We can make it an option, sure. But for every year they get medical education paid for by tax dollars they should spend a year working in a public hospital for cheaper than a private doctor would earn. Which is fair, I think, since they won't have to worry about loans and interest. I think that would severely cut down on healthcare costs and increase our population that possess medical training.
How exactly would it save money? If the program covers $50k of a student's tuition but requires them to work for one year at $150k less than they would otherwise earn, no student would take it. If the program covers $50k of a student's tuition but requires them to work for one year at $50k less than they would otherwise earn, the student might take it, but it wouldn't save any money.
I don't know about other states, but in Texas you can go through med school free, yes, free, if you're qualified.
Got a link to that?
I never said a thing about private insurance. Before Medicare and Medicaid came along, in the 1960's or so, doctors mostly got paid in cash or kind, and even today, if a doctor or a dentist knows you have no insurance and can only pay cash, or like me, pays cash anyway, their bill magically becomes a lot smaller. Not many people had 'private insurance', except for management and some workers under a union contract.
All of which is astonishingly unrelated to your claim that doctors were struggling back then as compared to now.
Not that many are refusing; some are just whining because Medicare no longer just automatically pays them whatever they want,
Then you must not know many doctors. I know plenty across all fields who are refusing Medicare/aid patients or at least placing limits on how many they take. But hey, don't take my word for it:
As Medicaid Payments Shrink, Patients Are Abandoned - NYTimes.com
and if you think many were not padding their bills, I doubt you will ever get anything straight,
Ah, so Doctors were only making a profit because they're corrupt. Interesting.
especially if you think Medicare has been, or is now, 'barely profitable'.
Not sure that you understood what I was saying.
Let's do a survey.
How many people know that 'private' health insurance is a monopoly in most states, many with only one underwriter for the entire state, and few states have more than two?
Hopefully not many people "know" that, because that's a bold-faced lie.
http://hcfan.3cdn.net/648e0302462c448dd3_6om6b909w.pdf
-There is not a single state in this country that only has one underwriter. -There is not a single state in this country that only has two underwriters.
-In 40 of the 50 states, the top two underwriters combined cover less than 80% of the market.
-In 18 states, the largest underwriter doesn't even have a bare majority.
How many people here know that most people covered 'private' insurance' have no real choice to chose any doctor they want? The vast majority are just given a list of 'pre-approved' doctors, and going outside of the 'system' means paying out of your own pocket anyway?
No one with a functioning brain doesn't know that. Of course, to those of us who are looking at this rationally rather than as a rant, such a factoid is useless without actually considering what that really means in practice. When I entered my zip code into my insurer's website to find a general practitioner near me, the system maxed out, only showing the first 500 options within 25 miles. How ever will I survive with such a paucity of choices?
How people know that a large percentage of 'private' employer provided insurance is essentially worthless, after the deductibles, etc., and if you come down with a major illness, like cancer, you'll be dropped as soon as you miss a payment, or sooner if you forget to mention you had acne once when you were 12, or some other 'falsification' on your medical history, anything they can use and hope you die before it gets to court, if ever?
If you don't think it's worthwhile, don't get insurance. Nobody is forcing you to. Well, except for Obama.