Quote:
Originally Posted by ratbastid
Not bad. But then also regulate it so they can't rescind coverage, and so rates are reasonable (which they're currently not). Enforce a maximum profit margin--something reasonable, but not (as is the current situation) excessive. Do away with the state regulations, so the policy you get in Nebraska is the same as the policy you get in Oregon. Simplify, de-complexify, un-obfuscate.
I know that second-to-last sentence sent a few of you Libertarians into conniptions. I'll just say this: if the individual states could have solved this, they would have by now. It's time for a broader, bigger-picture approach.
It's a shame we've backed down from single-payer, IMO. I guess it's politically impossible right now, but it's a shame. In My Humble Opinion, having a healthy populace is a perfectly valid way to spend my tax dollar. Every bit as valid as having working roads and police and firetrucks.
|
I dunno, sounds rather big brotherish to me. Plus what are you going to do if a homeless person shows up in the ER? Going to fine them? How are they going to pay the fine?
I certainly agree with "de-complexify, un-obfuscate." I find it interesting the one person (least the one person I know of) in the insurance business in this thread stated-
Quote:
|
Alot of times doctors will do one of two things. They will treat a patient and bill an insurance company then the patient receives a statement that the insurance company has denied the claim for whatever reason(miscoded or not covered) and the patient is stuck with the bill. Or the doctor will have to waste time delaying treatment by contacting the insurance company to see if said treatment is covered. A little more education done by insurers to policyholders would eliviate some of these problems, but the doctor would still not know what said patient is covered for or not.
|
Which I read as saying, correct me if I'm wrong rahl, more education from the insurance company directed at the insured and doctors would help. How about making the system less complicated? Wouldn't that be easier on everyone? From my personal experience I firmly believe the system is complicated and convoluted intentionally. I can't remember the number of times I heard "Oh, I see what the problem is here, form 27FJ was incomplete or filled out incorrectly. This claim will have to be be resubmitted." (yeah, I pulled that form number out of my ass... just can't remember details like this) Often I was told this several times on the same claim and by several I mean like 20+ sometimes. I'd call the Dr's office, they'd swear they resubmitted, I'd get a bill, call the Dr again, they'd swear... well you get the idea. It got to where I knew that once a claim was denied I had 90-110 days before a call and letter from a collection agency would be arriving. also had a dam good understanding of my rights regarding collection agencies and tactics. Oregon has a law where as long as one person in a conversation knows it's being recorded if it is recorded no law is being broken. I informed many people of this law half way through a phone conversation that became hostile. I don't respond nicely to statements like "look you dead beat son of a bitch..." Don't quote me but I think it's ORS 133.721. When you inform a person who's been yelling at you for 5mins. of this law the result is often dead silence, "umm... really?" or just "click, dial tone."
This is why I think there should be more over sight on policy issuers. This whole "form 27FJ wasn't submitted correctly" is pure crap. I think they just try to wear you down until you're so sick and worn out if you have the means you'll just pay it yourself.
Edit-
Think that should read ORS 165.540.-
Quote:
165.540. (1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 133.724 { +
or 133.726 + } or subsections (2) to (7) of this section, no
person shall:
(a) Obtain or attempt to obtain the whole or any part of a
telecommunication or a radio communication to which such person
is not a participant, by means of any device, contrivance,
machine or apparatus, whether electrical, mechanical, manual or
otherwise, unless consent is given by at least one participant.
|
It's that "unless consent is given by at least one participant." that's relevant.