... I was explaining the differences from Medicaid and the VA. Medicaid was awesome in our time of need ... the VA screwed us and left us fighting to get a $150,000 surgery paid for because they made a mistake and wouldn't admit it - until we got Congressman LaTourette involved.

Medicaid was and is fantastic - although I did have to do alot of calling around to find a doctor that accepted it. If a nationalized health care system could be ran the way Medicaid is ... I would be all for it. Unfortunately, it believe it would be more like the VA, and that I am not for.

I honestly don't think even a US-version of NHS would ever look as bad as the VA medical system. I'm pretty sure third-world countries don't look as bad as the VA. Sadly, that's not even totally a joke.

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

I was reading somewhere that Americans spend so much more on health care because they seek treatment when people in other countries would not continue treatment. They said that Americans will not die without fighting till the end and will seek more controversial procedures and more (costly) treatments even if the chance is slim to none that it will work. On the flip side, they also said that that is in a large part the reason why the American doctors make so many medical breakthroughs, 1) the amount of money the American people spend on healthcare make research etc possible and 2) the amount of people willing to undergo experimental procedures. I think in a socialized healthcare system these procedures would not even be offered, hence the lower cost... the money the insurance payed out for that procedure that had a 5% chance of working, would *maybe* be better off paying for some other procedure (please note that is note my opinion, just the counter argument).

Although I understand what you are saying ... if I was faced with the possibility if death and only had a 5-15% chance of a new procedure working ... I would definitely go for it. I mean, what do I have to lose?

[DirtyFeetDesigns (heb1976)]

Sadly, that's not even totally a joke.

I hate to say I agree with you.

[tsaria]

This is what I want to know - is this typical?

Yes, pretty typical. My DH has excellent insurance for us through his work. I believe they pay everything, and our copays are $5-10 per visit, emergency care is $50. We didn't have to pay anything for the hospital stay when my daughter was born. But I'm certain that DH's company pays a TON on our behalf each month.

[hazelsmrf]

Although I understand what you are saying ... if I was faced with the possibility if death and only had a 5-15% chance of a new procedure working ... I would definitely go for it. I mean, what do I have to lose?

Oh of course, I do understand.

Though I'm wondering if the high amount of people willing to sue over anything has something to do with the high costs of insurance. I am not completely sure about this, but as I never hear about any medical lawsuits here, I assume that the doctors are somehow protected against them.

[t_a_l_i]

This is such an interesting topic to read, and I want to thank everyone for the info, especially the ladies living out of the states.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents, and ask about the things that are worrying me.

My husband works for our state. We pay, I believe, $160 each month for our part of our health insurance. We have a $30 copay, and $1000 per person deductible. This year they took away our option of having a PPO plan, and went entirely to a deductible plan. They do pay for well-child visits, which is great. But, they have no other inclusions.

Last year we had major complications with my twin pregnancy - my boys suffered from TTTS, had to have surgery in-utero (out of state) and I was on hospital bedrest for 8 weeks before they were delivered (planned c-section) 8 weeks early. They were in the NICU roughly 6 weeks. As you can imagine, our hospital bills were through the roof.

A friend of mine (very against a national healthcare plan) told me that if we had a national plan, I would never have been able to get the in-utero surgery on the boys (it was a surgery on their placenta and we had to travel to Cincinnati for it). She also said that no one would be able to afford IVF.Of course, this changed my views on the possibility of the plan.

I am just curious - those of you with knowledge in this area - can you clarify this for me? The surgery we had on our babies saved their lives. They would have died, absolutely, without it. And, we had to have it at that point. We could not have waited even a week. My friend told me that if we had been able to get the surgery, we would have had to be on a waiting list.

I'm just trying to sort things out before this election. :) I appreciate any comments I can get on this!

[Inkspots]

I have no idea about the surgery. IVF is much cheaper outside of the US though, I even think there are a few countries who cover it in their plans. I had friends who had it done outside the US and I've seen news stories (http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/pregnancy-childbirth-parenting/reproductive-tourism-traveling-abroad-ivf-1484.html)about couples/women taking fertility vacations.

Here's a link from the story I first saw (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/national/25fertility.html).

[Gina.Maria]

This is such an interesting topic to read, and I want to thank everyone for the info, especially the ladies living out of the states.

Just wanted to add my 2 cents, and ask about the things that are worrying me.

My husband works for our state. We pay, I believe, $160 each month for our part of our health insurance. We have a $30 copay, and $1000 per person deductible. This year they took away our option of having a PPO plan, and went entirely to a deductible plan. They do pay for well-child visits, which is great. But, they have no other inclusions.

Last year we had major complications with my twin pregnancy - my boys suffered from TTTS, had to have surgery in-utero (out of state) and I was on hospital bedrest for 8 weeks before they were delivered (planned c-section) 8 weeks early. They were in the NICU roughly 6 weeks. As you can imagine, our hospital bills were through the roof.

A friend of mine (very against a national healthcare plan) told me that if we had a national plan, I would never have been able to get the in-utero surgery on the boys (it was a surgery on their placenta and we had to travel to Cincinnati for it). She also said that no one would be able to afford IVF.Of course, this changed my views on the possibility of the plan.

I am just curious - those of you with knowledge in this area - can you clarify this for me? The surgery we had on our babies saved their lives. They would have died, absolutely, without it. And, we had to have it at that point. We could not have waited even a week. My friend told me that if we had been able to get the surgery, we would have had to be on a waiting list.

I'm just trying to sort things out before this election. :) I appreciate any comments I can get on this!

I think your "friend" is using scare tactics to try to convince you. Don't let her fool you into thinking that we'll back-slide into the dark ages of medicine if we choose a nationalized health care program. We still have some of the best and brightest in medicine and they won't suddenly become stupid drones because of a change in the overall system. The idea that a "waiting list" would be employed in such an obviously time-sensitive case is cynical beyond belief.

Beyond that, no one in this campaign has even suggested a Nationalized Health Care option. Neither Obama nor McCain have endorsed such a plan. One wants affordable coverage for everyone without regard for pre-existing conditions and the other wants more competition in the free market with no restrictions on the insurance providers to accept those with preexisting conditions. That's a bare-bones description but if this is your "hot-button" then you need to thoroughly research the two candidates' plans to make your decision without influence from your "friend."

[clikchic]

I have no idea about the surgery. IVF is much cheaper outside of the US though, I even think there are a few countries who cover it in their plans. I had friends who had it done outside the US and I've seen news stories (http://www.healthnews.com/family-health/pregnancy-childbirth-parenting/reproductive-tourism-traveling-abroad-ivf-1484.html)about couples/women taking fertility vacations.

Here's a link from the story I first saw (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/25/national/25fertility.html).

Quite honestly I think the prices in the US are ludicrious. In Australia IVF is covered under the medical benefits system so you don't even need insurance. Even without insurance I think it is only around $1500 a cycle. (estimate since it has been a few years!)

I think if you weren't an Australian resident you would likely only pay around $4000 for a cycle, and remember that is in Australian dollars, so even less in USD.

The last cycle I did which we also had insurance for, cost us only $900. I don't think the success rates are quite as high as the US, but because IVF is a lot cheaper, they don't take as many risks and don't often put back more than 2 embryos.

I really fail to see how they could justify the prices they mention in that article, that is even dearer than what I had heard about.

ETA: Especially when you consider that one of my IVF doc's cars is a Porche and he does very very well, the IVF docs in the US must surely be making obscene amounts of money.

[vegaschristina]

Although I understand what you are saying ... if I was faced with the possibility if death and only had a 5-15% chance of a new procedure working ... I would definitely go for it. I mean, what do I have to lose?

My father worked for a hospice for several years. I firmly believe in hospice and it's beliefs. There is a time to just realize that the end is near and work on a dignified and compassionate death.

[Gina.Maria]

Although I understand what you are saying ... if I was faced with the possibility if death and only had a 5-15% chance of a new procedure working ... I would definitely go for it. I mean, what do I have to lose?

Death with dignity? Time to spend with those you love? Procedures take time and can shorten or diminish the pleasure in your already limited time. But, the poster you're responding to is assuming our insurance companies cover new procedures with 5-15% success rates. That's just not true. Anything that controversial is typically considered experimental and, thus, not covered. Experimental procedures come with both high risk and high out-of-pocket costs (unless you can be admitted to the study and then your insurance company will wash its hands of you.)

[Inkspots]

Quite honestly I think the prices in the US are ludicrious.

Tell me about it! I have no idea how it was determined that only the weathly in this country are allowed the chance to have science increase their chances of having a child. I cannot imagine the added stress of trying to conceive then realizling you just don't have finances to continue. Were it not for the military, I don't think we'd have our second child. I didn't have to pay for any of my testing or proceedures with them and had we gotten to IVF, which was essentially our next step, it would have been a fraction of the typical cost. (This was six years ago, and I've heard conflicting reports as to Tricare covering infertility so I'm not sure if it's still this way.) Neither of our civilian plans in CA or CO covered infertility in any way.

[hazelsmrf]

Last year we had major complications with my twin pregnancy - my boys suffered from TTTS, had to have surgery in-utero (out of state) and I was on hospital bedrest for 8 weeks before they were delivered (planned c-section) 8 weeks early. They were in the NICU roughly 6 weeks. As you can imagine, our hospital bills were through the roof.

Honestly, my daughter was born in a world class children's hospital, where I would have been given that same care if needed, but I wouldn't have paid a cent out of pocket (other than paying for a private room if I desired). And I wouldn't have been on a waiting list. For critical surgeries, you go ahead. It is the *elective* surgeries that have waiting lists. Hospital stay is covered (non private room). Diapers, formula etc covered. Surgery covered. NICU stay covered. Strangely enough the only thing they did not cover and asked me to bring myself, were the pads for after the birth. They did not provide those.