Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Weren't you complaining earlier about how your insurance coverage has increased by an exorbitant amount? Maybe if you were willing to pay out of pocket for some reasonable expenses it wouldn't have gone up so much. I bet I could find you a policy that does almost everything your old one does, except for not covering routine tests like this, and actually ends up costing you less overall, even though you have to pay more for your doctors visits.

 

[hortysir]

[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

Ummmmmm.....
YOUR thread. YOUR title:
Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost
See the "no cost" part I bolded for you?
My health insurance company gives my wife 1 free mammogram per year. They also provide free physicals, free labs, x-rays, etc......
It all depends on the plan you sign up under.
It's not free. Your premiums pay for it. The insurance company still pays the facility for their services.
Nothing new.
Nothing's free.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Is this the same administration that is still telling me that if I like my insurance I will be able to keep it, while simultaneously writing regulations that ensure that the policy I like is no longer offered by my insurer? Why should I believe their estimate when they are obviously lying to me?

BTW, I am single, have no plans to marry, and do not carry my adult children on my policy. I shopped long and hard to find the policy I have, that gives me exactly what I want, and no more. That average 1.5% increase, even if accurate, which I am willing to bet it is not, will end up costing me a lot more than that 1.5% out of my pocket in order to keep the costs down for the others.

In other words, I am one of the outliers that make statistics really interesting, as long as you don't have to actually deal with the costs yourself.

 

[Greenbeard]

See the "no cost" part I bolded for you?
[...]
It's not free. Your premiums pay for it. The insurance company still pays the facility for their services.
Nothing new.
Nothing's free.

To repeat: That means no cost-sharing at the point of care. Your point seems to be that since you're misinterpreting what this provision is or a news headline is sloppy, something sinister is going on here. Try and relax.

Is this the same administration that is still telling me that if I like my insurance I will be able to keep it, while simultaneously writing regulations that ensure that the policy I like is no longer offered by my insurer? Why should I believe their estimate when they are obviously lying to me?

You could start by reading the rule:

The requirements to cover recommended preventive services without any cost-sharing requirements do not apply to grandfathered health plans. [...]

As described in the Departments’ interim final regulations relating to status as a grandfathered health plan, the Affordable Care Act preserves the ability of individuals to retain coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which the individual was enrolled on March 23, 2010 (a grandfathered health plan). Group health plans, and group and individual health insurance coverage, that are grandfathered health plans do not have to meet the requirements of these interim final regulations. Therefore, only plans and issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage that are not grandfathered health plans will be affected by these interim final regulations.​

Nah, why bother. Just making things up is way easier.

 

[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

Ummmmmm.....
YOUR thread. YOUR title:
Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost
See the "no cost" part I bolded for you?
My health insurance company gives my wife 1 free mammogram per year. They also provide free physicals, free labs, x-rays, etc......
It all depends on the plan you sign up under.
It's not free. Your premiums pay for it. The insurance company still pays the facility for their services.
Nothing new.
Nothing's free.

Hortysir, apparently you do make assumptions with insufficient thought or cause.

The title of the thread is the title of the NY Times article. That title was written by the author, Robert Pear.

Actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all). I iterate that such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to preventing permanent physical harm or shorter life spans for some insured persons. There are additional benefits because taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for acceptably advisable standards of preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Windbag, if it pleases you to purchase less medical insurance at greater prices, I’m sure that with no great effort you’ll find an insurance broker that will be very pleased to satisfy your wishes.

I do not presume to tell you what is or isn’t the truth. Your message suggests you’re a person that always seeks out the worst and the false. I suppose that your life generally lives up to your expectations.

What’s an outlier? I’m no more or less truthful when I’m in my home or go out. If against all of your expectations I’m being truthful to you as I write this in my home, would you describe me as an in-truth-sayer? I don’t suppose that you believe that I’m truthful. In that case as I write this in my home you’d consider me as an in-liar?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Quantum Windbag]

See the "no cost" part I bolded for you?
[...]
It's not free. Your premiums pay for it. The insurance company still pays the facility for their services.
Nothing new.
Nothing's free.

To repeat: That means no cost-sharing at the point of care. Your point seems to be that since you're misinterpreting what this provision is or a news headline is sloppy, something sinister is going on here. Try and relax.

Is this the same administration that is still telling me that if I like my insurance I will be able to keep it, while simultaneously writing regulations that ensure that the policy I like is no longer offered by my insurer? Why should I believe their estimate when they are obviously lying to me?

You could start by reading the rule:

The requirements to cover recommended preventive services without any cost-sharing requirements do not apply to grandfathered health plans. [...]

As described in the Departments’ interim final regulations relating to status as a grandfathered health plan, the Affordable Care Act preserves the ability of individuals to retain coverage under a group health plan or health insurance coverage in which the individual was enrolled on March 23, 2010 (a grandfathered health plan). Group health plans, and group and individual health insurance coverage, that are grandfathered health plans do not have to meet the requirements of these interim final regulations. Therefore, only plans and issuers offering group and individual health insurance coverage that are not grandfathered health plans will be affected by these interim final regulations.​

Nah, why bother. Just making things up is way easier.

I have a question, how can the regulations be both interim and final?

I do know one thing for sure, I will not be able to keep my current health plan. My insurer is telling me that they can no longer offer it as of Nov of this year because they have to adapt to new regulations from HHS under Obamacare. Yet you, and the entire administration, keeps telling me that I will be able to keep my plan if I like it, which I do. I do not know know exactly which regulation is forcing my insurer to drop my plan, or if they are flat out lying to me, but it does not matter because
I
Cannot
Keep
The
Plan
I
Like

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag, if it pleases you to purchase less medical insurance at greater prices, I’m sure that with no great effort you’ll find an insurance broker that will be very pleased to satisfy your wishes.

I do not presume to tell you what is or isn’t the truth. Your message suggests you’re a person that always seeks out the worst and the false. I suppose that your life generally lives up to your expectations.

What’s an outlier? I’m no more or less truthful when I’m in my home or go out. If against all of your expectations I’m being truthful to you as I write this in my home, would you describe me as an in-truth-sayer? I don’t suppose that you believe that I’m truthful. In that case as I write this in my home you’d consider me as an in-liar?

Respectfully, Supposn

Yet you do presume to tell me the numbers that I crunch are lying to me, and that those numbers will actually be less for me in the long run. My copay currently costs me $75 for a doctor visit and the tests I need. If I roll over into a plan that covers these routine tests it will cost me about $10 a month in higher premiums, which works out to $120 for the same tests I now get for $75. Please explain to me in very small words how this saves me money, because I am going to be forced to purchase the new plan if I want health insurance.

Hell, I am going to be forced to purchase it even if I do not.

 

[hortysir]

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

Ummmmmm.....
YOUR thread. YOUR title:
Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost
See the "no cost" part I bolded for you?
My health insurance company gives my wife 1 free mammogram per year. They also provide free physicals, free labs, x-rays, etc......
It all depends on the plan you sign up under.
It's not free. Your premiums pay for it. The insurance company still pays the facility for their services.
Nothing new.
Nothing's free.

Hortysir, apparently you do make assumptions with insufficient thought or cause.

The title of the thread is the title of the NY Times article. That title was written by the author, Robert Pear.

Actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all). I iterate that such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to preventing permanent physical harm or shorter life spans for some insured persons. There are additional benefits because taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for acceptably advisable standards of preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn

Then the NYT is misleading the sheeple with their title.

There are some boneheads out there that are going to say, "See?! I told you Obama was gonna give us FREE healthcare"

 

[Supposn]

Yet you do presume to tell me the numbers that I crunch are lying to me, and that those numbers will actually be less for me in the long run. My copay currently costs me $75 for a doctor visit and the tests I need. If I roll over into a plan that covers these routine tests it will cost me about $10 a month in higher premiums, which works out to $120 for the same tests I now get for $75. Please explain to me in very small words how this saves me money, because I am going to be forced to purchase the new plan if I want health insurance.

Hell, I am going to be forced to purchase it even if I do not.

Windbag, my understanding of the NY Times article is until your present insurer makes substantial changes to your policy, the discussed regulations are not mandated with regard to your present policy. if you decide to change your existing policy, that would be your own choice. No one is forcing you to do anything.

You make your own choices and deal with the consequences of the choices you make. I iterate your messages suggest that you’re a person who usually, (if not always) seeks out the worst and the false. I suppose that your life generally lives up to your expectations.

I expect you to make a choice contrary to your own best interests and then complain that you were “forced to do it”.

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hortysir, apparently you do make assumptions with insufficient thought or cause.

The title of the thread is the title of the NY Times article. That title was written by the author, Robert Pear.

Actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all). I iterate that such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to preventing permanent physical harm or shorter life spans for some insured persons. There are additional benefits because taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for acceptably advisable standards of preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn

Amazing.

You could have titled the thread anything you wanted to, yet you chose to use a title you now claim is misleading, and that you had no control over.

You are either a blithering idiot or an outright liar.

My mistake, after further reflection I have decided you are both.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Windbag, my understanding of the NY Times article is until your present insurer makes substantial changes to your policy, the discussed regulations are not mandated with regard to your present policy. if you decide to change your existing policy, that would be your own choice. No one is forcing you to do anything.

You make your own choices and deal with the consequences of the choices you make. I iterate your messages suggest that you’re a person who usually, (if not always) seeks out the worst and the false. I suppose that your life generally lives up to your expectations.

I expect you to make a choice contrary to your own best interests and then complain that you were “forced to do it”.

Respectfully, Supposn

Trust me, I am never forced to make any choice, I make them all freely. My problem is that my choices are being taken away from me, not that I am being forced to make choices I do not want to. Why don't you take a little time to address my issues instead of trying to make them up for me as you go along?

 

[chanel]

QW - this may be what your insurer was referring to:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healt...ll-be-able-to-keep-your-health-care-plan.html

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I actually have a damn good idea to what my insurer was talking about, because I had a long talk with them about it. It just amazes me how the government shills keep telling me that everyone but them is lying to me. The really sad part is I had found a new plan that was even better for my needs, but the entire company is going out of business because the new regulations make it all but impossible for small insurers to exist at all, never mind a new start up like them.

Obamacare is the biggest boondoggle in history, and some people think it is a good idea.

 

[Supposn]

Hortysir, apparently you do make assumptions with insufficient thought or cause.

The title of the thread is the title of the NY Times article. That title was written by the author, Robert Pear.

Actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all). I iterate that such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to preventing permanent physical harm or shorter life spans for some insured persons. There are additional benefits because taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for acceptably advisable standards of preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from Quantum Windbag’s message #28:
“Please explain to me in very small words how this saves me money, because I am going to be forced to purchase the new plan if I want health insurance.

Hell, I am going to be forced to purchase it even if I do not”.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Quantum Windbag’s message #31:
Amazing, you could have titled the thread anything you wanted to, yet you chose to use a title you now claim is misleading, and that you had no control over.

You are either a blithering idiot or an outright liar.

My mistake, after further reflection I have decided you are both.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Quantum Windbag’s message #32:
“Trust me, I am never forced to make any choice, I make them all freely. My problem is that my choices are being taken away from me, not that I am being forced to make choices I do not want to. Why don't you take a little time to address my issues instead of trying to make them up for me as you go along?”.
////////////////////////////////////////////

Quantum Windbag,
. . . . you contradict yourself and you continue to complain. I’m amused by what you consider to be your unaddressed issues. Nothing feasible will satisfy you and what might POSSIBLY satisfy you is unfeasible.

In one message you state that you’re “forced to purchase” something and in another message you wrote that you’re “never forced to make any choice”.

The subject of this thread is the NY Times news article “Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost” written by Robert Pear.

You may not agree with my choosing to respect the author’s title choice, but it’s certainly appropriate to do so.

Mr. Pear understated the net expense as “no cost”. The consensus of the medical profession is because many insurers now requiring copayments for the selected preventive medical procedures, our nation’s aggregate net healthcare expenses are greater and the conditions of patients are worse (than otherwise).

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[The Rabbi]

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?

You won't get an answer on this because Care believes in the sea gull method: fly in, drop a load, and fly out.
It is the old class envy canard. Insurance companies are big and have big revenues. Therefore we (the gov't) are really fleecing them by making them give all this free stuff to voters. THey can afford it and no one else has to pay anything.
It is a lie. It is completely a lie. If preventive tests really resulted in lower costs, insurance companies would already offer them. The fact the gov't needs to mandate it tells you it is not cost effective. In fact, it is not cost effective.

 

[Greenbeard]

I have a question, how can the regulations be both interim and final?

Interim final regulations take effect immediately, before the comment period. After the comment period is over, they're revised as final rules. Most regulations don't take effect until after the comment period has ended, all of the comments have been addressed, and the final rule is issued, which is why that process is slightly different. I mean to include an overview of the rulemaking process in my thread on the meaningful use regulations final rule but it seemed long enough as it is.

I do not know know exactly which regulation is forcing my insurer to drop my plan, or if they are flat out lying to me....

I actually have a damn good idea to what my insurer was talking about, because I had a long talk with them about it.

Is it a secret?

It is a lie. It is completely a lie. If preventive tests really resulted in lower costs, insurance companies would already offer them. The fact the gov't needs to mandate it tells you it is not cost effective. In fact, it is not cost effective.

Whether or not it's cost effective (putting aside the small matter of its impact on population health) depends on which kinds of preventive medicine you're talking about. However, your logic doesn't work here. Most insurance plans have no long-term interest in you--keeping you from getting sick a decade down the line isn't particularly important because you may well be in a different plan by then (say, with a different employer). But if you look at an insurer who does have more of a direct interest your health--i.e. an integrated care insurer like Kaiser Permanente--you'll find that many of their programs around the country don't have cost-sharing for certain kinds of preventive care.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hortysir, apparently you do make assumptions with insufficient thought or cause.

The title of the thread is the title of the NY Times article. That title was written by the author, Robert Pear.

Actually I believe that the regulations will be provided at less cost (to all). I iterate that such preventive medical procedures would result in net decrease of the insurers’ long term expenses. There are also the additional benefits due to preventing permanent physical harm or shorter life spans for some insured persons. There are additional benefits because taxpayers will not suffer government expenses due to those unwilling or unable to co-pay for acceptably advisable standards of preventive medical procedures.

The additional cost you refer to is the immediate expense of preventive medical procedure that (MAY in aggregate) cause a 1.5% price increase but the medium and long term affect will be lesser than otherwise expenses to all, (i.e. medical insurers, their clients, patients and our government).

Respectfully, Supposn

Excerpted from Quantum Windbag’s message #28:
“Please explain to me in very small words how this saves me money, because I am going to be forced to purchase the new plan if I want health insurance.

Hell, I am going to be forced to purchase it even if I do not”.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Quantum Windbag’s message #31:
Amazing, you could have titled the thread anything you wanted to, yet you chose to use a title you now claim is misleading, and that you had no control over.

You are either a blithering idiot or an outright liar.

My mistake, after further reflection I have decided you are both.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Quantum Windbag’s message #32:
“Trust me, I am never forced to make any choice, I make them all freely. My problem is that my choices are being taken away from me, not that I am being forced to make choices I do not want to. Why don't you take a little time to address my issues instead of trying to make them up for me as you go along?”.
////////////////////////////////////////////

Quantum Windbag,
. . . . you contradict yourself and you continue to complain. I’m amused by what you consider to be your unaddressed issues. Nothing feasible will satisfy you and what might POSSIBLY satisfy you is unfeasible.

In one message you state that you’re “forced to purchase” something and in another message you wrote that you’re “never forced to make any choice”.

The subject of this thread is the NY Times news article “Health Plans Must Provide Some Preventive Tests at No Cost” written by Robert Pear.

You may not agree with my choosing to respect the author’s title choice, but it’s certainly appropriate to do so.

Mr. Pear understated the net expense as “no cost”. The consensus of the medical profession is because many insurers now requiring copayments for the selected preventive medical procedures, our nation’s aggregate net healthcare expenses are greater and the conditions of patients are worse (than otherwise).

Respectfully, Supposn

It always amazes me when people try to defend the indefensible.

I have no problem with you being true to the article by posting the title, or even with you not agreeing with the article that you posted. My problem comes when you attempt to defend your personal choice to title your thread in one way, and then claim that you had to title it that way. Is there a rule somewhere that if we post an article we have to use the title of the article as the title of the thread?

 

[Care4all]

I have a question, how can the regulations be both interim and final?

Interim final regulations take effect immediately, before the comment period. After the comment period is over, they're revised as final rules. Most regulations don't take effect until after the comment period has ended, all of the comments have been addressed, and the final rule is issued, which is why that process is slightly different. I mean to include an overview of the rulemaking process in my thread on the meaningful use regulations final rule but it seemed long enough as it is.

I do not know know exactly which regulation is forcing my insurer to drop my plan, or if they are flat out lying to me....

I actually have a damn good idea to what my insurer was talking about, because I had a long talk with them about it.

Is it a secret?

It is a lie. It is completely a lie. If preventive tests really resulted in lower costs, insurance companies would already offer them. The fact the gov't needs to mandate it tells you it is not cost effective. In fact, it is not cost effective.

Whether or not it's cost effective (putting aside the small matter of its impact on population health) depends on which kinds of preventive medicine you're talking about. However, your logic doesn't work here. Most insurance plans have no long-term interest in you--keeping you from getting sick a decade down the line isn't particularly important because you may well be in a different plan by then (say, with a different employer). But if you look at an insurer who does have more of a direct interest your health--i.e. an integrated care insurer like Kaiser Permanente--you'll find that many of their programs around the country don't have cost-sharing for certain kinds of preventive care.

Aetna and United Health Care both have these, "no out of pocket" for this preventative care (physicals and recommended testing for ones age group) It happened a couple years back.....

Rabbi is wrong, the major insurance companies are and have been doing this already because IT IS COST EFFECTIVE....

 

[Oddball]

It's cost effective to screen 100% for the few percent that screening may help?

In which econ and/or accounting class did they teach that one?