Huh, I don't know...anyone else know?
If they did, surely they wouldn't still be on it!?!?!
the program they appealed for was'nt based on income-it was a special services program based on medical need (though they were receiving medicaid at the time of the appeal though they were almost inelgibile to it because of jon's income working for the govenor's office).
the basis for their appeal was that they wanted to retain the nurse they had initial eligibility to because the little ones were premies (not a visiting nurse-a nurse there for 30 hours per week since the babies came home from the hospital). the babies were over a year old, the time for that program had expired, and there was no longer a medical need for a nurse, but they were offered a home health aide for one month following the leave of the nurse. kate did'nt want a home health aide she wanted the nurse and wanted the in home care program to be extended (not sure how long they asked for but they claimed they could'nt afford the $25,000.00 it would cost them to keep her on for another year). state argued that the nurse was doing strictly childcare (diapering, bathing, feeding and cleaning their surroundings) and their was no medical necessity for a nurse to provide these services. if you read the newspaper articles from back at the time all of this was going on it realy read less like they were appealing a discontinuance of medicaid coverage than an appeal for the state to continue paying for 30 hours per week of a second adult in the home.
i have no idea what happend with the appeal-the only reason it became public was because kate and jon notified the media (all public assistance appeals are confidential and closed to the public, kate and jon gave permission for some reporters to attend and report on it). i don't think anything was ever published about the subsequent decision. i suspect jon and kate did'nt release the decision because things went sour between them and one of the local papers covering the case-kate did an interview and the day after asked to preview the final article before it was published, the newspaper declined the request, kate said she wanted to retract everything she had said-even though she admitted it was all true, the newspaper ran the story.
i would guess as a self employed person they would be doing private insurance (unless john maybe still keeps some kind of employment connection to beth's husband's company-whatever that is-so he could retain group coverage, i've known inde contractors to do so). a couple of the little ones were receiving services through easter seals when they were infants, so it could be that for some medical needs they would have assitance there (not sure how easter seals works, but my dd is a 'shriner's kid' and as such anything orthopedic that comes up with her through age 18 is covered through them, easter seals may have a similar set up once you're in the system).
i have to imagine private pay insurance would cost an arm and a leg for that many people, when i think of it i flash back to one of my former co-workers in social services who could have made a good deal more in the private sector but insisted that even much higher wages could never counterbalance what he saved in insurance premiums for his family of 12
by virtue of being a government employee (gotta love those group plans where you pay the same amount for a family of 12 as you do for for a family of 2).
