GOP can go to hell.

a reply to: Aytakan

It depends what state you reside in. I have grown kids in Washington State, which took the Medicaid expansion. Which meant low wage workers can get a subsidy for premiums and no more than 6,000 out of pocket. Most low wage jobs do not offer insurance, and 50-65 yrs old are priced out of market, so these people have to buy private. This is where the exchanges and subsides come in. But other states did not take the Medicaid expansion and its worse for their residents.

The only way any insurance works is with a large pool, like car insurance. The republican plan will purge the older worker, the disabled, and the poor to make it cheaper for the well off.

a reply to: deadlyhope

here's where you're missing the point... you don't HAVE to go to the hospital and get a 20K bill for childbirth. Example, I don't HAVE to go to a fancy steakhouse to eat lunch today, therefor i'm not going to create a post gripping about the price of their steak and potatoes. you have a lot of childbirth options that cost waaaayyy less. Home births are affordable, easy, and very very common. If you feel you need to be in a hospital to give birth because of some conditions, it is those conditions that are costing you money. People have been poppin out babies for a long time before fancy hospital rooms. get a baby pool, fill it up, have a water birth at home.

now, off to get a cheap lunch....

for the record, my first kiddo was born under Tricare, free, because I was in the Army... the second kiddo, I saw civilian price tag, under Obama mind you, and it was 22K... so the wifey-poo popped him out at home. all went well. he's four now and still kicking.

driving isn't a right, fancy hospital room childbirth isn't a right, steak lunches are not a right, God, Guns, and Fair trials are rights.

a reply to: TheErlenmeyerFlask

ya know what so gd ironic with your post....
here the conservatives are trying like heck to put so many roadblock up to shut down the abortion industry.... "for women's safety" or course... heck if they had their way every danged abortion clinic would have to be practically a mini hospital!! and now they are telling the women to just have their babies at home!!! here's a clue...
more women run into complications while giving birth than they do having an abortion!!!

what you have to justify is why on earth a poor single mom that has no income whatsoever can have taxpayer funds pay for her to safely deliver her child in the hospital while the taxpayer women who finds that adding maternity care to her health insurance way too expensive should have to settle for second best and risk her life with a home birth when she would just like the same frigging healthcare that she is paying taxes for the other women to have in the hospital environment!!! good luck on that one!

a reply to: dawnstar


you're correct and I agree that more and more women have complications and high risk pregnancies and a natural birth is dangerous. However, i'm not sure how that relates to maternity coverage on insurance. So if a woman smokes 2 packs a day and gets preggo at 45 years old and has to have a pricy delivery at a hospital is somehow a maternity issue? hmmmm logical

a reply to: dawnstar

The new health care bill does not say anything about women having babies at home.

It also says nothing about taking away health care for having babies.

The bill is taking away the "mandate" that all policies cover childbirth, giving people the option to select a less expensive plan if they will never have a child, such as single men or older people. You can still choose a plan that covers maternity.

a reply to: TheErlenmeyerFlask

this is how it relates to maternity coverage in this thread...
the thread is about the changes the republican senators and house representatives want to make to obamacare...
one of those changes are to remove the idea that those pesky mandated coverages be removed, ya know,
preventive tests for cancer,
childhood immunizations,
yearly checkups,
birth control,
MATERNITY CARE....

if I were to guess which coverages on the list insurance companies would be more apt to cut...
it would be birth control and maternity care..... and I remember when it was like that.
so, you 45 year old smoker would probably still get their free cancer screening to make sure she hasn't condemned herself yet, but well, the 23 year old women might find that she has to pay for a very expensive rider to add to her insurance for maternity care... simply because half the population will never have to worry about getting pregnant and they seem to be the ones making the big decisions most of the time..

and, I just love how you seem to hint that only those who abuse their health could possibly have complications while delivering a baby, or that all complications can predicted before labor starts... neither is even remotely true...

so we are back to my previous statement...

what you have to justify is why on earth a poor single mom that has no income whatsoever can have taxpayer funds pay for her to safely deliver her child in the hospital while the taxpayer women who finds that adding maternity care to her health insurance is way too expensive should have to settle for second best and risk her life with a home birth when she would just like the same frigging healthcare that she is paying taxes for the other women to have in the hospital environment!!! good luck on that one!

a reply to: BlueAjah

and, since most people still get their insurance through the employer.... it's much cheaper that way ya know....
it will be up to the employer if he chooses to include the maternity care in their policy... and yes... some will choose to do this, just like they didn't before, and what I think it all really boils down to is a kind of bias, I mean, I don't have a prostate, I don't hear any mention of having that an optional, secondary coverage on insurance policies that men would have to pay extra for. I'm not black, would never have to worry about me or anyone in my family having sickle cell anemia, but I am pretty sure that all insurance policies would have that included...
no, it's just when it concerns women's reproductive health that we have this kind of bull!!

so, of course, instead of facing the issue, some seem to think that any women who are affected can just settle for having their baby at home... problem solved... they just don't deserve the same level of healthcare that their tax money is being used to provide healthcare for others.. got it!! she's one of the sacrificial lambs, her life and health don't matter, it's for the good of the all, and the rich's bank accounts!

a reply to: dawnstar

I don`t think that pregnancy and prostate problems are comparable.

Pregnancy is a choice, prostates developing problems is not.

And I am a woman who has paid for maternity riders on our insurance for all of my 4 children, and the 18 first trimester miscarriages. Reproduction is a choice, not a disease process.

a reply to: dragonlover12

so....
women should just start saying no to sex if they can't get insured for maternity care and don't want to end up that deeply in debt... or if they really want to have the sex that badly, they should arrange to fall into a lower income bracket and be qualified for medicaid...
is that what you are saying???

if you want my opinion....
women who don't want to have a child, should start standing in solidarity with one another, say no to sex, regardless of their marital status, or their income just to see if that will change the conservative tune!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

I`m sure that its not difficult to understand how pregnancy comes about .... that is a choice, and you are personally responsible for the results of your choice. Society is not.

a reply to: dragonlover12

we all know how std's are spread also, I bet there's no debate about weather they will be covered or not....

oh, but wait... If I chose to not have sex, well, that might have a detrimental effect on my health also!!!

www.webmd.com...

the fact is that sex is really a normal part of being human.... it should be taken for granted that two adults who are married will have sex!!! a pregnancy is the natural effect of that natural action all humans take...
AND PREGNANCY REQUIRES HEALTHCARE!!! it also requires male participation in most instances.... which kind of diminishes the "why should a man's healthcare policy include maternity care... after all it's a choice!!!" ya, it's was a choice that was made by not only the women but A MAN!!!

it's all based on an age old bias around sex and women!!!

a reply to: dawnstar

you know they make condoms right? 99% effective or something close to that? just saying... advance technology I know

a reply to: MOMof3

In Illinois, expanded Medicaid recipients pay nothing for Premiums and nothing for medical care.


Illinois is predicted to be downgraded to "junk" status by Standard and Poors this coming Friday.

a reply to: TheErlenmeyerFlask

I have two kids that prove they aren't that effective!!!
although hormonal birth control worked for quite some time, till a doctor told me that because of other health issues it wasn't advisable for me to have them anymore... which left me with the condoms and spermacide...
which did not work!!
and, umm.... more than likely the same ones who choose to take maternity care out will also chose to take birth control out of their insurance policies... ya know, because having sex is a choice....

so, I encourage women to start choosing real carefully, do some research about how many women in this country have been thrown in jail for having miscarriages, how many are being left to suffer in catholic hospitals when complications arise, how they want to make birth control and abortion less accessable in this country, and how they want to make maternity care debatable when it comes to insurance coverage, consider, no birth control is 100% effective, and well, ask yourself, is that little bit of sex really worth the risk? if your answer is no, then well, start standing up... and just say no to sex!!!

a reply to: carewemust

They need more than Medicaid from fed.

originally posted by: MOMof3
a reply to: carewemust

They need more than Medicaid from fed.

Republican Illinois Governor / Democrat House-Senate. It's too bad the Republican Trifecta in Washington can't comprehend how lucky they are.

originally posted by: introvert
That is the point. We pay for it anyway already when the poor cant afford it. All we are doing in this country is killing the middle class for the sake of "free market" profit for the insurance companies.

I would like a 2 tier system one inside the insurance umbrella and one completely separate from insurance. The 70% of America that get health care from their work can continue to get that though insurance. The poor who do not have this and can not afford anything should be in a completely separate non-profit system.

Health care cost is out of control in America, that is the biggest issue here. As long as insurance companies set the "price" on everything this will not change. A woman can get perfect breasts for 6 to 10 grand cash. Another person has like surgery but not cosmetic and the cost would be 10 times with insurance.

a reply to: deadlyhope

So biased and uninformed. How about reading the bill before yo upass judgement on that even though that's what Democrats do. Medicare gets a supposedly a 7% increase yearly for 7 years, then it corrects itself. In 7 years it's actually 20% more spending on it that it is now. But that's okay... nevermind the facts.

Edit: I also lost my son's coverage in December 2016 with obama care with it being discontinued and Humana pulling out of the state, dont lecture me about what the GOP is doing, this is entirely the Democrat's doing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The first step to fixing any problem is recognizing there is a problem.

I think we can agree things need to change and that's a start.

a reply to: dawnstar
So you are forced to have unprotected sex?