John Williams wrote:
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:15 PM, David Hobby<[email protected]> wrote:
John Williams wrote:
Repeal government mandates regarding what insurance companies
must cover.
...
Make costs transparent so that consumers understand what
health-care treatments cost.
...
Going by the present state of things, the two
bullets above seem to contradict each other.
I can see why one might object to some government
mandates that insurance must cover certain categories
of care. For instance, contraception, mental health
treatment, substance abuse treatment, and physical therapy.
But if you repeal ALL government mandates, you'll wind
up with lots of policies that appear to cover everything
a consumer might want, but are actually full of loopholes
so that the insurer need not pay for standard treatments.
That seems the opposite of transparency.
Comments?
I don't see how your conclusion (2nd paragraph) follows from your
stated assumptions.
Are you making an unstated assumption that many consumers will
purchase policies that are "full of loopholes"? If so, why would they?
John--
Sorry, I thought that part was obvious. How on earth is
the average consumer going to check that their policy is
NOT full of loopholes? They'd need a LOT of legal and
medical expertise. Or are you proposing that they just
avoid ALL policies that don't clearly state what's covered?
Could you PRODUCE a sample of a policy where it WOULD
be easy for the average consumer to check what's covered?
---David
_______________________________________________
http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
