• givesomefucks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    16 hours ago

    How would getting rid of the VA result in savings?

    The rest was me explaining why it wouldn’t save money…

    • Eat_Your_Paisley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      16 hours ago

      You were talking about privatizing I wasn’t.

      One government heath care system is enough for all of us MFA fixes redundancy

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        16 hours ago

        You were talking about privatizing I wasn’t.

        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…

        With Original Medicare you can:

        Go to any doctor or hospital that takes Medicare, anywhere in the U.S.

        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

        • boonhet@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          15 hours ago

          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.

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            15 hours ago

            there’s no more need for 3 separate national healthcare systems (Medicare, Medicaid, VA)

            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?

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            16 hours ago

            Then you’re wrong…

            That’s not an opinion, you just don’t know what privatization means:

            privatization, transfer of government services or assets to the private sector. State-owned assets may be sold to private owners, or statutory restrictions on competition between privately and publicly owned enterprises may be lifted. Services formerly provided by government may be contracted out. The objective is often to increase government efficiency; implementation may affect government revenue either positively or negatively. Privatization is the opposite of nationalization, a policy resorted to by governments that want to keep the revenues from major industries, especially those that might otherwise be controlled by foreign interests.

            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?

              • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                16 hours ago

                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?