So, Mandatory Insurance and Malpractice Limits?

[terrell9584]

Who wins in this scenario?




I know who it is and it is darned sure not health care consumers or the American people.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

1. Depends on what the limits are on.

Limits are a hedge (yes, for insurance companies) to make insurance affordable.
Unfortunately, they can also be manipulated to provide windfall profits as well.
Google: "Necessary Evil" ;)

If the government is not going to provide single payer, they need to guarantee the viability of an affordable insurance market. People that can't afford insurance (because it is limitless) don't benefit from coverage. Likewise, companies that don't exist (because they cannot afford to provide cheap limitless coverage) can't benefit the people either. Government regulation needs to intervene on the insurance market and set reasonable and responsible limits. Limits that don't allow insurance companies windfall profits a but also limits that provide a hedge to keep rates affordable and give people good access to medical care. Limits on insurance payouts are an integral part of insurance calculations and are necessary unless the company desires to operate at a loss.

Said otherwise, the government needs to regulate the profit margin of insurance companies and severely penalize companies with too large of a profit margin on basic coverage plans. Regulate companies to provide basic coverage plans in a not-for-profit fashion... let them make large profits on the comprehensive/cadallac insurance plans. If this does not happen insurance (which you are mandated to buy) will have astronomical rates or pitiful coverage.

edit: typo

[LiberalFighter]

2. Durbin says that malpractice has little to do with health care costs.