Community Chat

[Reba055]

@Drythe. I watched so many shows that talked about this, I'll have to look it up. I know I was shocked. I've got to go to bed, I'm already an hour late. I'll try to find it and come back and post tomorrow. 

[GingerPeach]

Hi @nun ya

If you want an unsolicited suggestion, perhaps make a timeline of when your husband lost his job, when your daughter stopped being a dependent, add in if you are working now, and list the amounts you receive for your household from your income and any other income (like pensions, if any).  Do not include your daugher's paycheck, only include any money she gives you toward household expenses.  Perhaps even set a specific amount.

Once you have all that, go back to whoever you were speaking to and re-explain the situation.   Or perhaps find some sort of advocate in your area who helps in situations like yours.  

It just does not seem right that a non-dependent's income should be included.  It would be as if you had someone staying with you (who is not a relative) and paid you only for a room.  You wouldn't include their income.  You'd only include what they paid to you (if anything).

I hope that helps and doesn't confuse the issue.   Best wishes with all of this.

[Drythe]

---

@NUNYA wrote:

---

@GingerPeach wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

---

@Drythe wrote:

---

@NUNYA wrote:

 I liked it better when it was taken out of pre-taxed money. That does make a difference to the average working person.

---

@nun ya

Did your company stop it's Health Savings Account?  Is that how you lost your pre-tax payments?

---

We had insurance, then the company my husband worked for closed. His unemployment was almost up and he took a job at a small company that offered no benefits.

When filling out the ACA , they wanted total family income. My daughter has a job in her field and lives here after graduation. So I added her income, when I called and asked they said that was correct even though she has her own insurance through her employer. Which puts us way over the line forany help

---

@nun ya

This makes me very uncomfortable that this company told you it was OK to include your daughter's income.  Unless she gives her complete income to you, that can't be right to add hers to yours.  Of course they would say that since it benefits them, not you.

What you might consider is only adding whatever she might contribute to rent or food or other expenses, but not her whole paycheck.  The income you receive would be her payments to you, not the payment she receives from her employer -- especially since she has her own insurance.

I'm sure you'll get other help with this from other posters.

---

Posters have said that it didn't seem right, but being she was a college student last year and was lived here 6 months and was on our taxes as a dependent. 

The only thing she contributes is paying her students loans. So I am hoping now that she has a full time job, and will be on her own taxes, this won't happen. But I still don't think the info they gave me is correct. 

---

OK, I understand.

I'm guessing that somehow the issue was that she was a dependent on your tax deduction for part of the year.  

I would go quickly during open enrollment and let them know that situation has changed.

Hope it works, good luck.

[Reba055]

@Drythe

I'm pretty sure it was Donna Deegan who if you google, will see that she was a local news anchor here who has had breast cancer three times. She has been working with the leading breast cancer researcher at Mayo here. She has raised tons of money for breast cancer through her foundation. Anyway, I hoped to find the video, but haven't yet.

I did find an article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov that said 89 percent of those diagnosed with breast cancer have no family history ( mother, daughter, sister). So that does appear to be so and I admit, I had no idea it was that high. 

Once again, I'm about to rush out the door or I would look more. 

[Stray]

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

Just wait until they won't pay for mammograms anymore like they do now. Just the beginning....of course they said that was never gonna happen. 

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you suggesting that if a certain party (who have consistently voted against women's issues) gains the WH women will lose coverage?

Sadly, you may be right in that scenario.

---

No, it won't happen....women are a large voting block as well as FACOG and AMA.  The big debate is using tax payer funding for abortions.  To change mammography guidelines already mandated to plans would be silly...why? A fruitless and unpopular effort.  the recommendations for health come from medical advisory committees, usually, 

all men; I have more of a problem with gender than political party.

[Stray]

---

@MyGirlsMom wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

Just wait until they won't pay for mammograms anymore like they do now. Just the beginning....of course they said that was never gonna happen. 

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you suggesting that if a certain party (who have consistently voted against women's issues) gains the WH women will lose coverage?

Sadly, you may be right in that scenario.

---

I'm suggesting that since the government is in the healthcare business now that we will continue to see "guidelines" changed to reduce the benefits to the consumer in favor of lower costs to the government. What's next??  Oh, do you really need a Pap smear every year?  How often do you need your blood sugar checked?  How about that medication your doctor says you need?  Psst, what does your doctor know??  Let the government decide. They do such a jam up job with everything else. What's that?  Let's just raise some more taxes and give a ton of the money to foreign countries.  What debt??

---

***

Sarah, is that you? You forgot to mentiont the death panels.

---

Actually the guidelines were changed already...Paps every three years until 65 and none after 65 except history of HPV.   The government changes guidelines based on ACS guidelines. 

[Reba055]

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

---

@MyGirlsMom wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

Just wait until they won't pay for mammograms anymore like they do now. Just the beginning....of course they said that was never gonna happen. 

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you suggesting that if a certain party (who have consistently voted against women's issues) gains the WH women will lose coverage?

Sadly, you may be right in that scenario.

---

I'm suggesting that since the government is in the healthcare business now that we will continue to see "guidelines" changed to reduce the benefits to the consumer in favor of lower costs to the government. What's next??  Oh, do you really need a Pap smear every year?  How often do you need your blood sugar checked?  How about that medication your doctor says you need?  Psst, what does your doctor know??  Let the government decide. They do such a jam up job with everything else. What's that?  Let's just raise some more taxes and give a ton of the money to foreign countries.  What debt??

---

***

Sarah, is that you? You forgot to mentiont the death panels.

---

Actually the guidelines were changed already...Paps every three years until 65 and none after 65 except history of HPV.   The government changes guidelines based on ACS guidelines. 

---

Wow that's disturbing. I'm in my late 50's. I remember women when I was growing up getting cervical cancer. Once women started getting yearly paps, cervical cancer has been pretty much eliminated. What the heck are they doing with women's health issues?  Are we going backwards?

And what about HPV?  If it's not visible don't you need a pap to pick it up?  Won't you be spreading HPV if you don't get a pap for three years?  I know there is a vaccine but how many young people actually get it?

How have insurance companies responded?  Will they pay if your doctor deems necessary?  I know it changed for me but I'm post hyster so it seemed unnecessary every year for me anyway.  

[Maudelynn]

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

---

@MyGirlsMom wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

Just wait until they won't pay for mammograms anymore like they do now. Just the beginning....of course they said that was never gonna happen. 

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you suggesting that if a certain party (who have consistently voted against women's issues) gains the WH women will lose coverage?

Sadly, you may be right in that scenario.

---

I'm suggesting that since the government is in the healthcare business now that we will continue to see "guidelines" changed to reduce the benefits to the consumer in favor of lower costs to the government. What's next??  Oh, do you really need a Pap smear every year?  How often do you need your blood sugar checked?  How about that medication your doctor says you need?  Psst, what does your doctor know??  Let the government decide. They do such a jam up job with everything else. What's that?  Let's just raise some more taxes and give a ton of the money to foreign countries.  What debt??

---

***

Sarah, is that you? You forgot to mentiont the death panels.

---

Actually the guidelines were changed already...Paps every three years until 65 and none after 65 except history of HPV.   The government changes guidelines based on ACS guidelines. 

---

Wow that's disturbing. I'm in my late 50's. I remember women when I was growing up getting cervical cancer. Once women started getting yearly paps, cervical cancer has been pretty much eliminated. What the heck are they doing with women's health issues?  Are we going backwards?

And what about HPV?  If it's not visible don't you need a pap to pick it up?  Won't you be spreading HPV if you don't get a pap for three years?  I know there is a vaccine but how many young people actually get it?

How have insurance companies responded?  Will they pay if your doctor deems necessary?  I know it changed for me but I'm post hyster so it seemed unnecessary every year for me anyway.  

---

HPV causes cervical cancer.  If you haven't had HPV and are not at risk for HPV, your chances of getting cervical cancer are slim.  That's why, if you're in a low risk group, you don't need the pap every year. HPV is discovered by pap and some develop genital warts.

[Stray]

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

---

@MyGirlsMom wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

Just wait until they won't pay for mammograms anymore like they do now. Just the beginning....of course they said that was never gonna happen. 

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you suggesting that if a certain party (who have consistently voted against women's issues) gains the WH women will lose coverage?

Sadly, you may be right in that scenario.

---

I'm suggesting that since the government is in the healthcare business now that we will continue to see "guidelines" changed to reduce the benefits to the consumer in favor of lower costs to the government. What's next??  Oh, do you really need a Pap smear every year?  How often do you need your blood sugar checked?  How about that medication your doctor says you need?  Psst, what does your doctor know??  Let the government decide. They do such a jam up job with everything else. What's that?  Let's just raise some more taxes and give a ton of the money to foreign countries.  What debt??

---

***

Sarah, is that you? You forgot to mentiont the death panels.

---

Actually the guidelines were changed already...Paps every three years until 65 and none after 65 except history of HPV.   The government changes guidelines based on ACS guidelines. 

---

Wow that's disturbing. I'm in my late 50's. I remember women when I was growing up getting cervical cancer. Once women started getting yearly paps, cervical cancer has been pretty much eliminated. What the heck are they doing with women's health issues?  Are we going backwards?

And what about HPV?  If it's not visible don't you need a pap to pick it up?  Won't you be spreading HPV if you don't get a pap for three years?  I know there is a vaccine but how many young people actually get it?

How have insurance companies responded?  Will they pay if your doctor deems necessary?  I know it changed for me but I'm post hyster so it seemed unnecessary every year for me anyway.  

---

The guidelines are different for HPV but if you have a totally negative history, three years is the guideline the American Cancer Society has established and depending on your insurance Company, they may or not pay for yearly paps.  I am over 65 and had a history of HPV and had cervical cancer thus, hysterectomy.  This was the first year my doctor was not going to do a Pap.  I have been negative for many years....I chose to have one done and paid for it out of pocket.  I submitted it to my secondary, which is a private self insured plan...as they still pay for yearly Paps for active employees.  They have covered services not covered by Medicare before...so I will see.  If a doctor's sees something wrong and does a pap it should be covered as it is done for clinical reasons not screening.

[Reba055]

---

@Maudelynn wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@Greenhouse wrote:

---

@MyGirlsMom wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

---

@mstyrion 1 wrote:

---

@Reba055 wrote:

Just wait until they won't pay for mammograms anymore like they do now. Just the beginning....of course they said that was never gonna happen. 

---

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

are you suggesting that if a certain party (who have consistently voted against women's issues) gains the WH women will lose coverage?

Sadly, you may be right in that scenario.

---

I'm suggesting that since the government is in the healthcare business now that we will continue to see "guidelines" changed to reduce the benefits to the consumer in favor of lower costs to the government. What's next??  Oh, do you really need a Pap smear every year?  How often do you need your blood sugar checked?  How about that medication your doctor says you need?  Psst, what does your doctor know??  Let the government decide. They do such a jam up job with everything else. What's that?  Let's just raise some more taxes and give a ton of the money to foreign countries.  What debt??

---

***

Sarah, is that you? You forgot to mentiont the death panels.

---

Actually the guidelines were changed already...Paps every three years until 65 and none after 65 except history of HPV.   The government changes guidelines based on ACS guidelines. 

---

Wow that's disturbing. I'm in my late 50's. I remember women when I was growing up getting cervical cancer. Once women started getting yearly paps, cervical cancer has been pretty much eliminated. What the heck are they doing with women's health issues?  Are we going backwards?

And what about HPV?  If it's not visible don't you need a pap to pick it up?  Won't you be spreading HPV if you don't get a pap for three years?  I know there is a vaccine but how many young people actually get it?

How have insurance companies responded?  Will they pay if your doctor deems necessary?  I know it changed for me but I'm post hyster so it seemed unnecessary every year for me anyway.  

---

HPV causes cervical cancer.  If you haven't had HPV and are not at risk for HPV, your chances of getting cervical cancer are slim.  That's why, if you're in a low risk group, you don't need the pap every year. HPV is discovered by pap and some develop genital warts.

---

I guess that's my point. If you are a young woman who happens to contract HPV right after your pap, you would not know you have HPV until 3 years later unless you have warts. That seems like a long time to go without treatment and yearly monitoring Pap smears. Not to mention possibly infecting others if you don't know you have it. Of course everyone should be practicing safe sex anyway, but young women drinking and partying don't always. Maybe being aware you have HPV wouldn't change that behavior in those cases. 

Perhaps HPV is slow to develop into cervical cancer, I don't know. At any rate, I'll get off my soapbox.  It just seems stupid to change things that are working now. I hope that we don't see an increase in a totally preventable cancer in young women.