Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
happy atheist

Anna Duggar - Part 2

Recommended Posts

SuffolkNWhat

Carrying on from the last thread but thank goodness for NHS England, I have had two children, both hyperemesis babies, hospitalized for both.

First child was a 3 day epic labour, ventouse delivery dread to think how much that would have cost me in the States, 2nd was a perfect waterbirth in a midwife led unit, in and out in a few hours.

All free at point of delivery (pun very much intended)

As a PP said, our country has many faults but I will always be thankful for our NHS, long may it continue (so long as Gideon doesn't sell it all off to his rich mates)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nic
Carrying on from the last thread but thank goodness for NHS England, I have had two children, both hyperemesis babies, hospitalized for both.

First child was a 3 day epic labour, ventouse delivery dread to think how much that would have cost me in the States, 2nd was a perfect waterbirth in a midwife led unit, in and out in a few hours.

All free at point of delivery (pun very much intended)

As a PP said, our country has many faults but I will always be thankful for our NHS, long may it continue (so long as Gideon doesn't sell it all off to his rich mates)

I been to or lived in many countries that provide health care, and one of the common threads is that no one wants to give it up. They love it. It's wacky that health care should be tied to a job. \

I remember as a kid, my mom worked at one hospital full time. She could make a lot more money working FT hours through the registry or per diem at several hospitals, however, that would mean no health insurance, so she had to keep the gig she hated. This was during a time when hospitals weren't hiring FT nurses, so she just gutting it out.

The US likes to celebrate the entrepreneur, but LACK OF NHS, can prevent many people from taking that leap.

EDITED TO ADD LACK OF haha that was a big oopsies!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mama Mia

I been to or lived in many countries that provide health care, and one of the common threads is that no one wants to give it up. They love it. It's wacky that health care should be tied to a job. \

I remember as a kid, my mom worked at one hospital full time. She could make a lot more money working FT hours through the registry or per diem at several hospitals, however, that would mean no health insurance, so she had to keep the gig she hated. This was during a time when hospitals weren't hiring FT nurses, so she just gutting it out.

The US likes to celebrate the entrepreneur, but NHS, can prevent many people from taking that leap.

Definitely agree. Health insurance being tied to employment means that your employer quite literally has the power of life and death over your family. Barely a step up from the feudal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundaymorning

Definitely agree. Health insurance being tied to employment means that your employer quite literally has the power of life and death over your family. Barely a step up from the feudal system.

I also find it strange that health insurance is tied to employment.

And I think we can agree that the health care in the US has huge problems. The prices people have to pay are often outrageous, and do not correspond with a fair market price at all.

However, I don't think that a single-payer system would make things better, on the contrary, it would probably give lobby groups even more power. Health care in the US is already full of corporatism, and it would only get worse.

(if you want to see in real time how corporatism works, just look at the Euro crisis, and the debacle in Greece: banks got bailed out, while the common citizens have to pay the price. Profits get privatized and losses get socialized.)

Health care, by the way, in never free, in any country. People will pay always have to pay for it one way or another.

As this study (2014) shows, the health care system in England and Scotland isn't ranking well at all:

telegraph.co.uk/news/health/expat-health/11384780/Netherlands-tops-health-care-rankings-with-UK-in-14th-place.html

And yes, I'm aware that the Telegraph is a conservative-leaning newspaper. This study however was ranked by the European Commission as the "most accurate and reliable comparison" out of many others.

(ehealth-innovation.eu/about-the-project/single-view/article/ehealth-innovation-partner-hcps-health-consumer-powerhouse-ehci-is-leading-measurement-of-natio/)

Health care is a very complex and difficult issue in economics. There are so many challenges and cobra effects. It's almost impossible to find a good solution. But corporatism surely isn't the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
luv2laugh

I didn't meet Anna at a meet and greet. We were all at an event where we had mutual people in common. I, along with others, tried to strike up conversation with her throughout the event and she gave one word answers and only kept to the friend she came with. This happened about a year ago. Josh, on the other hand, was extremely friendly and very outgoing. I will say that Jana was there too. However, Jana also kept to the friend she came with and was very quiet. We attributed that to shyness more than being rude though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stokstaartje

I also find it strange that health insurance is tied to employment.

And I think we can agree that the health care in the US has huge problems. The prices people have to pay are often outrageous, and do not correspond with a fair market price at all.

However, I don't think that a single-payer system would make things better, on the contrary, it would probably give lobby groups even more power. Health care in the US is already full of corporatism, and it would only get worse.

(if you want to see in real time how corporatism works, just look at the Euro crisis, and the debacle in Greece: banks got bailed out, while the common citizens have to pay the price. Profits get privatized and losses get socialized.)

Health care, by the way, in never free, in any country. People will pay always have to pay for it one way or another.

As this study (2014) shows, the health care system in England and Scotland isn't ranking well at all:

telegraph.co.uk/news/health/expat-health/11384780/Netherlands-tops-health-care-rankings-with-UK-in-14th-place.html

And yes, I'm aware that the Telegraph is a conservative-leaning newspaper. This study however was ranked by the European Commission as the "most accurate and reliable comparison" out of many others.

(ehealth-innovation.eu/about-the-project/single-view/article/ehealth-innovation-partner-hcps-health-consumer-powerhouse-ehci-is-leading-measurement-of-natio/)

Health care is a very complex and difficult issue in economics. There are so many challenges and cobra effects. It's almost impossible to find a good solution. But corporatism surely isn't the way.

Funny that the Netherlands came out as the best. There are plenty of stories where people are going to different countries to get medical care. :think:

Although I must admit that the basic coverage of health insurance (which in mandatory here) is pretty good. Anna would have given birth for free here. And she could even kept going to a midwife and deliver at home because that is the standard here. Most pregnant people don't see a doctor during their pregnancy. Midwives here are highly skilled nurses though. It takes 4 years at an university of applied sciences to become one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
apandaaries
I didn't meet Anna at a meet and greet. We were all at an event where we had mutual people in common. I, along with others, tried to strike up conversation with her throughout the event and she gave one word answers and only kept to the friend she came with. This happened about a year ago. Josh, on the other hand, was extremely friendly and very outgoing. I will say that Jana was there too. However, Jana also kept to the friend she came with and was very quiet. We attributed that to shyness more than being rude though.

Were there differences in Anna and Jana's behavior that made you perceive Anna as rude and Jana as shy? Did you try to engage with Jana or just give her space? Was Anna like that to everyone who tried to talk with her?

Feel free to not disclose everything, or even anything more, if you prefer, but I am rather curious. She still seems more "scripted" on camera than the others do. I'm curious about what else is going on with her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundaymorning

Funny that the Netherlands came out as the best. There are plenty of stories where people are going to different countries to get medical care. :think:

Although I must admit that the basic coverage of health insurance (which in mandatory here) is pretty good. Anna would have given birth for free here. And she could even kept going to a midwife and deliver at home because that is the standard here. Most pregnant people don't see a doctor during their pregnancy. Midwives here are highly skilled nurses though. It takes 4 years at an university of applied sciences to become one.

I think you can hear horror stories about every country. I've heard plenty of them, from the UK, the US and other countries. And I have an acquaintance who is Swiss physician and now, since she married a US citizen, has been working in several US hospitals as a doctor. She thinks that the US have a higher quality in health care than Switzerland (which I think could be true if you have the money to pay for all of it...). I've heard an expat from the US complain that here in Switzerland, the local doctors weren't doing enough to find out the reason for her medical problem, and that in the US, doctors wouldn't stop testing until they would find the root of the problem.

Those are individual cases and occurences, but they often don't reflect the whole reality. To have a chance to see the whole picture, well conducted studies are necessary. Which of course, also vary in their results, depending on what factors you inculde, how you weight them and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
luv2laugh

Were there differences in Anna and Jana's behavior that made you perceive Anna as rude and Jana as shy? Did you try to engage with Jana or just give her space? Was Anna like that to everyone who tried to talk with her?

Feel free to not disclose everything, or even anything more, if you prefer, but I am rather curious. She still seems more "scripted" on camera than the others do. I'm curious about what else is going on with her.

Jana seemed to try to stay in the background more. I didn't really even see Jana much but Anna was front and center the entire time, just not that approachable. Anna was chatting loud and about with her friend that she was with just not to anyone else. I didn't attribute it to shyness with Anna since she had been familiar with DC for awhile and used to talking with people. I wasn't the only one at the event who thought Anna and Jana appeared cold. But I honestly think Jana was just shy and probably not used to the "atmosphere".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowyn

I also find it strange that health insurance is tied to employment.

And I think we can agree that the health care in the US has huge problems. The prices people have to pay are often outrageous, and do not correspond with a fair market price at all.

However, I don't think that a single-payer system would make things better, on the contrary, it would probably give lobby groups even more power. Health care in the US is already full of corporatism, and it would only get worse.

(if you want to see in real time how corporatism works, just look at the Euro crisis, and the debacle in Greece: banks got bailed out, while the common citizens have to pay the price. Profits get privatized and losses get socialized.)

Health care, by the way, in never free, in any country. People will pay always have to pay for it one way or another.

As this study (2014) shows, the health care system in England and Scotland isn't ranking well at all:

telegraph.co.uk/news/health/expat-health/11384780/Netherlands-tops-health-care-rankings-with-UK-in-14th-place.html

And yes, I'm aware that the Telegraph is a conservative-leaning newspaper. This study however was ranked by the European Commission as the "most accurate and reliable comparison" out of many others.

(ehealth-innovation.eu/about-the-project/single-view/article/ehealth-innovation-partner-hcps-health-consumer-powerhouse-ehci-is-leading-measurement-of-natio/)

Health care is a very complex and difficult issue in economics. There are so many challenges and cobra effects. It's almost impossible to find a good solution. But corporatism surely isn't the way.

In Finland, most of healthcare is by state. It's not a corporation (at least not yet and I hope it never will). There is private sector, but it's used either trough workplaces or by rich. The government provided health care have some pitfalls (long queues, fewer resources per patient) but it gets us all to the same line. Everyone is treated the same. I'm leftist enough to think that in some things everyone should be treated equal - healthcare, education and while being minor. It's not free as it's paid by taxpayers, but it's cheap enough that getting sick won't bankrupt a person. I would love to see a study about comparative costs of healthcare and social security for a person between US and socialized health care. I have been wondering about it because while we do pay more taxes, we also get many things (child care, health care, pensions) either free or with nominal fees. I have looked for one without succeeding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sundaymorning

In Finland, most of healthcare is by state. It's not a corporation (at least not yet and I hope it never will). There is private sector, but it's used either trough workplaces or by rich. The government provided health care have some pitfalls (long queues, fewer resources per patient) but it gets us all to the same line. Everyone is treated the same. I'm leftist enough to think that in some things everyone should be treated equal - healthcare, education and while being minor. It's not free as it's paid by taxpayers, but it's cheap enough that getting sick won't bankrupt a person. I would love to see a study about comparative costs of healthcare and social security for a person between US and socialized health care. I have been wondering about it because while we do pay more taxes, we also get many things (child care, health care, pensions) either free or with nominal fees. I have looked for one without succeeding.

You can't really compare Finland and the US, they are two completely different countries with varying preconditions. They are very different in size, population, culture and history. I wouldn't rule out that the Finish system works better than the corporatist US one. But you probably couldn't transfer it to the US, the results would be very different. As the article I linked quotes the study:

“Beveridge systems seem to be operational with good results only in small population countries such as Iceland, Denmark and Norway." Finland also belongs to these very small countries.

Also, from what I've seen, taxes in Finland are very high, and the economy is stagnating, the unemployment rate is around 10%, youth unemployment is over 20% and structural reforms are urgently needed.

The only country this system, high tax rates but lots of benefits for everyone, seems to work out longterm is Norway. And that is because of the fact that Norway has, compared to the size of its population, huge oil resources which generate lots of income for the government.

ETA: some stats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terrier99

Jana seemed to try to stay in the background more. I didn't really even see Jana much but Anna was front and center the entire time, just not that approachable. Anna was chatting loud and about with her friend that she was with just not to anyone else. I didn't attribute it to shyness with Anna since she had been familiar with DC for awhile and used to talking with people. I wasn't the only one at the event who thought Anna and Jana appeared cold. But I honestly think Jana was just shy and probably not used to the "atmosphere".

I really get the vibe from Jana that she can be very shy and anxious. Especially in those situations. I get the same way in those same conditions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alba

You can't really compare Finland and the US, they are two completely different countries with varying preconditions. They are very different in size, population, culture and history. I wouldn't rule out that the Finish system works better than the corporatist US one. But you probably couldn't transfer it to the US, the results would be very different. As the article I linked quotes the study:

“Beveridge systems seem to be operational with good results only in small population countries such as Iceland, Denmark and Norway." Finland also belongs to these very small countries.

Also, from what I've seen, taxes in Finland are very high, and the economy is stagnating, the unemployment rate is around 10%, youth unemployment is over 20% and structural reforms are urgently needed.

The only country this system, high tax rates but lots of benefits for everyone, seems to work out longterm is Norway. And that is because of the fact that Norway has, compared to the size of its population, huge oil resources which generate lots of income for the government.

ETA: some stats

Are those figures particularly high? I'm not sure about general unemployment, but when I was unemployed a couple of years back youth unemployment here in the UK was over 20%, and we do *not* have high taxes.

I've been thinking a lot about single-payer vs universal insurance vs private insurance systems a lot lately, and what it comes down to, for me, is that there needs to be a balance between accessibility and affordability of care and quality of care. No one seems to have the balance perfect, but the UK tends to err on the side of accessibility. For instance, any time someone suggests something like charging people for getting their stomachs pumped or requiring overweight people to lose weight before getting a hip replacement, sure, some people agree, but majority opinion is generally against that kind of thing because ensuring health care is accessible to everyone *regardless* of circumstance is important to us.

And I see that I was wrong earlier when I said that single-payer systems were better than the US; for some reason I thought the majority of European countries (many of which *do*, I believe, rank higher than the US in a lot of metrics) had single-payer systems, but it looks like most countries actually have some form of universal insurance. So I apologise for that misunderstanding. Any Europeans on here want to explain how that works? For instance, what if you're unemployed and can't afford insurance? Do you know how that compares to a single-payer system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stokstaartje

Are those figures particularly high? I'm not sure about general unemployment, but when I was unemployed a couple of years back youth unemployment here in the UK was over 20%, and we do *not* have high taxes.

I've been thinking a lot about single-payer vs universal insurance vs private insurance systems a lot lately, and what it comes down to, for me, is that there needs to be a balance between accessibility and affordability of care and quality of care. No one seems to have the balance perfect, but the UK tends to err on the side of accessibility. For instance, any time someone suggests something like charging people for getting their stomachs pumped or requiring overweight people to lose weight before getting a hip replacement, sure, some people agree, but majority opinion is generally against that kind of thing because ensuring health care is accessible to everyone *regardless* of circumstance is important to us.

And I see that I was wrong earlier when I said that single-payer systems were better than the US; for some reason I thought the majority of European countries (many of which *do*, I believe, rank higher than the US in a lot of metrics) had single-payer systems, but it looks like most countries actually have some form of universal insurance. So I apologise for that misunderstanding. Any Europeans on here want to explain how that works? For instance, what if you're unemployed and can't afford insurance? Do you know how that compares to a single-payer system?

Here (The Netherlands) it is mandatory to have the basic health insurance package. The state decides what is in it. (It is a long list of things, basically all the care most people need ranging from hospital care, chemo therapy and mental help to IVF treatments) You can decide where you insure yourself.

Besides the basic package you can get extra things if you need that. For example I have an extra one for dental care. This of course cost extra. For some care you have to pay "your own risk" first, this is around 360 a year. But this is only for certain things and you can pay it of over a long time if you don't have the money. (I had to do this once when I went to a psychologist, ended up paying 30 euros a month extra until it was payed of, so no big deal)

I'll use me as an example here, and round up the numbers (don't feel like looking up the exact prizes to the cent).

I pay 90 euros a month for the basic

10 euros for the dental plan

So that is a 100 euros a month for basically all the care I need.

Because I don't make a lot of money I get 80 euros a month from the government to help me pay for my insurance.

So I am covert for around 20 euros a month.

O for kids under 18 its free.

Is this system perfect? Far from we still have problems with our healthcare system. However I can sleep save at night knowing that having to go to the hospital will not bankrupt me and that is something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alba

Here (The Netherlands) it is mandatory to have the basic health insurance package. The state decides what is in it. (It is a long list of things, basically all the care most people need ranging from hospital care, chemo therapy and mental help to IVF treatments) You can decide where you insure yourself.

Besides the basic package you can get extra things if you need that. For example I have an extra one for dental care. This of course cost extra. For some care you have to pay "your own risk" first, this is around 360 a year. But this is only for certain things and you can pay it of over a long time if you don't have the money. (I had to do this once when I went to a psychologist, ended up paying 30 euros a month extra until it was payed of, so no big deal)

I'll use me as an example here, and round up the numbers (don't feel like looking up the exact prizes to the cent).

I pay 90 euros a month for the basic

10 euros for the dental plan

So that is a 100 euros a month for basically all the care I need.

Because I don't make a lot of money I get 80 euros a month from the government to help me pay for my insurance.

So I am covert for around 20 euros a month.

O for kids under 18 its free.

Is this system perfect? Far from we still have problems with our healthcare system. However I can sleep save at night knowing that having to go to the hospital will not bankrupt me and that is something.

Thanks for sharing ^_^ That's interesting that if you have to get care that isn't covered you can pay it off over a long period of time. I'm guessing they don't charge you a large amount of interest in that case?

What happens if you don't pay your insurance, for instance if your car breaks down and you can't afford it one month? I know you say that if you don't make a lot of money you get help, but in my experience the government's idea of "enough money" and what's actually enough aren't necessarily the same ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stokstaartje

Thanks for sharing ^_^ That's interesting that if you have to get care that isn't covered you can pay it off over a long period of time. I'm guessing they don't charge you a large amount of interest in that case?

What happens if you don't pay your insurance, for instance if your car breaks down and you can't afford it one month? I know you say that if you don't make a lot of money you get help, but in my experience the government's idea of "enough money" and what's actually enough aren't necessarily the same ;)

O I didn't have to pay for all of it. Just the first 360 euros. It was testing if I am autistic so no way that cost only 360 haha. The rest was covert under the basic package. And they don't charge interest. You can't charge interest on healthcare that would be considered unethical.

For things that are really not covert under the basic package you have to get an additional package.

Uhm if you can't pay I suppose you can make an arrangement with your health insurance? If its only this month then there is not really a problem. Just pay them back in small amounts. If it is every month you probably qualify for government assistant. You get it if you earn less than € 26.316 a year. Or € 32.655 together when you have a partner/husband.

I found this list online of what is covert.

ww.aonstudentinsurance.com/pdf/Basic-health-care-insurance_summary-of-cover.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
alba

O I didn't have to pay for all of it. Just the first 360 euros. It was testing if I am autistic so no way that cost only 360 haha. The rest was covert under the basic package. And they don't charge interest. You can't charge interest on healthcare that would be considered unethical.

For things that are really not covert under the basic package you have to get an additional package.

Uhm if you can't pay I suppose you can make an arrangement with your health insurance? If its only this month then there is not really a problem. Just pay them back in small amounts. If it is every month you probably qualify for government assistant. You get it if you earn less than € 26.316 a year. Or € 32.655 together when you have a partner/husband.

I found this list online of what is covert.

ww.aonstudentinsurance.com/pdf/Basic-health-care-insurance_summary-of-cover.pdf

That sounds like quite a fair system; it's very different from the insurance system in Canada and the US with which I'm more familiar. Looking at that list it seems a lot of what is covered under the NHS here (all contraception, eye tests, dental care - you have to pay for fillings, but it's only around £10 each), though I'm guessing that if you can get a dental package you could also get other packages that cover things like optician visits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stokstaartje
That sounds like quite a fair system; it's very different from the insurance system in Canada and the US with which I'm more familiar. Looking at that list it seems a lot of what is covered under the NHS here (all contraception, eye tests, dental care - you have to pay for fillings, but it's only around £10 each), though I'm guessing that if you can get a dental package you could also get other packages that cover things like optician visits.

O yes there are a lot of packages. It all depend on what you think you need. For example I don't plan on having kids any time soon and I don't believe in alternative medicine so I'm not gonna get extra coverage for that. But my teeth are not that good so I want to go to a dentist 2x a year and not pay a shitload when there is something wrong so dental package it is. :) :sick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nowyn

You can't really compare Finland and the US, they are two completely different countries with varying preconditions. They are very different in size, population, culture and history. I wouldn't rule out that the Finish system works better than the corporatist US one. But you probably couldn't transfer it to the US, the results would be very different. As the article I linked quotes the study:

“Beveridge systems seem to be operational with good results only in small population countries such as Iceland, Denmark and Norway." Finland also belongs to these very small countries.

Also, from what I've seen, taxes in Finland are very high, and the economy is stagnating, the unemployment rate is around 10%, youth unemployment is over 20% and structural reforms are urgently needed.

The only country this system, high tax rates but lots of benefits for everyone, seems to work out longterm is Norway. And that is because of the fact that Norway has, compared to the size of its population, huge oil resources which generate lots of income for the government.

ETA: some stats

I was meaning comparing costs for a private person. I know countries are so different, that you can't compare health care effectively. It's because while we do have higher taxes (that are progressive) we also pay a lot less from our own pocket. And I mean all social securities. We pay high taxes but less for things. It would be nice to see how much the difference is in reality. I can't say that this system is best for every country, or that it doesn't have problems. I love it, but I also love French model. As a future doctor, I personally like French or Finnish system. But that's because for me it's easier to think using less time and resources but not having to actually let it impede my clinical judgment and choices than having a situation where treatment is declined because of insurance. Each to his own.

Economy stagnating and taxes are not actively related here. There are a lot of factors for it, but taxation isn't really one. Structural reforms are not really needed, the government that actively implement those structures for more than 4 years is. Even if those choices were against what I personally believe it would be better to pick and stick with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SPHASH

Happy Birthday Anna and Unhappy Anniversary of the day you made the biggest mistake of your life, accepting J-Perv's proposal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16strong
Happy Birthday Anna and Unhappy Anniversary of the day you made the biggest mistake of your life, accepting J-Perv's proposal.

His offer of hand sex was just too tempting. Who could refuse that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
laundry

I've been thinking a lot about single-payer vs universal insurance vs private insurance systems a lot lately, and what it comes down to, for me, is that there needs to be a balance between accessibility and affordability of care and quality of care. No one seems to have the balance perfect, but the UK tends to err on the side of accessibility. For instance, any time someone suggests something like charging people for getting their stomachs pumped or requiring overweight people to lose weight before getting a hip replacement, sure, some people agree, but majority opinion is generally against that kind of thing because ensuring health care is accessible to everyone *regardless* of circumstance is important to us.

And I see that I was wrong earlier when I said that single-payer systems were better than the US; for some reason I thought the majority of European countries (many of which *do*, I believe, rank higher than the US in a lot of metrics) had single-payer systems, but it looks like most countries actually have some form of universal insurance. So I apologise for that misunderstanding. Any Europeans on here want to explain how that works? For instance, what if you're unemployed and can't afford insurance? Do you know how that compares to a single-payer system?

In Norway hospitalization is free, so if you are unemployed and can't afford insurance, you don't have to worry about that because it's free anyway. We all pay taxes of course, but what we get in return in this case I guess, is free hospital and care. And if you don't have a job you still have the right to some money, and then you also pay taxes.

We have something called NAV, which is Norway's labour and welfare system that deals with benefits for unemployment, if you get sick and can't work for a period, pensions, when you have a child and are on maternity/paternity leave etc. So if you lose your job you can register as "looking for a job" at NAV, and get something called "dagpenger" (day money). It's not as much as a sallary from a job, but it is money until you find a new job (there is a limit, you can't be on this forever, but then maybe you are entitled to another type of benefit.)

You can buy extra insurance, for example "disability insurance." Everybody gets money (each month like a sallary) if they become disabled, but if you chose to buy this type of insurance you will get more money (but from the insurance company, not more from NAV.) How much you get if you don't have this extra insurance depends on how old you are and how much money you earned in you job, if you worked before becoming disabled. I also believe most, if not all, are insured in a way through their workplace so if they get injured from work they get insurance that way.

If we need to go to the doctor or get som prescription medication at the pharmacy we have to pay (called "egenandel," the amount you pay every time) until we reach a limit of around 270 dollars. So if you have a lot of headaches and want to see your doctor for it, you have to pay for that appointment (a little over 20 dollars i believe, if no equipment for bloodtests etc. are used.) If you end up being hospitalized and stay there for a long time, you don't have to pay for being there or any tests taken. When you get released and maybe have to go to your doctor for a check up in let's say 2 months, you will have to pay for that doctors appointment. When you have payed 270 dollars for doctor visits and medication, you get a "free card" and future doctors appointments and medications are free until a new year begins. There are certain situations that you don't have to pay "egenandel" and that's check ups and treatment when you're pregnant, psychiatric care for people under 18 years and some more but I don't remember.

What is not covered by this "pay 270 dollars, then "free card", is going to the dentist which can end up really expensive for some people if they have a lot of teeth problems. There are certain deseases of the teeth and gum that give you the right to get treatment either for free or at a really low cost (through NAV), and there may be certain insurances regarding dental care, but I'm not familiar with that, but in general the teeth is not really considered a part of this free care we have or a part of what you can use your "free card" for. I have never had any teeth problems or any cavities, so I only check my teeth once a year and I pay over 100 dollars for that. (It's free for people 18 and under, and from age 19-20 you only pay 25% of the price.) If you do have a really low income, though, you can ask NAV for help to pay for dental care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Idolatry

I'm not sure how Anna's thread got highjacked into a medical insurance debate, but the whole famliy would be covered under COBRA for 18 months if they wanted to pay for FRC's health insurance still.

If not, pregnant woman with no income generally qualify for Medicaid, as do the kids.

So, of the MANY problems Anna is facing, medical insurance is not the biggest at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
HarryPotterFan
I'm not sure how Anna's thread got highjacked into a medical insurance debate, but the whole famliy would be covered under COBRA for 18 months if they wanted to pay for FRC's health insurance still.

If not, pregnant woman with no income generally qualify for Medicaid, as do the kids.

So, of the MANY problems Anna is facing, medical insurance is not the biggest at the moment.

They could sign up for Obama Care :dance:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.