Veterans don't need that. They can just go to the VA for regular care. That's another bullshit private program. Why wouldn't you read the article? Because there are too many facts in it and it doesn't prove the point you're trying to make?
And emergency cases where someone must be treated in a public hospital that are 60 miles away from the nearest VA hospital?
What is CHAMPVA? CHAMPVA (the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs) is a federal health benefits program administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Is this even for vets? After reading that it sounds like its for civilians... Vets get VA care and do not have to pay.
You keep pushing that notion but it's completely untrue. The government won't be making any decisions on where you get care.
LOL! Keyword "Civilian". Meaning civilian doctors, not VA doctors. They are still the vets that receive this benefit
Link? Everything I've read has Bernie explaining that the government will negotiate all deals and make it available as a GRAND HEALTHCARE SYSTEM. Show me where the people get to choose and negotiate their deals.
What do you mean negotiate deals? All doctors would be paid by the government. There are no deals to negotiate exept: Drug prices from Big Pharma. They hate that because it means they need to reprice their drugs and my son's inhaler would no longer be $137.87.
Well shit man! I didn't know we have the kremlin politics?!?!?! You will be our doctor and you get paid THIS MUCH! Refusal and we will SQUASH you! NO DEAL! ONLY OUR DEAL!
What is a Voucher Plan? What’s Wrong With It? A Voucher Plan is a version of health reform that seeks to provide a simplified means for individuals to purchase health insurance, while retaining the private insurance system intact. The principal advocates of this plan are Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist now serving as one of President Obama’s principal advisors on health care reform, and Victor Fuchs, a retired economist from Stanford University. Under this plan, individuals would be given a health care certificate, an insurance “voucher,” which would entitle them to enroll in a private health plan of their choice. Employer-based insurance would be eliminated. The vouchers would, under the Emanuel-Fuchs plan, be paid for through a value-added tax (VAT), essentially a sales tax on all manufactured goods and services. This is a highly regressive way of financing such a plan, since low-income people spend a much larger percentage of their income on purchases of goods and services than do higher-income people. However, the main problem with such a plan is that it leaves the wasteful, inefficient, and inequitable private insurance system in place, with no change at all in its operation. It simply makes it easier for us to purchase their defective product.
You didn't read..... Under single payer, won't physician incomes go down? Not necessarily. Canadian physicians have done well under their single payer system - as documented in a recent, careful study. In addition, streamlined billing under single payer would save US doctors vast amounts in overhead, and free up additional physician time to see a few more patients. Hence, even if doctors' gross incomes declined slightly (a questionable assumption if they're freed up from insurance paperwork and able to devote more time to patient care) physicians' average take home incomes wouldn't change under single payer. Of course, some doctors' incomes would go down - e.g. those who currently enjoy a particularly rich payer mix. On the other hand, some would see an increase - e.g. those currently caring for many Medicaid or uninsured patients.
Mags... You are completely uninformed about Single Payer and have obviously drunk some right wing kool-aid on the subject. Please educate yourself on it. I'm done debating you on a subject that you don't know much about. Again read the FAQ: http://www.pnhp.org/facts/single-payer-faq
And just so you know @magnifier661 , I've been on the front lines of this debate since 08'-09'. My Ex wife and son have "preexisting conditions". I've been fighting this battle for awhile and am very versed on Single Payer. Please get educated on what it is. Is national health insurance ‘socialized medicine’? No. Socialized medicine is a system in which doctors and hospitals work for and draw salaries from the government. Doctors in the Veterans Administration and the Armed Services are paid this way. The health systems in Great Britain and Spain are other examples. But in most European countries, Canada, Australia and Japan they have socialized health insurance, not socialized medicine. The government pays for care that is delivered in the private (mostly not-for-profit) sector. This is similar to how Medicare works in this country. Doctors are in private practice and are paid on a fee-for-service basis from government funds. The government does not own or manage medical practices or hospitals. The term socialized medicine is often used to conjure up images of government bureaucratic interference in medical care. That does not describe what happens in countries with national health insurance where doctors and patients often have more clinical freedom than in theU.S., where bureaucrats attempt to direct care.
Dude, someone or something will have to agree to whatever terms are used. Their isn't a number that appears out of thin air. The wage is set by the management that regulates it, the government. They will negotiate among themselves for what wage is acceptable and lay it out. The Doctor or whomever can decide to work for that wage. In the end, it's whatever the government decides. Look bro, obviously you aren't getting it and you will defend this to the end. The reality is the government has total control over all healthcare. That is a government regulation that takes away all decisions from the people that pay it (the tax payer). End of story. If you are for it, then good for you. I don't accept living in a communist country where my government dictates what I buy or how I buy it.
No Mags. You can still take your excess cash and spend it on private healthcare services, if you don't like what you get for your tax dollars. Just like you could hire a private security force if you didn't think the cops were doing a good enough job protecting your property. barfo
Your answer is rather knee jerk and makes no sense. If they compete for your auto insurance and the rates go down, then they should compete for your health insurance and the rates go down. Distort the market and there's no competition and WE lose.
Preexisting condition is a side effect of distorted markets. When the government pays for things, people (doctors, hospitals) charge $800 for a hammer and $2500 for a toilet seat. If the government were out of health care, the cost of things would be much lower and preexisting conditions would be factored into the actuarial tables. Nobody's stopping the government from selling insurance and competing (instead of CONTROLLING) or building hospitals and hiring doctors and buying medicine and directly providing actual health care.
Maybe. It's the same way we do it for lots of things. If you want to send your spawn to private schools, for example, you still have to pay the tax that supports the public schools. If you want something different than what everyone gets by default, then you have to pay extra for it. Yes, seems fair. barfo
