Sunday, February 28, 2010

health insurance for child with epilepsy





health insurance for child with epilepsy?
We are considering moving to the US for a work opportunity. However we have a 9 year old with epilepsy, currently well-managed with medication. Will we have a problem getting health insurance? My understanding is that this will be a huge expense if we can't get him insured. From what I can ascertain, it's possible to negotiate coverage for him through the company health plan. Is this correct? This will be the pivotal point for deciding whether or not to take the job. I've been doing some research - from what I can see, if we're in a group (which as part of a huge corporation we would be), there's probably going to be a waiting period of 6 to 12 months and then he would be OK. Do I have that right? this is confusing!
Other - General Health Care - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
your basically screwed if you come to the USA. OUr health care sucks at best. If your son already has a condition the negotiation your company was talking about is... yes they will let you pay out the ass for very little coverage .
2 :
It depends on who the insurance carrier is. Some will cover pre-existing conditions and some won't. Best idea is find out who the company insurance carrier is and call them directly, explain the situation and find out if they will insure your child with his epilepsy. My son 4, also has epilepsy and his medication is around $400 a month just for one medication. Fortunately my husband is military and they have to cover him. Just to let you know I used to work for Pacificare who is a big health insurance company here. We once had a woman whose child was denied coverage for a pre-exisiting condition. The mother raised hell and threatened to sue them and they covered him. It's amazing what the threat of a law suit can do sometimes. Good luck to you
3 :
All of your assumptions seem correct. I would think that if you have an offer from a major US corporation/university, there would be no problem with getting coverage for the child through the company. He would be covered under your family policy. There are generally no exclusions for health problems of children under a family insurance plan. You may have problems with a smaller employer or if you're a lower wage worker (I don't know how else to put that). But if you come as an executive/professor - you should be ok. I would not come without a guarantee of coverage because, as you say, health insurance not gotten through an employer is expensive.
4 :
I'm not sure where you are from but if you or your spouse obtains a job in the USA and the person working is being sposored by their employer for a visa then most likely the job is in demand and the benefits will be pretty good (by USA standards). Typically the waiting period for group (through your USA employer) medical insurance is not negotiable BUT the waiting period may be very short (like first of the month after hire). Ask the recruiter or human resource person at the employer prior to accepting the offer of employment. If the waiting period is too long or you do not feel comfortable with any waiting period then just apply for individiual coverage for your child (or whole family - whatever you feel you need). Depending upon the coverage you get it can be anywhere from $350 to $500 per month for reputable insurance for ONE person (family rates are more like $800-1,300). But if it is short term you can elect a high deductible to get the price down. Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield offers a variety of programs that are PPO (Preferred Provider Organizations) which are cheaper and more flexible than HMO's in my opinion. If you let me know which state the job is in I can do some more research for you - just shoot me an email. Thanks and good luck to you!
5 :
it is something to ask the human resources person at the company you are supposed to be going to work for... they will have any information on health insurance benefits... most companies will make you wait 90 days before benefits start, and any care the child would need would be coming out of your pocket without any chance of being reimbursed... your part of the premium ranges anywhere from nothing to $450 a month for family coverage depending on the company you work for... private insurance sometimes can go as high as $2000. a month...ask about deductibles (the amount you have to pay before the insurance starts paying), any CAPs (the maximum amount the insurance will pay per person...ask about any 'pre-exsisting condition clause' - if they have one that means they wouldnt pay for anything related to epilepsy anywhere from 3 months to 1 year... ask your doctors there if the medication he/she is on right now is available in the u.s. - not all medications are available in all countries...make sure the insurance you have even has a prescription plan to cover medications - not all do...some have a seperate deductible and CAP.... there are alternatives for company or private health insurance plans here are are offered by the individual states' governments that only cover children, but 1) they suck -put plain and simple - not enough doctors take it, the waiting lists are sometimes 3-6 months for specialists (which you might need for epilepsy, depending on the doctor you would find - some are comfortable treating epilepsy, some will not want to deal with it and refer you to a specialist) 2) you have to meet income limits - that depends on how much your company is paying and how many people are in your family, 3) it takes months to get the process approved. 4) they are subject to residence and citizenship status alot of times (would need to check with the state you are moving to) so I dont know what your citizenship status would be.
6 :
Check to see if the new place of employment has an insurance plan. You can speak to someone in the Human Resource office and they can give you information on the questions you have. They are very informed on all aspects of the insurance coverage that is provided.





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:58 PM

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

What are the health dangers of fathering a child at a late age

What are the health dangers of fathering a child at a late age?
If an 80 year old man impregnates a young woman is there a larger chance of diesease.
Trying to Conceive - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
So I was all set to say no - but looked it up online where i found quite a bit of info saying that older men have a greater chance of fathering kids with autism, schizophrenia, and dwarfism. Apparently the dna in the sperm genetically mutates a bit as men age.
2 :
I wouldn't think so, but you never know. If the older man and younger women are trying to have a baby, I would think it would be best to have his "boys" tested.





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:56 PM

Saturday, February 20, 2010

where do i go if my child has no health insurance and his doctor wants money at time of visit and i have none





where do i go if my child has no health insurance and his doctor wants money at time of visit and i have none?
Are there any clinics or anything that I could go to where they will send bill?
Other - General Health Care - 2 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Send the bill to Rush.
2 :
Is your internet free? If not, get rid of it and weigh your priorities.





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:50 PM

Tuesday, February 16, 2010

What are some health appraisals of children in child care settings

What are some health appraisals of children in child care settings?
please be specific
Other - General Health Care - 1 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Some preschools do eye screenings, and others have a dental checkup, depending on the school & location. Some do screenings for basic growth, and sight & hearing (not a doctor exam, just a screening).






Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:48 PM

Friday, February 12, 2010

Is John McCain the poster child for how well universal health care could work






Is John McCain the poster child for how well universal health care could work?
Think about. McCain's father was Navy, as well as McCain having served in the military and the Senate. This means that he has been insured by the federal government his entire life. He is 71 years and undertaking the grueling task of running for President and handling it well.
Elections - 7 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
lol I don't think many young peolple will need health care when they're lying dead in Iraq : P but... sigh* war gets votes amongst the ignorant.
2 :
McCain is too old, his party hates him and he left his wife who is confined to a wheelchair for a younger woman. A wife, who stole money from charities to support her drug habit. I wouldn't want McCain representing my dog in a dog show. However your point is valid, he has benefited from free health insurance almost his entire life. However I'm sure he has BCBS tucked somewhere in his wallet
3 :
That is a very solid, relevant point. I think we all should get "government jobs" don't you? Let's see how long it takes them to diss you. Uh - you do realize that the miniscule percentage of diehards still supporting the war and George W. Bush are, indeed, those associated with the military in some way, or part of the Defense Industry? Gotta know which side your bread is buttered on, you know.
4 :
I agree.
5 :
Health insurance obtained by being a member of the service is not exactly 'free'. If you think it is, feel free to enlist and obtain it.
6 :
Yes, I do believe he is the poster child for how well universal health care could work. But, is he on the "Before" poster or the "After" poster? I'd like to know before I consider universal health care......
7 :
There is no connection between McCain's health and UHC. You also are not only looking at one individual, but you're not looking at the impact of UHC on society. It can't be done and shouldn't be done for many reasons. First sensible plan, then a few reasons why UHC is a no-go. I want QUALITY, ACCESSIBLE, AFFORDABLE health care for all. That means preventative care (physical with follow up). Real medication (no Medicare "donut holes" the really ill are ripped off again.) No bogus ridiculously low "caps" on needed medical procedures. No abuse of the ER. No paying for the silly with the sniffles to go to the doc for free. No more bankruptcies over medical bills. I want THIS plan that ends abuse of the taxpayer, takes the burden off employers, provides price transparency, and ends the rip-off of the US taxpayer at the hands of greedy insurance CEOs (which has been repeatedly documented). http://www.booklocker.com/books/3068.html Read the PDF, not the blurb, for the bulk of the plan. Book is searchable on Amazon.com Cassandra Nathan's Save America, Save the World "California Senate Panel Rejects Health Coverage Proposal JESSE MCKINLEY AND KEVIN SACK SAN FRANCISCO — In a blow to universal health care coverage in California and possibly to its prospects nationwide, a State Senate committee on Monday rejected a sweeping plan by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that would have offered insurance to millions of uninsured residents. The Senate Health Committee defeated the plan 7 to 1, with three abstentions, as Democrats and Republicans alike said they found it too nebulous and potentially too costly for a state facing a $14.5 billion deficit. “This bill is not only not perfect, it is flawed,” said State Senator Sheila James Kuehl, Democrat of Los Angeles and chairwoman of the committee, who voted against it. ... But last Wednesday, as the California Senate committee heard testimony on the bill, Massachusetts announced that spending on its health care plan would increase by $400 million in 2008, a cost expected to be borne largely by taxpayers. Shortly after the vote, Assemblyman Michael N. Villines of Fresno, the chamber’s Republican leader, praised it as a rejection of “a massive government-run health care scheme.” On the Democratic side, there were concerns about the so-called “individual mandate,” which would have required all Californians to carry and pay for insurance, except those in economic hardship...." http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20080129/ZNYT02/801290745 Last modified: January 29. 2008 5:03AM Besides the fact that CA couldn't make it work, let's note that Romney's bogus "plan" is jacking up MA health care costs $400 million and there are just 6.5 million folks in MA. Canadian doc who studies world health systems, etc. and lives in US now: ""...Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down. “This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.” And now even Canadian governments are looking to the private sector to shrink the waiting lists. Day’s clinic, for instance, handles workers’-compensation cases for employees of both public and private corporations. In British Columbia, private clinics perform roughly 80 percent of government-funded diagnostic testing. In Ontario, where fealty to socialized medicine has always been strong, the government recently hired a private firm to staff a rural hospital’s emergency room. This privatizing trend is reaching Europe, too. Britain’s government-run health care dates back to the 1940s. Yet the Labour Party—which originally created the National Health Service and used to bristle at the suggestion of private medicine, dismissing it as “Americanization”—now openly favors privatization. Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.” Last year, the private sector provided about 5 percent of Britain’s nonemergency procedures; Labour aims to triple that percentage by 2008. The Labour government also works to voucherize certain surgeries, offering patients a choice of four providers, at least one private. And in a recent move, the government will contract out some primary care services, perhaps to American firms such as UnitedHealth Group and Kaiser Permanente. Sweden’s government, after the completion of the latest round of privatizations, will be contracting out some 80 percent of Stockholm’s primary care and 40 percent of its total health services, including one of the city’s largest hospitals. Since the fall of Communism, Slovakia has looked to liberalize its state-run system, introducing co-payments and privatizations. And modest market reforms have begun in Germany: increasing co-pays, enhancing insurance competition, and turning state enterprises over to the private sector (within a decade, only a minority of German hospitals will remain under state control). It’s important to note that change in these countries is slow and gradual—market reforms remain controversial. But if the United States was once the exception for viewing a vibrant private sector in health care as essential, it is so no longer." http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_3_canadian_healthcare.html





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:41 PM

Monday, February 8, 2010

Information about extension of health care for a child under 30

Information about extension of health care for a child under 30?
I heard a while back that if you are under the age of 30, you can go under your parents health care coverage until the age of 30. It's supposed to be a new law that was passed within the past year. Anyone have more info on this? links? Health care plans that are not doing this?
Law & Ethics - 3 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
It's only until you turn 26, not 30, and it doesn't go into effect until September.
2 :
The new law can be read in the Fix It portion of the health care and insurance reform legislation that is posted on the whitehouse.gov page (click Issues). The age is 26---children up to age 26 can remain on their parents' health care coverage. I believe this takes effect in 2014, but I could be wrong---it might be effective at the end of this fiscal year, September. There are other provisions worthy of note, to include the elimination of banks as middlemen for student college loans---these now lower-interest loans can be made DIRECTLY through the Department of Education, and insurance companies can no longer deny coverage for pre-existing conditions nor can they abruptly cancel coverage for premium-paying consumers when that consumer becomes ill or injured. Note: If a child is disabled, they can remain covered on the parents' policy longer than the age 26, and as of September of this year no child can be denied coverage. Hope this helps.
3 :
The law says you may be covered by your parents insurance plan until you are age 26. There are conditions attached but you dont have to be a student. Here are links for info on the new bill. You could call your parents insurance company and find out what the requirements are and when it will begin. It wont take place for a few months yet.





 Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:39 PM

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Is it true when my sisters boyfriend says he can't get health insurance for their child






Is it true when my sisters boyfriend says he can't get health insurance for their child?
My sisters boyfriend works in a union job construction and has been there for over a year. He can get insurance but says he is not allowed to get it for their 8 month old baby. Is this true? Yes he is the birth father, the child has his last name, he lives with the child as well. He can get insurance but is telling my sister they won't let him get it for his child.
Other - General Health Care - 5 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
I don't believe he can't get insurance for the baby. He might have to pay for it out of his check.
2 :
I think he's full of BS, all your insurance's have family plans, yes it cost more but your child is covered. She needs to find out what he has for medical insurance and call them and ask why?
3 :
No that is not true he is the father of that baby so they cannot deny that baby insurance. Has they parents tried chips? Its a federal insurance company for children til the age of 18
4 :
Usually insurance provided by employer is for 1 dependent only (the employee). They then pay premiums for each dependent added. He should be able to put any dependent legally bound to him at cost (children and spouse). If she has health insurance with her job, they should check what her premium is and the benefits before deciding which one to use. If he claims he can't cover the kid, then your sister and contact his union rep and ask directly. Another story if they are separated (child support may or may not include stipend for health insurance).
5 :
Well to say he can NOT does not sound correct. Now he might not be able to get insurance at this particular moment in time. There are certain times of the year to add, remove or make changes to your health plan / coverage. Of course the cost of his insurance will increase from what he is currently paying. I suggest contacting the customer service # on the back of his medical card or he can also contact his HR department who can get him in the right direction. And if indeed they do not have family coverage which sounds unreal for a union, but just in case they don’t he can always get assistance from the state.





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:32 PM

Monday, February 1, 2010

Is it true when my sisters boyfriend says he can't get health insurance for their child

Is it true when my sisters boyfriend says he can't get health insurance for their child?
My sisters boyfriend works in a union job construction and has been there for over a year. He can get insurance but says he is not allowed to get it for their 8 month old baby. Is this true?
Other - General Health Care - 6 Answers
Random Answers, Critics, Comments, Opinions :
1 :
Most likely not. Maybe he means that he cannot afford it?
2 :
It is true if they are not married!
3 :
Depends on the insurance company, plan, policy, and area laws. Your sister can try to enquire to his company's Human Resourses w/o him, but I don't think they will be required to answer any questions if they are not married. They may answer the questions though. Otherwise she can arrange to meet with his company's HR with him if he agrees. (or you can make him agree....)
4 :
It could be true if they are NOT married and he's not named the childs father.... However, if he is the father and named the father on the birth cert. he should be able to get health insurance for himself and the child... I would call his boss and find out what you have to do for him to have health insurance.... good luck
5 :
usually the child would have to be living with him - and he would have to produce some sort of documentation of this. Also their would have to be proof that it was his biological child or his legal - step child. (in other words the dad married to mom)
6 :
Most insurance companies make you add the baby within 30 days of birth, or wait for open enrollment for that particular company. I agree with the rest of the answerers that he probably has to have some sort of documentation saying it's HIS kid, but not with the part about proof it lives with him. Lots of people have to provide insurance for their kids, who are living with another parent (divorce, etc.).





Read more discussions :
Posted by Child Health at 7:29 PM
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)