I don't live in the US, but rather in a country where there's a state mandated, single-(state)-payer universal health insurance - with additional layers of coverage for additional insurance fee through the health care providers.
As an example, some types of coverage which are outside the universal, state-mandated basis where I live: Dental care; various more-expensive medications outside the "medicine basket" (never mind the details); reimbursement for privately-arranged surgery as opposed to surgery in health-care-provider-affiliated / state-owned hospitals; second-opinion consults; discount on various medical devices and so on.
My question: What are the main limitations (qualitative and perhaps quantitative) on the coverage the US "Medicare" scheme as it currently stands (compared to complete coverage of any and all medical expenses)?
- I'm not asking about whether these bills will pass, nor about how this is going to be funded, nor about the interaction with insurance companies and how that would change.
- Limitation can, however, be procedural, e.g. "you can only undergo certain medical exams if your own doctor's referral is approved by some review board, which often fails to approve" or "You can only see certain doctors rather than any licensed one" etc.
- I realize this can be described in minute detail; don't bother doing that - be a little more general.
- If you can also note which of the limitations are planned to be removed with the HR 676 Medicare-for-All bill, that would be nice.