A parent's worst nightmare: sick chil...

A parent's worst nightmare: sick child, no insurance

There are 22 comments on the Santa Cruz Sentinel story from Jan 23, 2010, titled A parent's worst nightmare: sick child, no insurance. In it, Santa Cruz Sentinel reports that:

One-year-old Tawny Larsen takes part in a physical therapy session in Santa Cruz.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Santa Cruz Sentinel.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Sigh

Santa Cruz, CA

#1 Jan 23, 2010
And from coast to coast, Republicans are cheering that this type of thing will continue. When people die, it's just one fewer person who is down on their luck to worry about - hurray!

Talk about "death panels" - they are in full force, and are gaining in momentum. But as long as they are run by corporate America, all is good!
Eug

Watsonville, CA

#3 Jan 23, 2010
We had no insurance for years. Now being self insured I realize it was much cheaper to just go in and pay for the occasional visit for a fever or cold than to pay insurance every month. For preventive care like vaccines, there are a few clinics like on Emeline that are very affordable. For serious disease, pediatric places like Stanford Childrens Hospital will work with you or guide you on how to get help. Seems like this country has been worked up into a frenzy about health and health insurance. Also I believe people have unreal expectations about health insurance, that it will be almost free through an employer and entitled to it. Shop around, if you are healthy you might just need catastrophic insurance and save some money. Tip - wash you hands, keep your fingers out of your nose and eyes, eat well and exercise and save us taxpayers a lot of money.
You embarass republicans

San Francisco, CA

#4 Jan 23, 2010
Ex-lib you are a complete embarrassment.

People can live where they choose and the woman has a job - she did not move here and become a welfare queen.

What if she applies for a grant to continue her education and better herself? Is that against your rules too?

Yes, people should put off reproduction until they are in a stable marriage and have some financial stability.

However - that will take a societal change, not beating single mothers over the head one by one. FAMILIES need to raise their children with morals, self respect and personal responsibility. It would be great if we could decide to end welfare for teenage mothers and place the responsibility back where it belongs - write your representatives instead of crying on a forum
Dave

Daly City, CA

#5 Jan 23, 2010
it's old gone very wrong... the only country in the world that expects employers to provide "insurance" for it's employees. Insurance is for catastrophic events, ie car accident or house fire. having a baby or seeing a doctor for the flu is not a catastrophic event.
why can't i just go to my doctor and pay a reasonable fee per visit? why does it cost hundreds of dollars for a simple doctors visit? why do we pay 2 to 3 times more for our health care than other similar countries? why do we have "country club" multi millionaire doctors here? why do we allow malpractice lawsuits that cost this country billions of dollars?
turdblossom

San Francisco, CA

#6 Jan 23, 2010
Ex Liberal only cuts and pastes from his Glenn Beck Fan Club newsletter. Engaging in debate is not his thing.
joe

Santa Cruz, CA

#7 Jan 23, 2010
Stop having the tax payers pay for your kids. If you can't afford them, don't have them
Bad Title

Santa Cruz, CA

#8 Jan 23, 2010
A parent's worst nightmare? The Sentinel has as poor an imagination as "Ex Liberal's" grasp of political complexity.
Reality

San Francisco, CA

#11 Jan 23, 2010
Eug wrote:
<quoted text>
I was wondering too, where is the father/ husband? There is a great chapter in Ann Coulter's book, Guilty on the "single mother". The book itself is not that good but this chapter makes it worthwhile. A 2008 study from Georgia state university found that single mothers unwed or divorced cost the US taxpayer $112 billion every year. And forget about the cost to us, think about the cost to the children. 70% of the children in state juvenile detention center are from single mother households,and these children have higher rates for suicide, substance abuse and for running away, etc.
Dammit Eug, you've got a lot of nerve bringing facts into this debate! I love the line from an earlier poster who stated the woman chose to live here, had a job, and was not a welfare case. There is a basic cost of living that comes with living anywhere, some are higher than others. If one CHOOSES to live somewhere, they have the responsibility to come up with enough income to meet that particular cost of living for that area. It is not the tax payers responsibility to subsidize their income with medical benefits.
Libs hate these kinds of remarks because tey fly in the face of the "I'm a victim" liberal mentality.
Big Mike

Scotts Valley, CA

#13 Jan 23, 2010
Eug wrote:
We had no insurance for years. Now being self insured I realize it was much cheaper to just go in and pay for the occasional visit for a fever or cold than to pay insurance every month.
I've always had health insurance, and I still choose to occasionally pay without insurance. Most doctors will accept payment plans, and can do an office visit for much less than what they will charge your insurance plan. I once got a filling from a dentist for $25 because I was willing to pay cash and I didn't need anesthesia. He told me it would have been much more than $100 to bill insurance. A doctor will see a sick child and help if he can, but to not take a child because there's no insurance is just wrong.

This series of stories are really starting to tick me off with the parents that won't pay to have their children seen by doctors. WTF? It's only worth paying doctors if others pay them for you?
Reality

San Francisco, CA

#14 Jan 23, 2010
Big Mike wrote:
<quoted text>
I've always had health insurance, and I still choose to occasionally pay without insurance. Most doctors will accept payment plans, and can do an office visit for much less than what they will charge your insurance plan. I once got a filling from a dentist for $25 because I was willing to pay cash and I didn't need anesthesia. He told me it would have been much more than $100 to bill insurance.
This is quite true. I read an article on the subject. The doctors will knock off a ton but you have to pay cash, no checks. Good tip!
Bluemoon

Santa Cruz, CA

#15 Jan 23, 2010
What kind of mother doesn't take
her child to the doctor?

Payments plans are available.

Not having insurance is no excuse
for having checkups and shots.
Ex Liberal

United States

#16 Jan 23, 2010
You embarass republicans wrote:
Ex-lib you are a complete embarrassment.
People can live where they choose and the woman has a job - she did not move here and become a welfare queen.
What if she applies for a grant to continue her education and better herself? Is that against your rules too?
Yes, people should put off reproduction until they are in a stable marriage and have some financial stability.
However - that will take a societal change, not beating single mothers over the head one by one. FAMILIES need to raise their children with morals, self respect and personal responsibility. It would be great if we could decide to end welfare for teenage mothers and place the responsibility back where it belongs - write your representatives instead of crying on a forum
Reality sucks doesn’t it! Reality in our devolved Liberal society showcases the entitlement generation and reliance on government tax payer assistance all without ever having to take responsibility for ones actions! We as a society have devolved to the point where there is a concerted effort on the part of the Liberal to always rail against utilizing societal judgmental attitudes to shame those for exercising reckless and poor decisions usually manifested from an upbringing of the parent to properly instill morality, ethics, self realization of the rewards of patience, hard work, pursuing an education, frugality and living within ones economic means without being a burden to society! The article indicated Gilmartin chose to move here. It doesn’t say where Larson came from. The article also failed to indicate whether either was married or why they divorced or simply chose to have children they could never realistically afford to raise or if they simply chose to pursue an immoral lifestyle disregarding the consequences which, as a 56 year old, I have noticed a huge percentage of society falls into the later two typical Liberal mindset categories! Obviously, they are both living in an area they can not afford to reside. Grant money is predominately tax funded with exceptions if the grant foundation is wholly privately funded like the Packard Foundation. But typically, most education grants are public taxpayer funded and there is an entire industry and courses offered to write and apply for publicly funded grants! Ask yourself why our society has found itself in debt to the extent we find ourselves suffering through the past few decades! Look at the media’s constant message of immediate gratification with no consequences or societal shame. Look east toward Washington and the Democrat super majority which resulted in 1.5 TRILLION dollars in pork filled special interest spending ($787 BILLION in Feb 2009, and the Omnibus spending bill just signed by Obama for this years budget). Yes, the Republican’s spent a lot of money in the last decade but not anywhere close to the reckless spending binge the Dems showed us this last year! Both political parties should be ashamed of their actions but when they spend our money, they simply refuse to acknowledge our disdain! Remember, all budgets must originate from the Congress per our Constitution! The Democrats now want to raise the debt limit another 1.9 TRILLION DOLLARS! Do you see the problem yet? The voters might finally rise up and toss the bums out this November. Get down on your knees and pray to God. Pray for a miracle!
Ex Liberal

United States

#17 Jan 23, 2010
turdblossom wrote:
Ex Liberal only cuts and pastes from his Glenn Beck Fan Club newsletter. Engaging in debate is not his thing.
Turd flower, I don't usually take the time to respond to Liberal rants as they have a propensity to discard the facts and their use of bigot, hater, intollerant etc. So, bye-bye gotta run and poke wholes in the logic of those with the mental disease known as Liberalism!
Ex Liberal

United States

#18 Jan 23, 2010
turdblossom wrote:
Ex Liberal only cuts and pastes from his Glenn Beck Fan Club newsletter. Engaging in debate is not his thing.
I truly am an Ex Liberal! I matured and opened my eyes to the truth!
wildman

Aptos, CA

#19 Jan 23, 2010
Kids and the ability to afford them sounds like something potential parents should discuss prior to having children.
Watsonville Parent

United States

#20 Jan 23, 2010
The real focus should be on costs.
We consider ourselves a working class family.
We both work, we pay 700 dollars per month for health insurance.(4) people. Dad,Mom,Son,Daughter.
1 month ago, one of our chidren was sick enough to be admitted to the hospital. Number 1 priority are our children. I did however get a $3500 bill from the hospital, for 1 day! Thats after insurance kicked in. Things aren't bad for us, but they aren't great either.
Bluemoon

Santa Cruz, CA

#21 Jan 23, 2010
Watsonville Parent wrote:
The real focus should be on costs.
We consider ourselves a working class family.
We both work, we pay 700 dollars per month for health insurance.(4) people. Dad,Mom,Son,Daughter.
1 month ago, one of our chidren was sick enough to be admitted to the hospital. Number 1 priority are our children. I did however get a $3500 bill from the hospital, for 1 day! Thats after insurance kicked in. Things aren't bad for us, but they aren't great either.
Most hospitals have a division for working familes
that make less than four times the poverty baseline.
Funds are available from the charity offices if
you meet their criteria.
Or, you can make payments if you set them up
with the billing office.
Good luck, I hope your child is well.
healthcare for illegals

Menlo Park, CA

#22 Jan 23, 2010
um, i see mostly non-english speaking hispanic patients in the health care facilities around santa cruz.
notably planned parenthood for prenatal care (i'm sure all paid for by medical), sutter to deliver their babies (again, i'm sure all paid for by medical).
not a day goes by without a prego hispanic at either of these clinics.
i'm sure with their now fertile 15-year old teen daughters ready to breed, there definitely is more need for free healthcare, prenatal care, post natal care, wic, and the list goes on.
Jenny C

United States

#23 Jan 23, 2010
Ex-Liberal, I agree with you. When I saw this article I knew it was going to be all liberal bleeing heart b.s. about health insurance. Let's not all forget that the government plan still costs money, and people who don't have health insurance now because they can't afford it, how will they afford it then? But the only difference will be that buying insurance will be "mandated" under the government (tyranny) plan. If you can't afford your premiums, you'll be fined, oh and of course lets hope you agree with everything your appointed doctor says because if you don't follow protocol based on a broken system of chemical based medicine, you're not in compliance and could risk losing coverage. All so the pharmaceutical companies get something out of the deal of course, or else why would they be so much in favor of socialized medicine? Chemical medicine is based largely on fraud and shareholder value, not health, but sick-care. Do you think you might like to try a naturopath,chiropractor or any real system of healing? Or what if you want to decline a heavy course of some drug or vaccine. Sorry Charlie. All those mandates are written into the 2000 page bill. You know the gov't is in bed with the big corporations. This is all part of the plan to supress natural options and pump up big pharma corporations! Health care for all is great but not when it is run and mandated by the government and enforced by the IRS...come on people think!
Reality Check

San Jose, CA

#24 Jan 23, 2010
"For most, the worry is wrenching, but the routine is simple if urgent -- scoop up the child for an immediate trip to the family pediatrician's office, present an insurance card, fill out forms and perhaps fork over a co-pay."

Which is the same as it's been since I was a child, except for the insurance card and co-pay. We got sick or injured, mom took us to Dr. Reed in Boulder Creek, he fixed us, she paid - sometimes immediately, sometimes over time.

Why is it an insurance problem? Why is it any different than it was 40 years ago? Are antibiotics any more expensive? Is it more difficult to diagnose and treat problems than it was 40 years ago? Have doctors suddenly become cold-hearted and distant? What is it?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Scotts Valley Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
How to enhance Northern Slimy Salamander in San... 14 hr Loon B Gone 5
News ICE agents arrest 52 in Santa Cruz, Monterey co... Jul 9 Cordwainer Trout 8
News From zero to Zero Motorcycles (Mar '09) May '17 breaking records 12
News New voice in Santa Cruz County for animal right... (Jan '09) Jan '17 Repent 215
News Santa Cruz election 2016: First look shows two ... (Oct '16) Oct '16 Dreaming Reality 1
News Coastal Commission votes against Santa Cruza s ... (Aug '16) Aug '16 Reeking clam 9
News Say No to the Nighttime RV Ban at the Coastal C... (Aug '16) Aug '16 loser still whines 13

Scotts Valley Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Scotts Valley Mortgages