|
Authored by: TemporalBeing on Tuesday, July 03 2012 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
The oversight should be provided by the AMA and FDA, not insurance companies
whose sole goal is to not pay anything out unless they absolutely have to.
The problem with having insurance companies provide the oversight is exactly the
issue we have now - doctors charge a given fee for a service properly rendered,
in accordance with the insurance policy, etc, and not getting paid enough by the
policy in order to cover their basic costs let alone make a profit; thus having
to pad the bill to get that alone.
No, someone needs to oversee the insurance companies and make them do what
they're suppose to do to start with. Regulating doctors is not their job -
that's the AMA's job (primarily) and FDA's (secondarily). If they suspect a
doctor of malpractice in any form (overprescribing, under prescribing) then they
should take it up with the AMA and have the doctor's license
reviewed/suspended/revoked.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mupi on Wednesday, July 04 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
---
The problem with the ACA is that there is no public option, with a public
option, the insurance companies would need to compete. Without a public option,
insurance companies can go their merry way and get more insurers paying into
the
insurance companies coffers without having to truly compete.
----
I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. If you have social security, you have the
option to pay for Part B, or you can pay a private company for PartB. If you pay
the private company, in most areas, there is at least one option that does not
cost any more than "vanilla" part B, but covers more. In some cases,
far more, than the "public option" of vanilla part B.
I'd be interested in seeing proof of any case where a government option was a
better deal than the private option.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|