new insurance commissioner would head a new government agency called the choice of health administration. This administration would be a regulated insurance exchange where consumers could choose between private plans and option controlled by the government.
It would also dictate the benefits of the plan and keep an eye on the marketing campaigns run by insurance companies.
So what are the arguments for and against?
criticism from a federal commissioner and the agency say it is just an attempt to give more power to the federal government, which is a predictable argument from the right.
But the left does not let the idea of easy either. Kim Holland, commissioner of insurance in Oklahoma, said the federal office would not provide sufficient protection for consumers. Holland, a Democrat, also pointed out that the federal government would duplicate the functions of state commissioners already do.
On the other hand, supporters of the idea argue States sometimes do not do enough.
"We need a better health care cop on the beat. There must be a federal insurance commissioner to keep insurers on the straight and narrow, "said a political analyst.
In addition, a federal commissioner would be required if there is an exchange insurance federal disease.
"If we're going to have a national insurance exchange, you can not make the turn 50 regulators in the states," added the analyst.
0 Komentar