"Most private health insurance in California designates children’s hearing aids as cosmetic or elective devices. "
TIL hearing aids for deaf kids are considered cosmetic. I guess looking cool is better than hearing them talk about your outfit.
I'm not a child, but I do have hearing aids. I just needed to buy two new hearing aids. My insurance didn't cover a single penny of them. I had to pay $3,600 out of pocket. If I couldn't afford that? Well, then my tinnitus and hearing loss would go untreated.
I wish insurers were forced to cover hearing aids for everyone who needs them. I'm not saying I should get them for free, but covering some of the cost would be appreciated given how much I'm paying for health insurance.
I'll say it, durable medical equipment that is needed for a person to function as normally as possible and participate in society should be free at the point of service. That's also true of all medically indicated care and basic preventative medical care.
I won't argue with you. At the same time, even if we had "you need to pay some small co-payment to get hearing aids," it would be better than the current situation of "you'd better have thousands of dollars that you're willing to spend on these."
I should also add that my last hearing aid (I went from 1 ear to 2) cost me $1,100 five years ago. These are expected to last 5 years and then I'll likely need to get another set. So that's $3,600 I need to spend every 5 years. It's the cost of a decent cell phone every year just so I can hear and not be driven crazy by the ever present ringing of my tinnitus. That's a lot of money that I need to spend just to function.
That sucks, friend. As a long time musician that struggles with tinnitus, I totally f****** feel for you. It hasn't affected my hearing, but I know it's coming.
Don't get me started on health care. I think it should be a part of our taxes (not free) and no one should be without basic healthcare and wellness treatment. How it would work in this cluster f*** environment of personality centered patriotism and unfettered profiteering, I have no idea. Would love to be able to have a legitimate conversation about it without it being a trope-fest of buzzwords.
In his veto message, Newsom cites concern about creating a costly precedent by adding benefits to the state’s Affordable Care Act insurance exchange, known as Covered California. A legislative analysis estimates the added cost at about $11 million.
In 2019 a similar bill passed unanimously and was sent to Newsom. At the time, [...] Newsom asked [the bill author] to rescind the bill with a promise to create a budget fix. That “fix” came in the form of the Hearing Aid Coverage for Children Program. The program, which received $16 million its first year, distributed hearing aids to 39 children
"$11 million actually going to children is completely unacceptable, but $16 million going through my sketchy slush fund is A-OK"
Knew motherfucker was corrupt. 39 kids only out of 16 million. Where rest go? She be on the front page of every paper and news. He should be hounded day and night for answers.
I don’t follow California politics closely but I can’t wait until the next “Newsome vetoes” post so I can find out what harmless, good thing people who want to be president can’t support. “Newsome vetoes bill that would give bus pass discount to orphans and war widows.”
He didn't veto everything, he signed a bill that will expand the state's ability to involuntarily institutionalize homeless people. He's a real humanitarian.
One step closer to the Bell Riots.
I was just joking. It seems like there’s a “Newsome vetoes x” post each day and I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason but the headlines are always like “Newsome vetoes pizza party and announces pop quiz.”
He has some kind of strategist on his payroll (I would imagine) that thinks he can win that nebulous "centrist" by not being too progressive. Too bad they don't exist, and he's only succeeding in alienating the largest voting bloc of Millennials and Gen Z.
He's justified some of these latest vetos by saying, "We already have a law that covers that." So what? Redundancy is bad now? I genuinely don't understand the strategy here, and I don't think his strategist has a pulse on the demographics, either.
He doesn’t need to court democrats. They vote for whoever they’re told to vote for.
His strategy is to assure the donor class that he won’t do too much for regular people so that they won’t withhold their money when they fund both candidates.
I'm sad that this makes some sense.
Fucker just wants to the Democrats version of DeSantis or Trump. Doing great California. With this guy as governor you'll be like us poor southern states in no time.
"Most private health insurance in California designates children’s hearing aids as cosmetic or elective devices. "
TIL hearing aids for deaf kids are considered cosmetic. I guess looking cool is better than hearing them talk about your outfit.
I'm not a child, but I do have hearing aids. I just needed to buy two new hearing aids. My insurance didn't cover a single penny of them. I had to pay $3,600 out of pocket. If I couldn't afford that? Well, then my tinnitus and hearing loss would go untreated.
I wish insurers were forced to cover hearing aids for everyone who needs them. I'm not saying I should get them for free, but covering some of the cost would be appreciated given how much I'm paying for health insurance.
I'll say it, durable medical equipment that is needed for a person to function as normally as possible and participate in society should be free at the point of service. That's also true of all medically indicated care and basic preventative medical care.
I won't argue with you. At the same time, even if we had "you need to pay some small co-payment to get hearing aids," it would be better than the current situation of "you'd better have thousands of dollars that you're willing to spend on these."
I should also add that my last hearing aid (I went from 1 ear to 2) cost me $1,100 five years ago. These are expected to last 5 years and then I'll likely need to get another set. So that's $3,600 I need to spend every 5 years. It's the cost of a decent cell phone every year just so I can hear and not be driven crazy by the ever present ringing of my tinnitus. That's a lot of money that I need to spend just to function.
That sucks, friend. As a long time musician that struggles with tinnitus, I totally f****** feel for you. It hasn't affected my hearing, but I know it's coming.
Don't get me started on health care. I think it should be a part of our taxes (not free) and no one should be without basic healthcare and wellness treatment. How it would work in this cluster f*** environment of personality centered patriotism and unfettered profiteering, I have no idea. Would love to be able to have a legitimate conversation about it without it being a trope-fest of buzzwords.
"$11 million actually going to children is completely unacceptable, but $16 million going through my sketchy slush fund is A-OK"
Knew motherfucker was corrupt. 39 kids only out of 16 million. Where rest go? She be on the front page of every paper and news. He should be hounded day and night for answers.
I don’t follow California politics closely but I can’t wait until the next “Newsome vetoes” post so I can find out what harmless, good thing people who want to be president can’t support. “Newsome vetoes bill that would give bus pass discount to orphans and war widows.”
He didn't veto everything, he signed a bill that will expand the state's ability to involuntarily institutionalize homeless people. He's a real humanitarian.
One step closer to the Bell Riots.
I was just joking. It seems like there’s a “Newsome vetoes x” post each day and I’m sure there’s a perfectly good reason but the headlines are always like “Newsome vetoes pizza party and announces pop quiz.”
He has some kind of strategist on his payroll (I would imagine) that thinks he can win that nebulous "centrist" by not being too progressive. Too bad they don't exist, and he's only succeeding in alienating the largest voting bloc of Millennials and Gen Z.
He's justified some of these latest vetos by saying, "We already have a law that covers that." So what? Redundancy is bad now? I genuinely don't understand the strategy here, and I don't think his strategist has a pulse on the demographics, either.
He doesn’t need to court democrats. They vote for whoever they’re told to vote for.
His strategy is to assure the donor class that he won’t do too much for regular people so that they won’t withhold their money when they fund both candidates.
I'm sad that this makes some sense.
Fucker just wants to the Democrats version of DeSantis or Trump. Doing great California. With this guy as governor you'll be like us poor southern states in no time.
How do you mean?
It's because he always has been a conservative.
I dunno about that chief.