Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
19. Building railroads across the Rockies was an uphill battle.
Fri Jul 31, 2015, 12:59 AM
Jul 2015

Getting healthcare for all is not. It's just a matter of making sense of it and explaining the advantages. One of the advantages is that if you go to Illinois to work on a project for six months, you can easily use the insurance you purchased in Nevada. No problem. The rules are pretty much the same everywhere, and there is one provider network and one insurance payment and insurance management administration, and it makes everything easier.

In Europe each country had its own insurance system, but everyone was covered somewhere. It worked out fine. I had two babies. Each time, the baby was born in a country in which we were visiting -- in one case specifically to have the baby there. (We lived near the border of the country in which the baby was born.) In the other case, we had moved on the promise of a job that did not materialize.

The doctors were delighted to help me. No questions asked. My husband was working on the economy and had local insurance in different countries in each case. No problem.

Here, we over-complicate our health insurance issues.

If I am with Kaiser, I can't go to any doctor that isn't in he Kaiser network unless I get special permission. Why should that be? Why aren't all of our doctors, regardless what office they are in and with whom they prefer to work, on the same insurance schedule and list?

In my experience, it is our system that is full of red tape and unnecessary bureaucratic naysayers.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

If the states are going to administer it it seems it would be closer to Medicaid. n/t PoliticAverse Jul 2015 #1
Medicaid is something you ahve to be poor enough to qualify for. JDPriestly Jul 2015 #21
This is why we need to elect Bernie Cosmic Kitten Jul 2015 #2
YES! nt (Ms Bigmack) Bigmack Jul 2015 #3
Now, THERE'S a Candidate For President Who KNOWS How to Run a Campaign! Demeter Jul 2015 #4
I'll fight for hell for this. azmom Jul 2015 #5
Seems obvious DirkGently Jul 2015 #6
Ill-equipped to handle is right. JDPriestly Jul 2015 #23
MEDICARE-E, paid for by raising the cap on SS and Medicare withholdings. Dont call me Shirley Jul 2015 #7
That wouldn't cover, btw..... We'd need to increase the tax as well. Adrahil Jul 2015 #11
See my posts below, especially #19. JDPriestly Jul 2015 #20
Hell yeah hibbing Jul 2015 #8
I think that Americans would love it if they realized that one insurer, which is what JDPriestly Jul 2015 #10
This proposal is for 53 state- and territory-wide systems Recursion Jul 2015 #14
The point is that if you live in Maine, and you visit Texas, one phone call to the Texas JDPriestly Jul 2015 #16
Building railroads across the Rockies was an uphill battle. JDPriestly Jul 2015 #19
He should win for this alone! passiveporcupine Jul 2015 #9
K & R!!! Thespian2 Jul 2015 #12
As it stands the proposal is "Medicaid for all" Recursion Jul 2015 #13
A dedicated stream of revenue? JDPriestly Jul 2015 #17
That doesn't even make sense Recursion Jul 2015 #18
The states would tax employers and employees for the cost of the insurance. JDPriestly Jul 2015 #22
So somebody needs to work out how much this is going to cost and what the tax is going to be Recursion Jul 2015 #24
K & R. 50 years past due, if not more. Enough! appalachiablue Jul 2015 #15
Including dental, optical, hearing aids and mental health services please. Scuba Jul 2015 #25
Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»On 50th Anniversary Of Me...»Reply #19