I think you posted this in the wrong thread, but A+ for AOC there.

Thanks man. It's going to get solved one way or another but might take a while. It's not life-threatening, just debilitating if untreated. Fortunately, we've been able to mask some of that with meds. I'm confident that I'm already seeing some of the best people and know where to go for the next step(s). That's the hold-up at the moment: the next diagnostic procedure I'm being referred for is a tricky, invasive one that a limited number of centers perform with any frequency. That result determines the indication/type of surgery so it's a really important step to get right in one try.

GL lawnmower man

:flex:

Trump says he understands healthcare very well now, so it'll be fine.

He's always know more about healthcare than anyone else, he just refuses to share his knowledge with his party to implement policy.

Judge blocked Medicaid work requirements in Kentucky and Arkansas.

It would be great if Trump’s Pitard is Obamacare.

Kellyane Conwoman already laying ground work to gaslight. Said there will still be coverage for pre existing conditions.

They don’t even pretend there is a truth. They just say whatever is convenient.

Even if bolded were true (and it's not), is longer wait times a problem you would solve by booting ~10% of the population out of the system?

If you're suggesting the new system (whatever it is) is not going to have waiting times I'd love you to show your work.

The US is badly underdoctored/primary providered at present, and would continue to be no matter what sort of heath care system we end up with. One of the main drivers that keeps things even vaguely afloat is allowing FMG's to move here and practice in underserved areas for a period of time before they're released to go where they want. If anything, most of the new systems will decrease this incentive.

I AM NOT DEFENDING THE PRESENT SYSTEM - just pointing out that there will be some unintended consequences of whatever changes we undertake - and that at least in this area, things may well get worse. Probably (as I've noted before) the best strategy to improve access for a lot of people is to massively bulk up the production of NP/PA types - but this is something that would likely take years (decades?) to get done.

MM MD

Does Romneycare still exist in Massachusetts? Is it effective? What if the US had 50 Romneycares instead of single payer?

Which is better, having wait times for everyone or having 10% of the population unable to obtain care?

Also, if people were able to access the health care system through GP's rather than through Emergency Rooms, would that increase or decrease waiting time at the macro level?

I was only commenting on your statement that there would not be wait times under a new system.

I would prefer nonemergent cases be deferred to allow essential care for all.

Since as I noted the supply of GP's is already grossly inadaquate, who the **** knows how it would work out if we had sufficient primary care providers. We don't, and won't for the foreseeable future, no matter what sort of system we end up with. It's been ****ed up over the last several decades primarily due to poorly thought-out payment policies and strategies, generally by Medicare. It's going to take a long time to un**** it.

MM MD

A read on the opposition to the Canadian health care

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...-doctor-strike

So basically we are 50 or 60 years behind our friends to the north.

Seems about right.

Sarah Kliff GOAT

I guess my point would be that there won't be an extreme increase in wait times if the US went to MFA than there is now. Canada also deals with a massive shortage of docs, but the wait time issue, while not ideal, remains manageable.

Bottom line I'd still rather wait to get a procedure over not getting one at all.

As for the payment structure, this is also something that will be easier, not harder, in MFA. In our system the government just pays all the fees the providers bill, and only audits them afterward for situations where it appears like there was charges that don't line up with other providers. So if you're a GP and your billing is statistically in line with the other GP's in your area, it's unlikely that you'd ever see an audit.

I'd rather wait a little longer for stuff than get a letter while I'm in the fight of my life that my cancer treatment isn't covered because reasons.

That kind of stress has direct physical repercussions.

Who knows how many people die in this country due to stress of losing everything, on top of whatever physical malady they're trying to fight/recover from.

It's inhumane.

Do you really think UK NHS or Canada’s provincial plans don’t send those letters?

Yes I really think that. Why would the NHS refuse to pay for NHS cancer treatment? Do you have any evidence they do?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ind...784.html%3Famp

They use a QALY (quality adjusted life year) score to make case by case decisions on surgeries too. You can google what they input into “quality adjusted.”

Canadian provincial plans use something similar.

Dude it's still better than what we have here by a wide margin.

Not for a majority of Americans with pretty secure middle class coverage.

We need universal coverage but we have to be cognizant of the fact Medicare is considered subpar insurance by most Americans. You can see this with only about 14% (according to Kaiser data) of Medicare beneficiaries (you can change denominators and it still would be a minorities) on the default Medicare with no supplemental coverage.

We also need to be cognizant of the fact that in any UHC system, rationing will be necessary and rationing necessarily involves some combination of (death?) panels and coverage choices. (read, the plan won't cover some life saving/prolonging treatments)

Please show me where that means a 50-year-old gets their treatable bone cancer chemo denied.

Spending millions to keep someone alive for a few extra months is an entirely different animal.

None of us have any idea if we have adequate catastrophic coverage until we really need it. The whole industry relies on this illusion and small % of extremely dissatisfied customers due to rare events.

What percentage of those Americans with "secure middle class coverage" are really covered if they come down with bone cancer or get in a severe car wreck requiring weeks in the ICU and years of ongoing therapy?

Note - don't tell me how many people get their coverage denied out of the whole user pool. Tell me what % of people who get severely injured or seriously ill get their coverage denied. The insurance industry will never release that one. But if it's anything less than 99.99% then the whole system is bull****. They're taking payments for a service they never intend to offer. It's fraud.

Have you ever seen one of these documentaries of some poor woman with no hair from chemo - wading through a foot-high, desk-covering pile of bills and talking about how she spends 8 hours a day on the phone just trying to wrangle and make sense of hospital bills? This is somehow a superior system?

Nowadays it's not even the insurance companies as the hospitals and their bull**** trauma teams charing $18k for a nap, which insurance refuses to pay and amazingly is still on the patient to pay - even if they had perfectly adequate coverage.

I'd rather have death panels by a long shot than healthy people in the prime of life going bankrupt over technicalities, and even possibly dying due to the stress of realizing they aren't really covered like they thought they were, and are going to drag their entire family to the poorhouse if they survive.