Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[dblack]

The debate over whether insurance companies "should" cover birth control or not, specifically whether it would be cost effective or not, seems to me completely irrelevant. The way to find out for sure is for insurance companies and consumers to try the approach they think is best. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

The dumb thing to do would be to dictate one policy through an authoritarian mandate. If we do that we'll never really know whether covering birth control is a good strategy or not. Going with that approach, there is the chance that we may naver come to a firm conclusion. Some companies might cover it, while others might not - and consumers will have to decide which they want to patronize. The horror.

 

[AVG-JOE]

The debate over whether insurance companies "should" cover birth control or not, specifically whether it would be cost effective or not, seems to me completely irrelevant. The way to find out for sure is for insurance companies and consumers to try the approach they think is best. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

The dumb thing to do would be to dictate one policy through an authoritarian mandate. If we do that we'll never really know whether covering birth control is a good strategy or not. Going with that approach, there is the chance that we may naver come to a firm conclusion. Some companies might cover it, while others might not - and consumers will have to decide which they want to patronize. The horror.

Careful Brother... you're still ASS-U-ME-ing a free market place. In lieu of that we need minimum standards in the industry. Government enforced minimum standards.

I'm easy.... Untie health insurance from my employment and make it as easy to shop for as car insurance and by (insert your preferred Deity here) get government the hell out. Until then - minimum industry standards.

 

[Care4all]

The debate over whether insurance companies "should" cover birth control or not, specifically whether it would be cost effective or not, seems to me completely irrelevant. The way to find out for sure is for insurance companies and consumers to try the approach they think is best. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

The dumb thing to do would be to dictate one policy through an authoritarian mandate. If we do that we'll never really know whether covering birth control is a good strategy or not. Going with that approach, there is the chance that we may naver come to a firm conclusion. Some companies might cover it, while others might not - and consumers will have to decide which they want to patronize. The horror.

State gvts do it ALL the time and have been doing such for years....giving mandates to the insurance companies they license in their state.

if gvt was truly to get out of it, THAT MEANS they would no longer give the tax break/tax advantage to companies for covering employees with health insurance....betcha not many companies would fund it then....

 

[dblack]

The debate over whether insurance companies "should" cover birth control or not, specifically whether it would be cost effective or not, seems to me completely irrelevant. The way to find out for sure is for insurance companies and consumers to try the approach they think is best. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

The dumb thing to do would be to dictate one policy through an authoritarian mandate. If we do that we'll never really know whether covering birth control is a good strategy or not. Going with that approach, there is the chance that we may naver come to a firm conclusion. Some companies might cover it, while others might not - and consumers will have to decide which they want to patronize. The horror.

State gvts do it ALL the time and have been doing such for years....giving mandates to the insurance companies they license in their state.

if gvt was truly to get out of it, THAT MEANS they would no longer give the tax break/tax advantage to companies for covering employees with health insurance....betcha not many companies would fund it then....

Right. And if the hallowed "commerce clause" were being upheld earnestly (rather than as a flimsy excuse for corporatism) the Supremes would be coming down on the states that indulge in these practices.

 

[dblack]

Careful Brother... you're still ASS-U-ME-ing a free market place. In lieu of that we need minimum standards in the industry. Government enforced minimum standards.

I'm easy.... Untie health insurance from my employment and make it as easy to shop for as car insurance and by (insert your preferred Deity here) get government the hell out. Until then - minimum industry standards.

I'm not assuming freedom, but I am arguing for it. I just can't get behind the point of view that "well, we aren't going to be free, so we should at least have comfortable cells". I guess I'm not quite ready to give up yet.

 

[Care4all]

The debate over whether insurance companies "should" cover birth control or not, specifically whether it would be cost effective or not, seems to me completely irrelevant. The way to find out for sure is for insurance companies and consumers to try the approach they think is best. Then we'll see what works and what doesn't.

The dumb thing to do would be to dictate one policy through an authoritarian mandate. If we do that we'll never really know whether covering birth control is a good strategy or not. Going with that approach, there is the chance that we may naver come to a firm conclusion. Some companies might cover it, while others might not - and consumers will have to decide which they want to patronize. The horror.

State gvts do it ALL the time and have been doing such for years....giving mandates to the insurance companies they license in their state.

if gvt was truly to get out of it, THAT MEANS they would no longer give the tax break/tax advantage to companies for covering employees with health insurance....betcha not many companies would fund it then....

Right. And if the hallowed "commerce clause" were being upheld earnestly (rather than as a flimsy excuse for corporatism) the Supremes would be coming down on the states that indulge in these practices.

all states do though dblack....all states have mandated certain types of coverage from insurance corps operating within their states....not certain on the cases that were brought against them or any rulings from the suits....?

 

[dblack]

State gvts do it ALL the time and have been doing such for years....giving mandates to the insurance companies they license in their state.

if gvt was truly to get out of it, THAT MEANS they would no longer give the tax break/tax advantage to companies for covering employees with health insurance....betcha not many companies would fund it then....

Right. And if the hallowed "commerce clause" were being upheld earnestly (rather than as a flimsy excuse for corporatism) the Supremes would be coming down on the states that indulge in these practices.

all states do though dblack....all states have mandated certain types of coverage from insurance corps operating within their states....not certain on the cases that were brought against them or any rulings from the suits....?

Yep. Not sure what your point is. That's the heart of the problem. Answering it with a federal mandate only consolidates the mistakes of the states and makes it worse.

 

[Care4all]

Right. And if the hallowed "commerce clause" were being upheld earnestly (rather than as a flimsy excuse for corporatism) the Supremes would be coming down on the states that indulge in these practices.

all states do though dblack....all states have mandated certain types of coverage from insurance corps operating within their states....not certain on the cases that were brought against them or any rulings from the suits....?

Yep. Not sure what your point is. That's the heart to of the problem. Answering it with a federal mandate only consolidates the mistakes of the states and makes it worse.

i'm not sure it is a mistake....i'm not sure we should let the insurance companies not cover prenatal care, or not cover wellness visits once a year in full, or not cover mammograms once a year for those over 50.... i'm not sure that we should give insurance companies the free reign over things like that....insurance was NOT covering them, this hurt us, the customer...

if we all had to buy our own individual insurance and no group policies through employers, then maybe the free market would work....or if there were no insurance companies as middle men, the free market could work, in keeping prices down, but even then, it is doubtful....it's not like paying for your internal injuries after a car accident is the same as choosing or choosing not, to buy a widget.

plus, the thought that anybody could open a hospital, without any regulation or expectations of this business calling itself a hospital, is frightening.

 

[dblack]

i'm not sure it is a mistake....i'm not sure we should let the insurance companies not cover prenatal care, or not cover wellness visits once a year in full, or not cover mammograms once a year for those over 50.... i'm not sure that we should give insurance companies the free reign over things like that....insurance was NOT covering them, this hurt us, the customer...

if we all had to buy our own individual insurance and no group policies through employers, then maybe the free market would work....or if there were no insurance companies as middle men, the free market could work, in keeping prices down, but even then, it is doubtful....it's not like paying for your internal injuries after a car accident is the same as choosing or choosing not, to buy a widget.

plus, the thought that anybody could open a hospital, without any regulation or expectations of this business calling itself a hospital, is frightening.

Yeah.. I get it. Freedom is scary. Better to have authority taking care of us.

Sorry. Minus the sarcasm, I don't buy it. This is what I was talking about. I don't want caretaker government second guessing my personal decisions.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And?

The question is simple, how many of them can't afford free or subsidized birth control through Planned Parenthood or Medicaid? Numbers please, and no BS about not wanting to look them up. You are making the claims, back them up.

As I already pointed out, if it made half as much sense as you think insurance companies would already be doing it. They actually have whole departments of people that assess risk and cost to save them as much money as possible. Do you think the fact that it is not universally covered indicates anything at all?

If your insurance plan covers BC pills, I say that one would be more likely to use them despite BC pills being free via Planned Parenthood. If it's covered by insurance, it's an easy phone call and trip to the pharmacy. Obtaining through planned parenthood takes effort, papers, ect, which is a deterrent to obtaining BC pills. To what degree it is a deterrent, I don't know.

I just believe that if the plan covers it, you'll be more likely to use it regardless if you can afford it otherwise, or can get it free somewhere else. That's my belief, and you may disagree and that's fine.

Also, insurance companies generally work with companies to "come up" with a benefits plan. Insurance companies will cover virtually anything the company needs it to cover. From my understanding about 1/3 of insurance plans include the pill, which of course is not the majority.

But is everything that's asked to be included by the company as a "benefit" always determined in the interest of cost saving?

I don't think so.

Take for instance companies that cover Viagra. I can't think of any cost saving measures there. Therefore Viagra was chosen due to some other motivating force.

But anyways....

Sorry too, don't feel like looking up anything anymore.....

Still can't answer the question, despite multiple attempts to deflect.

If some idiot wants to pay for prescription drug coverage, despite the fact that, unless you are using massive amounts of really expensive prescription drugs, you are better off paying out of pocket, and he can find an insurance company that is willing to cover routine expenses while padding its profit margin, I don't give a flying fuck. What I object to is the government mandating that insurance companies cover things that most people don't want.

Unless you can provide numbers to back up your assertion, which you have spectacularly failed to accomplish, there is no sense you trying to argue with me. I am willing to bet you right now that, even after the mandate is in force, if it stands up to court challenges, that pregnancies will occur at exactly the same rate. There will be no reduction in costs associated with the mandate, and the price of contraceptives will actually increase.

Care to debate me with numbers?

 

[Care4all]

i'm not sure it is a mistake....i'm not sure we should let the insurance companies not cover prenatal care, or not cover wellness visits once a year in full, or not cover mammograms once a year for those over 50.... i'm not sure that we should give insurance companies the free reign over things like that....insurance was NOT covering them, this hurt us, the customer...

if we all had to buy our own individual insurance and no group policies through employers, then maybe the free market would work....or if there were no insurance companies as middle men, the free market could work, in keeping prices down, but even then, it is doubtful....it's not like paying for your internal injuries after a car accident is the same as choosing or choosing not, to buy a widget.

plus, the thought that anybody could open a hospital, without any regulation or expectations of this business calling itself a hospital, is frightening.

Yeah.. I get it. Freedom is scary. Better to have authority taking care of us.

Sorry. Minus the sarcasm, I don't buy it. This is what I was talking about. I don't want caretaker government second guessing my personal decisions.

I don't think having mammograms covered or prenatal care covered or a physical covered, * or cancer drugs covered is second guessing your decisions so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

 

[dblack]

I don't think having mammograms covered or prenatal care covered or a physical covered is second guessing your decisions so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree is what I would prefer. Your position demands otherwise.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

all states do though dblack....all states have mandated certain types of coverage from insurance corps operating within their states....not certain on the cases that were brought against them or any rulings from the suits....?

Yep. Not sure what your point is. That's the heart to of the problem. Answering it with a federal mandate only consolidates the mistakes of the states and makes it worse.

i'm not sure it is a mistake....i'm not sure we should let the insurance companies not cover prenatal care, or not cover wellness visits once a year in full, or not cover mammograms once a year for those over 50.... i'm not sure that we should give insurance companies the free reign over things like that....insurance was NOT covering them, this hurt us, the customer...

if we all had to buy our own individual insurance and no group policies through employers, then maybe the free market would work....or if there were no insurance companies as middle men, the free market could work, in keeping prices down, but even then, it is doubtful....it's not like paying for your internal injuries after a car accident is the same as choosing or choosing not, to buy a widget.

plus, the thought that anybody could open a hospital, without any regulation or expectations of this business calling itself a hospital, is frightening.

You do know that prenatal care was pretty much non existent 50 years ago, don't you? The reason insurance didn't cover prenatal care as late as 20 years ago is that, for the most part, insurance only covered major expenses then, not routine care. When market studies proved it made sense to cover routine prenatal care because it resulted in healthier mothers and children. States started mandating it right after companies started including it, mostly because larger insurers lobbied for it to reduce competition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I don't think having mammograms covered or prenatal care covered or a physical covered is second guessing your decisions so I guess we will have to agree to disagree.

Agreeing to disagree is what I would prefer. Your position demands otherwise.

That is the part they don't get.

 

[Care4all]

Yep. Not sure what your point is. That's the heart to of the problem. Answering it with a federal mandate only consolidates the mistakes of the states and makes it worse.

i'm not sure it is a mistake....i'm not sure we should let the insurance companies not cover prenatal care, or not cover wellness visits once a year in full, or not cover mammograms once a year for those over 50.... i'm not sure that we should give insurance companies the free reign over things like that....insurance was NOT covering them, this hurt us, the customer...

if we all had to buy our own individual insurance and no group policies through employers, then maybe the free market would work....or if there were no insurance companies as middle men, the free market could work, in keeping prices down, but even then, it is doubtful....it's not like paying for your internal injuries after a car accident is the same as choosing or choosing not, to buy a widget.

plus, the thought that anybody could open a hospital, without any regulation or expectations of this business calling itself a hospital, is frightening.

You do know that prenatal care was pretty much non existent 50 years ago, don't you? The reason insurance didn't cover prenatal care as late as 20 years ago is that, for the most part, insurance only covered major expenses then, not routine care. When market studies proved it made sense to cover routine prenatal care because it resulted in healthier mothers and children. States started mandating it right after companies started including it, mostly because larger insurers lobbied for it to reduce competition.

I'm guessing it was not happening fast enough...and this is why the States got involved....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i'm not sure it is a mistake....i'm not sure we should let the insurance companies not cover prenatal care, or not cover wellness visits once a year in full, or not cover mammograms once a year for those over 50.... i'm not sure that we should give insurance companies the free reign over things like that....insurance was NOT covering them, this hurt us, the customer...

if we all had to buy our own individual insurance and no group policies through employers, then maybe the free market would work....or if there were no insurance companies as middle men, the free market could work, in keeping prices down, but even then, it is doubtful....it's not like paying for your internal injuries after a car accident is the same as choosing or choosing not, to buy a widget.

plus, the thought that anybody could open a hospital, without any regulation or expectations of this business calling itself a hospital, is frightening.

You do know that prenatal care was pretty much non existent 50 years ago, don't you? The reason insurance didn't cover prenatal care as late as 20 years ago is that, for the most part, insurance only covered major expenses then, not routine care. When market studies proved it made sense to cover routine prenatal care because it resulted in healthier mothers and children. States started mandating it right after companies started including it, mostly because larger insurers lobbied for it to reduce competition.

I'm guessing it was not happening fast enough...and this is why the States got involved....

I'm guessing you should read more.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Careful Brother... you're still ASS-U-ME-ing a free market place. In lieu of that we need minimum standards in the industry. Government enforced minimum standards.

I'm easy.... Untie health insurance from my employment and make it as easy to shop for as car insurance and by (insert your preferred Deity here) get government the hell out. Until then - minimum industry standards.

I'm not assuming freedom, but I am arguing for it. I just can't get behind the point of view that "well, we aren't going to be free, so we should at least have comfortable cells". I guess I'm not quite ready to give up yet.

Seems to me that if we both keep writing, there's hope for humanity, eh?

 

[dblack]

Seems to me that if we both keep writing, there's hope for humanity, eh?

If only....

Farts in the wind, friend.

 

[starcraftzzz]

If some idiot wants to pay for prescription drug coverage, despite the fact that, unless you are using massive amounts of really expensive prescription drugs,

Meaning pretty much every one who buys prescription drugs

you are better off paying out of pocket,

So you are better off paying more... dumbass

. What I object to is the government mandating that insurance companies cover things that most people don't want.

So basically you object to the government mandating that insurance companies actually providing decent health care because I guess you think shitty health care is good. By the way around 90% of women use birth control, so like always you're wrong.

Unless you can provide numbers to back up your assertion,

$40 birthcontrl <abortion. $40 birth control<birth/child is that math to hard?

. When market studies proved it made sense to cover routine prenatal care because it resulted in healthier mothers and children. States started mandating it right after companies started including it, mostly because larger insurers lobbied for it to reduce competition.

So why do you oppose the government doing things that make us healthier, save lives and save money?

 

[Care4all]

You do know that prenatal care was pretty much non existent 50 years ago, don't you? The reason insurance didn't cover prenatal care as late as 20 years ago is that, for the most part, insurance only covered major expenses then, not routine care. When market studies proved it made sense to cover routine prenatal care because it resulted in healthier mothers and children. States started mandating it right after companies started including it, mostly because larger insurers lobbied for it to reduce competition.

I'm guessing it was not happening fast enough...and this is why the States got involved....

I'm guessing you should read more.

give me a link that supports what you have said, and i would be very glad to read it!