snot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-18-09 03:24 AM
Original message |
A KEY Problem Re- HCR Not Being Mentioned: |
|
Enforcement.
I don't care what kinds of requirements or restrictions they place on the insurers; if there's no public option, requirements and restrictions have to be enforced (through some means other than competition).
There are only two other possibilities: (A) massive governmental regulation, or (B) individuals being able to enforce their rights via lawsuits.
If there's no public option, the insurer doesn't have to worry about everyone switching over. So the only things to worry about are (A) or (B) above.
(B) is not going to work, because it's far too slow and expensive for individuals to file a lawsuit every time an insurer wrongfully denies a claim. Indeed, (B) has always been available, and obviously has not done the job.
That leaves (A). Think about just how massive the governmental regulation and oversight would have to be to keep the instances of wrongful denial and the like down to a truly negligible proportion. Talk about having government regulators breathing down your neck; well, that's what it would take to keep these succubi in line. And there's no way in h*ll the new bill is going to establish and fund the kind of regulation and regulatory agency that would be needed.
|
tomm2thumbs
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-18-09 03:29 AM
Response to Original message |
1. oh, there will BE enforcement - but it will be on folks who don't pay up - not on insurers |
|
we already have insurance commissioners in this world - and look how well THAT is working
|
readmoreoften
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-18-09 03:39 AM
Response to Original message |
2. Funny, I totally forgot that they're going to try to pass this off as "regulatable"... |
|
But of course they are. And of course it's not. If it was regulatable, it'd be regulated now. :crazy:
|
ThePhilosopher04
(435 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-18-09 03:48 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I agree...totally unenforceable. |
|
We can't enforce the tax codes we have now, not to mention adding another layer to the mess.
|
BzaDem
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Dec-18-09 03:50 AM
Response to Original message |
4. A public option wouldn't provide ANY enforcement for the pre-existing condition ban. NONE. |
|
Insurers WANT to kick people with pre-existing conditions onto the public option. If someone with a pre-existing condition threatened to leave an insurer because they weren't treated well, the insurer would say "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out, sucker."
The ONLY way to enforce the pre-existing condition ban is through regulation. A public option has huge benefits, but enforcing the pre-existing condition ban is not one of them.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu Apr 25th 2024, 04:42 PM
Response to Original message |