Obamacare requirement going to cost everyone more

[Rainsford]

Heh I expect more and more of this. Zero copays is part of the problem with the cost of medical going up. People use insurance like an entitlement, not a catastrophic insurance plan.

Is the problem how people are using insurance, or how insurance companies shape healthcare costs? To be honest, I'm sure health care companies LOVE that people use insurance for everything, since me paying my doctor directly for a checkup doesn't get the folks at Blue Cross/Blue Shield any money. The idea of blaming corporations for ANYTHING isn't very conservative, but sometimes they might just play a role in the various problems we have.

 

[Naeeldar]

If this actually meant people who don't use birth control today, would not begin doing so. I would be all of for it. Somehow I imagine though that it just means we will be subsidizing BC for people already on it. NOT those who are currently being irresponsible.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

But it's FREE! Therefore it couldn't possible cost money!

Yet one of the thousands of reason why Obamacare will drive up insurance costs and eventually drive society to his single payer program.

"Well we can't get rid of insruance companies immediately, but we will do it over the course of 10 years or so" - BHO

And how is this not discrimination? Where are all the free stuffs for Male care?

Uh...you might not have to buy condoms if your wife/gf gets free birth control. Mine is going to.

 

[sactoking]

Because that's what it says, it will make insurance more expensive no matter what. Common sense also say this as well.

Actually, that's not true. A health insurer is not a Health Maintenance Organization and vice versa. HMOs use managed care like preventive medicine to keep costs lower. Health insurers base their cost of coverage on statistically-projected, short-term loss values. Preventive care doesn't really manifest cost savings in the short-term, so preventive care is always valued as more expensive by health insurers than it really is.

It's not a conspiracy by insurers, actuarial science and future uncertainty requires rate filings to be much more short-term than would optimally benefit society. Mandates such as this actually give actuaries and regulatory bodies impetus to change the definitions on which the rate filings are computed so that some longer-term savings can be incorporated into the filings, which will depress costs and offset short-term cost increases.

 

[Genx87]

Is the problem how people are using insurance, or how insurance companies shape healthcare costs? To be honest, I'm sure health care companies LOVE that people use insurance for everything, since me paying my doctor directly for a checkup doesn't get the folks at Blue Cross/Blue Shield any money. The idea of blaming corporations for ANYTHING isn't very conservative, but sometimes they might just play a role in the various problems we have.

I dont think we can blame one or the other. They go hand in hand. And it is only part of the issue. But it is an issue that we are using insurance like an entitlement program. The way we use insurance for healthcare we would be better served by having govt provide a catastrophic plan(5K+) and let routine procedures be paid for by people who are using private insurance or go back to being cash only. The way we socialized medical costs via private insurance and govt programs have driven up the cost drastically in the past 50 years. We rarely feel the full cost of our decisions. Thus we dont care and consume at higher rates. I believe the increased cost of medical insurance is also a contributing factor to wage stagflation.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

OMG-government regulates insurers and sets certain specific mandates in insurance policies. This is something that the government has done-hundreds of times before-for AT LEAST THE LAST HUNDRED YEARS.

BTW CAD misstates the facts (big surpirse) by omission-there is a specific exemption in these new regulations allowing religious institutions to opt out of free birth control if it violates their religious beliefs.

As someone who actually pays 100% for his own health insurance (over $800 per month with a $10k deductible for a perfectly healthy couple) so far this health care bill has driven my health insurance costs DOWN, not up, with further decreases expected in the future.

I don't give two shits about the supposed religious exemption, as it's a tiny speck in the scope of this and not part of my opposition to this.

And yes, the gov't has been fucking with health INSURANCE for far too long. As a consumer, why do I not have choice in the level of coverage? Why does the gov't get to decide who gets "free" pieces?

 

[sactoking]

What's interesting to me is that the preventive care mandate, and now the birth control mandate, both are illegal under McCarran-Ferguson and Gramm-Leach-Bliley. I wonder if the 'anti-Obamacare' lawsuits will use these are targets for overturning specific portions or the law in its entirety.

 

[Infohawk]

I'd be fine if we went even further. Provide free birth control for the entire world. Hordes of third-worlders are already driving up the cost of natural resources. The world doesn't need more people.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

This country needs to make a decision on whether or not we want universal healthcare for all, or a completely a la carte system where buyers can pick and choose exactly what they want in their health plans. Right now we're stuck somewhere in the middle, and "Obamacare" certainly hasn't helped the situation IMHO.

Personally, I think we need to join the rest of the 1st world and implement a truly universal healthcare system so that we can drive medical costs way down. We are spending FAR too much on our healthcare as a nation compared to everyone else.

 

[woolfe9999]

You liberals are missing the point.

If the government can declare that insurance MUST provide birth control without deductibles then what can it declare next?

Nicotine patches for free? Much cheaper than cancer treatment.

Weight loss treatment? Cheaper than obesity care.

Free health club membership? Cheaper than taking care of people out of shape.

Might as well make everything free....... oh wait! That is their long term goal... :hmm:

It's pandemonium out there! Cats and dogs living together!!

You're right. Allow government to do one thing, and government will one day do everything! The only way around this terrible slippery slope condundrum is that government should do nothing, because any one thing they do automatically leads to them doing everything imaginable.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'd be fine if we went even further. Provide free birth control for the entire world. Hordes of third-worlders are already driving up the cost of natural resources. The world doesn't need more people.

Anthing that reduces the number of unwanted preganancies will in the longrun save far more in myriad costs than whatever it costs to implement. Birth control is very cheap prevention.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

This country needs to make a decision on whether or not we want universal healthcare for all, or a completely a la carte system where buyers can pick and choose exactly what they want in their health plans. Right now we're stuck somewhere in the middle, and "Obamacare" certainly hasn't helped the situation IMHO.

Personally, I think we need to join the rest of the 1st world and implement a truly universal healthcare system so that we can drive medical costs way down. We are spending FAR too much on our healthcare as a nation compared to everyone else.

You can choose to bankrupt the country even more with uhc but IMO it's time people took a bit more interest and responsibility for their own care. That can't happen when others are footing the bill.

 

[MovingTarget]

Pretty sure medicaid covers all that stuff already so you're not getting the point.

This is for ALL insurance. When ever an insurance company does something for free, it costs more. Are you trying to tell me that women are purposefully not getting a pap smear or other annual checkup because they don't want to pay the 10 dollar co-pay? If that's the case, why should I subsidize their lack of personal responsibility and stupidity?

And dammit, I want a testicular screening from a hot female doctor and I want it for FREE, NOW! FREE!

Make 'em pay for the full cost of everything or go on Medicaid - that'll teach those sluts!

Spidey, when you are poor, you routinely forgo preventative medical treatments to make sure that you can pay the utilities, rent, gas, etc. It isn't stupidity or lack of personal responsibility, but a fact of life. Immedeate needs are taken care of first. It is easy to say, "but it'll cost you so much later if you don't" when you have significant disposable income. Of course, it doesn't help that nonprofit organizations that provide said care to poor women like Planned Parenthood are often the target of much moral outrage and subsequently demonized and defunded. So spare the fiscal outrage here. This is chump change, and most criticism on this issue is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to punish those that you perceive as having loose morals.

 

[jackstar7]

Death to the health insurance industry!

And death to the demoness Allegra Geller!

 

[spidey07]

Make 'em pay for the full cost of everything or go on Medicaid - that'll teach those sluts!

Spidey, when you are poor, you routinely forgo preventative medical treatments to make sure that you can pay the utilities, rent, gas, etc. It isn't stupidity or lack of personal responsibility, but a fact of life. Immedeate needs are taken care of first. It is easy to say, "but it'll cost you so much later if you don't" when you have significant disposable income. Of course, it doesn't help that nonprofit organizations that provide said care to poor women like Planned Parenthood are often the target of much moral outrage and subsequently demonized and defunded. So spare the fiscal outrage here. This is chump change, and most criticism on this issue is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to punish those that you perceive as having loose morals.

As mentioned, medicaid already covers most of this stuff for "free". This is different as it applies to all insurance and therfore all people that pay premiums. The article even said it will cause premiums to rise.

And when you're poor the rent, utilities, cable, food and even cell phones are provided at little to no cost.

 

[alkemyst]

This is terrible...if one can't afford $20 a month they need to keep their legs shut!

What's going to happen now is our hoodrat population that is lucky enough to have insurance will be constantly losing their pills now.

It's bad enough in the baby formula / diapers segment. When I was in the Pharmacy business as an intern, there were several customers that got buttloads of items per week. They also had 'side businesses' at our local swap meets each weekend selling the same items.

 

[Phokus]

If this actually meant people who don't use birth control today, would not begin doing so. I would be all of for it. Somehow I imagine though that it just means we will be subsidizing BC for people already on it. NOT those who are currently being irresponsible.

The second part of that is to get fucking rid of that 'abstinence only education' that batshit retarded republicans push on public schools. Don't want teen mothers? Stop teaching bullshit in schools.

 

[MovingTarget]

And when you're poor the rent, utilities, cable, food and even cell phones are provided at little to no cost.

No. This is simply not true, unless you happen to be both poor and in prison. If you truly believe that the poor are living high on the hog with subsidized rent, cable, food, phones, etc. for next to nothing, you must be severely disconnected from reality. I grew up poor, nearly ending up on the street a number of times despite being responsible with family finance. Your partisan views do not match up with the reality of poverty in the US.

 

[rudder]

You can choose to bankrupt the country even more with uhc but IMO it's time people took a bit more interest and responsibility for their own care. That can't happen when others are footing the bill.

Exactly. Most birth control brands have generics.. get a 90 supply rate and we are really not talking a whole lot of money This creates a disconnect between the patient and the cost of healthcare.

In Tennessee we have tenncare... people on Tenncare paid $0 per prescription.... no copays. The average person in Tennessee had 3 prescriptions per month.. the average tenncare user had 11.

My insurance also charges me a high copay if I go to an emergency room. Tenncare does not have these copays. So rather than make an appointment or spend $7 buying OTC medicines... Tenncare users will go to the emergency room. To them it is free... to the taxpayer it is an outrageous expense. This will be the future of obamacare.

 

[Thump553]

I don't give two shits about the supposed religious exemption, as it's a tiny speck in the scope of this and not part of my opposition to this.

And yes, the gov't has been fucking with health INSURANCE for far too long. As a consumer, why do I not have choice in the level of coverage? Why does the gov't get to decide who gets "free" pieces?

Liberatarian ideals aside, have you every even read ONE insurance policy you have? Do you understand the entire policy? Have you ever negotiated the terms of an insurance policy (hint-it's impossible, except to get addtions or exclusions).

Arguing against government regulation of insurance is like arguing against FDA and government food inspections-it makes sense only in an Ayn Rand novel.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Liberatarian ideals aside, have you every even read ONE insurance policy you have? Do you understand the entire policy? Have you ever negotiated the terms of an insurance policy (hint-it's impossible, except to get addtions or exclusions).

Arguing against government regulation of insurance is like arguing against FDA and government food inspections-it makes sense only in an Ayn Rand novel.

Uh, no shit - we as consumers have little/no say yet we should. Instead of giving consumers more choice, BHO, the Feds, and the UHC crowd want people to have less choice. It's wrong. It needs to be changed.

 

[Carmen813]

:thumbsup: For good policy.

 

[1prophet]

The second part of that is to get fucking rid of that 'abstinence only education' that batshit retarded republicans push on public schools. Don't want teen mothers? Stop teaching bullshit in schools.

Don't stop there get rid of sex education period unless you are going to show kids what to do and not to do with a live/prerecorded demonstrationD:,

But seriously kids learn more about sex from their peers or tv/hollywood and today with the Internet all the education is just a few clicks away, just don't let mommy/wifey catch you.

Only in America do we glorify teen pregnancy whether it's Bristol Palin being paraded with her baby daddy on Republican convention stage or Jamie Spears getting 1 million dollars from OK magazine.


You want a real deterrent, stop glorifying teenage pregnancy as a way out for girls and hit up the guys who get the girls pregnant by making sure they pay for that baby.

Most teens get pregnant on purpose because other life goals
seem out of reach, says Cornell researcher
Expert Andrea Parrot calls for new multi-dimensional approach

ITHACA, N.Y. -- "Many teenage pregnancies aren't accidental but intentional because of girls who see no life goals other than being a mother as realistically within their reach," says Andrea Parrot, Ph.D., a Cornell University women's health and human sexuality expert. That's a major reason why most current sex and pregnancy prevention education efforts "are ineffective at preventing teenage pregnancy and the U.S. has an outrageous teen pregnancy rate -- the highest in the industrialized world," said Parrot, associate professor in the Department of Policy Analysis and Management in Cornell's College of Human Ecology.
In the recent Cornell Cooperative Extension teleconference Women's Health Across the Generations, which was downlinked to 15 sites across New York state in February, Parrot advocated wider use of long-term, multi-dimensional, community-based programs that have proven successful because they offer hope for a brighter future and the means to achieve life goals other than motherhood.
"Such programs are undoubtedly expensive. However, providing the program for a girl for several years will cost less than the social welfare, medical and lost income costs for a teen mother in the first year she has the baby," Parrot pointed out.
Effectively preventing teen pregnancies would save the billions of dollars society pays to support a teen mother, her children and even her grandchildren, often for a lifetime. It also would break the cycle related to psychopathologies in our culture, including drug and alcohol abuse, fetal alcohol syndrome, drug-induced birth defects, dropping out of school, crime, domestic violence and poverty.
"As a society, we keep on paying and paying when our teens become mothers," said Parrot, who has been working in the area of teen sexuality for 20 years and is the co-author of the 1979 manual Adolescent Pregnancy Prevention: A Team Approach.
"Too many teenage girls see themselves as having nothing to strive for -- they can't see graduating from high school because they have few role models to follow, their teachers give them little encouragement about their abilities, their families are chaotic and their friends are on drugs. Parenting looks like the best thing going, many girls think, because babies provide an immediate source of unconditional love," Parrot said.
Researchers now know that certain factors predispose girls to choose early motherhood over other goals. These include poverty, school failure, a mother or sister who was a teen mother and living in a dangerous neighborhood, Parrot said.
"We also know that prevention programs based on promoting abstinence don't reduce adolescent sex and that school-based clinics, sex education and contraceptive service programs have little impact on teen sexual activity. The adolescent pregnancy rate continues to rise in every state," she added.
Yet, some programs effectively counter these trends. One of the most successful programs was developed by Dr. Michael Carrera of the National Adolescent Sexuality Training Center for the Children's Aid Society in New York City. Whereas the city's teen pregnancy rate is 14 percent, the rate for the high-risk girls in the program, which has been replicated in 27 sites around the country, has dropped to 4 percent.
These programs help girls acquire skills to achieve life goals other than motherhood. Carrera's program, for example, includes guaranteed college admission, employment, personal savings plan and medical services. In addition, the program focuses on teaching skills and values related to lifetime sports, self-expression and family life and provides sex education and counseling services.
To be most effective, programs must target high-risk girls early (before age 10) and help strengthen their families and provide educational enrichment and economic opportunities.
"If we keep doing what we've been doing regarding sex education and pregnancy prevention, we will continue to get what we've got: a tremendous waste of time, money, energy, human potential and an outrageous teen pregnancy rate that's associated with many ills of today's society," Parrot concluded. "Instead, we have to spend the money up front and provide girls early with the support and skills they need to have a sense of control over their lives and the means to make meaningful choices."

 

[dmcowen674]

Obamacare requirement going to cost everyone more

Good :thumbsup:

 

[matt0611]

Everything should be free. Its my right to have things, didn't you get the memo?