Quote:
Originally Posted by Nepenthe
Can someone laser this for me? How does this compare to H.B. 676?
That bill had these provisions:
Section 102 (c) No cost-Sharing -- No deductibles, copayments, coinsurance, or other cost-sharing shall be imposed with respect to covered benefits.
Section 104 (a). Prohibition against duplicating coverage -- It is unlawful for a private health insurer to sell health insurance coverage that duplicates the benefits provided under this Act.
Section 202 (f) No Balance Billing -- Licensed health care clinicians who accept any payment from the Medicare For All Program may not bill any patient for any covered service.
That pretty much means no shared responsibility (I don't know how that helps control for the actual cost of health care), private health insurance would become illegal, and a medical professional can either accept government funds OR private payment (in cash) but it's illegal to accept both.
-----------
Is the Sanders plan pretty much the same? What are the differences with regard to the above, if there are any?
-----------
Is handing all the power over to the government the right approach? Wouldn't this eventually (after a couple of decades of the big data / internet of everything in place) lead to the government regulating and controlling many aspects of an individual's daily life and lifestyle?
|
As I recall, and unless changed, 676 dictated centrally owned facilities. IMO not where we want to go. We should want to keep the delivery of our HC AMAP in the private sector as with Medicare. Otherwise we end up with a giant VA type system.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
