decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The problem... | 355 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The problem...
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 | # ]

The problem...
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 | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )