What kind of impact do you think universal healthcare would have in the adoption world?

Question

When I think of UHC, I think of pretty much expanding medicaid to include those who can not get other insurance.

This will allow those who can get "good" insurance to keep it and maintain a demand for inovation.

Just filling in the gap of uninsured.

My son had medicaid as a second insurance and it was the best health care I could ask for.

Answer 1

I actually think that it would make a big difference on both sides of the situation. First, I think that more people would be able to keep there children. One of the biggest expenses to having a child is the birth, and the early healthcare that goes into have a baby. Second, I think that the adoption rates would go down, therefore making more people able to adopt. Plus I agree with the other post that more people would adopt children with disabilities b/c it would not be a major expense.

On the other side of that coin, with universal healthcare, will the QUALITY of our healthcare go down? That is the biggest thing for me. Sure it is free, but you get what you pay for. I personally don't want "Walmart" quality healthcare.

Answer 2

In Australia - we all have healthcare.

Adoptions per year here - are less than 500 (most of them are from O/S or in family adoptions) - because mothers and children are encouraged and helped to stay together.  (imagine that!!)

USA has over 120,000 per year.

Sad really - isn't it.

Answer 3

Um...

Little.

People who adopt usually have jobs currently, since adoption agencys don't give kids away to "Occupation: In-between gigs right now" types.

All you're asking is if a change in the type of insurance they have would make a difference. To which the answer is no.

Answer 4

Interesting question.  Honestly I think very little.  I do agree that if there was universal healthcare then more may be more willing to adopt a disabled child due to the assistance in healthcare costs.  On the other issues.  I do not believe the majority of biological parents would base their decision on keeping or not keeping their child merely based on healthcare. The reality is that there is state funded health insurance for both maternity as well as children healthcare for low income families already in place.  It may factor in and I could be wrong on the level of importance as I have never given up a child for adoption.  I was adopted and my parents were foster parents prior to deciding to adopt.  I also agree with one of the above posters that most adoptive parents are financially more stable which can include decent healthcare insurance.  Just my opinion.

Answer 5

I think it would lessen the financial stress of women in general.  Insurance companies do discriminate against women in the US whether one wants to believe it or not.  If you don't get insurance through a group or company you're looking at an additional $200-300 extra per month tacked to a policy to cover maternity.  A lot of people do not qualify for govt assistance and personally I wouldn't want it as it is today. Animals get more respect and care at the pound.  

Universal insurance is needed for all legal citizens in the US. Nobody should be making a profit off of a persons health.

I find it odd that the same groups of people that are against  Universal Health care are the conservative republicans that are pro life and pro warfare.

Answer 6

Simple.  Less expectant mothers being pushed toward adoption for their baby's due to lack of resources.

Answer 7

I don't think it would have a huge impact, though I could be wrong.  

The "traditional" infant-relinquishment adoptions are a tiny fraction of all of the adoptions in the US.  

The US has state-managed healthcare for people who cannot afford it.  There is federal and state insurance for children at a higher income bracket than Medicaid for struggling families.  There are numerous clinics available on a sliding-fee scale for adults and children.  

I just don't see not having health insurance as a reason to place for adoption, with all of the assistance available.

Answer 8

Oh anyone who is pregnant already can get free health care in the USA... unless you are middle class or higher  you currently qualify for free health care for all children (yes, good ole DSS sure does not welcome people completing those forms) but they are there.. it is already in place

all kids in foster care and at least in the state from the time they are placed for adoption until the adoption is final the child qualifies for medicaid already...

UHC would suck, go to your local public health clinic, mental health clinic, or public dental clinic and try to get seen or help...  we had to use them to try and get my son into day treatment... they were so crappy... you had to have 3 appointments before your first real appointment all during the day, all during working hours, and in general they treated you like dog p**p (where he goes now were are never treated that badly)  

and there is another big point about why are foster and adoptive parents given money to raise children that biological parents could raise if given the same money?

No women should ever have to give up her child over money....

CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW ME THE WOMEN WHO PLACED HER KID FOR ADOPTION SAYING "gee the rich parents can get medical care for him?"  

if you are not unsured and having a baby you can get WIC and Medicaid..

all kids adopted from public foster care in the USA already have Medicaid approved until they are 18 years old as part of their adoption subsidy (unless you were one of the very few adopted without the subsidy from public foster care)

but it is true if you are getting your own insurance paying for an individual policy they do cost more then policies for men until you are senior citizens...

I pay about $4,000 per year for my employee sponsered medical coverage plan... for myself and kids... so I'm not feeling to sorry for you...

no, when I was unemployed I had no coverage, but would have gotten medicaid if I got knocked up..

Answer 9

My child's mother might have been able to go to the doctor to get regular check ups. She might have been able to seek out counseling or other forms of care that aren't provided to her now, she might have been able to enter some sort of drug treatment or therapy, she might have gotten pre-natal care, my child might have had access to better care during delivery, he had all sorts of medical problems and the cord was wrapped around his neck twice, so he needed all sorts of help in the first few weeks. He might have had access to better treatments and conditions. He would frequently stop breathing and had terrible reflux for months. He might have received regular treatments instead of off market treatments. He might have been given formula that worked instead of the formula covered under medicaid...which was all we were able to afford.  

Answer 10

I think there may not be as many children up for adoption if we had universal healthcare. Also people would be more likely to adopt children with disablilities if their healthcare was free.