Maine passes law allowing 12 month supply of birth control.

[deleted480308]

What is the ****ing point of days supply limits? If the doctor considers someone to be on a stable dose, why not just prescribe a year supply and force insurance companies to pay for it so they don't have to go to the pharmacy every month or every three months?

The point is force. The govt shouldn't be forcing anyone to buy anything. It should be market negotiation

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Sparda29]

The point is force. The govt shouldn't be forcing anyone to buy anything. It should be market negotiation

So the company should be allowed to force the consumer to use a specific method or limit them to a certain day supply, but its not okay for the government to take the consumers side and force the company to remove all limits?

 

[deleted480308]

So the company should be allowed to force the consumer to use a specific method or limit them to a certain day supply, but its not okay for the government to take the consumers side and force the company to remove all limits?

The company should be able to set whatever policy they want and customers can search for companies with more appealing terms. No the govt is not needed in that negotiation.

 

[Sparda29]

The company should be able to set whatever policy they want and customers can search for companies with more appealing terms. No the govt is not needed in that negotiation.

And if the company with appealing terms doesn't exist?

 

[zelman]

And if the company with appealing terms doesn't exist?

Build your own.

 

[deleted480308]

And if the company with appealing terms doesn't exist?

as zelman said, build your own.....or make enough noise asking for it that someone sees a chance to seize market share and decides to offer the service

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Part of me would want to see a completely libertarian society just to laugh at all of the gung-ho free market non-0.001% ers that would become peasants groveling at the feet of our new oligarchs that would naturally emerge from it. But I'd have to live in said society. Which would suck.

 

[owlegrad]

Oh lord. Yes, the free market did such a great job with health insurance that having a pre-existing condition meant not being able to obtain coverage. Obviously the solution is more free market forces, not less. :eyeroll:

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Oh lord. Yes, the free market did such a great job with health insurance that having a pre-existing condition meant not being able to obtain coverage. Obviously the solution is more free market forces, not less. :eyeroll:

It kinda is.

My insurance free practice dispensary can do whatever supply of meds I want. Want a year's worth of X? Sure, why not? 2 years of zyrtec? So long as it's within date, I am good for it.

 

[owlegrad]

It kinda is.

My insurance free practice dispensary can do whatever supply of meds I want. Want a year's worth of X? Sure, why not? 2 years of zyrtec? So long as it's within date, I am good for it.

So who pays for it? Any patient can buy any amount of medication they want if the prescriber writes it that way and the patient is willing to pay cash. Some states may limit controls (and who knows, perhaps some states even limit non-controls) but otherwise there is nothing stopping you from writing a script for a years supply of X and letting the patient pay cash for it at any pharmacy willing to dispense it. Obviously this conversation is more about making insurance companies pay for it than simply allowing patients to have access to it.

Also Zyrtec is probably not a good example since any patient can buy a lifetimes supply whenever they want (expiration date notwithstanding).

 

[deleted480308]

Oh lord. Yes, the free market did such a great job with health insurance that having a pre-existing condition meant not being able to obtain coverage. Obviously the solution is more free market forces, not less. :eyeroll:

You could buy insurance with a preexisting (I know because my family did). The plans just, rightfully, excluded the preexisting conditions. Insurance is to protect against the chance of something happening. Insurance is not a payment plan for something that already happened

 

[deleted820760]

You could buy insurance with a preexisting (I know because my family did). The plans just, rightfully, excluded the preexisting conditions. Insurance is to protect against the chance of something happening. Insurance is not a payment plan for something that already happened

Right, so let us allow people with preexisting conditions to just keel over and die. What is the point of health insurance if it's not going to pay for people's health expenses? What's the point of having great healthcare providers and technology if people can't afford it?

A friend of mine, healthy and in his 20s, went to the lake, got a cut on his leg, got MRSA skin infection, and his health insurance dropped his coverage. They were ok with taking his premiums for years, but they didn't want to pay for anything.

 

[owlegrad]

You could buy insurance with a preexisting (I know because my family did). The plans just, rightfully, excluded the preexisting conditions. Insurance is to protect against the chance of something happening. Insurance is not a payment plan for something that already happened

Right, so when you got cancer and lost your job after six months you lose cobra and then what? Hope that charity pays for your medical bills?

In some ways I am actually fine with arguing that people who get sick and aren't extravagantly wealthy should just die. In terms of intellectual honesty it is quite refreshing to just admit that it is ok for people to go into bankruptcy and die due to no fault of their own. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that the free market solution to healthcare somehow takes care of sick people. It did/does not. It takes care of people who can afford treatment, no one else. If you are good with that, so be it. Personally I would rather pay taxes and know that if/when I need healthcare it will be taken care of and I do not need to depend on the good graces of my employer to keep my healthcare. God forbid I get a pre-existing condition and my employer go out of business, downsize, or do anything to otherwise jeopardize my insurance.

 

[deleted480308]

Right, so let us allow people with preexisting conditions to just keel over and die. What is the point of health insurance if it's not going to pay for people's health expenses. What's the point of having great healthcare providers and technology, if people can't afford it?

A friend of mine, healthy and in his 20s, went to the lake, got a cut on his leg, got MRSA skin infection, and his health insurance dropped his coverage. They were ok with taking his premiums for years, but they didn't want to pay for anything.

I can buy flood insurance for a house with termites. I don't need flood insurance for a house 3 feet under water. I can't wait for the flood to buy flood insurance.

Those who don't plan should be on their own or approach charities but no one else should be forced to fund the lack of preparedness

I don't have your friend's insurance contract in front of me but the company would have been legally bound to the terms of the contract and any lawyer worth half their salt would have got them the coverage the terms required to the limits of the contract

 

[deleted480308]

Right, so when you got cancer and lost your job after six months you lose cobra and then what? Hope that charity pays for your medical bills?

In some ways I am actually fine with arguing that people who get sick and aren't extravagantly wealthy should just die. In terms of intellectual honesty it is quite refreshing to just admit that it is ok for people to go into bankruptcy and die due to no fault of their own. But it is intellectually dishonest to pretend that the free market solution to healthcare somehow takes care of sick people. It did/does not. It takes care of people who can afford treatment, no one else. If you are good with that, so be it. Personally I would rather pay taxes and know that if/when I need healthcare it will be taken care of and I do not need to depend on the good graces of my employer to keep my healthcare. God forbid I get a pre-existing condition and my employer go out of business, downsize, or do anything to otherwise jeopardize my insurance.

Insurance is only so bound to employers because of govt interference and you buying your own through private associations would be cheaper than running it through govt via taxes

 

[owlegrad]

Insurance is only so bound to employers because of govt interference and you buying your own through private associations would be cheaper than running it through govt via taxes

Interesting, what makes you say that? And I agree that getting insurance privately would be cheaper. They would also be able to exclude me if I were deemed too high risk. Or they could drop me or raise my premium. It happened all the time in the good ole days before Obamacare ruined the insurance market.

Are we having the same conversation? I am talking about coverage, not affordability. If you want to discuss affordability I would be happy to discuss how we pay more for worse outcomes, but I suspect your answer to that will also be more free market forces. Seriously, look how other countries pay for healthcare and look at their outcomes. Why shouldn't we try to do the same thing here?

 

[deleted480308]

Interesting, what makes you say that? And I agree that getting insurance privately would be cheaper. They would also be able to exclude me if I were deemed too high risk. Or they could drop me or raise my premium. It happened all the time in the good ole days before Obamacare ruined the insurance market.

Are we having the same conversation? I am talking about coverage, not affordability. If you want to discuss affordability I would be happy to discuss how we pay more for worse outcomes, but I suspect your answer to that will also be more free market forces. Seriously, look how other countries pay for healthcare and look at their outcomes. Why shouldn't we try to do the same thing here?

Insurance is bound to employers due to govt wage caps during the war when employers started offering insurance because they weren't legally allowed to offer enough money to attract workers. This has continued with laws requiring employers of certain sizes to offer employer plans which removes millions from the market for individual coverage.

As for affordability of insurance, risks should increase costs. A 68yr old smoking diabetic chf patient should pay significantly more than a 25tr old health nut. That's simple actuarial calculations

Furthermore, it isn't the role of govt to make everything "affordable". Stuff costs what producers and buyers agree on and if they can't agree the sale doesn't happen

 

[owlegrad]

Insurance is bound to employers due to govt wage caps during the war when employers started offering insurance because they weren't legally allowed to offer enough money to attract workers. This has continued with laws requiring employers of certain sizes to offer employer plans which removes millions from the market for individual coverage. (1)

As for affordability of insurance, risks should increase costs. A 68yr old smoking diabetic chf patient should pay significantly more than a 25tr old health nut. That's simple actuarial calculations (2)

Furthermore, it isn't the role of govt to make everything "affordable". Stuff costs what producers and buyers agree on and if they can't agree the sale doesn't happen (3)

1 - OK, but you agree that insurance companies can also sell their plans on an open market as well, right? And could since the beginning of health insurance plans? So it isn't accurate to pretend that the government has made it so that only employed people can buy insurance plans, right?

2 - This is true and has no bearing on anything we have discussed up till now. Some health risks are unavoidable and I have no problem with setting up incentives for people who do make good health choices to help control the ones that are avoidable (although I also think very few people make good health choices in order to lower their premiums, but perhaps I am wrong).

3 - This is also true and again has nothing to do with the discussion. I honestly think you just can't follow this conversation.

You are ok with someone who gets cancer and then gets fired not being able to buy health insurance, correct? That is totally fine in your world view and the person should have just been better prepared, correct? Or to put it another way, tough ****, them's the breaks, when life gives you lemons make lemonade, etc etc?

 

[deleted820760]

Interesting, what makes you say that? And I agree that getting insurance privately would be cheaper. They would also be able to exclude me if I were deemed too high risk. Or they could drop me or raise my premium. It happened all the time in the good ole days before Obamacare ruined the insurance market.

Are we having the same conversation? I am talking about coverage, not affordability. If you want to discuss affordability I would be happy to discuss how we pay more for worse outcomes, but I suspect your answer to that will also be more free market forces. Seriously, look how other countries pay for healthcare and look at their outcomes. Why shouldn't we try to do the same thing here?

YAAAAS!!!!!! I've been saying this over in SPF, and no one understands! It's a fact, not an opinion! Various unbiased organizations and researchers have come to the same conclusion! It's crazy to me. I thought it was obvious, and any educated person would know that we pay more for worse outcomes. We're behind every single developed country when it comes to healthcare and even some developing countries, if I remember correctly.

 

[deleted480308]

1 - OK, but you agree that insurance companies can also sell their plans on an open market as well, right? And could since the beginning of health insurance plans? So it isn't accurate to pretend that the government has made it so that only employed people can buy insurance plans, right?

2 - This is true and has no bearing on anything we have discussed up till now. Some health risks are unavoidable and I have no problem with setting up incentives for people who do make good health choices to help control the ones that are avoidable (although I also think very few people make good health choices in order to lower their premiums, but perhaps I am wrong).

3 - This is also true and again has nothing to do with the discussion. I honestly think you just can't follow this conversation.

You are ok with someone who gets cancer and then gets fired not being able to buy health insurance, correct? That is totally fine in your world view and the person should have just been better prepared, correct? Or to put it another way, tough ****, them's the breaks, when life gives you lemons make lemonade, etc etc?

1. I never said govt made individual plans illegal. I said govt pushing such a large portion of the population into employer plans has stopped a robust individual market from appearing.
2. This has everything to do with the conversation as the current system has govt forcing significantly overcharging young healthy people to subsidize the cost/risk of elderly/sick people. You can't go shopping for insurance with $100k/yr worth of illness and expect to pay $800/month.
3.again, the "affordability " is part of the discussion because your (and most people's premise) seems to be that everyone should always get everything even if they can't pay now for the care and didn't pay earlier for insurance. It doesn't work without screwing someone else to cover for them

And the "changed jobs and now can't have insurance scenario you bring up is an argument for my proposal of individual policies...

 

[owlegrad]

YAAAAS!!!!!! I've been saying this over in SPF, and no one understands! It's a fact, not an opinion! Various unbiased organizations and researchers have come to the same conclusion! It's crazy to me. I thought it was obvious, and any educated person would know that we pay more for worse outcomes. We're behind every single developed country when it comes to healthcare and even some developing countries, if I remember correctly.

I don't get it either. I mean I am totally fine with someone who wants to argue that healthcare is a privilege of the wealthy, I can understand that argument. But if you want to argue that single-payer doesn't work or isn't efficient or isn't as good as what the free market will provide, well show me the facts. Because every reputable source I can find argues pretty much the exact opposite in every conceivable objective metric. I don't understand why people have to be so fact-challenged. These aren't opinions, they are facts. Single payer works (so does mixed, if people simply must have a private option) and works well.

 

[deleted820760]

I don't get it either. I mean I am totally fine with someone who wants to argue that healthcare is a privilege of the wealthy, I can understand that argument. But if you want to argue that single-payer doesn't work or isn't efficient or isn't as good as what the free market will provide, well show me the facts. Because every reputable source I can find argues pretty much the exact opposite in every conceivable objective metric. I don't understand why people have to be so fact-challenged. These aren't opinions, they are facts. Single payer works (so does mixed, if people simply must have a private option) and works well.

Exactly. Our current system is so broken. The uninsured end up being a burden on society anyway. They come to the ED and they have to be treated, but then they don't get the proper maintenance/preventative care, so they end up right back in the hospital. We pay so much more and have worse outcomes, and they are still arguing that our system is better than places like Sweden, Germany, Norway, or anywhere else for that matter. Haha.
Even the people with insurance have difficulty affording healthcare expenses.

 

[owlegrad]

Exactly. Our current system is so broken. The uninsured end up being a burden on society anyway. They come to the ED and they have to be treated, but then they don't get the proper maintenance/preventative care, so they end up right back in the hospital. We pay so much more and have worse outcomes, and they are still arguing that our system is better than places like Sweden, Germany, Norway, or anywhere else for that matter. Haha.
Even the people with insurance have difficulty affording healthcare expenses.

I mean if we are going to have a nerdy discussion of healthcare systems I think France would be a great model for the US. A mix of private/public plans. They have excellent healthcare and the wealthy can still get better healthcare (at least they can pay more for theirs), which is very important to a capitalist country. Sweden I seem to recall is also a system we could imitate although the specifics of their system escapes me right now. I don't think we could EVER be like Germany, the wealthy have to resort to medical tourism if they want to pay more for their healthcare as I recall. I don't know enough about Norway to compare ours to theirs.

 

[deleted480308]

I mean if we are going to have a nerdy discussion of healthcare systems I think France would be a great model for the US. A mix of private/public plans. They have excellent healthcare and the wealthy can still get better healthcare (at least they can pay more for theirs), which is very important to a capitalist country. Sweden I seem to recall is also a system we could imitate although the specifics of their system escapes me right now. I don't think we could EVER be like Germany, the wealthy have to resort to medical tourism if they want to pay more for their healthcare as I recall. I don't know enough about Norway to compare ours to theirs.

"Important to capitalists" is not having a public option. Allowing me the right to go buy more of my own after forcing me to buy everyone else's isn't capitalism

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

So who pays for it? Any patient can buy any amount of medication they want if the prescriber writes it that way and the patient is willing to pay cash. Some states may limit controls (and who knows, perhaps some states even limit non-controls) but otherwise there is nothing stopping you from writing a script for a years supply of X and letting the patient pay cash for it at any pharmacy willing to dispense it. Obviously this conversation is more about making insurance companies pay for it than simply allowing patients to have access to it.

Also Zyrtec is probably not a good example since any patient can buy a lifetimes supply whenever they want (expiration date notwithstanding).

I use zyrtec as my example because its the only medicine, generally speaking, that I will do a 365 day supply of - and my way is better than OTC because my patients only pay $13 for that year's supply.

And yes, my patients pay cash for it because I'm cheaper than you real pharmacies

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

I don't get it either. I mean I am totally fine with someone who wants to argue that healthcare is a privilege of the wealthy, I can understand that argument. But if you want to argue that single-payer doesn't work or isn't efficient or isn't as good as what the free market will provide, well show me the facts. Because every reputable source I can find argues pretty much the exact opposite in every conceivable objective metric. I don't understand why people have to be so fact-challenged. These aren't opinions, they are facts. Single payer works (so does mixed, if people simply must have a private option) and works well.

Will do...

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy

 

[owlegrad]

Will do...

The Myth of Americans' Poor Life Expectancy

Thanks for sharing, I will review this more in depth when I get a chance. My initial impression is that it's well-written but I wonder if the author Cherry Picked his data. Still I appreciate the link. :thumbsup:

 

[VA Hopeful Dr]

Thanks for sharing, I will review this more in depth when I get a chance. My initial impression is that it's well-written but I wonder if the author Cherry Picked his data. Still I appreciate the link. :thumbsup:

It might not be as large a difference as the article states, but it makes sense.

We're constantly bombarded with how many more gun-related deaths and automobile-related deaths we have. Why wouldn't it make a significant difference on our mortality data?

I also have a very hard time believing that all of our health-related outcomes are so bad as we're always told.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

Gentlepeople.

Can we stop derailing this thread.

It's about how stupid it is that birth control is the only drug in the United States and her territories that people get guaranteed for free and potentially for 12 months at a time.

You can pretend you have a PhD in economics elsewhere.

 

[deleted820760]

Gentlepeople.

Can we stop derailing this thread.

It's about how stupid it is that birth control is the only drug in the United States and her territories that people get guaranteed for free and potentially for 12 months at a time.

You can pretend you have a PhD in economics elsewhere.

Lmao!!!

 

[beautifulrobot]

"Important to capitalists" is not having a public option. Allowing me the right to go buy more of my own after forcing me to buy everyone else's isn't capitalism

You have to tame the peasants somehow, either by paying for their basic needs or by paying for prisons to throw them in to. Or I suppose you can stock up on guns and booby traps.

 

[deleted480308]

You have to tame the peasants somehow, either by paying for their basic needs or by paying for prisons to throw them in to. Or I suppose you can stock up on guns and booby traps.

I have a stock

 

[beautifulrobot]

I have a stock

I personally get all my prepper advice from Pepper the Prepper: Pepper the Prepper Cat: Get Ready Coloring Book

 

[deleted820760]

Gentlepeople.

Can we stop derailing this thread.

It's about how stupid it is that birth control is the only drug in the United States and her territories that people get guaranteed for free and potentially for 12 months at a time.

You can pretend you have a PhD in economics elsewhere.

@owlegrad Can I nominate him for a mod position?