- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
February 2013 Moms
lovin life23
member
***UO Thursday***
lovin life23
member
This discussion has been closed.
Re: ***UO Thursday***
I don't know if it's an UO or not, but I know it's at least controversial:
I am shocked but very happy that the Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate. After having lived for many years in a country that requires healthcare for everyone, I am really pleased that America is doing the same. Not having healthcare sucks, and everyone ends up paying more in the end because of high premiums.
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence
I agree! I don't think health care is something that is a privilege of the wealthy.
<a href="http://www.thebump.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Getting Pregnant"><img src="http://global.thebump.com/tickers/tt89219.aspx" alt=" BabyFruit Ticker" border="0" /></a>
From looking at the posts on my facebook page, I think that definitely qualifies as an UO but I agree with you.
My UO is that I am actually contemplating not BFing. My due date is ten days after the start of my final semester in law school. I do not want to take that semester off because I would have to give up my spot on my law reviews exec board- and delay graduating and taking the bar. I just do not see how BFing is going to work. This is a rather selfish decision that has to do a lot with my sanity. So, I guess this is a UO with myself.
The day the Bump died - Jasper is wise
I generally like the Duggars.
While I don't think that most people should have that many children and I find the Duggar's traditional gender roles sometimes offensive. I think a lot more people/parents should be instilling such morals and work ethic into their children. They seem like well behaved and sweet children who are becoming well adjusted productive adults. I love how they give back to the community by volunteering and they are always preaching their debt-free lifestyle for a good financial future. I apprieciate how honest they are about their finances and trying to make it work.
From my experience on the bump/knot/nest, this is not unpopular here.
My unpopular opinion is that I was initially upset about the ACA ruling, but I'm now realizing how well this is going to play into the November elections. Obama has enacted a new "tax" on the middle class when he said he wouldn't. I can already hear the ads. It's going to be great when Romney is elected and the entire thing is struck down.
Well played, Roberts, well played
ETA -
I completely understand the reluctance to BF in that situation and I think whatever you do just try not to feel guilty about your decision--you'll choose what's best. That said, I am honestly wondering how you are planning to continue law school with a newborn (I'm talking the first 6 weeks). People do it all the time I'm sure, but do you have a plan? I couldn't imagine juggling both tbh. Power to those who do it though!
Please don't attack me... But I actually disagree with both of you - I am very unhappy that they didn't overturn the individual mandate.
M/C 7/8/12
Perfect baby boy born 7/8/13
BFP 8/20/14 EDD 4/27/15 It's a GIRL!!
Very good point... maybe I will change my opinion to being happy about the ruling if it results in Romney being elected!
M/C 7/8/12
Perfect baby boy born 7/8/13
BFP 8/20/14 EDD 4/27/15 It's a GIRL!!
You're not alone, I don't agree with them keeping the individual mandate either. I think that our government, a REPUBLIC, has gotten too large for it's own good and needs to be scaled back. Do I think people should be turned out on their tails, no. I do not think that our tax dollars should pay for the care of everyone though, especially when there ARE jobs out there, but people are unwilling to take them.
I know all about having a DH who gets laid off constantly, as he is a bricklayer and we live in Illinois, not the most ideal of climates. We have learned to save, scrimp, whatever to make ends meet. Others can too. It's mor about living within your means rather than beyond, which has become quite common in our society.
I agree - they're raising genuinely happy and kind kids and I really respect that.
growing a foosa
Another conservative just pointed out something else I hadn't thought about - the commerce clause has been abused by liberals for a long time to justify all sorts of legislation. This is actually a win for conservatives because this ruling limited what the commerce clause can do. It's something, I guess. It's a start. And it will be even better when it's all struck down.
I'm with you on this one!
Especially because no matter what you end up paying for other people's healthcare.
The problem is that many of the jobs that are out there don't provide healthcare plans. Also, do you realize that you pay for them no matter what, as LadyMadrid pointed out? If they don't have healthcare, they will use the ER as their primary provider and often not pay their hospital bills. The hospital then has to raise prices on all procedures to cover the ones they end up doing "for free" because people without health insurance can't pay for them, and the insurance companies then raise premiums to pay for the more expensive procedures. Procedures in the US are incredibly expensive compared to other countries, and uninsured people needing treatment is a contributing factor.
Other than that, though, I agree that it has become very common to live beyond your means in the US, and that has a very negative effect on many aspects of life.
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence
The difference (for me) is that Romney instituted a plan that his state wanted. States have the right to do this. The federal government (IMO) does not have the right to do this, especially when the vast majority of Americans did NOT approve of it.
It's a win for Romney because it has fired up the base. His base will look past what happened in Massachusetts and chalk it up to states' rights as I have. As long as he promises to repeal it when in office it's a win for him. And it's obvious that it's a win based on the amount of money he made today just within an hour of the ruling.
Obama said he would not raise taxes on the middle class and the Supreme Court ruled today that Obama's plan is a tax on the uninsured. Total win for the Romney campaign. The ads write themselves. If there is one thing that will fire up the conservative base it's taxes.
Sorry to break it to you, but the federal government DOES have a right to do this, according to the U.S. Supreme Court. And I'm not sure where you're getting that the vast majority of Americans didn't approve it. Americans elected representatives to Congress, and Congress passed the law. That's how our government works -- the people speak through their elected representatives. Besides, when pollsters pointed out what was actually in the law (and not just what conservatives were saying, which was mostly lies), the vast majority of people loved it.
It's not super shocking that Romney raised money off this. If the decision had been the other way around, the President would have raised money. Everytime there's a Supreme Court ruling, the party who opposed the ruling raises money. That's just typical and not particularly indicative of anything at all.
This is not a tax on anyone except those who choose not to buy healthcare (and who can afford it). People will understand that when their taxes don't go up because of the healthcare law. I think this is a huge win for the President. But I guess none of us will really know until November.
I do not care about politics. Like at all.
Also: I don't get the Bachelor/Bachelorette phenomenon, either!
Yikes - here's mine... remember - it's UO for a reason!
I'm afraid of Romney or Obama for president! Obama for obvious reasons and Romney because he has no experience. Yes, I am from Massachusetts and I know first hand that he was an absentee gov. In fact, when his Lt. Gov. ran for Gov. years later, her whole campaign was about Mitt being absent and her doing all the work. I'm scared of both choices!
What I bolded in your statement is what I want to add an observation on. Of people I know it seems like people who have insurance and nice jobs with full family coverage are the ones who do not like this idea, people like myself who have been back and forth with and without insurance, people who work for small companies that cant afford to provide insurance, employers insurance policies that will not cover their employee's children or spouses because they cannot afford it are the ones who understand that healthcare needs to be made more affordable.
True story, when my husband and I got married we worked for the same small company, the company paid $100 towards your insurance. (On average this was 50% of the monthly premium) My husband and I had to have separate policies because if we wanted to have a policy with both of us it took it from being 2 $200 a month policies that the company paid 50% of ($100 for each) to one $850 a month policy that the company would still just be paying $200 a month. It is mind boggling pricing games that insurance companies are currently getting away with is ridiculous.
Another point I want to make if anyone can force me to buy auto insurance I see nothing wrong with also making people buy health insurance, honestly I think health insurance is WAY more important than auto insurance. And don't give me the its your choice to drive argument because I feel given the "choice" most people would "choose" to be able to go to a doctor when sick or whatever and not lose their house over it.
That's okay. You don't have to care. It will effect you anyway. IMO you can't then complain about anything passed in politics if you choose not to participate and claim not to care.
100% agree. The propaganda that was being spread about "death panels" was appalling. I wish there were a simple, understandable, unbiased version of the bill that anyone could read so they could understand the facts and then form their opinion based on that instead of what the ads tell them.
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence
See, the majority of people I talk to that are opposed to Obamacare feel that way not because of death panels or anything like that, it's out of principle. They feel that the government is overstepping their bounds.
You can argue that the Supreme Court decided today that the federal government DOES have that right. Apparently it does NOW. But that doesn't change the fact that there is a large portion of the American population that does not feel it should and will never support this legislation based on that principle. These same people still want reform in the insurance companies and better healthcare for everyone in America. This doesn't mean they don;t think the legislation has good intentions, just that it isn't worth the loss of liberty in order to achieve those intentions in this particular way.
We'll all have to see how this plays out. The great thing is that nothing is set in stone with ACA. It has the potential to be thrown out one day.
I just want to say that I'm very very pleased to see you ladies debating in such a respectful manor. It drives me crazy when people fight relentlessly over it, I think we're all entitled to our own opinions. I love hearing other peoples point of view, but I don't like it being smashed into my face with blatant disregard.
Anyway, here's my UO. Everyone thinks they're entitled to blood work and early ultrasounds - I've even heard pregnant women faking spotting or 'pain in their side' just so that they can get an ultrasound. It's disgusting. Have some patience FFS.
Haha.
Here's another unpopular opinion of mine along those lines - I don't receive ultrasounds at all during pregnancy. Didn't with my last one and won't with this one unless there is a red flag that would compel my MWs to order one. I'm not even completely convinced they are safe for the baby.
Yeah, there are a lot of people who made the whole government overstepping its bounds/loss of liberty argument about Social Security and Medicare back when they were passed too. And now everyone loves them (obviously not everyone--but the clear majority). And the fact that a lot of people dislike this law is also nothing new. I could rattle off the federal laws that I despise for an hour. Unfortunately, it doesn't mean they're not constitutional or stop them from being enforced. The government can't please everyone. But as a supporter of the law, today is certainly a happy day for me
On a note that hopefully everyone can identify with -- I knew the decision was coming out today and I was terrified ACA was going to be overturned. So I kept telling myself, "If the law is overturned, just remember that you're pregnant with a sweet baby and you're going to be a mommy so today is a great day regardless!"
Beth, I think I like you a lot.
Since I don't usually live in the States, I was frustrated but not personally scared it would be overturned since it wouldn't directly affect my family. Still, I know several people who it would affect. And I completely agree about Medicare and SS.
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence
I have to point out though... Medicare and Social Security have turned into albatross entitlement programs that are currently bankrupting our country and that we most likely will not derive the benefits from because they're too expensive and unsustainable in their current forms. All the research I have done has led me to believe that ACA will be doing the same thing - adding to our excessive debt. You can't give out "free" health care, SOMEONE is paying for it - and that someone is the tax payers. I am not saying that I do not believe everyone should have access to health care - I do believe that they should and I do believe that our current health care system needs to be reformed. I just do not believe that this plan will actually help the health care system and make health care more affordable. (and no, I do not have an answer or idea of a reform that *would* be helpful
And, again, don't jump all over me but... I believe that Obama's time could have been much better spent on doing things to get America back to work, decreasing unemployment and jump starting our economy rather than working on a massively expensive health care reform that he did not have bi-partisan support on.
M/C 7/8/12
Perfect baby boy born 7/8/13
BFP 8/20/14 EDD 4/27/15 It's a GIRL!!
I don't understand. The whole point of the individual mandate is that people who are consuming healthcare but who aren't insured WILL pay for it. Right now, those people are freeloading off you and me and everyone else who DOES pay for it. I certainly didn't say there was such thing as free health care. Of course there's not. The only healthcare that comes close to being free for the people who use it is Medicaid, which has been around for decades.
As for Medicare and Social Security, you won't hear any argument for me that these plans need to be reformed. There have been ways to do that floated around for years, and they can't get support from either Democrats OR Republicans because of political pressures. My point on Medicare and SS was just that they weren't the horrible threat to our freedom and way of life that people whined about years ago, and they're two of the most popular things our government does today.
And I really hate hearing that "he should have been focusing on jobs and the economy" bs. He's done that too. I mean, surely you've heard of the stimulus bill, which was the first thing he did when he got sworn into office. You can debate the merits of that too, but don't say he hasn't focused on the economy and jobs. And that's certainly not the only thing he's done. I mean, there's such thing as multi-tasking. I don't want a President who can only focus on one policy objective at a time.
Thanks, Kelly! I like you a lot too!
I know what you mean. I happen to have great health care coverage (seriously, I don't even pay a deductible for my maternity care) but I know plenty of people who will be directly helped by this bill (not the individual mandate part, but the other parts that mandate better coverage, no exclusions for preexisting conditions, etc). And they all work, and they work hard. They aren't freeloaders or lazy bums. And I love that they're getting some relief.
I didn't mean to imply that you said the ACA entitles everyone to free health care, I believe that was a PP that said that. I just look at the math - if you're insuring so many more Americans then the cost of health care IS going to go up.
As far as the stimulus bill... Bush pushed through stimulus before he left office too, it was pretty much a guarantee that Obama would add more stimulus when he took office in the middle of an economice meltdown - there was no way he could NOT do that. But he's done little since and is still talking about raising taxes. Personally, I would like to see taxes lowered - corporate taxes in particular. Lower corporate taxes (even if they're implied lower rates, or the threat of corporate tax increases is taken away) will incentivize companies to hire more people/increase hours worked/etc. and help with lower unemployment. I know a lot of people won't agree with me on this, but I have taken a lot of econ courses and work in an econ related field every day and everything I have studied and read and seen has led me to believe in this very strongly: The best way to help our economy and put more people back to work is to have smaller government - not bigger.
M/C 7/8/12
Perfect baby boy born 7/8/13
BFP 8/20/14 EDD 4/27/15 It's a GIRL!!
I totally agree with this. Wait a minute..I totally quoted the wrong thing, I DO NOT agree with this.
The Blog
This is what I totally agree with.
The Blog
Except, strangely enough, in every country that has mandatory health insurance, the cost of health care is lower... by a lot.
As much as I hate to use Wikipedia as a source, this article places both the OECD and WHO tables next to each other: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_total_health_expenditure_%28PPP%29_per_capita
You have to go a long way down that list before you get to a country that doesn't have comprehensive healthcare coverage.
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence
haaaaahahahaha - That was an awesome misquote :-)
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence
Maybe I'm not reading it right, but what you linked does not label which country has mandatory health insurance. I will say that this is just showing the direct cost of health care - not the indirect cost, i.e. what the governments are paying to supplement universal health care. Also, there are flaws to every system. A lot of countries with universal health care end up providing very sub par health care. I just read an article somewhere that was talking about somewhere in Europe (I can't remember where, I read this article a few weeks ago) where they were sending women home after giving birth something ridiculous like 4 hours later and this was resulting in a lot of deaths/health care complications that could have been avoided. And the reason they were sending them home so much earlier was to cut down on health care costs for the universal health care system provided by that country. And one thing I will point out - many of the European countries that have universal health care coverage are the ones that are in debt up to their eyeballs and are in danger of defaulting out of the Eurozone completely. This isn't, obviously, entirely due to their health care policies, but it is due to all their entitlement programs in aggregate.
Honestly one thing that I really do feel needs to be done to reduce health care costs in this country is tort reform. If doctors didn't have to pay so much for their insurance due to people being able to sue for anything, then health care costs would be much, much, much lower. Obviously, if there really was malpractive, then yes, the person should be able to sue for damages. But there are so many cases where people are suing and they really have no just cause, and it ends up costing so much money. Plus, it makes doctors so afraid of being sued that they cover their butts with additional unnecessary tests and that drives up the costs as well.
I think we should just agree to disagree...Time will tell how it all pans out in the US. Let's just hope that whatever happens is an ultimate benefit to the country and its citizens.
M/C 7/8/12
Perfect baby boy born 7/8/13
BFP 8/20/14 EDD 4/27/15 It's a GIRL!!
No, you're right, but it doesn't matter. The US is in the number one spot by quite a ways (look at the percentage of GDP we spend on healthcare compared to the others). As for the comprehensive health care, I was telling you rather than reading from the chart that you have to go down a ways before you find a country that doesn't have it.
As for saying many of the European countries that are in debt have universal healthcare, well, yes, but many of the European countries that are not in debt have universal healthcare, as well, so you can hardly argue that that is the main contributing factor.
I completely agree that tort reform is needed. The malpractice suits in this country are mind-blowing. And I agree that we will obviously just continue to disagree, and that's fine.
However, if you want to know more about European healthcare, let me know. I live in Germany and am extremely familiar with the situation there, so I can tell you what it's actually like to live in a country with socialized medicine. All the European countries are different, so the experience can't be generalized, but the way Germany does it works pretty well, IMO.
BFP1: DD1 born April 2011 at 34w1d via unplanned c/s due to HELLP, DVT 1 week PP
BFP3: DD2 born Feb 2013 at 38w4d via unplanned RCS due to uterine dehiscence