2013? So after the next general election? Coincidence? You make the call.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Good for Vermont. This is exactly how it's supposed to be done. Let 50 states come up with their own ideas and we'll be able to see what works and what doesn't rather than having one federal bureaucracy that will be impossible to manage and provide shit services.
what happens when the doctors decide to leave because they can't afford to live there?
If they think this through and do it right, they will find a way to help pay for a portion of doctor's educational costs, making the initial investment less to become a doctor in that state. Then there won't be a need to make as large of an income. You might actually see people going into the medical profession for more than just the money.
You would have to create a contract to prevent them from leaving to early after providing for thier education.
After that time, I'm not sure that even the most dedicated doctor will not think about moving after seeing someone with thier exact level of experience making X amount more than they are just across a state line.
" 3. Directs the governor to come up with a funding plan by 2013. "
Oh yeah, this is gonna be good, what do you suppose current democratic governor Peter Shumlin in thinking right now? "How the fuck do you expect me to find all the money to pay for this shit?"
Ain't but one way to go with a single payer, gov't run system, and that's price controls. Healthcare providers will leave the state for greener pastures. There'll be some higher taxes, but it won't cover the deficits they're going to get. So, they'll have to decide the criteria for who gets what care. IOW, death panels by another name of course. Ain't going to be pretty.
If they think this through and do it right, they will find a way to help pay for a portion of doctor's educational costs, making the initial investment less to become a doctor in that state. Then there won't be a need to make as large of an income. You might actually see people going into the medical profession for more than just the money.
You would have to create a contract to prevent them from leaving to early after providing for thier education.
After that time, I'm not sure that even the most dedicated doctor will not think about moving after seeing someone with thier exact level of experience making X amount more than they are just across a state line.
Yes, they would need to sign some form of contract commiting them to practice in the state for a certain number of years, or they would have to pay back all the financial aid they received. As for them leaving, really hard to say. If they don't have to deal with a slew of red tape and paperwork, and if receiving payments become easier, some of their administrative costs might be reduced enough that they could still be happy with their earnings. Some people actually like doing their job with fewer headaches. Not sure where I read it, but I had read an article that discussed American doctors moving to Canada. Yes, the pay is less, but so are the headaches. Those who are moving to Canada to practice just want to practice medicine and not deal with all the BS that is involved when dealing with insurance companies. That's not to say we are seeing a mass exodus of doctors to Canada, but there are some who prefer than environment.
Since when has any government created buracracy EVER been able to reduce red tape and paperwork?
Since when has any government created buracracy EVER been able to reduce red tape and paperwork?
Since Medicade and Medicare.
Those systems are about 12 times more administratively efficient that private HC insurers.
Look it up if you doubt it.
"Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs: A Comparison of Medicare and the Private Sector," funded by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, an advocacy group for many of the insurance companies often held up in comparison.
"Medicare's Hidden Administrative Costs: A Comparison of Medicare and the Private Sector," funded by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, an advocacy group for many of the insurance companies often held up in comparison.
The claim was made that the government is incapable of providing anything efficiently.
AT BEST, the above points out what might be flaws in the way efficacy of those programs is measured?
What is does not do, however, is really give us numbers (administrative costs in comparison to HC paid out) to compare.
Why not?
Because, one suspects, even if the objections that the ADVOCACY GROUP FUNDED BY THE PRIVATE INSURERS were taken into account, Medicade and Medicare would still be hands down multiple times MORE EFFICIENT that private HC insurers.
The bold faced right wing poppycok that government is always inefficient in comparison to private companies is disproven time and time again.
But still the lie is advanced by the clueless and/or the specious whenever this kind of issue comes to the floor.
Pretty much everything you sincere conservatives think you know as apodictic truth is either an outright fucking lie, or a very cleaver distortion of the truth by techniques like half lies, overlooked facts or inuendo just LIKE tHAT we can read above.
Smell the propaganda, lads?
Your country needs you to wake up, now.
I think he was trying to be sarcastic...Don't need to lose my house...I'll just rent a cheap apartment in Vermont and go mooch.
So when you can't afford your own, you'll become the welfare child of Vermont. That is more what I would expect from someone like you who claims to be so self reliant.