News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I don't understand what you're trying to say?
The VA run and operate there own hospitals. So if you got rid of the VA you would get rid of those government run hospitals and force those veterans to go to for profit(privatized) hospitals instead. Which obviously cost more money. A VA like system for all like givesomefucks@lemmy.world described would probably be the most cost effect system to use.
The rest was me explaining why it wouldn't save money...
You were talking about privatizing I wasn't.
One government heath care system is enough for all of us MFA fixes redundancy
How would getting rid of the VA (a government healthcare provider) and instead paying a private healthcare provider government MFA funds not be considered privatization?
And unfortunately I think my next question is going to have to be: what do you think privatization is, if not the removal of a government service provider and replacing them with a privately owned company?
Edit:
Holy shit...
You think Medicare means you go to a Medicare doctor at a Medicare hospital...
That's the only explanation for what you're thinking...
https://www.medicare.gov/basics/get-started-with-medicare/medicare-basics/how-does-medicare-work
Medicare is a system to pay for healthcare...
It is not a network of healthcare providers employeed directly by the government. That is what the VA is
I hope that clears it up, but please try to learn the basics of a topic first
I don't really consider paying a private sector doctor with government funds privatization.
Then you're wrong...
That's not an opinion, you just don't know what privatization means:
https://www.britannica.com/money/privatization
You're literally arguing for privatization, and defending it by not knowing what the word means...
Are you serious right now?
Yes I'm serious now
And you're still surprised someone "brought up privatization" when you argued for the literal definition of privatization from the Encyclopedia Brittanica?
Like, not just that you disagree with the actual definition of the word, you're saying you were legitimately ignorant of the real definition, and that's why you were surprised I used the word that literally describes your opinion?
And despite all of that...
You still think your plan is well thought out?
Medicare sets its own prices, at least in the specialties I've interfaced with. Doesn't matter who the provider is. The whole thing saves money because there's no more need for 3 separate national healthcare systems (Medicare, Medicaid, VA) and a ton of bureaucracy can be reduced, especially on the eligibility check front. Whether or not medicare pricing is profitable for the entities providing healthcare or not is their problem, not Medicare's, but they'll get to lay off a bunch of billing employees themselves, because there's so much work with prior auths, benefit verification, etc that's no longer necessary, so they should be able to reduce their own costs too (which they'll kinda have to if they can only ever charge medicare rates and not private rates).
Right now, the US federal government spends more on health care as a % of GDP than many nations with single-payer healthcare. And then you add people's out of pocket spending, private insurance premiums, etc to it... It's ridiculous. Oh and I forgot state gov spending! They spend some money on Medicaid. Medicare for all isn't the absolute most perfect possible solution, sure, but it's going to save a ton of money.
We don't need doctors and nurses as long as we have claim approvers!
You gonna tell us how we don't need the USPS because we have FedEx and UPS next?
Why the fuck can't you see a better solution would be nationalizing the rest of the healthcare providers rather than privatizing the single largest healthcare provider in the country?
Why is everyone set on maintaining a for profit healthcare system?
Seriously, why do you think for profit healthcare is a good idea?
Or do you not know what that actually means like the last account didn't know what privatization means?
But that would actually allow to reduce the amount of claim approvers.
It's a better solution, but much harder to achieve, particularly in such a large country. How do you forcibly nationalize hundreds of thousands of healthcare providers at once? Keep in mind, most of them aren't Kaiser Permanente sized. Tons of businesses are one or two doctors, their nurses and front desk, if they even have a front desk employee.
Medicare for all could easily be a start, it does not preclude building a bigger nationally-owned network of providers.
Imagine this: All the VA hospitals remain government owned exactly as they are now, but everyone gets access to them, not just veterans. But since there aren't enough for everyone, you can alternatively go to a private provider if they've signed a medicare contract, and to you the cost is the same - and to the government, the cost is decided by a regulatory body, NOT the private healthcare provider. If the private provider doesn't agree to that pricing, they lose access to the medicare network and get fewer patients. Some doctors at the top of their specialty will refuse, because people will be willing to pay extra to see them, but most providers would prefer having the ability to treat literally everyone without having to worry about billing issues.
The government can then build more nationalized hospitals, particularly in areas where there aren't enough private providers that choose to partner up with medicare.
Even most (all?) countries that have nationalized healthcare, allow for private providers, and many allow private providers to provide services to the national health insurance system if they agree to the terms. Medicare for all could be a stepping stone towards a similar system, where the share of nationalized providers can grow over time.
That's almost 100 year old propaganda...
Nationalization is easier the larger a country is, not harder.
The same way the federal does anything, slowly and step by step. I also think you're saying "provider" like employee and not corporation.
Like, all the employees already work for a provider, you don't bring them over one by one, you bring the entire organization over. They still work at the same place, with the same people and the same equipment.
There's just noote ceo or board eating up profits.
I didn't read your whole comment tho, because anything you've built off that misunderstanding, is useless.