Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost

[Supposn]

Some thing’s are improving. Excerpts from a NY Times article:

Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost
By ROBERT PEAR, Published: July 14, 2010

WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care.
. . . The new requirements promise significant benefits for consumers — if they take advantage of the services that should now be more readily available and affordable.
. . . In general, the government said, Americans use preventive services at about half the rate recommended by doctors and public health experts.
…………………… The rules stipulate that no co-payments can be charged for tests and screenings recommended by the United Ststes Preventive Services Task force, an independent panel of scientific experts.
………………….. The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That means I will end up paying for more stuff I don't want or need. That will definitely drive the cost of health care up, not down.

 

[boedicca]

Of course it will. And just so we all know who is going to administer this Obamanation:

The man in his own words:

"I cannot believe that the individual health care consumer can enforce through choice the proper configurations of a system as massive and complex as health care. That is for leaders to do."

"You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach."

"Please don't put your faith in market forces. It's a popular idea: that Adam Smith's invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can."

"Indeed, the Holy Grail of universal coverage in the United States may remain out of reach unless, through rational collective action overriding some individual self-interest, we can reduce per capita costs."

"It may therefore be necessary to set a legislative target for the growth of spending at 1.5 percentage points below currently projected increases and to grant the federal government the authority to reduce updates in Medicare fees if the target is exceeded."

"About 8% of GDP is plenty for 'best known' care."

"A progressive policy regime will control and rationalize financing—control supply."

"The unaided human mind, and the acts of the individual, cannot assure excellence. Health care is a system, and its performance is a systemic property."...


Henninger: Berwick Recess Appointment Is Bigger Than Kagan - WSJ.com

 

[Mad Scientist]

That means I will end up paying for more stuff I don't want or need. That will definitely drive the cost of health care up, not down.

No it won't. Didn't you read the article? It will be free, meaning no one will pay for it! Jeez!

 

[2Parties]

"at no cost".

I love it. Absolutely nothing comes for no cost. Anywhere. For anything. For any reason.

 

[Big Fitz]

The first cut in the execution of the private health care industry.

And done by unconstitutional presidential fiat no less! How peachy is that shit?

 

[Greenbeard]

Of course it will. And just so we all know who is going to administer this Obamanation:

Berwick is the CMS administrator. This story is primarily about commercial insurance plans. Two different domains.

"at no cost".

I love it. Absolutely nothing comes for no cost. Anywhere. For anything. For any reason.

That means no cost-sharing at the point of care. If you're getting evidence-based preventive care, you won't be charged a copay or pay coinsurance. It's designed, obviously, to encourage people to take advantage of preventive care. It doesn't mean they're no longer paying premiums for their insurance.

The first cut in the execution of the private health care industry.

And done by unconstitutional presidential fiat no less! How peachy is that shit?

This provision is in the text of the law (SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES). Rulemaking is always done because legislation instructs the Secretary to do so in administering a given piece of a law, its not unconstitutional nor is it simply done on a whim.

 

[Big Fitz]

This provision is in the text of the law (SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES). Rulemaking is always done because legislation instructs the Secretary to do so in administering a given piece of a law, its not unconstitutional nor is it simply done on a whim.

Creating a tax of 1.5% on all private insurance is outside the power of the executive branch. The president does not have the direct power to tax. Congress must pass it.

 

[Oddball]

That means no cost-sharing at the point of care. If you're getting evidence-based preventive care, you won't be charged a copay or pay coinsurance. It's designed, obviously, to encourage people to take advantage of preventive care. It doesn't mean they're no longer paying premiums for their insurance.

Nice spin, comrade.

 

[Greenbeard]

Creating a tax of 1.5% on all private insurance is outside the power of the executive branch. The president does not have the direct power to tax. Congress must pass it.

...which they did. See the Affordable Care Act.

SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES.

`(a) In General- A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for--

`(1) evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of `A' or `B' in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force;
`(2) immunizations that have in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with respect to the individual involved; and
`(3) with respect to infants, children, and adolescents, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in the comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.
`(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
`(5) for the purposes of this Act, and for the purposes of any other provision of law, the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Service Task Force regarding breast cancer screening, mammography, and prevention shall be considered the most current other than those issued in or around November 2009.​

Honestly, has no one even looked at this thing? No wonder half the threads about it start with "another surprise in the reform law...".

 

[Pepe]

I now see that the state of public education is in far worse shape than I imagined.

"It's free" "It's free"

There are many truisms in life and one is "There is no free lunch."

Ignorance abounds throughout the Empire.

Sad

 

[Big Fitz]

Then not only is the executive branch violating the constitution, so is congress by passing a law that violates the constitution's separation of powers. Making it even MORE unconstitutional on top of the bill's very existence being unconstitutional.

You just can't get past that small fact, can you? You want this power, amend the constitution. Love the fight coming on it then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course it will. And just so we all know who is going to administer this Obamanation:

Berwick is the CMS administrator. This story is primarily about commercial insurance plans. Two different domains.

"at no cost".

I love it. Absolutely nothing comes for no cost. Anywhere. For anything. For any reason.

That means no cost-sharing at the point of care. If you're getting evidence-based preventive care, you won't be charged a copay or pay coinsurance. It's designed, obviously, to encourage people to take advantage of preventive care. It doesn't mean they're no longer paying premiums for their insurance.

The first cut in the execution of the private health care industry.

And done by unconstitutional presidential fiat no less! How peachy is that shit?

This provision is in the text of the law (SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES). Rulemaking is always done because legislation instructs the Secretary to do so in administering a given piece of a law, its not unconstitutional nor is it simply done on a whim.

Just how the fuck do you expect this to be paid for? Is the doctor going to pay for thses tests out of his pocket? No.

This requires insurers to provide this as part of their basic package, and prohibits them of cutting their costs by requiring copays. This will subsequently increase the costs of insurance, require everyone to get new insurance plans because their old ones will no longer be offered, thus exposing two lies about Obamacare in one swipe.

You are nothing more than a partisan hack if you refuse to acknowledge these lies and the negative impact of this. I dare you to stand up and be an adult, and admit the truth.

 

[hortysir]

Some thing’s are improving. Excerpts from a NY Times article:

Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost
By ROBERT PEAR, Published: July 14, 2010

WASHINGTON — The White House on Wednesday issued new rules requiring health insurance companies to provide free coverage for dozens of screenings, laboratory tests and other types of preventive care.
. . . The new requirements promise significant benefits for consumers — if they take advantage of the services that should now be more readily available and affordable.
. . . In general, the government said, Americans use preventive services at about half the rate recommended by doctors and public health experts.
…………………… The rules stipulate that no co-payments can be charged for tests and screenings recommended by the United Ststes Preventive Services Task force, an independent panel of scientific experts.
………………….. The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average.

That means no cost-sharing at the point of care. If you're getting evidence-based preventive care, you won't be charged a copay or pay coinsurance. It's designed, obviously, to encourage people to take advantage of preventive care. It doesn't mean they're no longer paying premiums for their insurance.

Soppson,
You're an idiot for believing that an increase in premiums equals "free".

Greenbeard,
You're a paid partisan hack.


You're both certifiable

 

[Care4all]

It is included in the monthly payment you make towards your insurance policy....insurance companies are collecting thousands of dollars a year from you and or your employer for your policy, even if you not once go to the doctor...

My insurance company does this already, it is not something NEW....at least not for us and not for most people that have insurance already...

My insurance covers wellness visits, (a physical) once a year, plus any tests that are pegged for a person's age group, without any copays or deductibles....and has been doing this for a few years now....so what's new?

 

[hortysir]

It is included in the monthly payment you make towards your insurance policy....insurance companies are collecting thousands of dollars a year from you and or your employer for your policy, even if you not once go to the doctor...

My insurance company does this already, it is not something NEW....at least not for us and not for most people that have insurance already...

My insurance covers wellness visits, (a physical) once a year, plus any tests that are pegged for a person's age group, without any copays or deductibles....and has been doing this for a few years now....so what's new?

Now the "government" gets to tell insurance companies to do this????
I don't know...

 

[Supposn]

[Soppson,
You're an idiot for believing that an increase in premiums equals "free".

Hortysir,
Do you suffer from attention disorder or make assumptions with insufficient thought or cause? Why would you write something as foolish as this? May I assume that in this case you weren't paying full attention to what you were reading?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Oddball]

It is included in the monthly payment you make towards your insurance policy....insurance companies are collecting thousands of dollars a year from you and or your employer for your policy, even if you not once go to the doctor...

My insurance company does this already, it is not something NEW....at least not for us and not for most people that have insurance already...

My insurance covers wellness visits, (a physical) once a year, plus any tests that are pegged for a person's age group, without any copays or deductibles....and has been doing this for a few years now....so what's new?

Insurance companies take in a lot of money for you auto insurance and pay out nothing if you don't have a wreck.

What you seem to be supporting here is being able to wreck your car whenever you want and not have to suffer increased premiums for doing so. Using the same model, you're also proposing that your auto insurance pick up the tab for oil changes and new tires.

Would you expect your auto policy to be relatively inexpensive under those circumstances?

 

[Supposn]

Just how the fuck do you expect this to be paid for? Is the doctor going to pay for thses tests out of his pocket? No.

This requires insurers to provide this as part of their basic package, and prohibits them of cutting their costs by requiring copays. This will subsequently increase the costs of insurance, require everyone to get new insurance plans because their old ones will no longer be offered, thus exposing two lies about Obamacare in one swipe.

You are nothing more than a partisan hack if you refuse to acknowledge these lies and the negative impact of this. I dare you to stand up and be an adult, and admit the truth.

Quantum Windbag,
Some of the more superior medical insurers do not charge co=payments for such preventive medical procedures because it results in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the incidental benefits due to preventing permanent physical harm or shorter life spans for some insured persons.

With reference to the NY Times article and less superior insurance policies, “The administration said the requirements could increase premiums by 1.5 percent, on average”.

Windbag, you may not believe that the lives of you and your family do not justify a 1.5% increase of your medical insurance expenses. I believe that the majority of Americans have a greater regard for themselves and their families. Many taxpayers object to any additional government expenses and debts due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for acceptably advisable standards of preventive medical procedures.

You may be an adult but your last message lacks adult logic.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Creating a tax of 1.5% on all private insurance is outside the power of the executive branch. The president does not have the direct power to tax. Congress must pass it.

Big Fitz,
The new regulations referred to in the NY Times article did not include or enact any additional tax.

Respectfully, Supposn