The American Health Care Act - page 12
Discuss... Read More
Apr 13, '17It has been a few years since I posted this story so will do so for new members. Please excuse me long time visitors to the Bread Room.
Someone posted something like people "choosing to have a baby".
When I left home for college at age 17 my Grandma came with me. She had been born an orphan and raised by people who let her know every day she was not theirs. They were immigrant farmers in Southern Texas, attended a church where theyb thanked God they were White, were taught Catholics were akin to Satan worshipers, and feared educated people.
Grandma became a Roman Catholic when she was 18, attending mass daily from until death. She got a job, and rented a room in town. (She also visited and helped them financially until she married)
We were attending Sunday Mass in the 1960s when birth control pills were new. There were many young families with a pregnant wife and a child in every grade K thru 12. She cared for the children of a teacher and I worked minimum wage full time evenings and weekends at a donut shop. We put money in the "Poor Box" to help feed those large families because the fathers pay was not enough.
The priest in his sermon yelled with emotion, "Anyone who uses birth control will burn in hell for all eternity."
I quietly walked out of church.
Grandma followed me out.
She told me, "You can't have a happy marriage without sex. That is why I made your grandfather wear a rubber."
Apr 13, '17I think some might be surprised at how many insurance companies do not cover Viagra or other problems associated with ED.Last edit by tntrn on Apr 13, '17
Apr 13, '17Quote from tntrnwhy would we be surprised that insurance companies only want to pay for generic medications rather than newer, more expensive medications? Most of us are well aware that insurers have been using their equivalent to death panels to limit care for decades now. Some of our "conservative" legislators actually want to roll back regulations on how insurers must treat Americans because they are concerned for those poor companies that might not be obscenely profitable if they are required to pay for care rather than CEO compensation and bonus packages.I think some might be surprised at how many insurance companies do not cover Viagra or other problems associated with ED.
Apr 13, '17Quote from toomuchbaloneyWhat I meant by my post is that Viagra,or the generic equivalents, or other medications similar to it, are not covered.....and probably in far greater numbers than many people realize. Ditto on other remedies to ED.why would we be surprised that insurance companies only want to pay for generic medications rather than newer, more expensive medications? Most of us are well aware that insurers have been using their equivalent to death panels to limit care for decades now. Some of our "conservative" legislators actually want to roll back regulations on how insurers must treat Americans because they are concerned for those poor companies that might not be obscenely profitable if they are required to pay for care rather than CEO compensation and bonus packages.
Apr 13, '17Quote from tntrnI certainly hope not, since there is absolutely no medical necessity ...What I meant by my post is that Viagra,or the generic equivalents, or other medications similar to it, are not covered.....and probably in far greater numbers than many people realize. Ditto on other remedies to ED.
Apr 14, '17I think it was me who brought up coverage for ED treatment and I stand corrected. I checked my insurance (that is partially paid by my employer) and I see that it does not cover sildenifil-type drugs, except for pulmonary hypertension.
Thank you tntrn for pointing that out.
However, I am still covered for prostate cancer treatment, and I'm fine with that, even though I will never use it. But I understand that others covered by my insurance may need it, just as I may need ovarian cancer treatment, but men will not.
I really don't like the idea that insurance company CEOs make millions of dollars annually, but apparently, conservatives are, because free market, capitalism, blah, blah, blah.
Apr 14, '17Quote from SC_RNDudeUnfortunately when faced with cost of childbirth it is likely that many will recognize that they have a choice and choose to avoid that cost; financial concerns are the most common reason given for abortion, and the hospital bill for childbirth is the largest and most immediate cost to having a child.Yes, you do have a choice regarding your house or car. As does one regarding having a baby or using viagra.
I would also agree that there is a difference between choosing to have a baby and being afflicted with DM or cancer.
I agree that those who choose to have children must take responsibility for the fact that having a child costs money, the rest of us aren't going to carry the full financial costs of your child, but making maternity coverage required for a plan hardly means the covered parents aren't paying anything, in fact they're typically paying more into the system than they are getting out of it.
Patients with moderate to severe heart failure for instance on average cost about $50,000 per year.
If we make them all have their own plan so that nobody else has to pay their costs, they the annual premium would have to be around $50,000 per year, which is impossible for almost everyone. In order for the system to work, we have to pay into the system before we need it, not just when we need it, which means the young and healthy have to pay into the system as well. These are people who are paying into the system without getting much back (yet), they're most likely cost is childbirth, and to expect them to chip into other people's heart failure (etc) costs without covering their comparatively small costs of childbirth doesn't make much sense. That's just all the more reason for them to not contribute at all, which means the system falls apart, which would be bad.
Apr 22, '17Quote from MunoRNHi Muno - I haven't been here in awhile but thought I'd peek in and see how things were going. Your comment is heartwarming.I don't think there's really any significance to Pence's old fashioned quirks, I think people were generally aware of his social conservative views when they voted for him.
My views differ from 'typical' Trump supporters but that hardly means I don't think we should discount what they have to say. These are folks who obviously feel their priorities have been left out of government decision making and there are enough of them to get someone like Trump elected. I think the bigger problem is that those of us who disagree with them haven't done a good enough job of understanding how they feel.
There's a natural tendency to want the impossible to be possible, respectable politicians limit there promises to reality, but there will always be politicians who will promise nonsense then generally do everything possible to screw over the people that put them in office, all the while deflecting and blaming others, the challenge for the rest of us is how to make reality the standard, which we've clearly failed at so far.
Personally, my husband and I have made the same agreement with each other out of respect and nothing else. I'd never force my opinion on anyone else and try to make them live MY choices. Honestly, I don't think our choice to be careful with each other is a bad idea. The rate of affairs, even in the Christian community, is pretty equal to the rest of society. But, that's another story.
I read something this morning from a physician's blog I regularly read. I was reading her response to the United Airlines debacle and it resonated with me because I go to Vietnam with a medical mission group started by a man who escaped Vietnam with his parents in 1973. The next blog was about Obamacare.
MommyDoc: "Let Obamacare Explode"
(I'll link the United Airlines one in that thread).
Apr 26, '17I am reading this morning that House Republicans are exempting themselves from the minimum benefits they are trying to strip out of insurance plans. How nice for them and their families.
Apr 26, '17Quote from nursej22Surprised? They are certainly an entitled group, aren't they?I am reading this morning that House Republicans are exempting themselves from the minimum benefits they are trying to strip out of insurance plans. How nice for them and their families.
The only ray of sunshine is a moderate Republican from PA isn't supporting the plan touted by the Freedom Caucus and DJT. The only way the House can push this plan through is with help from moderates within their party and some Democrats. I don't think the latter will help, too much. And if moderates within their own party aren't buying into it, it will fail again, which is yet another failure for DJT (YAY).
Apr 26, '17Quote from nursej22I saw that, too, and thought of all the times I've seen conservative anti-ACA people post here, and in other places, something about how, if the ACA is so great, why did the president and Congress exempt themselves, they should have to get stuck with the same lousy plan they're forcing on us. I know that I've provided documentation many times here (and in other places) that that was not true, the president and his family and members of Congress and their families were enrolled in the same plan as every other Federal employee, they are not "exempt" from the ACA -- and, lo and behold, now that the conservatives are writing a plan, they do, in fact, up and exempt themselves and their staff! Because they don't want their staffers stuck with the same lousy plan they intend to foist off on the rest of us! You can't make this stuff up ...I am reading this morning that House Republicans are exempting themselves from the minimum benefits they are trying to strip out of insurance plans. How nice for them and their families.
Apr 26, '17Quote from nursej22I had to go look for that. It is a little more complicated than that.
...Momentum is building for the plan despite the revelation that, under its current language, members of Congress would be all-but-guaranteed to maintain health benefits that other Americans stand to lose.
That is because lawmakers obtain health insurance through a marketplace operated by the District of Columbia. The District is unlikely to seek a waiver to opt out of the ACA’s coverage requirements, meaning members’ plans would be left intact, even if insurers in their home states are allowed to cut benefits. “We need to ensure that Congress doesn’t get some special exemption,” said Rep. Scott Perry (R-Pa.), a member of the Freedom Caucus. “Congress can’t impose upon the people of the United States things that it is unwilling to have imposed on itself.”
Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who negotiated the amendment with MacArthur and representatives of the White House, assured lawmakers the issue would be addressed.
“If you look at the text, it actually penalizes members of Congress and people in D.C.,” Meadows said, arguing the ACA requirements raise premium costs. “But we understand the optics, and we’re working on that to make sure that it gets fixed.”
MacArthur is also “working with House Leadership to make absolutely clear that Members of Congress and staff are subject to the same rules, provisions, and protections as all other Americans,” spokeswoman Camille Gallo said in a statement....
Apr 26, '17Quote from Spidey's momIsn't always?I had to go look for that. It is a little more complicated than that.
Freedom Caucus endorses latest Republican plan to revise Obamacare - The Washington Post
I suggest they add a rider that requires members of congress to purchase their policies in their home districts so they can "enjoy" the same benefits as their constituents.