General Discussion

lumberjack_jeff

(33,224 posts)

80. Is "free" an improper synonym for "shall not impose any cost sharing requirements"?

Tue Jul 1, 2014, 01:53 PM

Jul 2014

‘‘
‘SEC. 2713. COVERAGE OF PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES
(a) IN GENERAL.—A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for—
...
(4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.

The HRSA is the only place in which reproductive health care shows up as a ~~free~~ err... "without any cost sharing requirements" health care service.

As written, the ACA guarantees free birth control to women, only. Because of the way the ACA is written, and it's desire to "support women's health" a couple who decides they are done having kids has the choice of a free tubal ligation or a $800 vasectomy. It'll be no surprise when many opt for the invasive, inpatient expensive procedure because it's "without any cost sharing requirements".

If you didn't know this, then yes. I guess I did show you.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

93 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Post removed [View all] Post removed Jul 2014 OP

Bleh ... Trajan Jul 2014 #1

Prepare for blowback! quinnox Jul 2014 #2

Un fucking believable! William769 Jul 2014 #16

LOL, as if. redqueen Jul 2014 #17

Agreed, but I just had to say something. William769 Jul 2014 #19

I hear ya. redqueen Jul 2014 #22

Well I for one am just as angry as any person would be over this bullshit William769 Jul 2014 #36

I'm in total agreement here. nt redqueen Jul 2014 #42

+1 BainsBane Jul 2014 #47

A musical interlude! greatauntoftriplets Jul 2014 #49

... William769 Jul 2014 #59

... greatauntoftriplets Jul 2014 #61

+2 JustAnotherGen Jul 2014 #66

Right is right William769 Jul 2014 #73

yes, juries DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #60

+1 n/t FSogol Jul 2014 #54

On the contrary.... Bobbie Jo Jul 2014 #86

You Better Believe It! FSogol Jul 2014 #46

You forgot to add: "honest question". CJCRANE Jul 2014 #3

Most of the threads are just posters venting about the decision Harmony Blue Jul 2014 #8

What are your positions on choice and on Unions? Contraception? Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #13

I am pro choice and I am lukewarm towards Unions Harmony Blue Jul 2014 #72

Uh? RobinA Jul 2014 #32

Now, now... JimDandy Jul 2014 #14

So if an axe-wielding maniac comes after me I shouldn't be angry because I can see it coming? winter is coming Jul 2014 #4

Start your engines! tenderfoot Jul 2014 #5

Because Scalia is a fraud. He flip-flopped. House of Roberts Jul 2014 #6

I'm not blindsided. I can multi-task: be angry about this ruling and like a lot of the ACA riderinthestorm Jul 2014 #7

+1 nt stage left Jul 2014 #11

Well said! mcar Jul 2014 #62

anger can be caused by many things. being blind-sided is only one of them. unblock Jul 2014 #9

And yet another "Democrat" who is cool with LondonReign2 Jul 2014 #10

I am not a nihilist at heart Harmony Blue Jul 2014 #15

WTF does that have to do with the Hobby Lobby decision LondonReign2 Jul 2014 #18

no, not a nihilst DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #70

Enough of this bullshit. You folks need to come up with something better. Bluenorthwest Jul 2014 #12

Because the Affordable Care Act is the law lovemydog Jul 2014 #20

"Women are not and should not be treated as second class citizens" Quantess Jul 2014 #39

Most definitely, Quantess, in my opinion lovemydog Jul 2014 #56

And obviously have no problem investing their pension funds with companies who make contraceptives. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2014 #64

SSDD? Rex Jul 2014 #21

yes and SP = SSDDSP Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #27

It is a sad day when DUers defend the Corporate Surpremes. Rex Jul 2014 #31

sad, yes. but not surprised. I expected such as this from certain corners. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #40

I See This Ruling's RobinA Jul 2014 #23

Precisely, RobinA lovemydog Jul 2014 #67

I don't think many of us were surprised. dawg Jul 2014 #24

Because this opens the door to all kinds of abuses. 1. It is specifically discriminatory against lostincalifornia Jul 2014 #25

The better question to ask is why are you not angry at this? William769 Jul 2014 #26

again. Tuesday Afternoon Jul 2014 #29

Years and years of the same old stuff from the OP. Rex Jul 2014 #37

+1 myrna minx Jul 2014 #41

^^^this^^^ irisblue Jul 2014 #69

Why not? Are we obligated to approve of their opinions? nt bemildred Jul 2014 #28

ACA and birth control are only the tip of the iceberg o'crap. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #30

It's not about "free birth control", jeff - it's about fair healthcare coverage for women. redqueen Jul 2014 #35

Since "fair healthcare coverage" = "free birth control (for women)"... lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #51

Gee all this time I thought referring to healthcare coverage as "free" was rightwing spin. redqueen Jul 2014 #63

Is "free" an improper synonym for "shall not impose any cost sharing requirements"? lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #80

Are you saying HL covers 100% of employee healthcare premiums, jeff? redqueen Jul 2014 #87

No, I'm saying that the coverage purchased must deliver a laundry list of freebies to the insured. lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #88

"the list is much longer for women and includes reproductive healthcare" redqueen Jul 2014 #89

so, Viagra is not male reproductive care? DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #68

Show me the section of the ACA where it says Viagra is "without cost sharing requirements". lumberjack_jeff Jul 2014 #81

not a tiny piece at all DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #83

That's like saying George Zimmerman's acquittal was predictable, so no reason to be angry about it pinboy3niner Jul 2014 #33

+1 Rex Jul 2014 #43

Are you freaking serious? Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2014 #34

I tried to answer this OP. stage left Jul 2014 #53

I'm pretty sure all my conservative relatives on Facebook have unfriended me in the past 24 hours Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2014 #57

Wear that as a badge of honor, my friend. stage left Jul 2014 #74

Yeah, I like facebook better with lovemydog Jul 2014 #78

Sounds like a badge of honor LondonReign2 Jul 2014 #92

DU Unrec. You spew rightwing teabagger bullshit. eom MohRokTah Jul 2014 #38

+1. Glad you called it first. nt Ilsa Jul 2014 #52

+1. For a moment, I thought it was GG. He always agrees with the conservatives on the court. Tarheel_Dem Jul 2014 #71

The reason I'm angry at the Supreme Court. stage left Jul 2014 #44

You rec'ced your own thread lol. Rex Jul 2014 #45

He always does. BainsBane Jul 2014 #55

I never tried that - unaware it was possible. liberal N proud Jul 2014 #91

So why so much frustration? DonCoquixote Jul 2014 #48

Just a minor thing about women's reproductive freedom BainsBane Jul 2014 #50

Did anybody alert on this thread? MohRokTah Jul 2014 #58

Wow. WilliamPitt Jul 2014 #65

Indeed. stage left Jul 2014 #76

you are kidding, right? spanone Jul 2014 #75

you and your ilk are just crawling out of the woodwork today i noticed. m-lekktor Jul 2014 #77

Here. This post will help you understand why we are MAD. Rider3 Jul 2014 #79

The way I look at it, the entire ACA was supposed to be struck down Reter Jul 2014 #82

Reagan still loves you. GeorgeGist Jul 2014 #84

Just a neutral interpretation of the law, right? BlindTiresias Jul 2014 #85

Anger does not require surprise as a prerequisite. MadrasT Jul 2014 #90

Doesn't directly effect you so you shouldn't be angry? liberal N proud Jul 2014 #93