(lost track of who wrote what) >> 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? I think the assumption that consumers will purchase policies full of loopholes is a fair one. I see this every day in the world of physical therapy. Folks are offered 2-6 plans and don't look at the physical therapy benefit, the look at basic doctor visit/med copays as the most frequent cost basis and evaluate assuming much of the other plan will follow suit. It is not until folks need the "other benefits" that they find the "loopholes", like visit maximums (most commonly something like 30 visits per year regardless of the type or number of problems- from catastrophic things like stroke or 2 knee surgeries, etc). I have heard in Florida that some plans have a 20 visit maximum per body part per lifetime. Some of the Medicare Advantage plans look attractive to folks since they have lower copays and contrary to 30 days of rehab under conventional Medicare and then paying "more", the Advantage plans require copays of $150-200 per day for 30 days then picks up the tab. Most folks don't really want to read all the details or get presented with such a huge variety of things they don't know how to sort it all out. A standard set of options can be compared by consumers much easier. Since healthcare providers have to help folks live with the consequences of policies, we see how confusing it is to "average people". My 2 cents only on this part of the dialog, Dee
_______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
