If Medicare is extended to all, patients will have a choice of about 95% of all doctors in the country and essentially all major general hospitals. As for private insurance, 53% of the insurance plans have very narrow networks with a very limited choice of local doctors and hospitals and no out of network coverage. Most of the remainder of the plans with larger networks cover only part of the state where the policy holder lives and either have out of network coverage available with a much higher copay or with no out of network coverage at all. Medicare has is the best option when comes to choice of providers.No, government healthcare is when government delivers the healthcare. Under Medicare for All, goverment replaces the insurance company. Your claim that people will be slaves to the government is pure speculation and IMHO is an exaggeration. What Medicare for All will look like, is completely undefined. At this point in time, it is a concept to move everyone with primary private health insurance to the existing Medicare system or some similar plan at some undefined date.You're a funny guy ray. Corporations are so anti monopoly.
The payer is single dumbass.
WTF do you mean the payer is single? Medicare for all is government healthcare. If that's what everybody has to use, then they make the calls.
Medicare for All will most probably not be Medicare as we known and it will not it be for all. I believe the most likely outcome will be the gradual lowering of the Medicare age requirement in order to remove older adults from private insurance. It could also include people that have very expensive lifetime treatments such End Stage Renal failure which Medicare now pays 80% of the cost regardless of age. If this is where Medicare for All ends up, it will drastically reduce the cost of private insurance.
I think what you fail to understand is the difference with money between the state and private insurance. When you pay your premium with private insurance, that money gets invested. The profits from those investments helps to pay the claims. With government, they take your money and put it under a mattress until needed gaining no profit.
Insurance companies also have divisions to detect fraud. That saves them billions of dollars. Government? Unless somebody happens to notice something very strange, Medicare and Medicaid get ripped off tens of billions of dollars every year.
You are correct on one thing, and that is we don't know what a Medicare for All system will look like. But if we allow it to happen, it will be nearly impossible to change back once it's realized as a failure. Then we will be stuck with a worse system than we have now.
My proposition is this: we can have both. We take all the people with preexisting conditions that can't afford high insurance rates, and allow them to buy into Medicare. That removes all the high risk patients from the insurance pool which would greatly lower insurance costs. Unlike ObamaCare, Medicare is relatively affordable, and the coverage is superior to Commie Care plans.
Then both sides can be happy, because that is a more than fair compromise between government and private coverage.
Of course, we protect private capital from risk and put that on taxpayers.
Medicare is great. The only reason no one "knows" what doing that to include all would "look like" is because private capital refuses to give up it's stranglehold.
Using private entities, you have choices. If government monopolizes the healthcare industry, then we are slaves to their demands. If you think some politician gives a shit about whether you have healthcare or not, you are fooling yourself. The Democrats only ploy here is to create as many government dependents as they can. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. DumBama created over 40 million new government dependents between Commie Care and food stamps alone. It was no accident either.
In Search Of Insurance Savings, Consumers Can Get Unwittingly Wedged Into Narrow-Network Plans