[kimmers]

Harrison,

Good points.

I do not know how limited the policies would be. Would they cover ADR? Maybe. It is FDA-approved and a public option would have to cover FDA-approved devices and drugs.

That is what logic follows plus the government is looking at evidence-based medicine and the evidence shows that for DDD without contraindications, ADR is indicated over fusion. ADR is superior to fusion in that case. It costs less.
The government in the UK covers ADR.

I don't know how much pared down would be a government policy. I am serious when I say that my insurance sucks. Blue Cross/Anthem has some weird formula to reach the deductible and then the out-of-pocket maximum. I have to meet a $750 deductible for out of network coverage and then it only pays less than 50 percent of the bill and you are stuck with the bill. I paid out of network for my pain doc when i should have been covered in network. Does that make sense?

When you are paying $15-20,000 per year for health care bills and that does not include the price of the insurance, something is wrong. We are paying for service that we don't get. This is like paying $500 per night for two nights at a five-star hotel and you go and find you only get half a day stay for your money. Most businesses do not act or behave like this but insurance companies do.

Even in their so-called evidence TEC assessments and medical policies they purposely omit important studies about ADR and fusion. They don't even keep an even playing field. The cards are stacked against the consumer/patient.

Right now, insurance companies are governed by their shareholders in the market. What is good for the market is what the insurance companies want. Without competition, they can do just about anything they want to and they are. They can push the patient around until most give up. Til some die.

The system is money-driven while it should be patient-physician-driven. No competition equals no change.