A new data point on Utah birthrates

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the perennial arguments I see in discussions about the Church's encouragement of having children early, is that this teaching encourages Mormons to inappropriately avail themselves of government services (viz, Medicaid) that should be reserved for "needier" families.

This article (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/24-states-50-babies-born-medicaid) suggests that 31% of Utah births are Medicaid-funded, but interestingly--that's the third lowest rate in the nation.

Does anyone else find that surprising?

Edited March 26, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[kapikui]

I'm finding 31% of births being medicaid funded to be abhorrent.  The fact that it's one of the lowest in the nation nauseating. 

[Jane_Doe]

In many of the states I've lived in doctors just assume kids are on Medicaid.  If you say "I have insurance" they literally do a double take.  

[Mike]

2 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

In many of the states I've lived in doctors just assume kids are on Medicaid.  If you say "I have insurance" they literally do a double take.  

I have only lived in two States most of my adult life, but I never had that experience where our health care providers acted surprised that my wife and I have health insurance. 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One of the perennial arguments Insee in discussions about the Church's encouragement of having children early, is that this teaching encourages Mormons to inappropriately avail themselves of government services (viz, Medicaid) that should be reserved for "needier" families. ...Utah ... the third lowest rate in the nation.
Does anyone else find that surprising?

If you had asked me to guess what Utah's rate is I wouldn't have had a clue. So I wouldn't have had a basis for surprise. But looking back at how naive I was in my early twenties I wonder if I was so different. We didn't have health insurance when my wife became pregnant and subsequently miscarried. Nor would we have been able to get insurance with a pre-existing condition.  As our lives progressed we learned. But I wonder if maybe there is some basis for the perennial arguments you mentioned?

Edited March 26, 2017 by Mike

[Sunday21]

9 hours ago, kapikui said:

I'm finding 31% of births being medicaid funded to be abhorrent.  The fact that it's one of the lowest in the nation nauseating. 

I don't understand. Can you explain?

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Sunday21 said:

I don't understand. Can you explain?

This is a much better response than the conclusions I was jumping to about the meaning. Much better to ask for clarfication. @kapikui, what do you mean?

[Guest]

10 hours ago, kapikui said:

I'm finding 31% of births being medicaid funded to be abhorrent.  The fact that it's one of the lowest in the nation nauseating. 

I guess this could mean that you think it should be much lower or much higher depending on your position.  I'm on the side of:  It should be MUCH lower.  Zero would be preferable.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I'm not clear on what the point is here. I het JAG's point with the initial post but after that you lost me. Until recently my kids were on medicaid. What can I say?  Insurance for a family of 7 was out of our budget until about 2 years ago. 

If anyone has an issue with this then what is your suggestion. Go without insurance. Have fewer kids? Get a better job? Believe me we tried. 

[The Folk Prophet]

21 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I guess this could mean that you think it should be much lower or much higher depending on your position.  I'm on the side of:  It should be MUCH lower.  Zero would be preferable.

Yes, yes. Ideally everyone would be rich.

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm not clear on what the point is here. I het JAG's point with the initial post but after that you lost me. Until recently my kids were on medicaid. What can I say?  Insurance for a family of 7 was out of our budget until about 2 years ago. 

If anyone has an issue with this then what is your suggestion. Go without insurance. Have fewer kids? Get a better job? Believe me we tried. 

I think...and I'm just spit-balling here, that the problem referred to might be the high costs of having a baby (and other ridiculous medical costs).

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I'm not clear on what the point is here. I het JAG's point with the initial post but after that you lost me. Until recently my kids were on medicaid. What can I say?  Insurance for a family of 7 was out of our budget until about 2 years ago. 

If anyone has an issue with this then what is your suggestion. Go without insurance. Have fewer kids? Get a better job? Believe me we tried. 

I've been without insurance for quite a while now.  It is still cheaper than getting Obamacare.  And we've never used medicaid.

As far as having kids, we had most of ours home-delivery.  The last one I did myself.  Didn't cost anything but a kit full of some minor things.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Guest

[Sunday21]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been without insurance for quite a while now.  It is still cheaper than getting Obamacare.  And we've never used medicaid.

As far as having kids, we had most of ours home-delivery.  The last one I did myself.  Didn't cost anything but a kit full of some minor things.

But don't mothers need more than just the deliverY? Prenatal check ups? Ultrasound to look out for protential problems eg breech birth? 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

But don't mothers need more than just the deliverY? Prenatal check ups? Ultrasound to look out for protential problems eg breech birth? 

Need?

[Sunday21]

Back before these tech miracles, much higher rate of mom and infant death

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

Back before these tech miracles, much higher rate of mom and infant death

I'm aware.  I don't necessarily attribute that all to tech miracles.

[Sunday21]

6 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm aware.  I don't necessarily attribute that all to tech miracles.

I have a close family member who works as an administrator at a large us hospital. one thing that some people don't know is how specialized the facilities and doctors have become. Different problems require different facilities and different individuals. It is a great idea to get ultra sounds so that you know what type of problem may have to be dealt with. Sadly my family did not know enough to do this. Prenatal nutrition can also save a lot of heart break.

[Mike]

Quote

This article (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/24-states-50-babies-born-medicaid) suggests that 31% of Utah births are Medicaid-funded, but interestingly--that's the third lowest rate in the nation.

I suppose speculation is the best we can do, but I wonder how that 31% breaks down. I don't think these Utah birth's are all among active LDS, but just for the sake of discussion suppose they were. I wonder if very many Utah Stakes' fast offerings funds would financially  support 31% of their membership births year after year without a huge continual increase in donations. (Many members are very very generous. I know that when needs are made known by Bishops, many members step up and increase donations. They even give anonymously without documenting such giving on a donation slip.) But I still wonder if year after year (given the larger ratios from 47 other States; and then ultimately from the rest of the world for that matter) the Church funding of the births of its members instead of Medicaid funding them would be accomplished. 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Mike

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

9 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been without insurance for quite a while now.  It is still cheaper than getting Obamacare.  And we've never used medicaid.

As far as having kids, we had most of ours home-delivery.  The last one I did myself.  Didn't cost anything but a kit full of some minor things.

Not everyone is comfortable with homebirth or a good candidate. That said, I had two of my five at home. Sunday21, I had prenatal carw with my midwives. 

The kids have been healthy so the only thing we've needed medicaid for is 4 sets of medically needed braces. Thank goodness for that help!!!

[Sunday21]

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Not everyone is comfortable with homebirth or a good candidate. That said, I had two of my five at home. Sunday21, I had prenatal carw with my midwives. 

The kids have been healthy so the only thing we've needed medicaid for is 4 sets of medically needed braces. Thank goodness for that help!!!

I think this is great and I am happy that everything worked out!

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Not everyone is comfortable with homebirth or a good candidate. That said, I had two of my five at home. Sunday21, I had prenatal care with my midwives. 

The kids have been healthy so the only thing we've needed medicaid for is 4 sets of medically needed braces. Thank goodness for that help!!!

This much (bolded part) I totally understand.  What I don't understand is that so few feel comfortable with it that 35% medicaid is among the lowest in the nation.

We did one in the hospital where the neglect of the doctors almost killed my wife.  I did five with midwives as well.

The last one the midwife we had been using refused to help us anymore.  The reason: This woman who delivers babies for a living decided we'd had too many children and would not support us in having another.

We interviewed many more for the last one.  But none made us feel comfortable.  So, I wondered what they actually offered us that we couldn't at this point do ourselves.  We'd been through the process enough and I'd paid attention to enough details that I did feel comfortable with the process.  And, yes, we were apt candidates.  We were both healthy.  We were educated enough in all the risk factors, etc.

But my point was "NEED" those things that only doctors provide was overstated.

Edited March 27, 2017 by Guest

[Fether]

On 3/25/2017 at 8:58 PM, Just_A_Guy said:

One of the perennial arguments I see in discussions about the Church's encouragement of having children early, is that this teaching encourages Mormons to inappropriately avail themselves of government services (viz, Medicaid) that should be reserved for "needier" families.

This article (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/24-states-50-babies-born-medicaid) suggests that 31% of Utah births are Medicaid-funded, but interestingly--that's the third lowest rate in the nation.

Does anyone else find that surprising?

Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject... but is receiving government aid bad?

[JohnsonJones]

People are of different opinions.  I am glad for the medical doctors that were there when my wife gave birth to our first child.  Without them it is possible there would be no wife and no child today.

Personally, I would hope that everyone could have their child's births funded, but I know that is a highly unpopular opinion among the haves vs. the have nots.  To me, everyone should not have to worry about the health of the mother or the baby, or worry about their children when their children get sick.  I know this is very unpopular with some people.

We were blessed at the time to have full medical coverage (something no longer possible now that the ACA has occurred, which changed our plan from then which covered things at 100% though we paid a high cost in insurance bills each month, to now where it will not cover everything 100%).

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Fether said:

Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject... but is receiving government aid bad?

Yes.

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, Fether said:

Forgive me for my ignorance on this subject... but is receiving government aid bad?

I think it is better to be financially independent.  Don't you?