Log in

View Full Version : Using Medicaid while pregnant



Pages : 1 [2]

eagle2
02-27-2010, 11:29 PM
Of course, the UK did have the sense to leave open the option of obtaining 'private' quality health care if paid for out of pocket. This level of health care is one of the best in the world. Unfortunately it is only available to those Brits who are rich enough to afford the out-of-pocket costs after having already paid beaucoup income taxes to finance the national health care coverage that they choose not to subject themselves to !.

From what I've read, there isn't much difference in the the quality of health care between Britain's NHS and private health care. The main difference is the wait time. In addition, most of the private health care in Britain is paid by private insurance, not out of pocket.

http://www.justlanded.com/english/UK/UK-Guide/Health/Private-healthcare

There is almost always no difference in quality between private and NHS doctors. Indeed, you will often end up seeing the same specialist privately as you would have seen through the NHS. The difference will be when you get the appointment and how quickly you are treated, i.e. a heart bypass operation may be diagnosed for and completed in a couple of weeks with private treatment, but through the NHS this could take two or three months.

If you wish to use private healthcare, it is advisable to take out an insurance policy with a specialist health insurer, such as BUPA or PPP. Many employers also provide their workers with private health insurance, which is definitely worth finding out about if interviewing for different positions or negotiating a package.

Melonie
02-28-2010, 07:14 AM
(snip)"Although the government is reluctant to discuss the issue, hopscotching back and forth between private and public care has long been standard here for those who can afford it. But a few recent cases have exposed fundamental contradictions between policy and practice in the system, and tested its founding philosophy to its very limits.

One such case was Debbie Hirst’s. Her breast cancer had metastasized, and the health service would not provide her with Avastin, a drug that is widely used in the United States and Europe to keep such cancers at bay. So, with her oncologist’s support, she decided last year to try to pay the $120,000 cost herself, while continuing with the rest of her publicly financed treatment.

By December, she had raised $20,000 and was preparing to sell her house to raise more. But then the government, which had tacitly allowed such arrangements before, put its foot down. Mrs. Hirst heard the news from her doctor.

“He looked at me and said: ‘I’m so sorry, Debbie. I’ve had my wrists slapped from the people upstairs, and I can no longer offer you that service,’ ” Mrs. Hirst said in an interview.

“I said, ‘Where does that leave me?’ He said, ‘If you pay for Avastin, you’ll have to pay for everything’ ” — in other words, for all her cancer treatment, far more than she could afford.

Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.

Patients “cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs,” the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament."(snip)

(snip)"But in a final irony, Mrs. Hirst was told early this month that her cancer had spread and that her condition had deteriorated so much that she could have the Avastin after all — paid for by the health service. In other words, a system that forbade her to buy the medicine earlier was now saying that she was so sick she could have it at public expense.

Mrs. Hirst is pleased, but up to a point. Avastin is not a cure, but a way to extend her life, perhaps only by several months, and she has missed valuable time. “It may be too bloody late,” she said.

“I’m a person who left school at 15 and I’ve worked all my life and I’ve paid into the system, and I’m not going to live long enough to get my old-age pension from this government,” she added.

She also knows that the drug can have grave side effects. “I have campaigned for this drug, and if it goes wrong and kills me, c’est la vie,” she said. But, she said, speaking of the government, “If the drug doesn’t have a fair chance because the cancer has advanced so much, then they should be raked over the coals for it.” (snip)


Put bluntly, the increased 'wait time' is very effective in reducing overall national health care costs ... by permanently / prematurely 'eliminating' many patients from the waiting list !



billion dollar malpractice settlements?

For a large metro hospital and for the many doctors working out of that hospital ... the total could absolutely reach a billion dollars !


However, all of this is ranging very far 'off the reservation' in regard to the original topic ... which was essentially the application for medicaid benefits by dancers - based on the associated fact that dancers meeting medicaid benefit eligibility requirements are only able to do so by deliberately not reporting / under-reporting their dancing incomes.

kygergrl
03-04-2010, 01:36 AM
There is a certain point where an Exotic dancer should be ashamed to need any kind of government assistance. But there is the fact of life that does directly affect the outcome of one's needs. I need to say that sometimes there are times where the Medicaid is nessecary. I have had to quit dancing and go to state aid programs myself recently.

I was unemployed for 8 months before I decided to make the leap to exotic dancing. Having depleted my savings on my nessecary bills I had to play catch up on the said bills and start looking into the options I had for healthcare. Unfortunately, I got pregnant 3 months after I started dancing so I hadn't even had the chance to get anything into my savings account or sign up for healthcare. And with my size, and ability to be carsick and have "morning sickness" I had to quit working at my club.

All I had was Medicaid and foodstamps to fall onto. The area I'm in has an ever shrinking workforce. Factories are laying people off left and right, which included my boyfriend and 2 uncle in the same month at 3 different workplaces. Almost all retail stores have left making any job opening have at least 16 applicants for 1 posistion. And my side of town looks like a ghost town because of the amount of boarded up buildings and houses.

I wish I had been able to get myself set up financially. Granted, I didn't make that much (about 400-600 a week after paying my tipouts and gasing up my car) but if I had the chance I would have liked to be a "model member of society". I don't plan on staying on public aid forever. Come September I would like to be back on the stage (hopefully I get my same figure back). I would like to get myself and my child insured, and trust me, now I know that is priority 1 after formula, diapers and gas.

I do believe that if a person has been dancing 6 months they should have their money problem's handled or at least started on a plan of action to correct past financial failure. He/She should be self sufficient for bills and insurance set up. There should be money in the bank to cover the cost if they are out of work an extended period of time. More than a year, then there shouldn't be any financial worries for that person (excluding something totally disasturous since I've seen every type of debt obliterate people's lives).

Thats just my two cents, and it may be subject to change if the recession doesn't get better next year.

2009
03-04-2010, 04:14 AM
From my experience Pregnancy Medicaid is way better than private insurance they pay for everything while the mother is pregnant and up to 8 weeks post partum.

Not everyone has the extra money laying aound to have a baby if they dont already have insurance. And I really doubt the other insurance would have even accepted her already pregnant.

But Pregnancy medicaid is different from regular medicaid. Most doc accept it even the really good one's. You dont have to have your baby at the state run nasty ass hospital. Its all about a healthy pregnancy and healthy baby screw all the other shit people are talking.

Why is it your business to judge what someone else is doing?

Melonie
03-04-2010, 02:49 PM
I don't think there is a major 'judgemental' element involved ... just a simple statement of fact. In order for a 'typical' dancer to qualify for medicaid, it requires her to ( absent sugar coating ) break the law twice ... first by under-reporting her cash dancing income to the IRS ... and again by providing false financial information on the social services medicaid application.

kthnx
03-07-2010, 07:22 PM
Why is it your business to judge what someone else is doing?

um, because im PAYING for it...in the form of my TAXES!!!

how can one not judge the things that occur in society? how can society learn from its mistakes and impliment reform or change without looking back, reflecting, and judging? "the unexamined life is not worth living" -- socrates

2009
03-09-2010, 05:24 PM
We all pay taxes for it. Get over it.

Kellydancer
03-09-2010, 06:13 PM
We all pay taxes for it. Get over it.

Yes, but our taxes could be lower if we weren't paying for all these freeloaders using the system. People like this woman probably prevents other people who need it more from qualifying. There's the problem. A wedding isn't a need.

Melonie
03-10-2010, 03:03 AM
We all pay taxes for it. Get over it.

that's not exactly true. Since medicaid funding comes from federal and state general revenue coffers, the money to fund the program primarily comes from INCOME taxes. Because of highly progressive income tax rate percentages versus income levels, and because of 'refundable tax credits' with income level cutoff ceilings, only about 50% of US taxpayers ( the 50% income level is ~ $44,300 ) actually fund medicaid at all. And the lion's share of medicaid funding comes from the taxes of the top earning 25% of Americans ( i.e. your typical strip club customer ... the top 25% income level is ~$ 66,500 !). The point of interest is that any American who reported $40,000 or less in income last year did NOT contribute to medicaid funding !!!

~

kthnx
03-10-2010, 04:06 AM
We all pay taxes for it. Get over it.

mmmm...nope! not the strippers who make cash moolah and then neglect to file for taxes so that they can 'qualify' for social aid!

edit: 2009, your very defensive of this issue which makes me think mebbe ur one of the strippers who's hidden ur cash income just to get on some of these programs before...no?

Melonie
03-10-2010, 04:41 AM
^^^ backing off on over-personalizing ...

Medicaid is just one of many gov't benefit programs which can be easily 'corrupted' if the benefit applicant is willing to lie about their true financial situation when their 'cash' incomes are not officially documented. The same is essentially true of student loans / grants.

However, this is also part of the reason that the IRS has just established a new dedicated enforcement unit for people working in 'adult businesses' ( which by their definition includes strip clubs and exotic dancers).

I would also add that a significant 'moral hazard' situation exists where 51% of Americans who can pass a vote to increase medicaid and other gov't benefits don't actually have to pay much of anything towards funding those increased benefits out of their own pockets ! This is precisely the case in the recently passed change in medicaid eligibility for unemployed Americans collecting 'extended' federal unemployment benefits.

hot4ablackchick
03-10-2010, 11:29 AM
Yes, but our taxes could be lower if we weren't paying for all these freeloaders using the system. People like this woman probably prevents other people who need it more from qualifying. There's the problem. A wedding isn't a need.

I'll agree here. The girl the OP is talking about is doing the wrong thing. Nobody needs a wedding, and everyone should pay taxes. I get medicaid for my kids, but I couldn't afford to pay the medical bills. My hubby and I work and we have make a considerable income. I know most people are not in our situation (we have six kids) so even though we earn more than the 'median' income, our family is large so we still qualify. We also don't recieve any child support from our exes, so this hurts us financially as well. I have never lied on the application or underreported income.

eagle2
03-10-2010, 11:34 PM
that's not exactly true. Since medicaid funding comes from federal and state general revenue coffers, the money to fund the program primarily comes from INCOME taxes.

No it doesn't. A significant amount of state revenue in most states comes from SALES taxes, which practically everyone pays. In addition, the federal government gets revenue from other means than income taxes, such as taxes on cigarettes. I'm not sure, but I think some of the tax revenue from cigarette taxes goes directly to Medicaid.



Because of highly progressive income tax rate percentages versus income levels, and because of 'refundable tax credits' with income level cutoff ceilings, only about 50% of US taxpayers ( the 50% income level is ~ $44,300 ) actually fund medicaid at all. And the lion's share of medicaid funding comes from the taxes of the top earning 25% of Americans ( i.e. your typical strip club customer ... the top 25% income level is ~$ 66,500 !). The point of interest is that any American who reported $40,000 or less in income last year did NOT contribute to medicaid funding !!!

~

Yes they did. If they paid sales tax or any other state taxes, they contributed to Medicaid. If they paid cigarette taxes, they contributed to Medicaid. If they paid federal income taxes they contributed to Medicaid, and many Americans earning less than $40,000 pay income tax. Any single tax payer who doesn't have children or own a house, and makes more than $15-$20,000 a year probably pays income tax.

Melonie
03-11-2010, 02:15 PM
^^^ order of magnitudes of difference between the dollars diverted from ( 5-7-9% ?) sales tax revenues to the 'state' and 'local' share of medicaid costs, and the dollars diverted from ( 25-30-35 % combined ? ) federal, state and local income tax revenues toward the federal + state + local share of medicaid costs.

eagle2
03-11-2010, 10:26 PM
How do you know? Do you have any references? There are a number of states that don't even have an income tax, which means a lot more money from sales taxes goes towards Medicaid than state income tax.

KS_Stevia
03-12-2010, 02:44 PM
How do you know? Do you have any references? There are a number of states that don't even have an income tax, which means a lot more money from sales taxes goes towards Medicaid than state income tax.

Texas.