Attacks mount on 'preexisting conditions'

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 29, 2009

you know, maybe the rate of abortion would go down for under/uninsured mothers if universal health care was available for all pregnant women. just a thought to throw out there. medicaid is not available to everyone in need, you know.

This data is available.

Although it is variable, it doesn't speak well for universalized systems like Sweden, the UK, or N. Zealand...and if you believe Cuba's stats, their abortion doctors are some of the busiest in the world.

Our abortion rates are dropping without changing the system.

flightnurse2b, LPN · Mar 29, 2009

This data is available.
Although it is variable, it doesn't speak well for universalized systems like Sweden, the UK, or N. Zealand...and if you believe Cuba's stats, their abortion doctors are some of the busiest in the world.
Our abortion rates are dropping without changing the system.

do you have an article i can look @ with these rates?

i believe in the countries you have mentioned, sweden especially, that abortion is not as "taboo" as it is here in the united states.

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 30, 2009

do you have an article i can look @ with these rates?
i believe in the countries you have mentioned, sweden especially, that abortion is not as "taboo" as it is here in the united states.

That's quite possible, but I didn't think we were discussing the morality or ethics of abortion (that is a black hole of bandspace), but rather I saw the idea introduced that abortions would decrease in a UHC system...to me it seemed like an epidemiological statement, not a moral one.

I was just pointing out that abortions are decreasing in the US, but were more common in places like Sweden and N. Zealand, and were escalating in places like the UK.

That was all.

WildcatFanRN, BSN, RN · Mar 30, 2009

I find it amazing how one can be against any form of universilized healthcare. There are ways of doing it where its a single payor system where EVERYONE can actually afford care, and the doctors not the for profit insurance companies, make decisions on care for patients.

My finance is on social security disability. He has medicaide. Guess what, it covers absolutely nothing unless he's admitted to the hospital. No doctor takes it, nor can he afford the so called perscription coverage. He had a brain tumor removed several years ago and is supposed to have MRI's every year. Guess what, his neurologist dropped him since he no longer had insurance. Hasn't had any of his follow up MRI's and won't until we get married and I have group insurance that I can add him too. Of course with our luck, it will be considered preexisting and it won't be covered.

But I guess this too is challenging and unfortunate. No, there is no guarantee that a universilized system will fix anything. But the status quo fixes I've read about from those against a universilized system just seems to be the same old nothing. Btw, why do we have to look to other countries systems. I am sure we can come up with our own unique system that works well for us. Take the best of what works, and throw out what doesn't. A system where doctors are trusted to do what is right by their patients, not what some pencil pusher at an insurance company wants them to do. Will a universilized system do this, probably not. But it might. At the rate things are going, we may never know. Too many people are afraid to try.

flightnurse2b, LPN · Mar 30, 2009

That's quite possible, but I didn't think we were discussing the morality or ethics of abortion (that is a black hole of bandspace), but rather I saw the idea introduced that abortions would decrease in a UHC system...to me it seemed like an epidemiological statement, not a moral one.
I was just pointing out that abortions are decreasing in the US, but were more common in places like Sweden and N. Zealand, and were escalating in places like the UK.
That was all.

believe me when i tell you if anyone on this board doesn't wanna debate the ethics of abortion, it's me.

i was just saying that possibly the statistics there are higher because it's a more widely accepted practice in those areas, as opposed to here.

i just wonder if the expenses of having a baby were covered for EVERYONE, if people would feel better about keeping their baby since their prenatal care and delivery would not cost them thousands of dollars.

ToxicShock · Mar 31, 2009

Most of the people who I hear or read about who are totally against any kind of universal healthcare are usually people who actually have healthcare.

Careful with this, or the anti-generalization/judgmental team will come out and attack! :uhoh3:

WildcatFanRN, BSN, RN · Mar 31, 2009

Careful with this, or the anti-generalization/judgmental team will come out and attack!

Good point, sorry about that. I try not to make sweeping generalizations and stick to my own experiences. But, I will admit most of what I've read online do seem to be from people who have access to or at the very least can afford decent healthcare coverage. Granted, it is very easy to read about only one side of things too.

Honnête et Sérieux · Mar 31, 2009

i was just saying that possibly the statistics there are higher because it's a more widely accepted practice in those areas, as opposed to here.
i just wonder if the expenses of having a baby were covered for EVERYONE, if people would feel better about keeping their baby since their prenatal care and delivery would not cost them thousands of dollars.

Doesn't seem to match up.

I'm seeing speculation that a UHC system would result in fewer abortions, followed by speculation about why they are more frequent or increasing.

I just don't know where to go with that; it's hard to discuss an issue where someone promotes both sides of the issue.

Nonetheless, I'll continue with a speculation of my own; if people are having trouble paying for prenatal care, then they probably can't afford to raise a baby, either.

http://www.emaxhealth.com/84/17339.html

A pregnancy lasts less then a year, and the link above estimates the cost; this falls in line with most estimates.

The non-medical necessities of raising a child range from a low of $10 or 12k if you don't send them to college (this doesn't include healthcare costs).

If you can't afford even the lowest-cost pregnancy and childbirth without the gov't paying the bill, then I don't know how they can afford to raise the child.

Seems to me that people who can't afford kids shouldn't be having them.

Maybe I'm just crazy logical that way.

Pierrette · Mar 31, 2009

Seems to me that people who can't afford kids shouldn't be having them.

That would require responsibility.

Jolie, BSN · Mar 31, 2009

I find it amazing how one can be against any form of universilized healthcare. There are ways of doing it where its a single payor system where EVERYONE can actually afford care, and the doctors not the for profit insurance companies, make decisions on care for patients.
My finance is on social security disability. He has medicaide. Guess what, it covers absolutely nothing unless he's admitted to the hospital. No doctor takes it, nor can he afford the so called perscription coverage. He had a brain tumor removed several years ago and is supposed to have MRI's every year. Guess what, his neurologist dropped him since he no longer had insurance. Hasn't had any of his follow up MRI's and won't until we get married and I have group insurance that I can add him too. Of course with our luck, it will be considered preexisting and it won't be covered.
But I guess this too is challenging and unfortunate. No, there is no guarantee that a universilized system will fix anything. But the status quo fixes I've read about from those against a universilized system just seems to be the same old nothing. Btw, why do we have to look to other countries systems. I am sure we can come up with our own unique system that works well for us. Take the best of what works, and throw out what doesn't. A system where doctors are trusted to do what is right by their patients, not what some pencil pusher at an insurance company wants them to do. Will a universilized system do this, probably not. But it might. At the rate things are going, we may never know. Too many people are afraid to try.

I can hear the frustration in your post and sympathize with you and your finace.

But given his experienced with government-sponsored healthcare, I can't understand why you advocate putting all Americans into this system. It is failing him miserably because it is so poorly run and pays providers so poorly that few will accept it. How will expanding this unacceptable system to cover all Americans help anyone?

allnurses Guide · Mar 31, 2009

When we all have the same insurance doctors won't refuse patients based on their plan.

And along with many thousands of nurses I will work to ensure reimbursement to providers is fair.

AND primary providers will not have to employ the numbers of people to just do billing for the multitude of plans.

Those smart people who do billing can then do something useful.

Jolie, BSN · Mar 31, 2009

when we all have the same insurance doctors won't refuse patients based on their plan.
they won't be able to. the government will mandate participation, regardless of inadequate reimbursement. that will force enrepreneurs into other professions. the number and quality of providers will go down. if you think the wait time for a specialist is bad now, just wait until there are no specialists left willing to practice medicine.
and along with many thousands of nurses i will work to ensure reimbursement to providers is fair.
that sounds good, and is an admirable goal, but look how far we, as nurses, have to go with critical issues such as staffing and mandatory ot. the truth is that we don't have the ability to significantly impact these issues now, and our ability to do so will decrease even further when the government has a monopoly on payment. just like trying to negotiate the price of a postage stamp.
and primary providers will not have to employ the numbers of people to just do billing for the multitude of plans. those smart people who do billing can then do something useful.

sounds good, in theory. but i think we all have at least anecdotal experience with trying to get care approved and paid for medicare or medicaid patients. i have seen absolutely no evidence that those programs require fewer personnel for providers, as our doctor's offices and hospitals employ staff members whose sole responsibility it is to pre-approve services, file claims, etc. then they wait for months to get paid for services rendered. only the government can get away with that.