AllDeaf.com
Mobile - Perks - Advertise - Spy - Who Quoted Me  
Go Back   AllDeaf.com > Deaf Community > Current Events > Deaf News
LIKE AllDeaf on Facebook FOLLOW AllDeaf on Twitter
Reply
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 05-29-2009, 02:59 PM   #91 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Buffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
Just so people are aware....

"Both houses of the Democratic-controlled Legislature approved a bill that requires private health insurance plans to cover cochlear implants, hearing aids and related treatment for anyone under the age of 18."

It's not just the CI.....

Wis. could be first to require cochlear implants - Chicago Tribune
Under 18? What happened when their HA or CI broke and they got a low paying job???
__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)
Buffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Alt Today
All Deaf

Beitrag Sponsored Links

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com
   
Unread 05-29-2009, 03:03 PM   #92 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo View Post
Under 18? What happened when their HA or CI broke and they got a low paying job???
They are screwed just like an adult who needs a root canal but can't afford it due to low paying job (no insurance).
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 03:11 PM   #93 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Buffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
They are screwed just like an adult who needs a root canal but can't afford it due to low paying job (no insurance).
Yeah so why some people are cheering for that bill???
__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)
Buffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 03:25 PM   #94 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: England
Posts: 3,017
I don't like the idea of it being for under 18? Many deaf and deafblind people who benifit from CI and HA are over 18.
__________________
I speak for those who cannot speak for themselves.
http://www.fightfoca.com/
dreama is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 03:47 PM   #95 (permalink)
Farting Snowflakes
 
Dixie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 13,394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
They are screwed just like an adult who needs a root canal but can't afford it due to low paying job (no insurance).
And some companies when you do get hired that you have to wait up to 6 months before you are eligible for insurance, and in some cases you have to wait an entire year.

In these instances where the parents have no immediate access to insurance and cannot afford it on their own due to low income then I think Medicaid and Medicare should cover up to a certain amount and then the rest of it would need to be financed out into monthly installments until the bill is paid.

That's the only way around a lack of insurance that I can come up with that would help those that genuinely need the help and not just trying to ride the system simply because they don't want to work or refuse to pay their own bills.
__________________
The world is measured in peasants; smaller than a unicorn but, bigger than a tidbit!
Dixie is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 05:12 PM   #96 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo View Post
Yeah so why some people are cheering for that bill???
So you prefer to go for a bill that would require insurance to pay for assistive devices requested by ALL deaf people?

That would be nice..... but realistically that's just insanely expensive. At least the children are not being screwed over.
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 08:21 PM   #97 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Buffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
So you prefer to go for a bill that would require insurance to pay for assistive devices requested by ALL deaf people?

That would be nice..... but realistically that's just insanely expensive. At least the children are not being screwed over.
That would be nice so the deaf people won't feel being force to take CI when they really want HA like Jamie Berke had. Many insurances would pay for CI but not hearing aid. I think CI and HA are both hearing aid since they aid one with hearing.
__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)
Buffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 08:26 PM   #98 (permalink)
Premium Member
 
deafskeptic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,527
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrs Bucket View Post
Unfortunately some people do not share your positive approach to CIs. As you mention some people like to go to the extremes and you cannot blame them. They reject change because they did not have positive change growing up so naturally some view "CI installation" as "cultural genocide."

This is where, you rockdrummer, need to understand the history of eugenics and show some compassion and be careful with the line of questioning here if you may.

As a hearing person, I admire you for your curiosity and your zest for learning however that zest can come across as offensive to some Deaf people. For others as jillio, she is "D"eaf because she is given that by us, the community.

Yes, you may say it's clique-y, but to us, it's a representation of who we are and our culture.

CIs, for some Deaf people, is another form of Eugenics. Some don't want CIs, some readily embrace it.

I applaud those who want CIs as I am an advocate of disability rights and I encourage those who want CIs to go for it, those who are ASL purists to educate CI users about ASL within reason and I encourage all to keep an open mind and an open heart.
Excellent post!
__________________
Left ear implanted with Med-El on April 24 2007.
Activated on May 9th.
Upgraded to Opus 2 9/10/2010

Think Pink.
FREE JILLIO!
deafskeptic is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-29-2009, 08:33 PM   #99 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo View Post
That would be nice so the deaf people won't feel being force to take CI when they really want HA like Jamie Berke had. Many insurances would pay for CI but not hearing aid. I think CI and HA are both hearing aid since they aid one with hearing.
If the CI cost the same as a HA, I bet you that insurance would not cover it. People are under the assumption that insurance pays for EVERYTHING for a CI. My insurance paid for most of my CI surgery, but I still had to shell out 3 grand, which is about the same as a hearing aid.....

I mean realistically what do you expect? If insurance covers 90% of CI, so by prinicipal they must cover 90% of a HA too? The purpose of insurance is to make everything reasonably accessible, not to make everything cheap. HAs that aren't covered are still reasonably accessible (you can even do monthly payments). CIs are not. Insurance does not have magic unlimited resources and must balance between the insanely expensive surgeries and the cheaper devices.
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 09:50 AM   #100 (permalink)
rockdrummer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by Buffalo View Post
Y....................... I don't know what kind of hearing aid loaner she got but if it is digital, it is worse than analog. I have tried digital when the audiologist tried to push it on me and I hate what I was hearing with digital. Everything is so dull and the voices sound more like mumbles. I don't like the fact that many insurances would pay for CI not HA. Their take is that CI is different from hearing aid. I think CI is the same as hearing aid because they both aid one to hear. Wisc is wise to force insurances to pay for both CI and HA but the belief that CI is better is there. I really hate the fact that the insurance companies would pay for CI but not for HA becuase that is tantamount to forcing one to take CI because many deaf people tend to have low paying jobs. Another thing about insurance that I don't like.... what if companies refuse to hire a deaf person just because if that deaf person undergo the CI surgery and the health insurance would be raised.
I'm sorry Buffalo, while I respect your opinions I simply don't share your views on this. Trust me when I tell you that Insurance companies will ALWAYS take the least expensive route. A CI is NOT the least expensive route. It is why in my opinion there needs to be a law that will make them pay for it for those that choose to go down that route.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 09:55 AM   #101 (permalink)
Audist are not welcome
 
shel90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A place where crabs are popular
Posts: 42,654
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer View Post
I'm sorry Buffalo, while I respect your opinions I simply don't share your views on this. Trust me when I tell you that Insurance companies will ALWAYS take the least expensive route. A CI is NOT the least expensive route. It is why in my opinion there needs to be a law that will make them pay for it for those that choose to go down that route.
Then how come my insurance would fully pay for a CI surgery but not for new HAs or repairing my HAs?
__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous
shel90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 09:56 AM   #102 (permalink)
Audist are not welcome
 
shel90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A place where crabs are popular
Posts: 42,654
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
So you prefer to go for a bill that would require insurance to pay for assistive devices requested by ALL deaf people?

That would be nice..... but realistically that's just insanely expensive. At least the children are not being screwed over.
That's why we need a revamp in the health care system.
__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous
shel90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 10:00 AM   #103 (permalink)
rockdrummer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Quote:
Originally Posted by shel90 View Post
Then how come my insurance would fully pay for a CI surgery but not for new HAs or repairing my HAs?
Really? I find that to be interesting. Who do you have your insurance through? I can check into it and find out exactly why that would be their position. You can PM me the company name if you don't care to post it in the thread.
  Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 10:12 AM   #104 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 60,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by shel90 View Post
Then how come my insurance would fully pay for a CI surgery but not for new HAs or repairing my HAs?
Because the CI manufacturers and the audis and the medical establishment take the position that the CI is more cost effective long term to society because it will reduce the need for other accommodations, and allow the CI user to function in the educational and work environment as a hearing person with no need for accommodation.

If you remember, we discussed this very thing a while back, and there were several links from the medical community posted that showed that was exactly what was being stated.

Obviously, though, that assumption has not played out, given the number of CI users that continue to require the same accommodations that HA users require, both in the educational arena and the work arena.
jillio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 10:57 AM   #105 (permalink)
Registered User
 
kokonut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 16,054
Well, it wouldn't be so unfathomable when come a time that stem cell or other biological means of treating/curing/restoring nerve deafness in babies/children be possible someday very soon. What then if a law requires that babies identified with hearing loss (e.g. nerve deafness or sensorineural hearing loss) be treated with, say, stem cell to restore a baby's hearing loss? Even though I suspect it wouldn't take much for hearing parents to go the biological route (rather than a law to force parents to treat their children's hearing loss) to have their baby's hearing loss restored. It would be in parents' view a much, much better option than having a cochlear implant operation.
kokonut is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:02 AM   #106 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 60,294
Patients who would benefit would most likely include people who have lost hair cells because of noise damage, and some who inherited hearing problems at birth.

Stem Cells Could Regenerate Inner Ear Hairs?and Hearing | 80beats | Discover Magazine

The research is also in its infancy.
jillio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:02 AM   #107 (permalink)
Audist are not welcome
 
shel90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A place where crabs are popular
Posts: 42,654
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonut View Post
Well, it wouldn't be so unfathomable when come a time that stem cell or other biological means of treating/curing/restoring nerve deafness in babies/children be possible someday very soon. What then if a law requires that babies identified with hearing loss (e.g. nerve deafness or sensorineural hearing loss) be treated with, say, stem cell to restore a baby's hearing loss? Even though I suspect it wouldn't take much for hearing parents to go the biological route (rather than a law to force parents to treat their children's hearing loss) to have their baby's hearing loss restored. It would be in parents' view a much, much better option than having a cochlear implant operation.
If one sees deafness from the medicial model point of view.
__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous
shel90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:04 AM   #108 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 60,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by shel90 View Post
If one sees deafness from the medicial model point of view.
Exactly. Thank Heaven more people are becoming enlightened as to the disabling nature of the medical perspective.
jillio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:06 AM   #109 (permalink)
Audist are not welcome
 
shel90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A place where crabs are popular
Posts: 42,654
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer View Post
Really? I find that to be interesting. Who do you have your insurance through? I can check into it and find out exactly why that would be their position. You can PM me the company name if you don't care to post it in the thread.
I was told by my audi that my insurance would cover CI surgery 100% when I went in to get my HAs repaired. I asked her why were CIs paid for but not HAs and she said CIs help deaf people to become assimilated in society and be normal. REally got me fuming cuz again with that view that deaf people cant function in society unless they act like hearing people.
__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous
shel90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:11 AM   #110 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by shel90 View Post
I was told by my audi that my insurance would cover CI surgery 100% when I went in to get my HAs repaired. I asked her why were CIs paid for but not HAs and she said CIs help deaf people to become assimilated in society and be normal. REally got me fuming cuz again with that view that deaf people cant function in society unless they act like hearing people.
They told me 100% too. But 100% is actually not 100%. It goes more like this "100% for the OPERATION, but not quite 100% the hospital costs, device costs,*insert hidden costs here* etc." I am willing to bet that you still have to shell out a few grand. I know I did.
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:12 AM   #111 (permalink)
Audist are not welcome
 
shel90's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: A place where crabs are popular
Posts: 42,654
Blog Entries: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
They told me 100% too. But 100% is actually not 100%. It goes more like this "100% for the OPERATION, but not quite 100% the hospital costs, device costs,*insert hidden costs here* etc." I am willing to bet that you still have to shell out a few grand. I know I did.
Now, that u mentioned it, I will look closely into my plan.
__________________
"Wine improves with age. The older I get, the better I like it."

--- Anonymous
shel90 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:15 AM   #112 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 60,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
They told me 100% too. But 100% is actually not 100%. It goes more like this "100% for the OPERATION, but not quite 100% the hospital costs, device costs,*insert hidden costs here* etc." I am willing to bet that you still have to shell out a few grand. I know I did.
100% usually means 100% of the insurance company's allowable, not 100% of the actual expenses.
jillio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:21 AM   #113 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillio View Post
100% usually means 100% of the insurance company's allowable, not 100% of the actual expenses.
Yes. Even if the insurance states "Cochlear Implant surgery is covered 100% (subjected to the deductible)", people assume that surgery is all inclusive.. If only you could see my CI bill, it's divided by at least 10 different types of claims such as anaesthesia, hospital room, etc. They do NOT count towards the surgery itself. So the CI being "covered" isn't nice and pretty as one would think. Oh, and did I mention that I have really good insurance too?
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 11:27 AM   #114 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 60,294
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daredevel7 View Post
Yes. Even if the insurance states "Cochlear Implant surgery is covered 100% (subjected to the deductible)", people assume that surgery is all inclusive.. If only you could see my CI bill, it's divided by at least 10 different types of claims such as anaesthesia, hospital room, etc. They do NOT count towards the surgery itself. So the CI being "covered" isn't nice and pretty as one would think. Oh, and did I mention that I have really good insurance too?
Right. That's the way that insurance companies manipulate you into thinking you have better coverage than you do, too. For instance, if the physician charges 2500.00 for a given procedure, and the insurance company's allowable is 1500.00, and the insurance says they cover 80%, in actuality all they are covering is 80% of the 1500.00. That means the insurance will pay 1200.00, leaving an actual balance of 1300.00 on the patient account. If it is an HMO or a PPO, then the doctor usually is mandated to write the additional amount off, and he will charge it as a loss on his taxes. However, if it is traditional insurance, the doctor does not have to discount his fees, and the patient will end up paying more than the insurance company did, despite being told, "Oh, we pay 80% for that procedure."
jillio is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 12:27 PM   #115 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Yep..... that too!
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 03:48 PM   #116 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Buffalo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,048
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer View Post
I'm sorry Buffalo, while I respect your opinions I simply don't share your views on this. Trust me when I tell you that Insurance companies will ALWAYS take the least expensive route. A CI is NOT the least expensive route. It is why in my opinion there needs to be a law that will make them pay for it for those that choose to go down that route.
You didn't read Jamie Berke's article on her experience with the insurance and CI. Go back to post #89 and click on the link. She said that her insurance will pay for CI but not for HA. I know that it makes sense for the insurance to go for the least cost but not in the case of CI. Now do you see what I mean by hearing people having so much faith in CI???
__________________

“The problem is not that the (deaf) students do not hear. The problem is that the hearing world does not listen. “- Rev Jesse L. Jackson ( American Civil Rights Activist, Minister)
Buffalo is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 05-31-2009, 06:27 PM   #117 (permalink)
Registered User
 
ASLGAL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 763
I believe the adult person should have the choice and make their choice( No devices, HA's, or CI) and that the Insurance Companies should cover equally HA's or CI's
__________________
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
~ Edmund Burke~


"When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser"
~ Socrates ~
ASLGAL is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-01-2009, 09:29 AM   #118 (permalink)
rockdrummer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
While I have to confirm this I would imagine that the cost associated with the insurance companies decision is a overall reduction to their bottom line. I'm sorry but I am cynical about any insurance. Since there may be more people with HA's the cost to the insurance companies might be higher than covering CI's. Remember not everyone is a candidate for a CI and also not everyone will want one. Does anyone have numbers on how many people in the US are using HA's vs. how many people are using CI's?
  Reply With Quote
Unread 06-01-2009, 09:40 AM   #119 (permalink)
Adrenaline Junky
 
Daredevel7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockdrummer View Post
While I have to confirm this I would imagine that the cost associated with the insurance companies decision is a overall reduction to their bottom line. I'm sorry but I am cynical about any insurance. Since there may be more people with HA's the cost to the insurance companies might be higher than covering CI's. Remember not everyone is a candidate for a CI and also not everyone will want one. Does anyone have numbers on how many people in the US are using HA's vs. how many people are using CI's?
That's very true. Business is business. I'm very curious about the number of HA users and CI users.
Daredevel7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-02-2009, 12:07 PM   #120 (permalink)
rockdrummer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
I didn't find dates but here are some figures I was able to google up. Sorry for going off topic.

Quote:
More than 20 million Americans have hearing problems of varying degrees. These problems become more common with age, affecting one in four over 65, according to the Better Hearing Institute, an information service in Annandale, Va. Sales Rise 6% a Year

No one keeps statistics on how many people wear hearing aids or on how many should. However, industry figures indicate that 1.2 million devices were sold in the United States last year and that the market is growing at about 6 percent a year.
Source
Quote:
How many people have cochlear implants? Today there are currently over 30,000 people worldwide with cochlear implants. Over 8,000 of those people are children. The choice to give children the opportunity to hear through the cochlear implant is increasing at an understandably remarkable rate. Today, while one out of ten profoundly deaf children enjoys the benefits of the cochlear implant, studies have projected those numbers to increase to one out of three in the next ten years.

Source
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:15 PM.


Join AllDeaf on Facebook!    Follow us on Twitter!

AllDeaf proudly supports St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Copyright © 2002-2014, AllDeaf.com. All Rights Reserved.