Government Involvement in Health Insurance & Mandated Minimum Standards

[Quantum Windbag]

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


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?

Oh, the brain dead facilitated communicator is following me around, I feel special.

Do I oppose the things the government does that are "good" for us? Yes, and will continue to do so until they kill me for my own good.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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!

Supports which part? Rent seeking is a tired and true part of insurance, and you are unwittingly supporting insurance companies by insisting they do what they want to do anyway, make money.

Rent-Seeking
Even if you are not familiar with the term “rent-seeking,” you are likely familiar with its effects. Rent-seeking is the process by which businesses seek profits by making investments in the political process. A business might invest in lobbying or political contributions or some sort of quid pro quo concession in return for laws blocking competitors, mandating their product’s use or providing direct subsidies. In some industries, the return on these political investments dwarf other potential investments in the core business. For example, in the ethanol business, it is almost inconceivable that there is any investment in plant or equipment whose return matches that from the political investment that has provided the industry a combination of direct subsidies, mandated use, and protection from foreign competitors.
In the health care field, the Holy Grail of rent-seeking is to get one’s medical device, drug, or procedure added to state health insurance mandates. Before Obamacare, health care insurance regulation had been a state function, and each state had written laws mandating that all health insurance policies written in the state must cover certain services. By getting one’s particular service added to such a mandate, the service essentially becomes “free” to consumers in that state (of course it’s not free — everyone pays in the form of higher premiums, but the marginal price for the service goes to zero).
Imagine you have a procedure — let’s use laser elimination of birthmarks as an example. This procedures requires a series of treatments using a fairly expensive piece of equipment to produce results that are of enormous value to a few people with extensive birthmarks, and of smaller value to many other people with smaller birthmarks. Business growth in such a field is typically good at first as those who most value the procedure pay for it. But it can be hard to grow outside of a relatively small niche, as most potential customers may consider it to be an expensive elective cosmetic procedure that, given other uses for their money, they can do without. What can an aspiring dermatologic surgeon do? Run to the government!
In 1997, the University of Indiana conducted a study of the laser treatment of these birthmarks. I don’t know who funded the study, but tellingly the study findings did not really touch on the efficacy of the treatment or its risks. The study surveyed a number of dermatologic surgeons. What was its primary finding? ”Based on current health care policy guidelines, laser treatment of port-wine stains should be regarded, and covered, as a medical necessity by all insurance providers.” In other words, the sole purpose of this research was to convince legislators to add this procedure to their state’s insurance mandates. To date, this procedure has been added to the must-carry list in only two states, but in those two states doctors no longer have to convince price-sensitive patients that this elective procedure is worth the cost – after all, its free!

The Looming Failure of Obamacare, Part 3: Rent-Seeking - Forbes

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

That's a fair and reasonable thing to ask for. If I find some motivation in my workday to do some research I will.

However, wouldn't it be fair to ask you to provide some evidence backing your claim as well (that BC coverage doesn't reduce pregnancies)?

Note, I'm not a 'mandate' guy either, I just hold the belief that a mandate will reduce costs because it will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

That's a fair and reasonable thing to ask for. If I find some motivation in my workday to do some research I will.

However, wouldn't it be fair to ask you to provide some evidence backing your claim as well (that BC coverage doesn't reduce pregnancies)?

Note, I'm not a 'mandate' guy either, I just hold the belief that a mandate will reduce costs because it will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Which is why I asked you to post numbers. You find something to back up your assertion that there is a significant group of women who want birth control but can't afford it and I will trot out the numbers from the federal government, which has covered birth control for years, to prove they get pregnant at the same rate as their peers without insurance coverage.

 

[KevinWestern]

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?

That's a fair and reasonable thing to ask for. If I find some motivation in my workday to do some research I will.

However, wouldn't it be fair to ask you to provide some evidence backing your claim as well (that BC coverage doesn't reduce pregnancies)?

Note, I'm not a 'mandate' guy either, I just hold the belief that a mandate will reduce costs because it will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Which is why I asked you to post numbers. You find something to back up your assertion that there is a significant group of women who want birth control but can't afford it and I will trot out the numbers from the federal government, which has covered birth control for years, to prove they get pregnant at the same rate as their peers without insurance coverage.

I disagree....

I think the only thing I need to prove is that (1) when BC pills are covered by insurance, (2) Unplanned pregnancies are less than if BC pills were not covered.

Also of course, I'd need to show that this reduces costs, overall, too.

 

[Flopper]

So much of what the government mandates is already being done. Most group health insurance covers birth control now. In 28 states ,it's required by law. For the few plans that do not cover it or require a copay, the cost increase would be very small and probably would not even effect premiums at all. Oral contraceptives are only about .1% of our healthcare cost. Even those small costs are offset by reducing the cost of pregnancy.

This seems to be an ideological issue of interest to the catholic bishops who simply oppose all birth control and the Obama opponents who oppose it because they oppose Obama. Since 98% of women use birth control, including Catholics, and most of the public think it should be covered under insurance with no copay, this will soon be dead issue.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's a fair and reasonable thing to ask for. If I find some motivation in my workday to do some research I will.

However, wouldn't it be fair to ask you to provide some evidence backing your claim as well (that BC coverage doesn't reduce pregnancies)?

Note, I'm not a 'mandate' guy either, I just hold the belief that a mandate will reduce costs because it will reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Which is why I asked you to post numbers. You find something to back up your assertion that there is a significant group of women who want birth control but can't afford it and I will trot out the numbers from the federal government, which has covered birth control for years, to prove they get pregnant at the same rate as their peers without insurance coverage.

I disagree....

I think the only thing I need to prove is that (1) when BC pills are covered by insurance, (2) Unplanned pregnancies are less than if BC pills were not covered.

Also of course, I'd need to show that this reduces costs, overall, too.

I can save you a lot of trouble if you think that is all you have to prove, the CDC did a study on the reasons for unplanned pregnancies and lack of birth control did not even make the list.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So much of what the government mandates is already being done. Most group health insurance covers birth control now. In 28 states ,it's required by law. For the few plans that do not cover it or require a copay, the cost increase would be very small and probably would not even effect premiums at all. Oral contraceptives are only about .1% of our healthcare cost. Even those small costs are offset by reducing the cost of pregnancy.

This seems to be an ideological issue of interest to the catholic bishops who simply oppose all birth control and the Obama opponents who oppose it because they oppose Obama. Since 98% of women use birth control, including Catholics, and most of the public think it should be covered under insurance with no copay, this will soon be dead issue.

The states that require it to be covered require it only if the policy covers prescription drugs, they all allow a copay, and none of them require it as part of a basic policy. That makes you a liar.