[fzeroracer]

Rural healthcare is being crippled in part due to state politicians posturing for political clout. Major reforms like medicare for all shouldn't be held back because they're not perfect, because otherwise we're going to continue having the same problems we've been having where compromised half-assed bills make the system overall worse.

[jmye]

I’m not saying we shouldn’t reform - I’m saying we should be careful about what that reform is, and what its goals are. I would generally suggest that CMMI and provider groups is/are more heavily involved than big city voters who know very little about a very, very complicated issue.

Lastly, rural healthcare is in trouble because reimbursements are bad (especially Medicare reimbursements), FFS (fee-for-service) is a failed model, there’s a massive credential shortage, and given those, the credentials that exist would prefer to work in desirable places, not Pine Ridge, SD. If you’re serious about fixing healthcare, you should start by fixing education. State politics, specifically around Medicaid, are, generally, not driving the hospital closures and OB/GYN deserts.

[fzeroracer]

State politics absolutely are driving hospital closures and OB/GYN deserts because the 'desirable places' metrics includes places that won't prosecute doctors for routine prenatal care. That's literally why we're seeing Texas and Florida suffer from an increasing lack of OB/GYN care.

I don't dispute the rest of your arguments about healthcare, but you cannot fix education and/or brain drain without fixing state politics.

[jmye]

These issues were occurring before Dobbs - suggesting that’s a major driver in the long term creation of care deserts is incorrect.

Hospitals are not closing because of shitty prenatal laws. They’re closing because reimbursement rates are insufficient, in part, because we’ve allowed too much consolidation, in part, and because there aren’t doctors/nurses who want to live in the sticks and make peanuts.

[op00to]

Why is it Medicare’s problem to fix that educated people choose not to live in certain places?

[jmye]

So your solution to healthcare in this country is to light rural America on fire so that you, personally, can have cheaper care?

That sounds workable.

[burnerburnito]

I think what he's saying is far more comparable to:

"If you choose to live on an obscure island or corner of alaska unreachable by land, should the government be obligated to keep a doctor living and working nearby you?"

To which I'd then imagine the thought process is more sometimes you'll just have to move to a more urban / developed area if you have a really severe disease, or deal with long drives or getting plane flights.

[jmye]

> If you choose to live on an obscure island or corner of alaska unreachable by land

This is a sort of disingenuous way to talk about rural America. Pine Ridge is two hours from Rapid City, not the middle of nowhere, Alaska, and the discussion isn’t about specialty care, but normal primary care, hospital and Ob/Gyn services.

Saying “suck it you stupid rubes, move to a city” is going to make it difficult to get anyone to agree with your version of healthcare reform, assuming it was even going to work.

[op00to]

That’s not what I said at all.

[jmye]

Then perhaps you should use your words and explain what you actually mean, lest it be assumed to be ill-informed snark.

[op00to]

Why would I bother arguing with someone who misconstrues what I say?

[Wytwwww]

Wouldn't proper regulation of the health-insurance industry be easier to achieve than Medicare for all? It's not like single payer is the only real option. A 100% privatized system can work just fine with proper regulation. US could more or less just copy paste the Dutch insurance system..