• norb@lem.norbz.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is disingenuous at best. While insurance companies may not offer to pay for "unnecessary" services, they also do not actively prevent doctors from doing them. Sure, someone might go bankrupt because of medical debt, but they aren't dying and no doctors are going to prison for doing what they think is in the best interest of the patient.

    So what the government is doing here is more malicious than what insurance companies routinely do.

    • Aviandelight @mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      No they just actively decide not to pay for them which in America is basically the same as a denial of treatment. When people have to decide between paying for healthcare, meds, or food and shelter we have a problem.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Agreed. I had to get surgery last year that the insurance company initially didn't want to pay for. Before that got settled, the hospital said it would be $15,000 with half as a down payment.

    • spongebue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not to "no you" but this take is pretty disingenuous considering the high cost of health care, especially when you remove any negotiated rates that may bring it to a more reasonable number, but granting that there may be some "cash discount" rate as well.

      Regardless, it's theoretically possible but practically speaking it still blocks treatment for many.