Jump to content
IGNORED

OMG no insurance without a SSN......


Wolfie

Recommended Posts

Had another WOW moment. Just watch Jon Stewart's clips from the Tea party debate the other night. The questioner (questioneer?) asked what would the candidate do about a 30 year old man who didn't have insurance because he was young and healthy, who got in an accident and put into a coma. Response - well, that's the risk he took.

Questioner - so you'd just let him die?

Audience members - YES (several shout outs)

Holy crap! And this from the pro-life people I gather. Holy crap!

They are only pro-life until birth. After that you're on your own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
In England everybody has a National Insurance Number (well, number and letters) - need one to work, it goes on Payslips, tax stuff, you use it to gain benefits. It's just a plastic card with name and number.....is an SSN the same thing?

Um, Ally, in the UK not just in England? ;)

Thx,

JFC, sat in Scotland and waving her NlNo card at the screen... :mrgreen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are only pro-life until birth. After that you're on your own.

That's just the fringe element. I am pro-life and care about all life. I don't believe in the death penalty. I've never picketed an abortion clinic. I have helped single, homeless Moms get to appointments, bought baby supplies, etc. I've volunteered in an AIDS hospice. As a nurse I've been with many people at the time of death, which is always a very humbling experience.

Nell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

That's just the fringe element. I am pro-life and care about all life. I don't believe in the death penalty. I've never picketed an abortion clinic. I have helped single, homeless Moms get to appointments, bought baby supplies, etc. I've volunteered in an AIDS hospice. As a nurse I've been with many people at the time of death, which is always a very humbling experience.

Nell

Are you personally pro-life (would not choose abortion for yourself) or are you pro-life in that you believe abortion should not be legal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you personally pro-life (would not choose abortion for yourself) or are you pro-life in that you believe abortion should not be legal?

I witnessed the first saline abortion in the United States back in 1965, and became pro-life that day. I do not believe in abortion ever. But I'm also a realist and abortion has been with us since the beginning of time. I don't think 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be legal. I'm OK with first trimester abortions, though I still believe it's life being destroyed.

Prior to the legalization of abortion it was mostly the poor getting back alley abortions, and sometimes dying from them. Middle class women either got married or were coerced more or less into giving their baby up for adoption, and wealthy women went to Cuba or the doctors in every state known to do abortions. When I was a student nurse we had a doctor with the initials of JCH, which we said stood for Jesus Christ Himself. He did lots of D&C's on college women who were supposedly having threatened abortions (miscarriages). When I admitted one such girl one day, not knowing this yet, I asked to check her pad (this was part of the admission procedure on anyone with that diagnosis). She had zero bleeding. I was read the riot act by JCH, no one was to check "his girls" as he called them. This was in New York and once abortion became legal there, years before Roe vs Wade, JCH did very few D&C's. I refused to scrub in the O.R. on any of his D&C's during the time abortions were illegal because I just cannot be part of that.

Nell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Reading that thread made my brain hurt. So is an "employeer" anything like a Mouseketeer?

This Canadian is totally baffled as to why so many low income*, poorly edumacated people are so totally against universal health care. Do they not realize that it is a benefit to them? Rich people don't care about it because they can afford to pay whatever, but for low income folks? Does not compute. Norman, coordinate!

And the SSNs (we have SINs here - bwahaha) are to make sure you are a citizen and entitled to the rights of one. How does not having any ID help at all?

(*I'm making a rash assumption about the people in that forum based on their horrible grammar and spelling)

There are a couple of reasons, but mostly they're worried about the "wrong" kind of people getting something they don't deserve. It's essentially a case of cutting of their noses to spite their faces. Gil Bates brags about walking into ERs for medical care because a lot of the kids don't have insurance, but I'm sure he would be pissed off if an atheist, Muslim, black person, or Hispanic person (citizen or not) did the exact same thing. He can do it because he's special and deserving, but all of those other people are leaches on taxpayer money because they're irresponsible for not having insurance.

The second reason is that many, many poor and middle-class people, especially white people who live in rural or suburban areas, truly believe that some day they will be rich. They have fully bought the myth of the meritocracy and think that they'll all be super rich eventually because they're just so gosh darn hardworking and clever. But of course those other people will never be rich because they are lazy. So they don't want to set up a system where their precious future hypothetical money goes to the wrong sort of people. They don't think that they need these safety nets because of course someday they'll be rich anyway. And the few odd cases only serve to confirm their beliefs, because they don't understand or don't care about statistics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would very much like to see some $ numbers for the comparitive cost of health insurance through private insurers for a family of 2 adults 2 children with a family income of, say, $40,000. How much tax do they pay? what kind of premiums? what if there is a pre-existing condition? Can anyone tell me or point me to where I can see these types of numbers?

I can tell you the Canadian numbers: Tax rate would be about 25% - so all inclusive taxes & health care ~ $10K. Includes just about everything except prescriptions and dental and eye exams. But mostly you can get group insurance at work for those at a modest premium, and they aren't the type of things that you have to mortgage your house for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I witnessed the first saline abortion in the United States back in 1965, and became pro-life that day. I do not believe in abortion ever. But I'm also a realist and abortion has been with us since the beginning of time. I don't think 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be legal. I'm OK with first trimester abortions, though I still believe it's life being destroyed.

Prior to the legalization of abortion it was mostly the poor getting back alley abortions, and sometimes dying from them. Middle class women either got married or were coerced more or less into giving their baby up for adoption, and wealthy women went to Cuba or the doctors in every state known to do abortions. When I was a student nurse we had a doctor with the initials of JCH, which we said stood for Jesus Christ Himself. He did lots of D&C's on college women who were supposedly having threatened abortions (miscarriages). When I admitted one such girl one day, not knowing this yet, I asked to check her pad (this was part of the admission procedure on anyone with that diagnosis). She had zero bleeding. I was read the riot act by JCH, no one was to check "his girls" as he called them. This was in New York and once abortion became legal there, years before Roe vs Wade, JCH did very few D&C's. I refused to scrub in the O.R. on any of his D&C's during the time abortions were illegal because I just cannot be part of that.

Nell

From Wikipedia:

The method of instillation abortion was first developed in 1934 by Eugen Aburel. [4] It is most frequently used between the 16th and 24th week of pregnancy, but its rate of use has declined dramatically in recent years. [2] In 1968, abortion by the instillation of saline solution accounted for 28% of those procedures performed legally in San Francisco, California. [5] Intrauterine instillation (of all kinds) declined from 10.4% of all legal abortions in the U.S. in 1972 to 1.7% in 1985, [6] falling to 0.8% of the total incidence of induced abortion in the United States during 2002, [7] and 0.1% in 2007. [8]

In a 1998 Guttmacher Institute survey, sent to hospitals in Ontario, Canada, 9% of those hospitals in the province which offered abortion services used saline instillations, 4% used urea, and 25% used prostaglandin. [9] A 1998 study of facilities in Nigeria which provide abortion found that only 5% of the total number in the country use saline. [10]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I refused to scrub in the O.R. on any of his D&C's during the time abortions were illegal because I just cannot be part of that.

Right, because you obviously knew so much better than the women going through the procedure? They couldn't have possibly wanted to have the procedure done, because they just must not have been educated? Pretentious much? You should have been fired.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wait, is she planning on getting her kid a Ss# when she needs a bank account or something else? okay cue wackjob alert *beep beep beep* Thank you to the people who made valid arguments against her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lilah, some employers actually do pay for insurance. I used to have a job like that.

Of course, it was a union shop. Then the company was sold to a multinational, and they tried to rewrite our deal, then when they couldn't break the union they sold it again, and the new multinational fired 80% of the workforce by direct cut or attrition - my last friend who was still there said they'd completely cut cleaning services and mice crawled across her desk while she was working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would very much like to see some $ numbers for the comparitive cost of health insurance through private insurers for a family of 2 adults 2 children with a family income of, say, $40,000. How much tax do they pay? what kind of premiums? what if there is a pre-existing condition? Can anyone tell me or point me to where I can see these types of numbers?

I can tell you the Canadian numbers: Tax rate would be about 25% - so all inclusive taxes & health care ~ $10K. Includes just about everything except prescriptions and dental and eye exams. But mostly you can get group insurance at work for those at a modest premium, and they aren't the type of things that you have to mortgage your house for.

I don't know if this is what you are looking for but my family makes under $50,000. We're a family of five. To get the family plan through my husband's work would cost us about $700 dollars. That is the same cost as my neighbor who makes a bit more but works for the same company as my husband. They only have two kids.

When I was at the dentists, I noticed the dental assistant was couging. I asked her if she was sick. She told me that she couldn't afford to go to the doctor because she didn't have health insurance. Her husband is a teacher but insurance is about $600 through his job.

We have insurance because my husband retired from the military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When my husband taught in a large public school district, we paid about $600 a month or so in health insurance premiums (health, dental, vision). He's teaching at a charter school now and the premium is about $450, but he makes about 1/3 of what he made salary wise in public school. I know for a fact that there are other teachers in his school who cannot afford the premium and therefore have no coverage.

Actually, the main reason he's still teaching post-retirement (besides that he wants to) is for the health insurance. The insurance we could get through his defined benefit plan is really expensive (about $1100 a month to cover me & the sons) and it's really sucky, to boot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the fear that the Federal government is keeping health records and medical files on all citizens and are going to use them to deny care to certain people "some day." The threat is that when you get sick someone in the government is going to determine that you are expendible or not deserving of federal health care by reading your file.

I have been unfortunate enough to accompany my son on many many hospital admissions, (not to mention my own admission for childbirth.) No one reads the patient files! They ask the same questions every time and you sign the same forms every time and not one person EVER reads the file.

I can't imagine the amount of beauracracy an enormous data storage like that would require.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idiot needs to join the real world. I am uninsurable on the private market. What is worse is that our 8 yo daughter is uninsurable due to ADHD and asthma. The only one we could insure is my husband at a minimum of $600 monthly for a high deductible plan.

Things my parents could easily do are now weighed carefully. I thought maybe this month I would finally get a new thyroid check after almost 2 years. My husband got food poisoning on Friday and I found myself facing down the desk clerk at an urgent care clinic, announcing I could pay 1/2 of what they demanded, and said "Are you going to treat my husband or not?". After conferring with the doctor, they decided $400 for a bag of fluids and a shot of Zofran was acceptable remittance. While I handed over the credit card the doctor was making follow up calls and ignoring my husband puking in a bin. I am enough of a bitch that I asked for my husband to be given priority over phone calls.

I took Her Maj to the ped. today after running a fever for a couple of days. She has pneumonia. Her doctor's office manager wanted to know when she could charge the second half of the $150 fee. Luckily her doctor had some inhalers to hand out but I had to pay $130 to get the antibiotics she needs.

The thing that drives me crazy is in both of these cases we behaved responsibly. If my husband had gotten worse, there is no way I would have been able to get him to a doctor without an ambulance. We could very easily be sitting in the ER with Her Maj if I hadn't taken her in today. I don't want a free lunch - I want one I can afford to buy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This drives me crazy. Even if I was rich, I wouldn't mind paying taxes to keep poor people from dying.

I've read that Americans pay more per person for health care than the average European or Canadian. I think that is because we don't put any emphasis on preventative care. Poor people have to wait until their very sick to go to the ER. Because they can't pay, the hospital writes off the cost and the government ultimately pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand the fear that the Federal government is keeping health records and medical files on all citizens and are going to use them to deny care to certain people "some day." The threat is that when you get sick someone in the government is going to determine that you are expendible or not deserving of federal health care by reading your file.

I have been unfortunate enough to accompany my son on many many hospital admissions, (not to mention my own admission for childbirth.) No one reads the patient files! They ask the same questions every time and you sign the same forms every time and not one person EVER reads the file.

I can't imagine the amount of beauracracy an enormous data storage like that would require.

There actually IS a database on you if you've ever used health insurance. Try buying life insurance, and you'll find out all about what they know about you. Doctor A may not have the same information Doctor B has, but the insurance company has it all, according to medical coding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous
I don't think 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions should be legal.

I am not in the medical field but it's my understanding that third trimester abortions are done only when there is a danger to the life or health of the mother, or because something is catastrophically wrong with the fetus. Otherwise they are already illegal.

Do you think that third trimester abortions in those circumstances should not be allowed? We have at least two posters here at FJ that had to make tough decisions late in their pregnancies. Their stories are heartwrenching and I think it's a good thing that they were allowed to do what they thought was best without outside interference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[

Right, because you obviously knew so much better than the women going through the procedure? They couldn't have possibly wanted to have the procedure done, because they just must not have been educated? Pretentious much? You should have been fired.

No one can be made to take part in an abortion if it is against his/her religious beliefs. This has been tried in court and no one can be forced to act against their beliefs or conscience.There's nothing pretentious about it. By my refusal to scrub on such cases it didn't mean the procedure wasn't done, it was still done but the O.R. staff assisting were OK with abortion. If you want to be made to do things against your belief system go ahead.

AND these were illegal abortions being done, abortion was not legal in New York during the time I refused to scrub on the cases. If you want to break the law and risk arrest go ahead, I'm not.

I was a student nurse and couldn't be fired. There were staff nurses who also refused to participate in the abortions, they weren't fired and had they been they would have won their lawsuits. The hospital sure wasn't going to fire anyone for refusing to participate in an illegal act. That's not pretentious, just smart.

Nell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not in the medical field but it's my understanding that third trimester abortions are done only when there is a danger to the life or health of the mother, or because something is catastrophically wrong with the fetus. Otherwise they are already illegal.

Do you think that third trimester abortions in those circumstances should not be allowed?

If a 3rd trimester baby needs to be delivered because of the mother's health there's no need to kill the baby, since they can deliver the baby live. That's what happened to Michelle Duggar's last pregnancy, she was in danger so they delivered the baby early.

The catastrophic fetal reasons, such as anencephaly are most often detected in the first trimester. I have a friend who had an abortion for an anencephalic baby. My cousin, who had twins with one baby having anencephaly, refused a selective abortion of the unhealthy twin. My mother had an anencephalic baby in the 1940's prior to ultrasounds. I cannot judge a woman who chooses to abort a baby with multiple severe anomalies, esp when there's little chance of survival. I've never been in that position and can only imagine the heartache either choice entails.

Nell

Laws regarding 3rd trimester abortions are at the state level and vary by state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

If a 3rd trimester baby needs to be delivered because of the mother's health there's no need to kill the baby, since they can deliver the baby live. That's what happened to Michelle Duggar's last pregnancy, she was in danger so they delivered the baby early.

The catastrophic fetal reasons, such as anencephaly are most often detected in the first trimester. I have a friend who had an abortion for an anencephalic baby. My cousin, who had twins with one baby having anencephaly, refused a selective abortion of the unhealthy twin. My mother had an anencephalic baby in the 1940's prior to ultrasounds. I cannot judge a woman who chooses to abort a baby with multiple severe anomalies, esp when there's little chance of survival. I've never been in that position and can only imagine the heartache either choice entails.

Nell

Laws regarding 3rd trimester abortions are at the state level and vary by state.

Maybe usually, but not always. What happens when they aren't detected until later? I'm pro-choice because I think those decisions should be between a woman and her doctor. I don't think it's anyone else's business. And yeah, 90% of abortions take place (in the U.S.) in the first trimester so second and third trimester abortions are pretty rare in comparison. Second trimester abortions are more common in low income women who struggle with getting access/funding in their first trimester. Third trimester abortions occur when something has gone very wrong. No one has one of those just for funsies, and I don't believe they are available for the hell of it in any state, although I will take that back if someone provides a citation that they are. They are difficult to get, hardly anyone provides them. Especially since Dr. Tiller got shot in the head while he was at church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe usually, but not always. What happens when they aren't detected until later? I'm pro-choice because I think those decisions should be between a woman and her doctor. I don't think it's anyone else's business. And yeah, 90% of abortions take place (in the U.S.) in the first trimester so second and third trimester abortions are pretty rare in comparison. Second trimester abortions are more common in low income women who struggle with getting access/funding in their first trimester. Third trimester abortions occur when something has gone very wrong. No one has one of those just for funsies, and I don't believe they are available for the hell of it in any state, although I will take that back if someone provides a citation that they are. They are difficult to get, hardly anyone provides them. Especially since Dr. Tiller got shot in the head while he was at church.

I took care of an 11 year old girl who had a second trimester abortion after being raped by her stepfather. While I do have some problems with some aspects of abortion, I just don't think we can possibly legislate all situations. I agree that this is a private medical matter to be determined by the patient and her doctor. It is interesting how people view things though. I have an otherwise very liberal Catholic friend who was completely opposed to the abortion in this situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NurseNells, it sounds like you are prochoice for first trimester abortions.

I've wavered back and forth about abortion. I've finally come to the conclusion that the decision should be left to the medical provider and the woman. It isn't that I don't have the same qualms about the procedure but I understand that in the end, the decision isn't mine to make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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