• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Obamacare requirement going to cost everyone more

CADsortaGUY

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
http://news.yahoo.com/insurers-must-cover-birth-control-no-copays-140750830.html

Insurers must cover birth control with no copays
Click to expand...

READ IT.

This is disgusting that the gov't can come in and now tell Insurers exactly what they must cover and that they can't have co-pays attached. There is ZERO reason the Feds should tell Insurers this - it's just another example of how Obamacare is going to cost us all more while giving the Feds more power over our health insurance. INSURANCE isn't a maintenance plan - it's INSURANCE.
 
<- Sheds a tear over insurance companies paying a few bucks per month in order to save thousands on a pregnancy.
 
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.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Increased cost of covering contraception < increased savings of fewer unwanted babies.
Click to expand...

read it. sheesh

Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums. That may be offset to some degree with savings from diseases prevented, or pregnancies that are planned to minimize any potential ill effects to the mother and baby.
Click to expand...
 
I'm quite surprised health insurance companies do not subsidize protected sex already. Nothing eats into premiums like prescription drugs to treat STDs.
 
dullard said:
<- Sheds a tear over insurance companies paying a few bucks per month in order to save thousands on a pregnancy.
Click to expand...

This. In the long run, it is likely to save us $ as a nation.

I get the feeling that many opposed to this are the same crowd that want to overturn Casey v. Planned Parenthood, despite contraceptives preventing unwanted pregnancy, or even worse Griswold v. Connecticut. So, they reformulate the argument to be that premiums will go up by a small amount, and stir in a bit of simmering moral outrage. That is what this seems to amount to. Rational people understand that subsidized birth control is a good thing.

@OP: Really, they shouldn't use the term insurance anymore for most employer-provided health plans. People don't want insurance in the manner that you described. They want managed health care reimbursement plans which cover not only catastrophic care, but for non-catastrophic needs as well.
 
Last edited:
CADsortaGUY said:
read it. sheesh
Click to expand...

I already read about it earlier this morning. I was waiting for one of you folks to come in and start foaming at the mouth about it. For an ideology largely based on attacking "undesirable" types you folks sure seem hell bent on not doing anything that might actually reduce the number.
 
CADsortaGUY said:
read it. sheesh
Click to expand...

Looks like he did read it and it was covered in what you quoted.

"That may be offset to some degree with savings from diseases prevented, or pregnancies that are planned to minimize any potential ill effects to the mother and baby. "

So despite the fact that it will save insurers over the long run by decreasing pregnancies, they will still pass the cost of the copay around. Wonder when they will pass the savings around?
 
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?
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
I already read about it earlier this morning. I was waiting for one of you folks to come in and start foaming at the mouth about it. For an ideology largely based on attacking "undesirable" types you folks sure seem hell bent on not doing anything that might actually reduce the number.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with your ASSumed caricature. It has to do with the over-reach of the Federal gov't. This will force everyone to pay for someone else's "free" stuff. It isn't right and it sure isn't "insurance".
 
waffleironhead said:
Looks like he did read it and it was covered in what you quoted.

"That may be offset to some degree with savings from diseases prevented, or pregnancies that are planned to minimize any potential ill effects to the mother and baby. "

So despite the fact that it will save insurers over the long run by decreasing pregnancies, they will still pass the cost of the copay around. Wonder when they will pass the savings around?
Click to expand...

trouble reading? "offset to some degree"
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
Increased cost of covering contraception < increased savings of fewer unwanted babies.
Click to expand...

I would wager that the insurance companies have already ran the cost/benefit numbers on something as obvious as this and if it made financial sense they would already be doing it.

I can't imagine the additional costs would be enormous from something like this though.
 
CADsortaGUY said:
Has nothing to do with your ASSumed caricature. It has to do with the over-reach of the Federal gov't. This will force everyone to pay for someone else's "free" stuff. It isn't right and it sure isn't "insurance".
Click to expand...

There's more than just the medical savings from this, there's saving from less welfare, less crime, less imprisonment, etc. that we are all ALREADY paying for. Spare me the government overreach BS, this is smart and practical policy. But don't let that get in the way of your rage.
 
Gonad the Barbarian said:
There's more than just the medical savings from this, there's saving from less welfare, less crime, less imprisonment, etc. that we are all ALREADY paying for. Spare me the government overreach BS, this is smart and practical policy. But don't let that get in the way of your rage.
Click to expand...

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!
 
spidey07 said:
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!
Click to expand...

Seems probable that you only have balls on the Internet. I'm guessing there's no screening for that
 
waffleironhead said:
no problem reading, its the degree that is in contention.
Click to expand...

So then you agree that this will increase premiums even including any offset expense that may be avoided by this free stuff?

Because that's what it says, it will make insurance more expensive no matter what. Common sense also say this as well.
 
spidey07 said:
So then you agree that this will increase premiums even including any offset expense that may be avoided by this free stuff?

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

No, I agree that the insurance companies will take this as an excuse to raise their premiums regardless of ho much they save in the long run.
 
MovingTarget said:
@OP: Really, they shouldn't use the term insurance anymore for most employer-provided health plans. People don't want insurance in the manner that you described. They want managed health care reimbursement plans which cover not only catastrophic care, but for non-catastrophic needs as well.
Click to expand...

So, basically they want HMOs.

On-topic: This isn't really any different than the mandate that insurers cover wellness benefits with no copay and no lifetime maximum.

This is not going to drive up "insurance" costs to any measurable degree. If you want to pooh-pooh "Obamacare" and its deleterious effect on the American pocketbook do so for the ~$78 billion in taxes it levies on insurers and pharmaceutical companies for no real reason between 2013 and 2019 which will get passed on to consumers.
 
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&#37; 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.
 
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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top