[HappyMomAnna]

Well--As a very experienced and well paid Insuarnce agent I do not believe that a person is ever stuck with a health plan that would cost $800.00 a month for a family of any size. There are simply too many private opportunities to cover the costs with private family medical which do not have to cost this much....That really is all that I can say. Some HMO plans MIGHT cost a family +/- $800.00 a month but that plan would come with some pretty decent covereage including perscription plans that only require a very small co-pay.

If a family is spending too much on the cost of medical insurance then they need to seek out alternative plans. Yes, there is covereage that will offer a family all the bells and whistles...and there are plans that cover catastrophic issues.

It is the individual that is responsible for looking at their personal RISKS and deciding WAHT amount they are willing to be liable for and what amount they are willing to cover. Personally, I like paying for routine care out of my pocket. Check up's and routine costs is really all that is covered under the state provided care. That works well. I also do not mind paying $10.00 for Generic and $20,00 for non-generic perscriptions. The State medical pays the co-=pays for the children and the medication we need (lipitor) cost a ton without insurance--pitiching in $20.00 a month is reasponable in relation to the premium we pay.

I AM IN CHARGE of the things I want and decide I need to controll with my earing and spending. I assume the RISKS I think I can reasonably cover and I pay very close attention to the products that might make my personal covereage and Risk assumption managable.

I like having MY own control of what I need...I don't want ANYONE to tell me that I have to give up more in TAXES and accept a blanket plan that fits the average--but maybe not ME.

I would recomend that your family in the US consider actually shopping for the products that will meet their needs. I don't want one insurance plan--I don't want anyone telling me how to manage my own health. I am willing to PAY for the covereages I do want with the money I am not paying on Taxes.... Give me more of my TAX money back and I will assume even more of my OWN Risk and control of it.

[Leigh131313]

First off, I'm a canadian who enjoyed spending 9 months at home with my son....

I dont think anyone will win a discussion on which country is better...there are going to be pros and cons for each side.

Something I think we can ALL agree on is that children benefit from being nurtured from their parents.

If you feel that your company/gov't is not being fair to adoptive parents, then its up to you to do what you can to change it. Perhaps it is an excercise in futility...but how else do things change?

Here our leave is covered by employment insurance....it only pays 55% of your wage, so you still have to decide if thats going to be enough for your family...some people do not use the full time allowed.

As an employed individual you pay into E.I. on every paycheck...if you are layed off you receive money for a determined amount of time (this i believe is decided by how long you have been paying into the E.I.) now, if you are fired or quit you do not recieve this money.

If you are an unemployed person, you do not recieve money from E.I. after your baby is born, but you WOULD qualify for welfare of some sort (i THINK)

E.I is not the same as tax...there is provincial and federal tax......it is insurance.

Anyhoo...i'm always sad when I hear about new parents having to go back to work sooo soon, i really wish you had some sort of leave for all parents....i think it benefits society as a whole.

Leigh

[BethanyB]

I agree a lot with what Jensboys had to say. I would love to be able to be a stay at home mom for my son but since I'm single that is not happening any time soon. And of all the married couples with children that I know, only one of the couples can afford to have one of them stay home with their child.

As far as maternity leave being about recovery time. I think that if it actually IS for recovery, then bio moms should have to return to work when their doctor gives them the okay. If that is two weeks later and the mother does not want to go back, then she should have to have the same UNPAID leave as adoptive parents. IF it's about recovery. And then maybe more women would be outraged enough to try and speak up about leave specifically for bonding. Which ALL parents shoud get.

And as far as having our taxes go to something that not everyone will need to use or only need to use once or twice. I pay for a LOT of things through taxes that I don't agree with. My hard earned dollars are going to pay for welfare that MANY people abuse. There are women out there who stay on wefare for YEARS because they don't want to work. They have children, get free housing, food stamps, and a check every month, while I'm at work trying to make a living to support myself and my child. I wish my tax money didn't pay for that!

And how about the tax money that pays for mandatory drug sentences for people who sell drugs over a certain amount and spend the REST of their LIVES in prison. In the meantime, rapists, pedophiles, and murderers are getting out after serving a few years. I HATE that my tax money is paying for that!

Okay, now I'm getting carried away (believe me, I could go on and on about the places my tax dollars are going that I wish they weren't.) but the point is, I'd rather have my dollars going to mothers who want to bond with their children than MANY other things.

I'm all for my tax dollars going for paid bonding leave time. But we don't get to choose what we want our tax dollars going to do we?

[macrod]

I am just curious, does Canada get a great influx of illegal immigrants from other countries. I live in Texas and our county hospitals and schools are overcrowded and in some case the hospitals are on the verge of closing its doors (border towns). I know of people from Mexico that come to this country to have their babies and/or their surgeries knowing that our hospitals have to treat them. In a perfect world free health care for all would be great, but ultimately as far as the taxes go the poor can not pay and of course, the rich are rich but the middle class will be the ones stuck with the bill. How does the tax system work in Canada?

[Jensboys]

Similar to the states (lol just more). Percentage of income ... you pay more taxes as you make more money. We are a high taxed nation - and we do have a an illegal immigrant issue (not like Texas though). Actually the illegal immigrant issue making the news up here right now is Americans. Young americans who are servicemen and dont want to go to Iraq. There are a bunch claiming refugee status. We get illegal immigration from Asia usually or other immigrants through the states. Saying that, people here illegally dont have medical coverage. Immigrants here LEGALLY, or refugees, etc do.

The other thing about Canada is we dont have a deficit and are working on paying on our debt. I think that is the opposite of the financial state of the states right now ... and it has affected our dollar.

I wanted to add that whole point of taxes is all paying for benefits for a few. Anna - I pay school taxes but my kids dont go to public school. Should only parents be paying tuition for public schools? Thats what happens in many 3rd world nations - Public education isnt a "national value" and the logic is why should the rich pay to educate the poor, so if you cant pay your child doesnt go.

Do you pay tuition for M.'s special school? Or are tax payers footing that bill for a few special needs kids? I am sure her education is costing a whole lot more now than she is there than it was in a public setting.

On the whole maternity/paternity leave issue. What changed it here was a very public case where a mother died in childbirth. The father assumed that he would be able to take his wife's entitlement to pay for their newborn infant. He was denied coverage through EI. So he went to the Supreme Court of Canada and they ruled in his favor - that the coverage was for the care of the baby and to deny it to other legal parents was discrimination. The law was changed thereafter.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

I think that if it actually IS for recovery, then bio moms should have to return to work when their doctor gives them the okay. If that is two weeks later and the mother does not want to go back, then she should have to have the same UNPAID leave as adoptive parents.

Still lost... Did anyone here actually have a doctor release them after two weeks without specifically requesting??

My doctor put up a fight both times. Moreso the second time (worse birth). Where is this debate coming from??? Dont Dr.'s typically not release until that six week, stopped bleading, check-up?

Seriously..

[Leigh131313]

hmmm....i dont like the way this debate has headed..


Instead of LESSENING the leave for moms to bring them DOWN to the adoptive level....how about fighting to INCREASE the leave for everyone?? Why would you want to shorten it???? Do you not see the value of having a parent home in the beginning? Sounds petty to me...

Leigh

[taggrr2]

This is totally a sidebar but when I read this article it made me think of this thread so thought I would share. Oh my, how complicated things have gotten for our "enlightened" German brethren!!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...30/wgerm30.xml

[79nic]

Yeah, I don't know.... the doctors told me not to go back for six weeks, too--vaginal births both times.

With Marie, I never went back for a six-week checkup. (I know, I know, bad idea.... just couldn't bring myself to step foot in that OB office again, so soon after placing....)
So not sure what they would have said then.

But when I went for my six-week checkup after Elise, they said I still was not healed yet from the tearing. (I tore with both girls...). Went back to work anyway cuz we needed me to, but they gave me a lecture about twisting, turning, etc. So while it's often do-able to go back at six weeks, it's not necessarily recommended.

[numbr1dbcksfan]

Omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[numbr1dbcksfan]

but they gave me a lecture about twisting, turning, etc.

YES! My Dr. questioned everything that my job entailed before giving me a release (which was required both times....).

[BethanyB]

Leigh, I would never want to lower a bio moms leave time as I stated somewhere in the beginning of this thread, but since many people did not seem to want to support the idea of adoptive parents getting the same leave time, I thought it would be interesting to see how bio moms would feel about having to return to work as soon as they were "recovered." Since many people are stating that that is what the paid leave time is for. I thought it would stir some people up.

Bio moms AND adoptive moms should have the same leave time. I would not want one to have more than the other. And like I said, if it's all about recovery from birth, than they should have a doctor send them back as soon as they are "recovered."

[Jensboys]

Oh that News Article is INSANE. Holy Cow ....!!!!!

[Jensboys]

I just cant imagine why there arent mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts, uncles etc protesting in the streets demanding better benefits for the babies of the country.. Honestly, I guess because it is such apart of our social fabric here that people dont think twice about it but I would bet there would be an ENORMOUS outcry if it was ever to be reduced to 6 weeks!

Jen

[numbr1dbcksfan]

Bethany...

I am still confused with your suggestion... We DO have to go back to work when we are 'recovered'. Or at least STD expires at that point and the rest is unpaid. In order to have STD you have to have a medical reason.

So what you are suggesting is currently true. All parents are entitled to 12 weeks unpaid through FMLA. Some companies offer STD where part of you slary is paid if there is a medical reason.. So... I am STILL NOT grasping what point is supposed to be coming from this.

Dr.s typically do not release a patient to go back to work until they AT LEAST stop bleading. Whether they feel ok...or appear ok... or not.