Medicare for all does not prevent you from choosing the doctor you want to.... It just changes who pays for the doctor visit.
So, the fact that Medicare has been providing health insurance "with good results" is your basis to support a government that would deny us choice?
I'm glad to hear that. Then let me pay for it as I wish, until I decide to change how I want to pay for it.
Okay. Lets assume that you are correct. If the government provides us with a system in which I can get my hip replacement surgery from the doctor I want, in the hospital I want, when I want, how I want, without the stringent approval boards or long waiting lists or other issues that have plagued other public health care systems around the world, then most likely the time will come when there will be no need for the likes of Bernie Sanders to want to outlaw private health insurance, because we will all eventually realize that we don't need to pay for it. So, if you are confident of what you just posted, then there is no real need for us to support the likes of Sanders on that aspect of their plan.
There is no denial of choice.... If you have M4All and want to pay a doctor straight up cash for your surgery when you want it, I'm sure they'll accommodate you. It's how rich people have been doing it for all time and eternity.
I am not talking about paying a doctor from my own pocket. I'm talking about being able to insure myself so I can afford to choose my own doctor based on my own timing, as I was a able to do this year. I don't understand some of you. You claim that private insurance would be obsolete if we had public health care, but in most countries around the world that provide a public option, private insurance is not obsolete, precisely because not everybody is happy with what the public option has to offer. Even China started allowing some private insurance. So, I don't know why some Americans insist on this idea of getting rid of private insurance altogether. Who is your role model nation for this? North Korea?
Your insurance already has restricted which doctors and hospitals are in your care network at a reasonable price. You can go to whatever doctor you want, but you won't get your insurance's discount price. same thing that's also largely up to the doctor's and hospital's availability, not when YOU want it done I think your doctor and hospital will take your considerations, but they are going to do it the way THEY want. If they cost too much or bill too many procedures, then your insurance will drop them from their care network really? that has more to do with a lack of available healthcare professionals or hospital beds. If we greatly expand healthcare, no matter how we do it, this is likely going to be a problem no matter what. , I think it's becoming obsolete, not made illegal. Yeah, we kind of didn't really support Bernie on that point. He was not and never was going to be the Dem nominee. He's not even a Dem.
There will always be a niche market for expanded coverage above and beyond the basic option for everyone. It could even be structured like Germany, where private companies administer the healthcare, but all offer basically the same thing with a few twists. But it will make insurance much less lucrative. I don't think anyone here is arguing to get rid of private insurance altogether. This is a straw man.
Yes, my insurance and my doctors took my considerations into account and I'm happy with the results. I told them I wanted to have the surgery in January and they told me to call them in early December. So I did. And they scheduled me for January 3rd with the doctor that I wanted. I'm happy with the service. Why would I support a candidate who wants to take away what works for me? By all means, add a public option for those who can't afford insurance or are unhappy with their service. That is reasonable, To force us to use only the public option and deny us options that are already available to us is not reasonable.
I'm glad you agree with me on that, but those are things that candidates like Sanders and Warren were proposing, and many on the left like Ocasio Cortez are still asking for. So, it's not a straw man, and in fact it was within that context that this discussion began, in the election thread, before it was moved here. Biden, thankfully, argued against the so called "medicare for all" and yet he supports a public option, so he is more in tune with the rest of the world. And thankfully he won the primary and is now our president elect.
Many countries that have universal health insurance allow you to get private supplemental health insurance. I’m honestly not sure what your problem is here.. If you are allowed to go to the doctor you want to, why does it matter who pays for your care?
There proposal is not taking away your ability to go to the doctor you choose.. all it is doing is changing who is paying for it.. You are going to get the same level of care and at the same facility (assuming you aren’t going to a boutique doctor, of course). It’d just be paid for by the government and not by a private insurer. You would most likely still be able to get supplemental insurance just like what is done with Medicare... if
There is no problem at all with me. It matters only because I am happy with the provider I have, with the service they provide, and while I will gladly support a public option, I expect that the government will allow me to keep my own option as long as it works for me. Let the government prove to me that their service is a better choice for me than what I already have, and I will gladly take it freely, without their coercion. We already know that other countries have issues, for example with stringent boards and with long waiting lists, problems which I have not experienced with my own choice of insurer, so I think it might be a good idea for America to work on creating a better system and prove that they will do better in those areas than other countries are doing, instead of arguing for getting rid of other options. As you say, other countries do allow private health insurance, in fact, almost all do, even China nowadays. It has not become obsolete, even where public options do relatively well. So, why would most Americans want to support candidates who want to outlaw private insurance plans? I am honestly not sure what your problem is with this. I am not arguing for limiting our options, but rather for expanding them with a public option. What is wrong with a combination of public health care and private insurance? Does that not work for you?
I'm going to help everyone out here. Monopoly=1 provider=the VA or the NHS Monopsony=1 buyer=the Canadian system or Medicare Please stop confusing them k'thx'bye
I see them as a (potential) textbook monopsony. They are close to getting to the point in which they can control a large number of providers (small manufacturers) and, by virtue of being the middle-man of preference between the manufacturers and the vast number of customers who choose to go through Amazon, they can force the manufacturers to use Amazon as their primary selling and distribution service, in an arrangement in which the manufacturer takes all the risk while Amazon reaps most of the reward.
Paywall. But the quoted part says nothing about getting rid of private insurance. Medicare doesn't outlaw other insurance. It just covers you if you don't have other insurance.
I'm not sure why I didn't hit the paywall, I certainly didn't pay. Warren is in the "supports it" column, along with Sanders and De Blasio. Then there is a column that says: "Supports it (Medicare for all), with role for private insurance. This column has Harris on it, along with Castro, Booker, Gillibrand and Ryan. The next column is "Prefers a Public Option" (which is closer to my point of view) and it has the largest number of candidates, including Biden along with Bennett, Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Delaney, Kobluchar, Inslee, O'Rourke, and other less relevant candidates. The last column says "unclear" and it has Gabbard and Yang.
Absolutely nothing about this would change with expanded Medicare/Medicare 4 all + private insurance. Well, none of them were on the ballot for President with a (dem) by their name, so...... ??? The only reason you would be "forced" to use the public option is because the other insurance companies can't compete, and then only offer supplemental, or enhanced, plans. Which you would go for. Me too. I'm doing pretty well financially. And still, the Bernie plan is not/would not be the disaster you think it would be. What doctor is going to refuse to accept patients covered by the only healthcare option available? The problem, as is the problem with others, is that once everyone is covered, the healthcare system might not have enough staff and resources to get to everyone in a timely manner. Fair point. But if you're a rich person, and want to grease the wheels or buy a plan that somehow shuffles you to the top of the deck, I'm sure that can and will be arranged. This is America. The wealthy will have their cake and eat it too. Always. Also, M4A is so far away from the mainstream, that even if a candidate is running on it, a pure bill like that will most certainly never get enough votes to pass both chambers. It is not even remotely a possibility. Bernie AND Warren lost the primary to Biden decisively. This is a boogeyman. Not happening. Won't happen. And even then, you are hyperbolically overstating the disastrous consequences of a hypothetical. It's unhinged. I'm glad your hip replacement worked well for you. Guess what? It doesn't work like that for a lot of people RIGHT NOW, and those are the ones we are concerned about. You know, the ones trapped in poverty due to circumstances not of their own making? Racism. Classism. _______ism... You're ********ing fine. You'll be fine. Settle the ******** down. [/John Oliver]
I imagine you are allowed a certain number of free stories a month and I already used that number up. That is usually what it is.
Frankly I'm not sure where you get your assumptions. I am not rich and my insurance plan was not designed for the rich. Kaiser Permanente is an organization founded in Oakland, California to help working people. It is one of the largest nonprofit healthcare plans in the United States, with over 12 million members. BTW, it operates 39 hospitals and more than 700 medical offices, while employing over 300,000 people, including more than 80,000 physicians and nurses. The idea that we should just close these places by enacting some crazy policy is idiocy. I think most Americans are likely to accept a public option, and if the nation ends up offering public healthcare that is so great that over time organizations like Kaiser become unnecessary, then it will eventually happen gradually and organically. On the other hand the idea of politicians like Sanders wanting to dismantle these places by law, taking away our choices based merely on the promise of the government's ability to provide something better than what they offer is ridiculous. And my point was that it makes sense that most Americans will not support these types of policies. There are good reasons why Biden is the president elect and Warren or Sanders are not, and there are very good reason why it would be politically untenable to attempt their ideas on this so called Medicare for all. So, why not support a public option for those who need it, which has a much better chance of success, instead of arguing for dismantling a whole industry by force, just to excite a leftist base that hates that industry on the basis of ideology, when in fact it's a ridiculous idea? Think it through. Doesn't it make more sense to work on trying to pass a public option for those who need it, and then give it time? It doesn't make sense to dismantle organizations like Kaiser Permanente. Let the people decide over time if they are still viable options for many of us or not. .
I think we are taking around each other. It seems to me that everyone here is arguing for the bolded part. They are defending Medicare itself as a functional system, and expanding the criteria for those who would qualify for it. Who here is advocating M4All and shutting down the insurance agencies? You keep saying Warren, Bernie and others. Are they posting here? Who are you arguing with? Where's this crazy leftist base? I guarantee that almost everyone who advocates for M4All is thinking that it really means a public option, but don't understand the difference. This is mainly a "defund the police" vs "reform the police" messaging issue.