Register  |   |   |  Calendar  |  Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #1 

I thought I'd write about the problem with the Hawk-i plan. First off, Hawk-i is a state funded health care plan that is handled by Wellmark or John Deere health. There may be others, but around here, it's one of those two. Hawk-i is for those Iowans that make too much for Title XIX, yet are considered poor enough that they qualify for this subsidized insurance. On Hawk-i, you get a medical card for your child/children, directly from Wellmark, or from the other health insurer, not a slip a paper like Title XIX. However, the Hawk-i plan covers just about everything that Title XIX covers. It covers mental, dental, vision, and health. It also covers prescriptions. There are two main differences between Hawk-i and Title XIX. One is cost. Hawk-i costs $20 per month and covers all of your children. Title XIX is free. The second is coverage. Title XIX picks up all medical bills 100% whereas Hawk-i has a co-pay for some services, such as a $25 co-pay for Emergency Room visits. Now, the reason I see a need for change is this. One requirement for Hawk-i is that the children cannot be covered by any other health plan. It is strictly for children without health insurance. In the case where a custodial parent does work, and qualifies for the Hawk-i plan, they could lose that coverage because Child Support will force a medical order on the NCP and in effect, Hawk-i will drop that child because the NCP's coverage will be in effect on that child. If a medical order was issued when the CP was on Title XIX, and they decide to work and then become eligible for Hawk-i, they cannot get it because the NCP's employer is under order from the court to enroll the children in their health plan. This is why this is wrong. That health coverage for the NCP will generally run a couple of hundred dollars per month. Secondly, the coverage is far inferior in not only coverage amounts, but coverage areas. Where the child would have had dental, vision, and mental health, under the Hawk-i plan, very few private plans offer this. Secondly, when the CP took that child to the doctor before, it was generally covered 100%. Now, the CP faces a $20 co-pay in many cases, and a much larger bill for all Outpatient expenses and Emergency Room visits. It's really a no win situation for both parents and the child too. The last thing about the Hawk-i plan that you should know is that it only covers children that live with you. Currently, it is not possible to purchase a Hawk-i plan for a child that does not live with you. First, we should not force medical orders in cases where the children could/would qualify for Hawk-i. Secondly, instead of forcing parents into purchasing expensive private plans that are inferior, we should allow the NCP to be able to purchase the Hawk-i plan for the children that do not live with them. I think this would be far superior to the current system and would save both parents considerable money and provide better healthcare to our children. I welcome any questions or comments on this."


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
Chad

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 1,320
Reply with quote  #2 

That's their out. they claim to be doing a good deed but then order the parent that can't get it to pay therefore disqualifieing the child and saving them from having to actualy carry through. Just another carrot you can't get.


__________________
What's wrong with socialism in one sentence:
When you implement “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” magically, everyone starts having quite a lot of need and very little ability.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #3 
I agree, it's bull bleep, bleep, that the parent ordered to provide the insurance can't qualify for low income insurance such as Hawk-I-Kids or titled19. I've been saying this for a while now, we need equal access to public assistance programs, including f.i.p. food cards, cirha, hud, hawk-i-kids, etc. The rule that if the kids don't live with you x amount of time is what's causing this situation. Those rules need to be removed from public assistance programs.

Public assistance programs should be required to provide, equal or half the benefits to each parent if both parents are in need of assistance and allow full benefits to the non-custodial, when the custodial is not in need of assistance and vice versa. That would be fair and would help non-custodials with housing and bills, leaving a little extra on the check for child support to be paid. Plus it's just fair and equal and it's how the system should have been set up. I believe when a non-custodial is in need of public assistance, that an emergency- temporary order for suspension of child support obligation be entered on their behalf, until they get on their feet. The order should take no longer than seven business days to be final and child support recovery should be required to comply immediatley. I believe during this suspension no child support shall be allowed to accumulated. Thus stopping the arrears problem. However we must get non-custodials equal access to the programs first to accomplish that.

__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
maizej

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 95
Reply with quote  #4 

Hawk-I is a joke. I checked into it right after medical support was ordered and I could not get it for the kids as they did not live with me. The thing that got me was that if they were living with me and I was not paying child support, they would have qualified. The income guidelines are actually quite laxed in that they use the 200% poverty level as opposed to the 100%-150% levels used by most entities; however, even with these guidelines, the only people that actually qualify are the illegals working at our meat packing plants.


__________________
“We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution.”

Abraham Lincoln

ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #5 

That's exactly why I'm saying that we have to remove the rule about the primary residence of the child in order to offer these programs to all citizens in need, and not just to whinning moms.


__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Moderator

Avatar / Picture

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 3,096
Reply with quote  #6 
Universal health care should be provided for all children. If we completely eliminate welfare, there would be funding for such a program.

Secondly, I do not believe forced health-care upon the ncp is legal.  This is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.  This will be part of the class action lawsuit against the State of Iowa.


__________________
IowaFathers
P.O. Box 2884
Waterloo, IA 50704-2884
support@IowaFathers.com
Website: http://www.IowaFathers.com
Visit us on facebook under Groups: Iowa Fathers



"Political reasons have not the requisite certainty to afford juridical interpretation. They are different in different men. They are different in the same men at different times. And when a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a Constitution; we are under a government of individual men, who for the time being have the power to declare what the Constitution is, according to their own views of that it ought to mean." Dred Scott v.Sanford, 19 How. 393, 620 (1857) (Curtis, J., dissenting).
Big_Eric

Avatar / Picture

VIP Member
Registered:
Posts: 907
Reply with quote  #7 

Two major things put me at odds with the Republicans, even though I vote for them the majority of the time. First is that I'm pro union. The second is that I do believe in socialized medicine and believe that we should get free legal too. Yes, I understand that free doesn't mean free, but if we feel strong enough to socialize education by providing free education in the form of public schooling, then I think health is just as important and a basic level of health care should be provided. Yes, it would do away with this attack on NCP's to provide health coverage which really pushes the NCP's obligation to 50% of gross earnings and beyond. It would also put a huge dent in insurance companies which I despise in the first place. Insurers are the number one lobbyists for taking our rights away. Know why Iowa had a heck of a time raising the speed limit to 70? Insurers said that they'd have to charge more and they lobbied very hard against it. Many building codes, seat belt laws, and other nanny state rules have been pushed for by insurers so that any action that we have that raises the chances of their having to pay out is criminalized. What other industry can go and make criminals out of potential liabilities? Think of how much insurance is paid all along the way of any object that is created or frankly, any service that is rendered. It's these insurers that are happy when we're forced to pay top dollar for their sub-standard health insurance. Bryan, you're right. If we socialize medicine and legal too, we'd take a lot of the manipulation off of the table. I know a great many people may disagree with me, but I've though about this for an awful long time. Socialized medicine wouldn't be much different than our public schools now, which in fact are socialized institutions for learning. You can still home school your children and you can still put your kids in private school. As long as those types of options were still open for our healthcare, it wouldn't be too bad. Lord knows I am swamped with expensive health insurance and tons of medical bills that my expensive insurance does not cover. It's ridiculous.


__________________
Eric E. Durnan
Wadena, Iowa

I don't see the glass as being half full or half empty. I see the glass as being twice as large as it needs to be.
ironeagle

Avatar / Picture

Coordinator I.C.O.S.
Registered:
Posts: 815
Reply with quote  #8 
I know we need huge changes, but I'm thinking for realistic purposes we need to help pass laws for the interim that can help make a difference now, while we are fighting for the bigger changes. I think if we can get ncp's equal access to public benefits and programs, not only can we help the poorer ncps (didn't want to just say guys.lol) get help with housing, but we can help level the playing field, with the cp's. iNstead of giving cp 100% of the benefits let's give them 50% and 50% to the ncp if they need the help too.

I mean people need to learn to be self sufficient but we also need to help our poor as well when we can. I think that it would make a cp more likely to want to get to work if she/he knows that she/he can't have 100% of the welfare anymore, they'd have to share it. It's not a perfect answer but it is a first step to equality. I think that we can regain some of our respect too if we can pass some laws putting the burden of proof on the cp, to prove that an ncp does not have the right to access childrens' records. This means the cp will have to show schools, medical professionals, and any other facility a no contact order that specifies the other parent is legally barred from the child, and or the child's information. If we put the burden of proof on the cp, then ncp's will no longer have to wait for cp's to sign permission slips, that can only be described as insulting, ncp's will no longer be able to be denied records or access to children by these facilities. It should not be our responsibility to prove we are not criminals, it should be the cp's responsibility to prove it when a judge bars the child's information.

So really we need to be diligent about questioning our childrens' schools and the school board as well. we need to tell them our ideas and concerns and really remind them that it is not thier place to referee our divorces, or to deny our requests, or interfere with our parental authority at anytime.



__________________
"I am one of many and together we will prevail!"
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!