No, it's easy for a doctor to deny you or for your insurance company to refuse coverage. "You're out of network." "I don't take Medicaid." Not to mention the people who don't have insurance at all. Let's actually bring some receipts into the discussion, because so far you've just been running your mouth without evidence.nope. I’m staring everyone should have a right to go to private or public hospitals.
which in its current state happens, even with Medicare.
Amelia Haviland, a statistician and professor of public policy at Carnegie Mellon University, said consumers are likely to have a "pleasantly different" experience with a shift to a Medicare for All system.
"There is no caution at the point of care at all," Haviland told Salon. "There's no restriction on what doctor you can keep. There's no restriction on what doctors you can see. There's no worrying about whether this doctor is 'in-network.'"
She noted that Sanders's plan addresses the "patient experience," which she said focuses on questions such as: "Can I pay for this? How do I need to arrange my care so that I can pay for this? Which provider can I see? When can I see them?"
Lindsay Wiley, a health law professor at American University and the president of the American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics, explained: "Under traditional Medicare, there's not the same concern about restrictive networks. There could be situations where a doctor is not accepting new patients but you wouldn't have to find a list of the doctors who have entered into a contract with your particular private insurance plan."
Allison Hoffman, a health law and policy professor at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, also pointed out that Medicare for All would produce a system with lower administrative costs, as doctors and nurses would no longer have to spend time transferring medical records between providers, sorting out insurance bills, filling out forms and negotiating with insurance providers.
"The process from a physician's perspective would be way simpler," she said. "They wouldn't have to have an entire office filled with people who are billing for all of that care. It would greatly reduce administrative costs and complexity — and the same is true for individuals as they're trying to choose their health plan or even use their health plan."
https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/this-is-what-doctor-visits-would-look-like-under-medicare-for-all/[URL="https://www.salon.com/2019/07/14/this-is-what-doctor-visits-would-look-like-under-medicare-for-all/"]Experts explain what Medicare for All would really look like[/URL]
You're trying to tell us what the system "should" be. That's a moral imperative. If you don't think your answer is morally superior, then why even make a thread? By what basis are you criticizing Medicare For All if not a moral one?No one said anything about being morally superior. U reached that conclusion on ur own.