If the rural area has only 5 doctors but your insurance only covers 2 of them that is fewer doctors available to you than if all of the doctors in the area were covered by M4A like they are in the UK and Canada, then that would mean instead of 2 covered doctors they would have 5 covered doctors. The insurance they have is supplemental insurance. Everything else is already covered. I said it would get rid of insurance as we now know it.
Dude. The rural area has only 2 doctors and the majority of their patients are already medicare, what don't you get. No you have said repeatedly that we would get rid of private insurance. Anyway I am done talking about this with you. You keep harping on the same talking points from somebody or something that you never link to. You have already acknowledged that you don't know the outcome of M4A yet every other post you keep saying everything will be better. You also never answer the question of why we can't get to the point you want without taking away private insurance. What is wrong with using a voluntary opt in system?
Are you done talking to me or would you like me to answer your questions? You can read this link if you would like. https://elizabethwarren.com/plans/health-care This also talks about how support rises or falls depending on which parts of the plans are referenced in the poll question. https://www.commondreams.org/news/2...ight-wing-talking-points-are-countered-strong So you can look at those. The Voluntary opt-in system isn't as good because more doctors will opt out of accepting medicare. If the only coverage aside from supplemental is M4A then almost all doctors will be part of the network from which patients can choose. Having other options also reduces the bargaining power and leverage that would be used to bargain for procedures and medicine. Opt-in would be a step in the right direction but it wouldn't reduce costs as much and give people the same freedom in choosing their doctors.
I'm done. I will read those. But you should read this. Those countries have private insurance. https://www.vox.com/health-care/201...payer-private-health-insurance-harris-sanders An international perspective is helpful here. When you look out at the rest of the world — at the dozens of countries that run universal health care systems — you find that every universal health plan relies, in some form or another, on private insurance. “Basically, every single country with universal coverage also has private insurance,” says Gerard Anderson, a professor at Johns Hopkins University who studies international health systems. “I don’t think there is a model in the world that allows you to go without it.” Other developed countries routinely use private insurance to fill in the gaps of their public plans or to offer patients a way to get to see a doctor a bit faster. Some countries, like Australia, even take aggressive steps like offering tax benefits to encourage citizens to enroll in private coverage alongside their public plan. “Each country has figured out its own role for private insurance,” says Robin Osborn, a vice president at the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund who studies international health systems. “In almost every system, it tends to not be controversial because the commitment to basic universal coverage is there.”
The issue of doctors serving rural areas isn't a Medicare issue, it's just an issue generally. In fact it's a function of the capitalism these people love. Fewer doctors means less competition which means they can set the rules they want when it comes to seeing people.
One of my pet peeves about M4A is that nobody seems to know that Medicare only covers 80% of doctor's visits/testing and there is a $1300 deductible for hospital stays. Most everyone who has traditional Medicare has a private supplemental insurance plan. If M4A is based on Medicare then private insurance isn't going anywhere.
I've read the last few pages and I'm still not sure if yall are talking about Medicare or Medicaid or Pete Buttigieg. They are 3 different things, btw.
I have friends in Norway who have explained to me in detail how everyone with means actually has a supplemental insurance plan b/c the goverment healthcare is so shitty. I'm a proud leftist, but my leftist colleagues are never being totally honest about healthcare. Northern Europe has better health outcomes per dollar, for sure. But they are not some utopia where people float in to see doctors whenever they want and receive great care. They wait months for surgeries that should be done in a more timely manner. They wait, they wait, and they wait, and they don't get the stop-it-nothing-to-cure-this treatment that we all expect. That's totally fine, but let's be honest about what universal care is like for huge populations.
I never claimed it was a medicare issue. My point was that M4A would exacerbate the issue. People will have longer wait times.
I think the front runners need to get together and make sure that they never go down the rabbit hole in a debate with arguing M4A vs. status quo, etc. They all need to immediately respond the same. That everyone on this stage first and foremost will "Secure and then Expand" Healthcare, and believe Health Care is a human right vs. Republicans/Trump who are actively suing in federal court to do away with pre-existing conditions & kick millions off of health insurance. No candidate should NOT state that in some way first before they launch into talking about their plan details. If you don't do that, you will lose the low information voters on healthcare which is why the Dems won in 2018. M4A isn't this big campaign killer that the media makes it out to be... it's the way that Dems talk about healthcare that is the campaign killer. The "IDEAL" plan should be separate from "THE PLAN" in the first 100 days as president. First 100 days in office will not be about Medicare for All. It will be about SECURING healthcare and lowering costs.
I'm quoting your post after all this time because I'm beginning to seriously wonder about this guy. Pete Buttigieg Won’t Talk About His Secret Work At McKinsey Now ethics advocates are calling on him to stop dodging questions. Molly Redden, Huffpost 12/05/2019 10:52 am ET Pete Buttigieg worked at McKinsey & Company, an elite consulting firm with global reach, for three years. But as the South Bend, Indiana, mayor builds his case for why he should be president, he has pointedly kept the details of that line on his resume a secret. Now that he is gaining in early-voting states, ethics advocates are calling on Buttigieg to stop dodging questions and tell the public exactly what he did at the world’s most prestigious — and notorious — consulting firm. What I want to know is, how much is Buttigieg a typical McKinsey-ite who only thinks in dollars and cents?” said Jeff Hauser, director of the Revolving Door Project, which scrutinizes ties between the executive branch and the corporate world. “We have plenty of experience that shows us how seeing the whole world in dollars and cents can be pretty harmful to vulnerable and poor people,” he added. “Is that Pete Buttigieg’s approach to governance? If he can show he rebelled against that approach, that would be material to people, too.” Buttigieg has avoided giving details on his clients and assignments by saying he is still bound by a nondisclosure agreement he signed as an employee. In response to questions from HuffPost, the mayor’s campaign said for the first time that it has asked McKinsey to release a full list of Buttigieg’s clients and to release him from his NDA. “We have asked McKinsey to be released from the NDA in full, and we have asked to release a list of clients,” a campaign spokesman told HuffPost. “To date, they have not agreed. We will continue to ask and are hopeful we can share more about his work soon.” McKinsey, a mammoth consulting firm with nearly 30,000 employees spread across the globe, has become infamous for taking on ethically dubious projects, such as advising authoritarian regimes. This week brought new disclosures about its work on behalf of President Donald Trump’s massive deportation efforts. McKinsey proposed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement save money by cutting food, supervision and medical care to immigrants in its custody, ProPublica and The New York Times reported Tuesday. Former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas), who left the Democratic presidential race earlier this year, called for “hold[ing] McKinsey accountable for profiting on human misery.” “McKinsey should never receive another government contract here or anywhere else,” O’Rourke said. Government watchdogs called Buttigieg’s NDA excuse a dodge. “The NDA is about as legitimate an excuse as Donald Trump claiming an IRS audit is the reason he can’t release his tax returns to the public,” Hauser said. “There is no scenario whereby McKinsey would sue Pete Buttigieg, a rising political star and possible president of the United States, for violating a nondisclosure agreement.” “The political risk is not that his former employer, a multibillion-dollar corporate entity that promotes fraud across the globe, will be mad at him,” he added. “It’s what he would have to disclose.” Journalists have been able to glean a little about Buttigieg’s work for McKinsey from his 2019 political memoir, “Shortest Way Home,” and from his earlier political career, when he was more eager to talk up his time at the firm as a source of business experience. The job took him to Iraq and Afghanistan, involved energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reduction projects, war-zone economic development work, “Canadian grocery pricing,” and work in retail and corporate settings. Buttigieg’s campaign said he had “no foreign conflicts” based on his work at McKinsey and stressed that he was a junior employee. The job was his first after earning a degree from Oxford; he quit it to run for Indiana state treasurer. McKinsey’s moral dubiousness goes much deeper than its work with ICE. Last year, the Times reported that McKinsey helped build up Kremlin-linked Russian companies the U.S. has placed under sanction. The firm is under investigation in South Africa for entering into an illegal, $700 million contract with the cash-strapped nation’s power company. A lawsuit filed in Massachusetts earlier this year accused McKinsey of helping Purdue Pharma, the company at the heart of the opioid crisis, “turbocharge” sales of OxyContin and forestall a government crackdown . . . Continued . . .
I like how ethics advocates are advocating for him to violate his employment agreement because, you know, the companies won't sue him since he's famous. That sounds like a super-ethical thing to do. Also curious what evil work people think McKinsey gave to a junior employee straight out of college.