Dr. Christine Eady MannVerified account

My main concern with having SP, is the restrictions on reproductive services. Right now I can’t get Medicare to pay for an IUD to treat endometrial hyperplasia in a 65 year old. Even though it is first line treatment. Why? Because Medicare doesn’t cover birthcontrol.

A valid concern. The M4A plans that I am in favor of would put medical professionals in charge of those decisions-Panels of experts rather than government bean counters or insurance company CEOs. We are as tired of fighting with them as you are.

But you know as well as I do, that’s not going to happen with govt insurance. We have a conservative leaning country who believes birth control and reproductive choice should not be paid for with tax dollars.

Instead of trusting a republican ran government who legally can strip funding from a SP system, or stop services their constituents don’t agree with, a mixed payer system, where regulation is tighter would be more feasible. Germany, Denmark and other developed nations uses both.

Republicans won’t go for a tightly regulated mixed payer system either if the plans allow abortion. They’d be writing the regulations. Having said that, I’m not opposed to those systems, just know that the admin savings would not be as great.

1. We regulate insurance now. Its easier to write a law that controls how insurers can charge, create standards of care and stop them from doing preexisting or catastrophic insurance. We did that with ACA.

2. It is harder to change the constitution to keep them from stripping funding as they did with CHIP. Or reverse the Hyde admendment. I agree with you that SP will be cheaper for administration costs. I don’t agree it’s the best for us because it limits reproductive freedom.

3. On an aside I’m super excited a female physician is running and I will donate to your campaign!