3 ms·
> It will not allow participating institutions and providers to offer private care for covered services to the rich I feel this is going to be a major talking
by WrtCdEvrydy 8y ago
> It will not allow participating institutions and providers to offer private care for covered services to the rich
I feel this is going to be a major talking point... Canada's system kinda works like this. Basic coverage with additional coverage you can purchase.
- creaghpatr 8y agoThis bill is less about what it gives and more about what it takes away. Can they convince 155 million people to give up their employer-sponsored insurance for a government option?
- pjc50 8y agoThat's not what's happening though; it's the providers who have to pick one or the other, not the public. Again, this sounds a lot like the UK system, where employer insurance exists but is genuinely a perk rather than something you need to survive.
- crooked-v 8y agoI would in a heartbeat if it means more take-home pay and/or never having to think about which providers are "in network" again.
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoSee pjc50's parallel comment to your own. You may still have to think about which providers are in the government plan.
- Mirioron 8y agoThe chance that this will end up giving you the same level of care for less money is practically zero.
- WrtCdEvrydy 8y agoIt depends. Insurance companies are able to negotiate better rates as they get larger.
- rwj 8y agoThat's true, but not quite the same. There is one system and one payer for emergency care, as an example. You can't pay for additional or better care. However, eye glasses aren't covered by the public system. Additional coverage would help here.
- alasdair_ 8y agoThat’s also how the uk works. Even there, it’s still possible to go to a completely private hospital for most things but generally not for true emergencies.