[DangitBobby]

This is all just semantics. Arguably, the arbiter of what is "medically necessary" is practicing medicine. They have chosen to intercede in your care, and they should be liable for the decisions that they make leading to your health outcomes.

The legal system could just as easily have seen that the determination of which procedures are "medically necessary" is indeed part of medicine itself. It's a miracle of delusion and corruption that it went the other way.

[staticman2]

If you were designing a legal system you probably wouldn't want for profit insurance companies to decide who gets to determine if a patient needs treatment, due to the obvious conflict of interest.

But that doesn't mean applying the same "malpractice" framework to the people deciding what's covered under the program is necessarily the right approach either.

[SoftTalker]

We're fine with insurance companies sending adjusters out to inspect property damage or collision damage. We don't just expect them to pay for whatever the contractor or body shop says was necessary.

[DangitBobby]

And if their adjustment conflicts with the body shop, but it turns out the body shop was right and I die as a result? Who gets that liability? That's what I'm talking about. You can make adjustments, but you are practicing medicine when you do so.

[SoftTalker]

Unfortunately there are many examples of fraud on the part of practicing doctors. The insurance companies (whether private or government) can't just pay for whatever the doctors say they want to do.

[DangitBobby]

That's fine if they have the same liability as doctors when they decide what gets done.