Derby Trail Forums

Go Back   Derby Trail Forums > The Steve Dellinger Discourse Den
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-01-2011, 01:14 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default Women's preventive health care now easier to afford

Good news for families everywhere. Anything that decreases the number of abortions, increases the health of women and infants, and lowers the cost of healthcare for all by prevention is a good thing. Not to mention healthier women.

Wish they would include colon cancer screenings and prostate exams.

Long detailed article with much explanation, this is an excerpt:

It doesn't make up for the other ridiculous goings-on in Washington this week, but it's still a good thing.

Quote:
WASHINGTON — Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays, the Obama administration said Monday in a decision with far-reaching implications for health care as well as social mores.

The requirement is part of a broad expansion of coverage for women's preventive care under President Barack Obama's health care law. Also to be covered without copays are breast pumps for nursing mothers, an annual "well-woman" physical, screening for the virus that causes cervical cancer and for diabetes during pregnancy, counseling on domestic violence, and other services.

"These historic guidelines are based on science and existing (medical) literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

The new requirements will take effect Jan. 1, 2013, in most cases. Tens of millions of women are expected to gain coverage initially, and that number is likely to grow with time. At first, some plans may be exempt due to a complex provision of the health care law known as the "grandfather" clause. But those even plans could face pressure from their members to include the new benefit.

Sebelius acted after a near-unanimous recommendation last month from a panel of experts convened by the prestigious Institute of Medicine, which advises the government. Panel chairwoman Linda Rosenstock, dean of public health at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that prevention of unintended pregnancies is essential for the psychological, emotional and physical health of women.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/0..._n_914818.html
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-01-2011, 03:40 PM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Good news for families everywhere. Anything that decreases the number of abortions, increases the health of women and infants, and lowers the cost of healthcare for all by prevention is a good thing. Not to mention healthier women.

Wish they would include colon cancer screenings and prostate exams.

Long detailed article with much explanation, this is an excerpt:

It doesn't make up for the other ridiculous goings-on in Washington this week, but it's still a good thing.
No more co-pays equal higher premiums for all!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-01-2011, 04:20 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63 View Post
No more co-pays equal higher premiums for all!!!
Take a deep breath and see how preventive health care means lower premiums for all:

Cost of the pill for 20 years (to insurance company) about $1000 or less

Cost of one baby - prenatal care, delivery, 18 years health care, about $40,000 if they are healthy.

Cost of cervical pap smear: $20
Cost of treating cervical cancer: $80,000

Cost of breast pump $10
Cost of infant formula plus health care for infant not raised on breast milk $thousands

Plus: less abortions, healthier children, healthier women, which lowers costs for all.

PS and this is RIOT posting from my friends computer
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-01-2011, 04:23 PM
Coach Pants
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Women will still refuse birth control. And this coverage is useless without the day after pill.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-01-2011, 04:47 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

anytime any coverage is expanded, you can bet your ass the price expands along with it.
is it a good thing to have bc, sure...will it cost somewhere else~absolutely...
after all, dont you think that if it was a real cost saver, it wouldnt have happened a lot sooner? ins cos dont make profits by being stupid...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-01-2011, 05:16 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Mostly insurance companies make money by only insuring healthy people, and kicking off people that are not healthy and they have to pay out on. It's like any insurance company.

Insurance companies do not make money by providing healthcare. They make money by not providing healthcare.

Medicare is run by the government. The cost of delivery, as there is no profit taken, is far, far less than the cost of healthcare delivered by every private insurance company in the US.

Preventive health care is ALWAYS less expensive than treating the disease or health problem you are trying to prevent.

If you are in a group of employees sharing insurance costs, what would you rather pay: the lung cancer and emphysema from a smoker, or the cost of his Nicorette? Would you rather pay for mammograms or breast cancer? Colon fecal blood exam or colon cancer? Birth control pills or pre-natal care, delivery, and 20 years of healthcare to a (hopefully) healthy infant?

Cholesterol testing for those over 50 (30 in the US), screening blood tests, colon cancer testing, mammograms, pap smears, prostate cancer exams, annual skin physical exams at a dermatologist, good nutrition counseling, healthy lifestyle - all should be covered for the minimal cost possible because prevention is cheaper for everyone than payment for the illness

That's why it's called the Affordable Care Act. Right now in the US about 1/5 of our economy is healthcare costs. That's beyond absurd. Most other first world countries it's less than 8%.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-01-2011, 06:42 PM
dellinger63's Avatar
dellinger63 dellinger63 is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 10,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riot View Post
Take a deep breath and see how preventive health care means lower premiums for all:

Cost of the pill for 20 years (to insurance company) about $1000 or less
stop right there and do the math!

20 years equals 240 months. BC pills at $4.17 per/month or 13 cents a day?

And the president thinks that's too much to have a co-pay

How about paying a 34% co-pay of BC pills just to make it fair to everyone! And a lesson to how much the 'rich' are actually paying!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-01-2011, 08:38 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
And the president thinks that's too much to have a co-pay
No. The President had nothing to do with it. That's what medical commissions recommended to improve womens health. Much easier to pay .13 a day than pay for an unwanted pregnancy, birth, and 20 years of life, right?

Only you could be making the argument that it is better to not pay preventive care, and rather pay for the disease.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-01-2011, 08:39 PM
Danzig Danzig is offline
Dee Tee Stables
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: The Natural State
Posts: 29,940
Default

Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums.


well, no joke. that's as obvious as the statement that medicare is run by the government. who knew?!?!

my bills keep going up, and i haven't done a thing to cause that. most premiums for insurance are based on specific things-your age, your level of risk, your past claims, your bad driving.
health insurance-nope, the hard working and healthy get to carry that burden, and it won't be getting lighter.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-01-2011, 08:43 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danzig View Post
Although the new women's preventive services will be free of any additional charge to patients, somebody will have to pay. The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums.
Yes, exactly as it is now. But again: would you rather, as a group paying for the others in your insurance group, pay for a pap smear? Or cervical cancer? Pay for a mammogram? Or treating breast cancer? Pay for birth control pills? Or for a pregnancy, delivery, and 20 years of health care for the child?

Which do you think is gonna lower your premiums over time? Paying for preventive care for everyone, or paying for the diseases?

BTW, birth control pills cost about a dollar a month or less to make. The pharmacist buys them for a couple dollars. The insurance company negotiates a charge to their insured at that pharmacy, and they pocket your "copay".

You guys would be furious if you knew how little it costs to make drugs that you pay hundreds of dollars a month for. But, the drug companies put the money into research and development, so I can't begrudge them their profit. But it is sad to see people die because insurance companies won't pay exaggerated inflated prices to the drug companies for particular drugs. Death panels.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-01-2011, 08:46 PM
Riot's Avatar
Riot Riot is offline
Keeneland
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 14,153
Default

Quote:
my bills keep going up, and i haven't done a thing to cause that.
And, that is exactly why the ACA exists. It's mostly consumer protections. To stop insurance companies from gouging their clients for profit. While they are making record profit.

The insurance companies will gouge you for all they can, until the ACA provisions kick in to stop it.

Just like the credit card companies gouged their clients for all they could, before those consumer protections kicked in.
__________________
"Have the clean racing people run any ads explaining that giving a horse a Starbucks and a chocolate poppyseed muffin for breakfast would likely result in a ten year suspension for the trainer?" - Dr. Andrew Roberts
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.