<p>^^Me neither! I also had the 24 hours of labor, followed by forceps, with no epidural. my dr’s wife had a bad experience with one, and therefore, none of his patients needed it either.</p>
<p>Back to the previously scheduled thread…</p>
<p>If it makes you feel any better, one of my epidurals was incredibly painful.</p>
<p>I’ve had more experience with the opposite. One child has wisdom teeth removed and is put under - they pay for that. The other child opts to stay awake and have something lighter and novocaine (a far less expensive option) - they don’t pay for that.</p>
<p>I have labor with a nurse midwife and no epidural - they don’t pay for that. If I had had a traditional drugged hospital delivery or surgery - they would have paid. Of course, I’m glad they would have paid, but why disincentivize the more affordable options?</p>
<p>most health insurance plans cover preventive care, ie. flu shots, childhood immunizations, well visits etc. at no cost to the insured because it is in the best interest of the insurance company to do so…I see bc pills in that light, preventive care. small cost to the insurer to avoid higher cost scenarios.</p>
<p>My opinion is that there are more than a few people on this thread that should have been “redshirted” in kindergarten; maybe then they would be able to discuss this topic maturely. </p>
<p><em>zing</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is this a fact? I don’t recall this being true for all or any of my private plans, but with 3 kids and 5+ plans, it is hard to keep track/remember. It seems like I always paid at least a $10 co-pay (usually more) for every single visit. Maybe the state where you live has something to do with it, too.</p>
<p>^^^Some plans, yes. That’s the point of the Affordable Care Act, to cover preventive care with no co-pay so that no one fails to go to the dr. for well-child visits, yearly exams. That saves money. Right now, because of AFA, everyone w/health insurance pays $0 for preventive care. Saves the consumer $ now, saves the insurance co $ later. Win-win. Not political. Nothing whatsoever to do with religion.
If we would have had AFA when our kids were little, we would have had this benefit for our kids.</p>
<p>We pay 20 for a well visit, 40 for a specialist and 75 for the emergency room. we don’t ever have to “get permission,” and there’s no “out of network,” anything.</p>
<p>Prescription meds are cheap for us, but we do pay a nomimal fee, like 5. </p>
<p>They’ve never refused to pay for anything, except when the ambulance billed for the time my D got taken from a game to the ER. Though, the ambulance company resubmitted and they paid.</p>
<p>ETA: does the AFA mean we don’t pay for the well-visits anymore? hmmmmm. I did not know that.</p>
<p>
Given that when they first came out with pain relief for women giving birth some religious groups were opposed to it, this is certainly something that could be opposed on “religious” grounds. </p>
<p>Hey, we’re finding new ways to save money all the time! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>True. It would not have changed my behavior. We can’t send our kids to school without immunizations and they can’t play sports without a physical. I hope it results in lower medical costs for everyone.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>When S was in preschool, I overhead one mother say she was a nurse who disdained women who used epidurals during child birth because it was unhealthy for the baby.</p>
<p>^^^^A lot of nurses will actually admit that they “have a problem with pain medicine.”</p>
<p>That just drives me crazy.</p>
<p>Maybe. But it also drives me crazy when pain meds (especially those injected into your spinal column!) are marketed as if they are easy-peasy and have minimal or no side effects or other bad effects.</p>
<p>I remember asking about “loss of neurologic function” on the epidural consent form and was told by the doctor that it was nothing to worry about, never happens, and they only had to put that on the form because of some state law. I wouldn’t have signed the form but I was told that if I didn’t sign it (in advance, by a few weeks, BTW) and I needed anesthesia for surgery, they would only use general anesthesia on me.</p>
<p>Things aren’t getting better for Limbaugh. In addition to the stampede of advertisers (12 at last count), there’s this:</p>
<p>[Rush</a> just lost a station - make that two](<a href=“http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/rush-just-lost-station.html]Rush”>http://www.americablog.com/2012/03/rush-just-lost-station.html)</p>
<p>I predict Rush will be claiming his addiction fueled his tirade. </p>
<p>Sent from my MB860 using CC App</p>
<p>just wanted to give an update on our poor protagonist, the one who many people suggested had no way of knowing what her health plan at Georgetown would cover: </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Meet</a> Sandra Fluke: The woman you didn’t hear at Congress’ contraceptives hearing - The Washington Post](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html]Meet”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/meet-sandra-fluke-the-woman-you-didnt-hear-at-congress-contraceptives-hearing/2012/02/16/gIQAJh57HR_blog.html)</p>
<p>Further, Fluke’s own words from a Georgetown publication:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance-transcript[/url]”>http://mrctv.org/blog/sandra-fluke-gender-reassignment-and-health-insurance-transcript</a></p>
<p>should gender surgery be included in basic health coverage?</p>
<p>Honestly, I don’t even know what my opinion on that is yet, but there is a line somewhere between what is covered under basic insurance and what is not. There has to be a line. The question is where the line is drawn.</p>
<p>“Medically necessary” can be quite a gray area. For gender surgery it seems black and white, but for other areas “medically necessary” becomes “I deserve the best” or “cya medicine”; just as murky IMO and also expensive.</p>
<p>And why would it be “heterosexist”? Gender reassignment doesn’t mean the person is gay or not.</p>
<p>
I had an endometrial ablation several years ago that was covered as a “quality of life” issue. Agree that “'necessary” can be a bit gray.</p>
<p>Further to posts 254 and 255: Actually I feel a bit sorry for Rush. There just seems to be something going on with him that manifests itself in his attitude toward women. Married four times, calls women “feminazis”, went on and on about 12 year old Chelsea being ugly, and now calls a law school student those names and suggests she should post sex tapes on the internet. I’m no therapist, but his actions over time strike me as indicative of an issue that is more personal than political.</p>