Quote:
Originally Posted by jay santos
A gov middleman would still have the SG&A costs, they just wouldn't require the 5% profit. You save 5% profit but costs balloon because no one is managing them.
It would be good for you in the sense that you're not being told you can't do a surgery when you want to, but it certainly wouldn't cut total health care costs to the consumer.
The reform I'm lookin for is in cutting costs, not in giving more power to docs.
|
Why would you assume that the government wouldn't regulate what doctors could do in various situations? I don't think the government would necessarily give doctors more freedom.
Let me give you an example of how my HMO regulated my claims when I was on the verge of death from Crohn's disease...
HMO: "Your doctor's last name is the same as yours, so we are denying your claim on the basis that he is your relative."
SoonerCoug: "But we aren't related. He's from Kansas, and I'm from Utah."
HMO: "We don't hear you."
Me: "Really. He's not my relative. See! I have my family tree back to the 13th century!"
HMO: "OK, well, we can't pay your claim anyway because it was a pre-existing condition."
...I could go on and on. They do this with the hope that people will eventually give up, and it's a load of crap. I don't call that regulation. I call it crap.