Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[Care4all]

I'm not sure why there's a preoccupation with being forced to buy someone else's birth control. Isn't being forced to buy a product you don't want egregious enough? Why should government be able to tell my what kind of insurance I can by, or that I MUST buy it?

I'm with you on the overall "mandate", but as far as the government regulating a business and what they can or can not offer, that's been the case for over a century or 2.

 

[Rockhard10]

The fact of the matter is despite having the highest cost,per person,for health care,we have only the 35th highest life expectancy.Those countries above the U.S in longevity of life,all pay considerably less than the average American.Many factors play into this,not just the quality of care,which,in my opinion,is reasonably high in America,but also in the level of stress,and the non access to the best care.Health care is treated as a commodity in the United States,to be profited from.In the European model,ones health has come to be considered a right of man.The fact that even if we were at the lowest of unemployment levels,we would still have millions of people unemployed,leave this concern about ones health,the highest priority,as well it should be.However,the intendant stress,of knowing your care will be rationed and of the bare minimum quality,takes a great toll on the less fortunate,and it simply does not have to be that way.The European health care system had nothing to do with the global recession,and their economic problems,on the contrary,were eased considerably by their health care system,where the lose of millions of jobs,did not mean the lose of access to quality care,as it did in the United States.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure why there's a preoccupation with being forced to buy someone else's birth control. Isn't being forced to buy a product you don't want egregious enough? Why should government be able to tell my what kind of insurance I can by, or that I MUST buy it?

I'm with you on the overall "mandate", but as far as the government regulating a business and what they can or can not offer, that's been the case for over a century or 2.

Yeah... the broad interpretation of commerce clause as been the trojan horse for authoritarian federal government. The irony is, a sane reading of the commerce clause could, and should, be used to address the health insurance problem - but striking down state laws prohibiting interstate insurance purchases. Instead we use it as a lame excuse to let the feds micromanage business.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's like saying once you put your money in the bank it belongs to the bank until it's used to pay a draft order for someone.

Does sharing a bank with one make you a meth dealer?

No it isn't. When you but your money into a bank it is done with the understanding that you can demand it back at any time, once you pay the insurance company the money is theirs, and you can never get it back. If, by some misfortune, you get sick and need them to pay, they do so, but they do it with their money. If you never get sick you never see the money again. Ever.

Okay.

So, the argument of others, and even you I believe, that YOU are being forced to pay for the birth control pills of others falls FLAT, does it not?

No one on the Insurance plan policy is paying for anyone elses medications or health care needs, correct?

Not even the church who pays for a portion of the health care insurance for their employees as part of their employee compensation, are paying for those birth control pills or vasectomies or Viagra or tubal ligation or treatment for venereal disease of others, correct?

I am not arguing I am being forced to pay for other people's birth control. I am arguing that I should not be forced to buy birth control pills at all. Period. I do not need them, do not want them, have no conceivable use for them, and have no desire to collect female hormones just because they are available.

Also, no one who provides health insurance should be forced by the government to sell a one size fits all policy. Do you enjoy paying for alcohol and drug treatment you do not use? Are you aware that, under most state laws, you can take a vacation from life and check yourself into a rehab unit for a few days? You already paid for it through your health insurance plan, you should take advantage of it. Unless, like most people, you have no desire to lock yourself up in a place where, at best, you will be treated like a criminal. But you still paid for it, and can go more than once if you want.

I also object to any politician who uses the word free when he describes something that cost money. By saying it is free, Obama is actually saying other people have to pay for it. Notice that he is not saying that the people who want it have to pay for it, because they get it free. Additionally, since it is not coming out of taxes, it is not a legitiemate function of the government. I object strongly to the government forcing people to directly spend money on things that benefit others. If they want to force people to spend money on things they should do it the old fashioned way, tax the fuck out of everyone and keep half of it for themselves, then give away whatever it is that they want to say is free.

That works for schools and wars, it will work for birth control.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

opinion,not shared by the vast majority of legal scholars

Idiot, unanimous opinion.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure why there's a preoccupation with being forced to buy someone else's birth control. Isn't being forced to buy a product you don't want egregious enough? Why should government be able to tell my what kind of insurance I can by, or that I MUST buy it?

Because they can, apparently.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure why there's a preoccupation with being forced to buy someone else's birth control. Isn't being forced to buy a product you don't want egregious enough? Why should government be able to tell my what kind of insurance I can by, or that I MUST buy it?

I'm with you on the overall "mandate", but as far as the government regulating a business and what they can or can not offer, that's been the case for over a century or 2.

Even if that was true, and it isn't, it doesn't justify them doing it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The fact of the matter is despite having the highest cost,per person,for health care,we have only the 35th highest life expectancy.Those countries above the U.S in longevity of life,all pay considerably less than the average American.Many factors play into this,not just the quality of care,which,in my opinion,is reasonably high in America,but also in the level of stress,and the non access to the best care.Health care is treated as a commodity in the United States,to be profited from.In the European model,ones health has come to be considered a right of man.The fact that even if we were at the lowest of unemployment levels,we would still have millions of people unemployed,leave this concern about ones health,the highest priority,as well it should be.However,the intendant stress,of knowing your care will be rationed and of the bare minimum quality,takes a great toll on the less fortunate,and it simply does not have to be that way.The European health care system had nothing to do with the global recession,and their economic problems,on the contrary,were eased considerably by their health care system,where the lose of millions of jobs,did not mean the lose of access to quality care,as it did in the United States.

The fact is that, despite having a lower life expectancy, the quality of care here is higher. I know people who tell horror stories about the way hospitals treat them in Israel, despite the life expectancy there. Illegal immigrants in the most prejudiced hospitals in those country get better treatment than politically connected people over there. Maybe you should do some basic research before you start asking for cheaper medical care. I also bet you are one of the idiots that think we need to spend more on education.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Get "taxes" out of your mind for this discussion - we are talking about the relationship between the consumers of private health care coverage and those who provide that service.

My health care dollars going in to a fund today to help cover costs of my health care needs down the road. It's a simple transaction that needs strict government controls or wide open competition, 'cause the bullshit we have now ain't working.

I was addressing a specific question addressed to me. If you bothered to read the question I responded to you wouldn't end up looking like an idiot, especially after I just got through explaining to another poster that making me buy insurance from a private company is not a tax.

Fair enough, and no bother at all... I was simply responding to specific public posts on a message board to make a general point in the overall discussion. That's kind of what I DO here.

now this is precious.

 

[Political Junky]

Can you show me a single argument in favor of the mandate that is not politics?


Charles Fried is a pretentious idiot with a degree.

the Oddball Dude attacks PBS, and you attack Prof. Fried.



tell your debate coach a refund is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't attack Fried because I disagree with him. I actually agree with him, the arguments against the mandate are all politically motivated, so are the arguments in favor of it. Pointing out that the arguments against it are political while ignoring that the arguments that support it are also political makes him pretentious.

Some of the arguments, both for and against, are well grounded in legal theory. The fact that Fried rejects all the arguments against, and then fails to make a good argument for that is actually well grounded in legal theory, makes him an idiot.

He also happens to have a degree. That makes him a pretentious idiot with a degree.

By the way, in case you missed it, I just agreed with you, again. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you makes you a lot more akin to Oddball when he just posts to disagree with someone than you might like. The difference is, his arguments are rooted in his principles and beliefs, yours are just rooted in your constant attempts to troll the board. I think that makes him better than you.

You do know that a mandate was a conservative idea, until they turned against it?

 

[Oddball]

You do know that a mandate was a conservative idea, until they turned against it?

As if we needed any more evidence that the left is so completely devoid of ideas of their own, that they have to start stealing stupid ideas from their reputed opponents?

In any case it's a stupid idea, no matter who came up with it first.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

the Oddball Dude attacks PBS, and you attack Prof. Fried.



tell your debate coach a refund is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't attack Fried because I disagree with him. I actually agree with him, the arguments against the mandate are all politically motivated, so are the arguments in favor of it. Pointing out that the arguments against it are political while ignoring that the arguments that support it are also political makes him pretentious.

Some of the arguments, both for and against, are well grounded in legal theory. The fact that Fried rejects all the arguments against, and then fails to make a good argument for that is actually well grounded in legal theory, makes him an idiot.

He also happens to have a degree. That makes him a pretentious idiot with a degree.

By the way, in case you missed it, I just agreed with you, again. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you makes you a lot more akin to Oddball when he just posts to disagree with someone than you might like. The difference is, his arguments are rooted in his principles and beliefs, yours are just rooted in your constant attempts to troll the board. I think that makes him better than you.

You do know that a mandate was a conservative idea, until they turned against it?

of course she/he/it does.

facts mean crap to a Quantum Douchebagh

 

[Quantum Windbag]

the Oddball Dude attacks PBS, and you attack Prof. Fried.



tell your debate coach a refund is in order.
---------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't attack Fried because I disagree with him. I actually agree with him, the arguments against the mandate are all politically motivated, so are the arguments in favor of it. Pointing out that the arguments against it are political while ignoring that the arguments that support it are also political makes him pretentious.

Some of the arguments, both for and against, are well grounded in legal theory. The fact that Fried rejects all the arguments against, and then fails to make a good argument for that is actually well grounded in legal theory, makes him an idiot.

He also happens to have a degree. That makes him a pretentious idiot with a degree.

By the way, in case you missed it, I just agreed with you, again. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you makes you a lot more akin to Oddball when he just posts to disagree with someone than you might like. The difference is, his arguments are rooted in his principles and beliefs, yours are just rooted in your constant attempts to troll the board. I think that makes him better than you.

You do know that a mandate was a conservative idea, until they turned against it?

First, the conservative mandate was quite a bit different than the Obama mandate. Second, even that mandate wasn't my idea, nor did I support it at the time.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't attack Fried because I disagree with him. I actually agree with him, the arguments against the mandate are all politically motivated, so are the arguments in favor of it. Pointing out that the arguments against it are political while ignoring that the arguments that support it are also political makes him pretentious.

Some of the arguments, both for and against, are well grounded in legal theory. The fact that Fried rejects all the arguments against, and then fails to make a good argument for that is actually well grounded in legal theory, makes him an idiot.

He also happens to have a degree. That makes him a pretentious idiot with a degree.

By the way, in case you missed it, I just agreed with you, again. The fact that I actually have to explain that to you makes you a lot more akin to Oddball when he just posts to disagree with someone than you might like. The difference is, his arguments are rooted in his principles and beliefs, yours are just rooted in your constant attempts to troll the board. I think that makes him better than you.

You do know that a mandate was a conservative idea, until they turned against it?

of course she/he/it does.

facts mean crap to a Quantum Douchebagh

Do you have some type of evidence I ever supported that mandate? I was young, and foolish, back then, but I wasn't stupid.

 

[auditor0007]

Unconstitutional

Not the point I want to argue - see post #2.

Give me a truly free market for health coverage or give me minimum standards and controlled prices, enforced by a government beholding to the consumers.

Something has to give. The health insurance lobby has made its bed and needs to be turned on its ear or via open competition regardless of employment, or highly regulated and controlled.

The only other method that makes any sense is a single payer option run like Social Security, with claims paid based on a list of rules that everyone has access to.

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?

So you don't want any of your premiums going to a woman who may or may not choose to have birth control included in her insurance policy, but you will gladly pay for the increased premiums caused by that same woman having a child, or having a child prematurely who will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Okay then. My youngest son was born ten weeks early. His bills came close to $300,000 as he was in NICU for 47 days. This was almost 15 years ago. I don't even want to think how much it would cost today.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not the point I want to argue - see post #2.

Give me a truly free market for health coverage or give me minimum standards and controlled prices, enforced by a government beholding to the consumers.

Something has to give. The health insurance lobby has made its bed and needs to be turned on its ear or via open competition regardless of employment, or highly regulated and controlled.

The only other method that makes any sense is a single payer option run like Social Security, with claims paid based on a list of rules that everyone has access to.

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?

So you don't want any of your premiums going to a woman who may or may not choose to have birth control included in her insurance policy, but you will gladly pay for the increased premiums caused by that same woman having a child, or having a child prematurely who will require hundreds of thousands of dollars of care? Okay then. My youngest son was born ten weeks early. His bills came close to $300,000 as he was in NICU for 47 days. This was almost 15 years ago. I don't even want to think how much it would cost today.

Another nut that thinks the government should sterilize people.

 

[chanel]

Section 1302 of PPACA requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to regulate the essential health benefits that must be offered by all carrier participants in the state health insurance exchanges. PPACA defines essential health benefits by the following categories:

• Ambulatory patient services;
• Emergency services;
• Hospitalization;
• Maternity and newborn care;
• Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment;
• Prescription drugs;
• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices;
• Laboratory services;
• Preventive and wellness services;
• Chronic disease management; and
• Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

All health insurance policies must, at a minimum, provide these health benefits to be certified and offered in the proposed state health insurance exchanges. All Medicaid state plans must cover these services by 2014.

IOM Final Recommendations for PPACA

Wow. I had no idea. While this may be terrific for people with high prescription costs, how much will this raise premiums?

 

[Care4all]

Section 1302 of PPACA requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to regulate the essential health benefits that must be offered by all carrier participants in the state health insurance exchanges. PPACA defines essential health benefits by the following categories:

• Ambulatory patient services;
• Emergency services;
• Hospitalization;
• Maternity and newborn care;
• Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment;
• Prescription drugs;
• Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices;
• Laboratory services;
• Preventive and wellness services;
• Chronic disease management; and
• Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.

All health insurance policies must, at a minimum, provide these health benefits to be certified and offered in the proposed state health insurance exchanges. All Medicaid state plans must cover these services by 2014.

IOM Final Recommendations for PPACA

Wow. I had no idea. While this may be terrific for people with high prescription costs, how much will this raise premiums?

does your state have minimum standards of coverage regulated now, for the insurance companies operating in your State? I think all States do, but I am not certain on that....?

 

[chanel]

Probably care. I live in NJ - one the most highly regulated states in the country. But I do know that many employers offer separate policies for prescriptions, vision, and dental - usually paid for by the employee. My "Cadillac" plan does not even cover all that. I just wish ALL the details of benefits and costs were available now. It seems every day a new mandate is discovered.

 

[Lovebears65]

Unconstitutional

Not the point I want to argue - see post #2.

Give me a truly free market for health coverage or give me minimum standards and controlled prices, enforced by a government beholding to the consumers.

Something has to give. The health insurance lobby has made its bed and needs to be turned on its ear or via open competition regardless of employment, or highly regulated and controlled.

The only other method that makes any sense is a single payer option run like Social Security, with claims paid based on a list of rules that everyone has access to.

Why am I expected to pay for something I will not use? I don't want to pay for birth control if I don't use it... regardless of whether someone else does... if they want it, they can choose to pay for it. Why is the Government forcing insurance companies to only provide coverage that includes birth control? If I don't want birth control, why do I have to pay for it?

Healthcare law also will make you for heroin addiction for rehab..