Category: Let's talk
I have a friend who's married. His wife had to get a bisectomee a few months ago. Aparently, the hospital told her while she was filling out all the paperwork that one of the requirements she had to fullfill to get this surgery was, she had to be divorced. So she wrote on her paperwork that she was divorced! Anyway, after she had the surgery, the hospital found out that she was married to my friend, and now he has to pay $15000 in medical bills or they'll both go to jail for fraud. So now he's trying to declaire bancrupcy because he can't afford to pay all that money, but in the meantime, the stat is taking money out of his bank account to cover the hospital bills. I don't think this is fair because he didn't have the surgery, his wife did. Yes, i think he should help her pay the bills because he's married to her, but the state should be going after her not him! It's not like they have a joint bank acount or anything so they should take money out of her acount not his! She's the one who lied not him1!
This stinks to high heaven, that's what I think!
Here's the thing: the State wouldn't care if she was married or divorced, unless she was doing it behind hubby's back.... in which case that would be the only reason they would require her to be divorced... so this whole mess doesn't pass the stink test... sorry, PoT, you should get better friends.
CM
It certainly sounds suspicious to me. But your right. The state certainly shouldn't be going after her husband.
That's what happens when you are married though.
Why did she have to lie on the paperwork, if the reason she needed the surgery was medical, then surely her merital status should not matter, if it was personal choice, then she should pay for it I do not want to pay higher premiums on my health insurance because someone decides they do not want kids ever and it is just a matter of choice.
Also you just can´t lie on hospital/insurance paperwork, these guys employ lawyers to check for this kind of stuff, so whether it is fair or not, it is a very short sighted thing to do and very likely to cause loads of trouble.
Still, wouldn´t want to be them/him, he is probably pretty pissed off now.
Vassectomies for men are much much cheaper. Just sayin'
O well she has two children allready! One by my friend and one from a previous marriage. Why do i need to get better friends? He didn't do anything! Apparently, the reason for her bisectomee was a medical reason; she had a tumor on her uterus. Yes my friend is extremely pissed off right now!
POT are you referring to a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation? A bisectomy is not in any medical book of which I am aware.
Thank you. I was wondering the exact same thing. In any case, she shouldn't have lied and he shouldn't be paying if it can be proven that he had no hand in it. But I still don't get why it would matter if she was married, whether it was medical or personal, whether he knew she was doing it or not. It's her body, so what does marriage have to do with it? If anything, that should be an issue for the couple not the state and why they would deny her coverage over it, particularly when it was a medical reason and not a choice, is totally beyond me.
The only reason I can think divorce would be required is perhaps the wife carries Medicaid insurance from the state and together the husband and wife make too much money for her to be a subscriber. I knew of two widowed elderly people who met and married. She owned some property. He, the older one by 10 years, was told that for Medicaid to pay the 20% federal Medicare didn't cover, as she had more financial worth than Medicaid allows, would be for the couple to divorce. They divorced, but continued to live together as husband and wife.
One way or the other, the fact that the wife claimed she was divorced when she was still married is insurance fraud, in the case of Medicaid, defrauding the state, and the taxpayers will have to be reimbursed.
I never knew half this stuff existed. Sorry Spongebob if it makes me sound like an ignramous: just a working stiff keeping bread on the table most days, but ... wow!
This is the problem with the lack of universal healthcare. People wouldn't have to take such drastic measures as divorce if everyone already got healthcare.
She lied on the application, so she has to pay. When one is maried what ones wife does is her husbgands problem in many states, and if he has the money to pay then he will pay. Their has to be more reasons why she lied then to get the operation free, and that was probably because her husband and her could afford to pay, so he is stuck and it's fair on the hospitals side just not fair to him on his wifes side. Plus I wonder did he know she lied or not?
Universal healthcare would be managed by, guess who, government? Programs like Medicare and Medicaid should be proof positive of how getting government involved in anything but infrastructure and defense is a mistake. This isn't the first time I have heard a state telling a married couple they would have to get divorced not for someone to have elective surgery but for a child to get critically needed care, so the couple got divorced.
That is part of the reason I object to government welfare like I do. When someone does the right thing, like stay married so a child can have his or her father, or get a part time job to help themselves with their burden, their assistance gets cut off. The only people I know who benefit from government programs are hustlers and scammers. Why, for example, do a nurse and a second shift route driver need a voucher to pay for a few hours of child care? Due to hustlers and charlatans like this, the truly needy are going without where it comes to government assistance. IMNSHO, if private businesses were allowed to regulate themselves and take care of needs like indigent health care, they would do a much better job of helping those truly in need.
As for your friends, Pissed Off Tilly, I would take Crazy Musician's advice and look for some new ones. It's been my experience when people know how to hustle assistance they wouldn't otherwise get, they will try to pull a scam on you. My moocher friend is an expert in getting food and medical assistance, yet she always seems to have money for stuff like a cell phone, fingernail polish, gifts for my daughter, cigarettes, a used car in a public transportation city, you name it. When Mr Sponge is having his doubts about a person, that's bad as he tends to be more lenient than I am, but even he came out and said, "Spongy, I wonder why she's doing all she's doing for Mimi, sitting with her and giving her stuff, if she genuinely loves her or is just trying to get to us. If it's the latter, she is going to have a problem with me." Anyone familiar with the story of comedien Dane Cook and the half brother and SIL who ripped him off? Let's just say I know a member of SIL's family, and all is not savory, mom is a bit entitlement minded, so I'm not surprised law enforcement found large amounts of cash in this woman's home which she claimed was from her legitimate enterprise. Um hm, I always keep thousands of dollars of cash in Tupperware jars from my makeup business in my home and not gathering interest in a bank. This story fails the stink test with me, too.
If all citizens were garanteed healthcare then there wouldn't be an issue of how much money someone makes because they could always go to the public system if they choose, and if they have the money, they could go to a private doctor.
and to think that people here in the UK complain about the nhs.
One comment...In many states the husband's signature is required on the paperwork if the woman is looking at a tubal or historectomy because of how many doctors have gotten in trouble with husbands for performing the procedures when the woman requested it...One famous story about that comes to mind, but that is another story. But, anyways, that also could be part of the problem. And, yes, I know it is at least a requirement in my own state because I have my nephew because my brother did not get the paperwork signed in time...
um, and is this requirement of a signature something that is also required of the wife should a man decide to get a vasectomy? because if not I'd say it's a pretty sexist practice. Surely it's the woman's body and her choice to make, and while obviously it's not in the interest of a healthy relationship to be sterilized without having a discussion with one's partner, if someone decides to do that that should be their perogative and no "permission" should be granted from the husband?
I do not know, I do not know of any man who would talk to me who has done it or who is considering doing it. :) Though, I agree about it going both ways, I can see the doctors' prospective too...I mean, you have a woman who gets a tubal after birthing something like five children, but her husband wishes more children. So, he gets pissed because his permission was not given; (not right but fact), and holds the doctor, staff and patients hostage...Made a movie on the story quite a few years back...
what's wrong with good old fashioned birth control?
Australia has good medical plans, including public, but if her reasons for having it were not medical and necessary, then if she wasn't divorced, then she should be paying, and if it's a joint decision, her husband should be helping, if they aren't prepared to do that, then they should deal with unwanted pregnancies the way most other people do.
however, they shouldn't be going after her husband for it, however, they are married, and the law may simply swing that way, if the wife can't pay, they'll hit up the husband for it. either way they'll get their money back.
shouldn't lie.
I agree with SugarBaby in post 17. If it works both ways, and the man needs permission from his wife, then fine. I don't agree with the law in either case, but at least that's consistant and equal. But if it's only for women, then it's grossly sexist and I could never support something like that. As for birth control, the amount of hormones in the pill, even when on a low-dose one, may not be condusive to all women's health. At the very least, they could promote unwanted side effects, and at the most, it could be downright dangerous for some women to use them. Now I know that there are other forms that are hormone-free, but the only one that's extremely accurate is condoms. Many times, men either don't want to wear them or have medical issues when they do and some couples don't like using female condoms. So surgery may be the best option for some people. Plus which, if the woman absolutely knows that she doesn't want children, why should she have to keep spending money on pills, condoms etc. when she could have a permenant solution? Another option is Essure, which isn't considered surgery. It's a coil that's threaded through the tubes that effectively blocks them. It takes about ten minutes to perform and the woman can usually leave the doctor's office in about 45 minutes.
I suspect tubals in some states may require a husband's signature while vasectomies apparently don't require the wife's because tubal ligations are much harder to reverse is someone has a change of heart and wants another child. Obstetrics and gynecology is a very high liability field of medicine, while urology, where a man would go to get a vasectomy, isn't, that I know, as high liability.
We have universal healthcare here in MA. It is a universal disaster. Residents are required to prove they carry health insurance. As people here ask for entirely too much...some specialties of medicine, including infertility, that aren't covered by other states must be covered here...it is the third likeliest state, after Virginia and Arkansas, to have uninsured residence. With the relatively new law, an increase of people have been signed up for Medicaid. As doctors lose $70 for every Medicaid patient they see and go through 5 pages of paperwork per patient, some are just not accepting new patients, so it is difficult here to find a primary doctor. I shudder to think where I'll go should my 70+ year old physician retire or die, waiting time to get seen by a primary is a couple of months here in Winthrop. Even CNN cited longer waiting times for, of all things, breast cancer treatment in the UK and France under universal health care than in the U S. It sounds like the friend in the post tried to get a service without paying for it and got caught red handed.
Okay, perhaps my wording was off. I'm not meaning universal that's paid for by the individuals or their companies. I'm referring to state-run healthcare with the options of physicians going private if they wish to do so. That way, if they have the money, the cancer patients can see a private practitioner and not have to deal with the waiting process that you've described. So some doctors can work for the state and others can work for themselves and everyone would be covered. In any case, here's an interesting one. What if two people of the same sex are a couple and one wishes to be sterrilised? Let's say it's for a medical purpose, because he/she is bisexual or maybe because she's afraid of being raped by a stranger and getting pregnant, since, of course, there's no physical reason for a homosexual couple to have this performed otherwise. In any case, does one partner still have to give permission for the other to go? My guess is no, since in most states, the rights of homosexual couples still aren't recognised. But it would be interesting to know in the few where they allow real marriages how they handle this.
Yes where I live, my wife's signature was required for me to get a vassectomy. I knew a single guy who couldn't get one because there was no wife to sign for it. And out here, the woman's body thing is the name of the game: no said requirement on women. One for one, I say, it needs to work both ways. And it took a feminista to tell me that my saying so was sexist. Oink oink, I guess?
Woe! Hold it! You mean to tell me that they actually refused to let a single man get one because he didn't have a wife? What kind of bullshit is that? At least, if someone has a partner, I could understand them not wanting to ruin the relationship (not that this is their job) but when someone is single, he/she doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself!
It really sucks. That's all I can say.
OK, LeoGuardian's recent post jogged my memory about a legal case that was in the news when I was new to the Boston area. And I'm starting to see things a little differently, that maybe sterilization, and for that matter, IVF, should require consent of both parties.
A well known IVF clinic here was in the news when a *&^%& woman whose husband had separated from her returned to the clinic to retrieve the last of their frozen embryos and got the doctors there to impregnate her with them. This went totally against the husband's wishes as he wanted no more children than whatever number they had through this clinic, he wanted a divorce. I will have to look this case up on a search net to see the final outcome, as it sort of faded from the news. But the husband was really upset about her being allowed to do this without the consent he wouldn't have given anyway, and I'm sorry, but I really see women who want babies but don't care about the wishes of their partners or what the children may want, like both a mother and a father, in a low light, hence the *&^%&. And I have equally low an opinion of men who want kids, but have more regard for themselves than the kids, for example men with serious health problems who probably wouldn't be able to keep up with any kids, and one man I knew who kept divorcing women because they couldn't have biological children with them, even walked out on an adopted child, but that's another rant.
Folks seeking sterilization should not be deluded into thinking it's simple and painless to reverse, and their partners shouldn't be deluded into thinking the results are anything but final in most cases (believe it or not I've known people with vasectomies especially who went on to have other kids). They should be aware of the possible consequences both ways, and should have to sign that they are aware of them to reduce the physician's ever increasing liability.
the thing with that is the simple fact that it's a huge step to take, and medical personell don't actually like taking that step at all, if they can help it.
It's the same reason why so many countries are against euthinasia
spongebob: ah, just say fucking and get it over with... Anyway, what that woman in the clynic did is totally different from a woman or man choosing to have a surgery. This woman was using sperm that belonged to her husband without his permission. Essentially, she was stealing property and using it for her own purposes. But if she chose to become impregnated from another man who knew about it, say one who donated his sperm for that use, or if she wanted to be sterrilised, she wouldn't be hurting anyone. No one should tell anyone what to do with their own bodies, unless we're talking drug use that could potentially hurt unborn children or other people around them (driving under the influence, for example.). I do agree that it's necessary to be aware of the consequences of surgery and so on. As much as I've read about it, I've never heard of men with vasectomies having children. Perhaps, the ones whom you knew were really unlucky or had bad physicians. To SwissGriff: You're right about the physicians. But so long as a paper is signed, I honestly don't see the problem, either with euthinasia or with sterilisation. It's not like the doctors are doing it to themselves. They're doing it to patients who specifically requested it. I think it's sad when a patient has to fight to get what they want when they're absolutely sure that they want it.
having non-consenting IVF is totally different to being sterilized.
For one, both man and woman should be allowed to have a say in whether or not they wish to become parents. There has actually been quite a high profile case here in the UK that centres around this issue - a couple had embrios frozen as the woman had ovarian cancer so her only chance of a biological child would have been through IVF with those embrios. However subsequent to this the couple split, and the ex partner withdrew his consent for the embrios to be used.
It went all the way to the european court of human rights, and she lost the case and the embrios had to be destroyed.
This is the right decision imho as no man should be forced to become a father with a woman he no longer wishes to have children with, even though that meant the woman in question would not be able to have her own biological children.
However, sterilisation is a more personal choice, and one which any individual should be allowed to make for themselves, without having the consent of anyone. The marital fallout, should the operation be carried out without the prior knowledge of the other partner is something that is surely between partners. It should not be for anyone to dictate whether or not a man, or woman be sterilised. I can see why some may think it shouldn't be something that is paid for by the state or health insurance, but i don't think anyone else should have to give consent - if I chose to be sterilised that should be my decision and mine alone.
They told me mine was irreversible. And yes within a certain window of time there was the possibility of it failing but no, I had no delusions about 'undoing it'. I do think there's quite a difference between sterilization and the fertilization you all were talking about.
I have no intention of having any kind of surgery when I can happily have birth control like most people.
I don't want a child, but i'm not paranoid about it enough to have myself sterilised. if I get pregnant, there's things i can do about that.
that's true loui but not everyone feels they could go ahead with a termination if they fell pregnant.
I wouldn't want surgery either but I can understand why some might.
I can understand why doctors are hesitant to do it though. as much as you can argue that the patient's choice should come first, doctors are bound by their own oaths and so on, and they must do what is best for the patient, and what the patient wants isn't always what's best.
Personally, my issue isn't with aborting. I'm sick of the side effects of birth control and of the fact that it changes my hormones so much.
I think you just need to try different things till you find what works for you.
I saw a letter to a columnist about a couple w seven kids and their failed birth control. The wife's commentary on the vasectomy: "We didn't have unprotected sex until he had just a few sperm left, and I still got pregnant." ?!?! Last time I heard it only took one sperm and one egg to make a baby. Maybe some guys get cocky...no pun intended...and don't wait until the post vasectomy sperm count is at zero? Sterilization and fertility are two different things, but in lawsuit happy America...a nearby Rhode Island town got sued because some lady's school age daughter stepped in dog poop in her dress shoes...probably the consent of both parties is a waiver of the physician's liability should someone decide years later they're unhappy with their results.
well, it's just not right for them to do I never liked people who did illegal things. I don't associate with them.