I agree. EVERY woman should be covered on this; unfortantely for now, I am uncovered. There is no other way but to go uncovered in this because we cannot afford the amount they are asking.

With the old medicaid you did not have to be disabled. I did have medicaid while I was pregnant; but than after I had my daughter, we didn't get approved for pregnancy prevention (IE: birth control, pap smears, etc.). When I lost my job I went back and still didn't get approved; so it sucked all around.

I give disabled as an example, not a requirement. I was referring to this-

Right now, to qualify for Medicaid, a person has to be poor and also disabled, elderly, pregnant or a child. Under the new plan, all poor adults would qualify.

I expect that would have covered you under the circumstances when you were both unemployed.

The only way EVERY woman will ever be covered would be with a public health care system (like we have). Which you guys are all very opposed to. You can't have it both ways. I'm just glad I will never be pregnant and giving birth in America (although the lack of public healthcare is only one reason, although probably most of my other reasons why I would much prefer to give birth here than over there stem from the private healthcare system too, come to think of it... e.g unnecessary inductions because the obstetrician is going on vacation, unnecessary c-sections perhaps because they earn doctors more money?).

It depends on the state, in the state of Colorado we have been covered on Medicaid for quite some time, because in the state of Colorado if you have minor children who are eligable, then the parents are also eligable. If I am not mistaken Colorado had a medicaid reform a few years back, and thats why the laws were changed.

There is what is known as HealthChoice; which is a "cheaper", state approved health insurance company. You have to be poor to get this as well. Even when my husband only had a part-time job and I was living off of unemployment we STILL did not get approved.

I TOTALLY agree with you about the decisions on why woman choose to have unnecessary c-sections and inductions. This has been an issue and an arguement I've been dealing with for the past two months. Two of my co-workers have scheduled c-sections because it fits in to there "time schedules." CRAZY! You are willing to put your child in danger with unnecessary surgerys and drugs just so you can schedule it?

I think you might be missing my point... under the NEW system, a couple in the position you and your husband were in (when you were both unemployed) would probably be covered by medicaid, under it's new expanded programme. You wouldn't need to use private insurance, 'cheap' or otherwise. Which is one of the benefits of this bill.

Yeah, c-sections at request are pretty unusual here, and usually have some serious psychological issue behind them if they do happen. And c-sections or inductions at a time which is convenient for the obstetrician, with no medical indication, NEVER happens. But then our obstetricians are employed by a public healthcare system and are salaried. They are not paid dependent on how many patients they care for or how many c-sections they do (and the vast majority of simple deliveries here are done by midwives. Obstetricians only do the complicated one). Hence there is no financial incentive for doing a procedure which is not clinically beneficial to the patient.

We also avoid a lot of emergency sections with forceps deliveries here. I think they're rarely done in America, but I assume that is a litigation issue (e.g. woman later gets urinary incontinence, blames the obstetrician and his/her forceps and sues. That's my guess anyway.). Although it is possible that the high rate of medical litigation in the US is also related to the private health care system and the fact people know they can get money out of hospitals if they try and sue them.

Although, to be clear, drugs during a c-section do not endanger the unborn child (we do most c-sections under spinal anaesthetic, the contents of which are transferred in negligible amounts to the baby. We don't give ANY other drugs until AFTER the baby is delivered... at that point we give syntocinin, antibiotics, antisickness drugs etc.)

There are disadvantages to the baby from having a surgical delivery though, as the fluid in the lungs is not squeezed out as the baby passes through the birth canal, which can cause some respiratory distress. The vast majority of babies don't have serious problems, but it is one good reason not to do a c-section if it not necessary.

they scheduled their c-sections b.c of time schedules? r u serious? babies should come when they're ready(unless they're being induced b.c their due date has passed)!! i can't believe that. but hey britney spears chose to have a c-section so she wouldn't "feel the pain of labor." pshh...

Since the majority of the people in the world aren't rich, by most standards.... I wonder who IS going to pay for the poor people's health care.

Also, I'll be going to jail. I will not be paying that fine and they will NOT force me to buy health care. I have a CHOICE in this and sure they can try to take it away from me by trying to force me to buy it, but I think not. Just because something is BAD for you... doesn't mean they should tax the CRAP out of it, or fine you for it, or give you some form of "punishment!" Fast food is bad for you, tanning is bad for you, soda is bad for you, smoking is bad for you, watching too much tv is bad for you, being on the internet too much is bad for you.... are we going to regulate/tax ALL these things, too? You only get the right to choose your path... if it's the healthy one. If not, you should get fined.

Hmm... does that make sense?

For what it's worth I don't think forcing people to buy insurance or fining them is the best way of handling this. I think universal healthcare would be better, as no-one would be getting fined (and health care funded by taxes is cheaper than the silly amounts of money Americans are paying insurance companies), but everyone would be getting the benefits.

However, apparently Americans didn't want that (or anything anywhere near close to that). So I can see how he was forced into a corner.

And while I know YOU say you're willing to die if you can't afford appropriate treatment should something happen to you, there's plenty of people who just naively assume it will never happen to them... and then when it DOES... they go to the hospital, get treated, and get landed with a bill they can't pay. So something had to be done to try and stop that from happening.

Did you not have health care in the first place?

Anyway, you'll be fine somewhere around 900 over the course of a year, and you probably won't go to jail.

I'm of the opinion that:

...people are going to bitch either way.

Health care options weren't good enough before this to most people.. (It's too expensive, It doesn't cover my birth control, My co-pays are too much, I keep getting denied, My employer doesn't offer it...yadda yadda yadda,) and it's not going to be after this... (I don't want to be forced into health care, If they're going to fine me, I'll go to jail!, It's still too expensive, I'll still be denied...bitch bitch moan moan.) Seriously. Apparently, for Americans (and yes, I actually hate being lumped together with this group right now), our Leader can't do anything right.

If it wasn't good enough before, why not be a little bit more open minded to change? *Shrugs* Just me though...

FYI they do tax smoking.... heavily. Tobacco is one of the most heavily taxed products in America. About $0.25 is what the tobacco companies would charge, the rest is taxes.

Ironically, if all smokers quit, it would hurt the economy so tremendously that the recession would be ever deeper.

Haha I believe our tobacco is taxed even more heavily than yours!

And I love that they are constantly pushing everyone to quit, because our economy would be in the shitter if everyone did!

Someone else made an interesting point on your Facebook, do you have car insurance? Not having it is illegal too. So why do you not object to the government forcing you to pay that?

Many people DO object to the government forcing them to pay car insurance, and there are MANY uninsured motorists in this country. Not to mention, CAR insurance is MUCH cheaper than HEALTH insurance. I pay $100 for 2 cars and a motorcycle every month for full coverage. I pay $400 per month for healthcare for my daughter and I and that is AFTER my employer pays 60%.

i think the cost depends on certain situations, i know plenty of people who pay out the ass for car insurance.

True... in the past I have paid much more for car insurance, due to my age. It depends on your driving record as well. For the most part, however, Health Insurance is much more costly than Auto Insurance.

That's because medical care is more expensive than car repairs. :P

I do agree that health insurance is too expensive, but that's the insurance companies fault, not the government. Obama wants to get premiums down. Introducing a public option would have helped to do that, but the American public didn't want a public option! People cannot have it both ways.

Well, I don't want it both ways. I don't want it ANY way. I AM glad that a public option was kept out of this bill. I think the tax credits for those paying for healthcare is a good idea, too. I know our healthcare system is flawed, but I'm quite sure that NO healthcare system is perfect. I'm worried to see how all of this will play out in the end...

Uninsured doesn't go far though. No insurance? Your tags become illegal. Get pulled by a cop? Hello impound lot and jail. Hell, you don't even have to not have insurance to have tags become invalid. Just don't fill out the proper paperwork in time.

That's why I'm currently lacking my vehicle. Never mind the fact that my insurance card says that I'm covered until April 31st. When mom switched my plan over with hers, the right paperwork never got filed on my car and I had to surrender my tags.

Its not illegal to not have car insurance in all states :) Only certain ones have a mandated insurance law, even then its not the same standards across the board. BUT that being said, I think it SHOULD be manditory to have health insurance.

If you don't have a car, you're not required to have health insurance, yo.

And if you don't have a heart beat then you correspondingly have no need for health insurance either. ;)

Oh come on, that's not a good analogy, yo. I mean, I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but I think the issue is, if you don't have major health issues, then health insurance is not required.

I can see the flaw in that argument, but I can also understand why they would have that argument. Also, people don't understand that the government will heavily subsidize for them if they can't afford health insurance. People exclaiming their impending jail time are clearly parroting right-wing talking points.

Yes, there is a big flaw in that argument. No-one knows when they are going to become sick. Young, previously fit people can get cancer. Young previously fit people can get diabetes. Young, previously fit people can get hit by a car. No-one can say THEY don't need healthcare, because no-one knows what will happen tomorrow, or the next day.

[Devil's Advocate] - Then again, it's not the government's job to save people from themselves. They could offer services to people who WANT their help, not force them on people who don't.