or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 147

post #2191 of 5110
Quote:
One of their travel insurances would not cover it either because the baby was not named on the insurance -- something that the family finds to be baffling.

So it sounds like they even had some sort of travel insurance (although it could have been some automatic kick-in from a credit card or something).

I don't think it is fair to fault them for being on medicaid...maybe they are perfectly happy with their lives and incomes and happen to qualify. Would you reject coverage and pay out of pocket if you were eligible? Ataturk would probably say he would, but rational people would take the medicaid.
post #2192 of 5110

Yes, I misspoke to some extent. Thank you for the clarification. However, it's not uncommon for someone to use pregnancy, not their income level, as an eligibility for Medicaid.

post #2193 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

So it sounds like they even had some sort of travel insurance (although it could have been some automatic kick-in from a credit card or something).

I don't think it is fair to fault them for being on medicaid...maybe they are perfectly happy with their lives and incomes and happen to qualify. Would you reject coverage and pay out of pocket if you were eligible? Ataturk would probably say he would, but rational people would take the medicaid.

All reasonable people agree this is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Yes, I misspoke to some extent. Thank you for the clarification.

Those health plans will cover, at least, basic maternity and birth expenses. However, it's very common for pregnant women to supplement plans with Medicaid. It happens all the time.

I think this oversight is more problematic for your original premise than you're acknowledging. If she could get the care she needs on the private market, I think it's fair to ask why she was getting healthcare on the taxpayers' dole when she had the means to do things like travel overseas.
post #2194 of 5110
Medicaid does have special (looser) eligibility rules for pregnant women. Sometimes and in some places it's middle-class welfare. It's just another case of the government paying for things people should pay for themselves. But I was more upset by the way CNN referred to Medicaid as the woman's "US health insurance."

Also, the name "Kyuss." What the hell is a Kyuss? I guess it's better than Ayden, Kayden, or Brayden, but not by much.
post #2195 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post


I think this oversight is more problematic for your original premise than you're acknowledging. If she could get the care she needs on the private market, I think it's fair to ask why she was getting healthcare on the taxpayers' dole when she had the means to do things like travel overseas.

 

It depends on who you are questioning. I don't think it's fair to question her decision. The government provides eligibility criteria. In this instance, Iowa allows pregnant women with a family income up to 375% of the federal poverty level to obtain Medicaid. If she meets that eligibility criteria, why would she not use it? 

 

Are you suggesting that by accepting this particular government-funded service instead of paying more money for something in the private market, that she should forgo spending money on non-necessities? What she chooses to do with her money (in this case, it was to go to a family member's wedding) is really nobody's business. I was questioning the critique of her being a responsible person.

 

However, if you want to question the eligibility requirements that the government has established, then that's totally fair. However, that's a very different thing than blaming the woman for being irresponsible.

post #2196 of 5110
So after a bit of googling I find that Kyuss is the name of a band, apparently originating from Dungeons and Dragons.
post #2197 of 5110

Frankly, the name is the most troubling part of the story for me. These parents already gave their kid a major obstacle at birth.

post #2198 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

She and her husband are self-employed, so they don't have employer-provided insurance. Without an employer-sponsored plan, they likely have to pay a decent amount for their health insurance. It's not uncommon for these plans not to cover pregnancy or certain pregnancy-related expenses.

Incorrect, because, Obamacare.
Quote:
In fact, Medicaid pays for almost half of all births in the U.S., so it's not particularly unusual or surprising that a pregnant woman would be using Medicaid.

Given teh poorz are far more fecund than people with good jobs this is very unsurprising. Given some data I've seen I think the next social justice frontier might be in forcing affluent women to have children/more children to level the playing field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

All qualifying health plans are required to cover maternity care and birth. If they don't have private insurance, it's not because her pregnancy wasn't covered.

This, because, Obamacare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

Frankly, the name is the most troubling part of the story for me. These parents already gave their kid a major obstacle at birth.

Completely agree.
post #2199 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Medicaid does have special (looser) eligibility rules for pregnant women. Sometimes and in some places it's middle-class welfare. It's just another case of the government paying for things people should pay for themselves. But I was more upset by the way CNN referred to Medicaid as the woman's "US health insurance."

Also, the name "Kyuss." What the hell is a Kyuss? I guess it's better than Ayden, Kayden, or Brayden, but not by much.
Looser standards for loose women. Makes sense.
post #2200 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post

If she could get the care she needs on the private market, I think it's fair to ask why she was getting healthcare on the taxpayers' dole when she had the means to do things like travel overseas.

For all we know, her siblings chipped in to get their poor sister a flight to the sibling's wedding. Notice, it appears her husband (or at least the child's father) and her 4 year old child did not join them on the trip. Or maybe she scraped together the 2k for a ticket to china by cutting expenses and holding off on other purchases while living a modest lifestyle (and I think a pregnant woman with a child can still be making like $40k in iowa and qualify for medicaid). It is not like she just decided to take a pleasure trip to china while 7 months pregnant.

And even if she did book a pleasure trip or spend that $2k on something else like a new car or something stupid like a jet ski...does it really matter?. Where do you draw the line? A jet ski is clearly an unnecessary purchase, but you can't just say that all entertainment expenses are unacceptable. Did they buy too nice of a car? Could have saved $2k buying the 06 civic instead of the 08 accord and made do just fine...can't allow that. She earned the money, paid whatever taxes were owed, and took whatever programs she was eligible for (and as a small business owner, may even be a "job creator").

And that's not even getting to a basic income/cash transfer level of argument...the money was at least earned from her productive activity...the welfare in question is only provided in the form of services.
post #2201 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

It is not like she just decided to take a pleasure trip to china while 7 months pregnant.

Actually, that's exactly what she did. Yes, the premise was her brother's wedding, but that's certainly in the same bucket if you ask me.

I think we can separate things here into two conversations:

1) Was this family acting responsibly?
2) Some conversation on the US social safety net.

The answer to #1 is pretty clear if you ask me and that answer is in the negative. I have a hard time mustering any sympathy for them. Look at our own Green Frog, a lad likely to one day rule a small fortune, and his choice not to travel recently. Single guy, sitting on a good education, good prospects, and he tells us no little in savings yet he did not take a month off to travel due to being unemployed. Now take this family. This will be the sixth child for this relationship, obviously not making a lot of money as she's on Medicaid, and in her third trimester. Yup, no sympathy for her.

#2 is a far bigger conversation.
post #2202 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

She earned the money, paid whatever taxes were owed, and took whatever programs she was eligible for (and as a small business owner, may even be a "job creator").

Keep in mind that the claim that the woman is a small business owner came from the woman -- and that in the same article she described medicaid as her "health insurance" that should have paid for her to have the baby in China.

ETA: Good news, they've raised $10,500 so far. http://www.gofundme.com/tw33bvw
Edited by Ataturk - 5/15/15 at 1:14pm
post #2203 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by otc View Post

For all we know, her siblings chipped in to get their poor sister a flight to the sibling's wedding. Notice, it appears her husband (or at least the child's father) and her 4 year old child did not join them on the trip. Or maybe she scraped together the 2k for a ticket to china by cutting expenses and holding off on other purchases while living a modest lifestyle (and I think a pregnant woman with a child can still be making like $40k in iowa and qualify for medicaid). It is not like she just decided to take a pleasure trip to china while 7 months pregnant.

And even if she did book a pleasure trip or spend that $2k on something else like a new car or something stupid like a jet ski...does it really matter?. Where do you draw the line? A jet ski is clearly an unnecessary purchase, but you can't just say that all entertainment expenses are unacceptable. Did they buy too nice of a car? Could have saved $2k buying the 06 civic instead of the 08 accord and made do just fine...can't allow that. She earned the money, paid whatever taxes were owed, and took whatever programs she was eligible for (and as a small business owner, may even be a "job creator").

And that's not even getting to a basic income/cash transfer level of argument...the money was at least earned from her productive activity...the welfare in question is only provided in the form of services.

I have some experience dealing with Medicaid because of my family, and I can't speak to the income limits, but the asset limit is like $2000 or $2500 (including retirement assets).

Unrelated to this story, but I think this is a huge problem because it forces people to not save.
post #2204 of 5110
FWIW, the income limit for Mediciad for a pregnant woman in Iowa with a family of three (there was a reference to a kid at home) is around $75K. I, admittedly don't know this stuff particularly well, so please feel free to fact check this. I also have no clue how far $75K takes a family in Iowa and who knows what this family's situation was. However, I presume a trip to China would be a very big expense, but not necessarily ridiculous depending on all kinds of factors.
post #2205 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by zbromer View Post

FWIW, the income limit for Mediciad for a pregnant woman in Iowa with a family of three (there was a reference to a kid at home) is around $75K. I, admittedly don't know this stuff particularly well, so please feel free to fact check this. I also have no clue how far $75K takes a family in Iowa and who knows what this family's situation was. However, I presume a trip to China would be a very big expense, but not necessarily ridiculous depending on all kinds of factors.

This is absurd. $75k is national median income. We shouldn't be subsidizing above median households. Why should my tax dollars go to paying for the health care of someone who can afford to travel to China?

I just pulled the census data:

Iowa
Estimate Margin of Error
Total: 65,550 +/-380
2-person families 59,977 +/-555
3-person families 65,775 +/-1,245
4-person families 79,300 +/-1,130
5-person families 74,746 +/-1,746
6-person families 74,920 +/-2,744
7-or-more-person families 71,151 +/-3,414
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob