Contraception Coverage Compromise Could Raise Costs
40 replies, posted
Contraception Coverage Compromise Could Raise Costs February 10, 2012
FOX Business
[release]The Obama administration’s signature piece of legislation – health-care reform – targets excessive administrative fees as a primary reason health-care costs have spiraled out of control in recent years.
Ironically, some experts say the president’s concession on contraception coverage announced Friday does exactly that – contribute to excessive administrative fees.
The president, facing a growing controversy fueled by angry religious organizations, said religious employers will not be required to offer free birth control to their employees as part of their insurance coverage.
Instead, that responsibility has been diverted to insurers, according to the administration’s compromise. The new requirement mandates that insurers provide workers at religious entities such as Catholic universities or hospitals with "contraceptive care free of charge."
“There is no such thing as ‘free of charge.’ It’s a complete ruse,” said Dr. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, which advocates for free markets.
“He thinks this stuff actually comes free,” Matthews added. “It doesn’t come free. People actually pay for it and there’s an administrative cost added to it.”
Matthews explained how administrative fees are likely to rise under the Obama administration’s compromise plan: since religious employers will not be held responsible for their employees’ contraception coverage the burden is shifted to the insurers. Staff members at the insurers will now have to administer that coverage and that will almost certainly cost the insurers extra money.
“The president has been critical of health insurers for excessive administrative costs, but here through his own policies he’s raising the costs himself,” said Matthews.
Ultimately, those rising administrative costs could eat into profits and affect the stock prices of some of these insurers.
America's Health Insurance Plans, a trade group, issued the following statement: “Health plans have long offered contraceptive coverage to employers as part of comprehensive, preventive benefits that aim to improve patient health and reduce health care cost growth."
“We are concerned about the precedent this proposed rule would set. As we learn more about how this rule would be operationalized, we will provide comments through the regulatory process.”
Tom Miller, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, joked that administrative costs that benefit the government and its policies tend to be approved by that government.
“Administrative fees that don’t benefit the government aren’t,” he noted, wryly.
Miller said the issue became a “political eyesore” for the Obama administration, hence Friday’s concession. The compromise essentially does little more than provide “fig leaf cover” for some of the president’s Democratic allies who were getting heat for the original mandate.
The regulation which ignited the controversy requires religious-affiliated groups such as hospitals, colleges and charities to provide their employees with coverage for birth control. Actual churches were exempted from the rule.
The Catholic Church, which opposes all forms of artificial contraception, loudly criticized the mandate and Republican opponents of the president were quick to join the fight.[/release]
source: [url]http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/02/10/contraception-coverage-compromise-could-raise-costs/#ixzz1mE5bkVuC[/url]
Oh dang. It's one of them... Glaber threads.
Contraception Coverage Compromise Could Congregate Costs
Oh no. Businesses have to pay for their employees well being!
Oh no, Obama care is raising costs instead of lowering them!
[quote]“There is no such thing as ‘free of charge.’ It’s a complete ruse,” said Dr. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, which advocates for free markets.
“He thinks this stuff actually comes free,” Matthews added. “It doesn’t come free. People actually pay for it and there’s an administrative cost added to it.”[/quote]
try reading past the title or user name people.
Glaber, I know this is sensationalist headlines, but please start using a legitimate source.
So, having more kids is cheaper than contraception? Who would have thought.
[QUOTE=Glaber;34674655]Oh no, Obama care is raising costs instead of lowering them!
try reading past the title or user name people.[/QUOTE]
They keep saying administrative costs. What they don't refer often is who is administrating it or how MUCH these costs are.
The article is full of buzzwords and no stated fact, The cost could have gone up by a single cent and not a word in this article would need to be changed.
[editline]12th February 2012[/editline]
Also, read your own title. It says costs COULD rise. They COULD also drop and they COULD also stay the same.
So what evidence is there that this could increase costs other than what that single guy (who works for a conservative lobby) said
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34674754]So what evidence is there that this could increase costs other than what that single guy (who works for a conservative lobby) said[/QUOTE]
Evidence?
That's not how Fox News operates :v:
[QUOTE=fluke42;34674695]Glaber, I know this is sensationalist headlines, but please start using a legitimate source.[/QUOTE]
God forbid people are exposed to a source that doesn't fit into their narrow view of the world. Truth is found by thinking critically about everything that is put in front of you, not lazily disregarding it [I]you[/I] say the source isn't valid enough.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34674870]God forbid people are exposed to a source that doesn't fit into their narrow view of the world. Truth is found by thinking critically about everything that is put in front of you, not lazily disregarding it [I]you[/I] say the source isn't valid enough.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34674754]So what evidence is there that this could increase costs other than what that single guy (who works for a conservative lobby) said[/QUOTE]
I'd call that critical thinking.
I agree with crass on this one:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqJhY9-qziU[/media]
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34674892]I'd call that critical thinking.[/QUOTE]
"Matthews explained how administrative fees are likely to rise under the Obama administration’s compromise plan: since religious employers will not be held responsible for their employees’ contraception coverage the burden is shifted to the insurers. Staff members at the insurers will now have to administer that coverage and that will almost certainly cost the insurers extra money."
Why is this not valid evidence? Why is this evidence wrong? Because a single [I]conservative[/I] guy said it, it's wrong?
Actually prove it wrong with logic, not laziness.
[QUOTE=thisispain;34674952]I agree with crass on this one:
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqJhY9-qziU[/media][/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/crass/dotheyoweusaliving.html"]Lyrics[/URL] for anyone who doesn't like or understand the song but still wants to know it's message.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34674967]"Matthews explained how administrative fees are[B] likely[/B] to rise under the Obama administration’s compromise plan: since religious employers will not be held responsible for their employees’ contraception coverage the burden is shifted to the insurers. Staff members at the insurers will now have to administer that coverage and that will [B]almost certainly[/B] cost the insurers extra money."
Why is this not valid evidence? Why is this evidence wrong? Because a single [I]conservative[/I] guy said it's wrong?
Actually prove it wrong with logic, not laziness.[/QUOTE]
It's not valid evidence because it is not evidence. The only thing he said to assert his claim was
[QUOTE] Staff members at the insurers will now have to administer that coverage and that will almost certainly cost the insurers extra money.[/QUOTE]
His argument is that this is bad because health insurance companies have to do what they are supposed to do. You are already paying the company for health insurance. The cost of contraceptives is far less than the amount you pay for health insurance. He seems to think that people can just walk in without paying for health insurance and they'll buy them some contraceptives.
[QUOTE] Because a single [I]conservative[/I] guy said it's wrong?[/QUOTE]
And what the hell is this? Isn't the man speaking saying his assumption is right? Or are you referring to Zeke, in which case, what the hell are you talking about?
To summarize, it's not evidence because it doesn't [B]prove[/B] anything. It only [I]claims[/I] something. It has the same value in a court of law as witness testimony, which, believe it or not, [URL="http://www.law.yale.edu/news/2727.htm"]is not very trustworthy.[/URL]
[QUOTE]“There is no such thing as ‘free of charge.’ It’s a complete ruse,” said Dr. Merrill Matthews, resident scholar at the Institute for Policy Innovation, which advocates for free markets.
[B]“He thinks this stuff actually comes free,”[/B] Matthews added. “It doesn’t come free. People actually pay for it and there’s an administrative cost added to it.”[/QUOTE]
I find it hard to believe that Obama literally believes that this is free. This guy doesn't apparently.
Glaber doesn't work off truth, he works off sensationalism and lies.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34674977]
And what the hell is this? Isn't the man speaking saying his assumption is right? Or are you referring to Zeke, in which case, what the hell are you talking about?
[/QUOTE]
That was a typo. I'm referring to people saying that this is outright wrong simply because it is Fox/Glaber/Conservative. That's intellectually dishonest and is the mark of either someone who is very lazy or someone who doesn't have the intellect to actually refute anything and wants to stay in their own bubble of ignorance.
I'm sick of people disregarding Glaber threads simply because it is a Glaber thread. It's an old, tired meme that further cements my view that even some of the smartest and politically interested people are incredibly close minded.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34675292]That was a typo. I'm referring to people saying that this is outright wrong simply because it is Fox/Glaber/Conservative. That's intellectually dishonest and is the mark of either someone who is very lazy or someone who doesn't have the intellect to actually refute anything and wants to stay in their own bubble of ignorance.
I'm sick of people disregarding Glaber threads simply because it is a Glaber thread. It's an old, tired meme that further cements my view that even some of the smartest and politically interested people are incredibly close minded.[/QUOTE]
Well, then luckily for you I happen to have a[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34492979#post34492979"] history[/URL] of[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34547034#post34547034"] debunking[/URL] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34460204#post34460204"]Glaber threads.[/URL]
While at the same time, keeping the[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34658108#post34658108"] other side in check[/URL] when they just plain overlook facts.
Edit: Oh wait, that last one about keeping in check wasn't in a Glaber thread, but my point still stands.
[QUOTE=Hidole555;34675375]Well, then luckily for you I happen to have a[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34492979#post34492979"] history[/URL] of[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34547034#post34547034"] debunking[/URL] [URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34460204#post34460204"]Glaber threads.[/URL]
While at the same time, keeping the[URL="http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=34658108#post34658108"] other side in check[/URL] when they just plain overlook facts.
Edit: Oh wait, that last one about keeping in check wasn't in a Glaber thread, but my point still stands.[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about you specifically. I don't care if you agree with Glaber(or not, in your case), I'm just tired of people jumping on the bandwagon.
If you apply rational thought and critical thinking, then that's great. If you don't, you shouldn't even make the claim that you are more intelligent than Glaber or even the lowest Fox stooge.
I did some really rough math using [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_universities_and_colleges_in_the_United_States[/url]
I went through 1/3 of the list, added up the staff for the entire 1/3, multiplied that by 3(because I'm really lazy), and multiplied that by $25 (planned parenthood estimate for birth control pills was $10-50).
If literally every person I counted took $25 birth control it would only cost $14 million dollars yearly by my estimate. And I'm pretty sure the ratio of women to Catholic College Employees is less than 1:1.
I'm pretty sure that's only an extra $200/yr per employee to give literally everyone in my estimate free birth control.
[editline]1[/editline]
Sorry, I fudged the math a little bit at the 200/yr part. It's more like $200/yr if about 3/4 of the employees get birth control.
I look forward to the day when we in this section can scrub ourselves clean of this kind of sensationalism. That means left-wing sensationalism too.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34674967]"Matthews explained how administrative fees are likely to rise under the Obama administration’s compromise plan: since religious employers will not be held responsible for their employees’ contraception coverage the burden is shifted to the insurers. Staff members at the insurers will now have to administer that coverage and that will almost certainly cost the insurers extra money."
Why is this not valid evidence? Why is this evidence wrong? Because a single [I]conservative[/I] guy said it, it's wrong?
Actually prove it wrong with logic, not laziness.[/QUOTE]
You realize what you quoted is a guy saying "it will cost the insurance companies more because staff will be doing more work"
If the insurance company's business model isn't able to scale to a higher workload they're not a very well organized business
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;34675481]
If literally every person I counted took $25 birth control it would only cost $14 million dollars yearly by my estimate. And I'm pretty sure the ratio of women to Catholic College Employees is less than 1:1.
[/QUOTE]
That's still slightly bad math. The cost isn't just for the birth control. There have to be people that administer the birth control(doctors), there are administrators who have to oversee the program, there need to be clinics with enough staff and room to handle the large volume of patients(which means possibly architects and rent paid on new property, construction costs, maintenance, etc.).
I'm not saying it would necessarily cost a fortune, but there are "mechanical" costs to programs that go beyond what you might think. The birth control is the easy part, all the stuff that has to go along with it is a lot harder.
Sure why not? Medication in this country is already twice as much as the next. That's what happens when you give corporations control over people's lives, [U]literally[/U].
[QUOTE=Zeke129;34675604]If the insurance company's business model isn't able to scale to a higher workload they're not a very well organized business[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Businesses generally run on the expectation of the workload and costs they will be facing, with some wiggle room for emergencies. A prolonged, sudden, massive increase in workload can cause disarray in even well run businesses.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
However, I would say that insurance companies should have been given(I would think it has been enough time at least) enough time to prepare for a larger workload. If they aren't able to scale up, it's sort of their fault.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34675623]That's still slightly bad math. The cost isn't just for the birth control. There have to be people that administer the birth control(doctors), there are administrators who have to oversee the program, there need to be clinics with enough staff and room to handle the large volume of patients(which means possibly architects and rent paid on new property, construction costs, maintenance, etc.).
I'm not saying it would necessarily cost a fortune, but there are "mechanical" costs to programs that go beyond what you might think. The birth control is the easy part, all the stuff that has to go along with it is a lot harder.[/QUOTE]
The reason why I did an estimation of 'all the employees now need birth control' was to avoid having to calculate the cost of doctors and bullshit like that. I don't really see more than 25% ever actually getting insured birth control, and I'm pretty sure the left over 75% can cover the mechanical costs.
But the problem with the administrators, staffing clinics, architects etc is primarily the problem of who gives a fuck. We're talking about cost to the insurer and the effect of the price if the insure pays out of its own pocket for BC. The insurer pays the doctor and the pharmacy for the pill, the doctor's bill goes to paying the clinic. The insurers aren't building the clinics, they're just buying the doctors' time and the medicine itself.
[QUOTE=RichardCQ;34675676]The reason why I did an estimation of 'all the employees now need birth control' was to avoid having to calculate the cost of doctors and bullshit like that. I don't really see more than 25% ever actually getting insured birth control, and I'm pretty sure the left over 75% can cover the mechanical costs.
But the problem with the administrators, staffing clinics, architects etc is primarily the problem of who gives a fuck. We're talking about cost to the insurer and the effect of the price if the insure pays out of its own pocket for BC. The insurer pays the doctor and the pharmacy for the pill, the doctor's bill goes to paying the clinic. The insurers aren't building the clinics, they're just buying the doctors' time and the medicine itself.[/QUOTE]
You mentioned Planned Parenthood so I was assuming you were talking about a national program for a second. I guess my post was sort of irrelevant, then.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34675690]You mentioned Planned Parenthood so I was assuming you were talking about a national program for a second. I guess my post was sort of irrelevant, then.[/QUOTE]
I mentioned Planned Parenthood because I figured they'd be a good source for US birth control prices. Sorry if I confused.
Yea, I really misread your post.
[editline]13th February 2012[/editline]
That's my bad.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.