A look at other capitalist healthcare systems

[Uhtrinity]

What I would like to see us do:


Take the approach of Tawain and look at all the systems in the world, then proceed to take the best pieces of each of those. I like parts of practically all systems shown in the documentary and they have shown it can be done cheaper (for less GDP) than we spend. But the middleman will have to take a cut, and that middleman being insurance companies. For example Germany and the Swiss require insurance providers to be non-profit. That doesn't mean CEOs and employees don't make money, it just means that some investor somewhere can't leach 30% out of the system.

edit: and the problem with the US system isn't lack of availability of health care; except in cases of extreme procedures, transplants, cancer treatment, etc. It is in the cost of basic care. Without insurance you can incur enough medical bills to make you go bankrupt in a very short time. Our benefits are also tied to a specific employer, so if you change jobs or lose your employment the health benefits change or are gone. That is what is wrong with the system. This doesn't happen in most of these other countries mentioned in the documentary. It is a shame we are the richest nation, spend more on healthcare, but still have these shortcomings.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42
I didn't look at the link because it's bed time, but the thing that keeps going over in my mind is that we are so sue happy here in the US that the first person who is "wronged" by any government health care program is going to sue the government.

What would happen if the US health care system denied a $50,000 procedure on a patient who would probably die in the next few days anyway?

I hope any health care package comes with brutal, sweeping tort reform.

How about we let the insurance and pharma and medical industry write the 'tort reform' so that you have to have a bulletproof case and many wronged peopleget nothing?

Hey, it'll cut costs.

Can't be bad.

Oh, that's not what you mean by tort reform? You didn't say anything to prevent it. Who do you think is the power behind the tort reform movement, and their agenda is?

 

[Phokus]

Just watched the video, really insightful

Taiwan was lucky, they let all the other countries experiment and they took the best ideas out of all of them.

I like how they looked at the US's market based approach and said, 'uh fuck that no' :laugh:

Not surprisingly, they said it most closely matched Medicare and Canada's system, much to the chagrin of conservatives here.

 

[Phokus]

Also, i find it interesting that the swiss president (who is center right) was opposed to healthcare reform from the center left party 10 years ago but now supports their program.

Maybe there's some hope in America that the ignorant conservatives will be pro-healthcare reform once it's adopted and won't try to dismantle or screw it up it in the future.

 

[Uhtrinity]

I find it interesting (not surprising) that those that have been anti-universal healthcare reform have been absent in this thread. Watch the video and post your opinions. Information won't hurt you. If you have a counter argument and evidence feel free to post it.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Seems to be a pretty good documentary for the average joe to get a glimpse into other ways of structuring healthcare. However, it isn't very in-depth for those who like dealing with the details.

Very true, but the basic questions now are more 'big picture' than the details, and there's only so much they can do on several countries in one hour.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: TheSlamma

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Something that always irritate me about these. The question "How much do you have to pay for care" Answer is always "Free" The only people this is free to is people who don't pay taxes, to everyone else there is a price.

Sorry, but you're being obtuse. Everyone understands the question is what thepatient pays directly for the treatment, and that while that's 'free' it's paid for by taxes.

It's like you going into a store and asking how much an item costs and when told $1.00, launching into a rant how that doesn't count for your taxes to pay for all the roads to get customers to the store, and defense spending to protect the store and the country, and the US Mint costs to print the dollar bill that's used, and so on.

lol

So if someone asks me how much it costs to drive on a non-toll road and I say "It's covered by the taxes I pay" then I answered incorrectly?

What do you mean non-toll! you misrepresented it, the same way the people who say the payment they owe for the treatment is free (froth froth sweat scream).

If you travelled to some place with some toll roads, and asked someone, 'does the road from X to Y cost anything', they'd understand you were asking about a toll.

They'd say 'no, it's free'.

You're not 'incorrect' to mention the taxes for the road any more than you are about the fact that government pays to print the dollar you spend in my example.

The issue here isn't the 'accuracy', it's your 'being irritated' when the people don't say something everyone already knows and it's unnecessary to say.

If I asked a question clearly meaning is it a toll road and you answered that your taxes cover it, I'd probably think, oh a tax nut who injects that where it's not needed.

Everyone knows the 'free' roads are maintained by taxes. Everyone knows the free medical treatment is paid for by taxes.

For you to make an issue of it and be realy irritated for people not to say that, is obtuse. Changing the subject to the accuracy from the issue of being 'irritated' doesn't help.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Something that always irritate me about these. The question "How much do you have to pay for care" Answer is always "Free" The only people this is free to is people who don't pay taxes, to everyone else there is a price.

Well, let's see...in the USA you pay:

Taxes for Medicare that you're not entitled to use...yet

Rapidly rising premiums to cover profits/increasing costs

Rising costs/copays to cover losses from uninsured patients or medical bankruptcies

And if your employer covers your premiums, that's money they deducted from your salary before you receive your gross.

In the US, you pay more for less.

Personally, I don't care what kind of public healtcare system gets passed. This is just bread and circuses to distract the masses. Anyone who honestly thinks that the government is going to provide improved healthcare services to the poor isn't thinking straight. The government will provide the same quality of care that they do for welfare recipients, or Katrina vicitims, or patients at VA hospitals. I can forsee the quality of healthcare for the poor actually going down after the government takes over. Let the suckers have their wonderful soylent green "universal healthcare" and take the issue off the table.

QFT. But the response from the left is, ANY care is better than no care. Of course not thinking what the ripple effects will be. And not really caring to either.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Something that always irritate me about these. The question "How much do you have to pay for care" Answer is always "Free" The only people this is free to is people who don't pay taxes, to everyone else there is a price.

Well, let's see...in the USA you pay:

Taxes for Medicare that you're not entitled to use...yet

Rapidly rising premiums to cover profits/increasing costs

Rising costs/copays to cover losses from uninsured patients or medical bankruptcies

And if your employer covers your premiums, that's money they deducted from your salary before you receive your gross.

In the US, you pay more for less.

Personally, I don't care what kind of public healtcare system gets passed. This is just bread and circuses to distract the masses. Anyone who honestly thinks that the government is going to provide improved healthcare services to the poor isn't thinking straight. The government will provide the same quality of care that they do for welfare recipients, or Katrina vicitims, or patients at VA hospitals. I can forsee the quality of healthcare for the poor actually going down after the government takes over. Let the suckers have their wonderful soylent green "universal healthcare" and take the issue off the table.

Yeah right, that is why it has worked in Britain since the 1950's.

You wear your ignorance on your sleeve.

I wouldnt call what Britain has "working". I personally know 4 people in the UK, 3 are on public assistance. They have it FAR FAR worse than than our poor here. Anecdotal, perhaps.

 

[LunarRay]

Well.... let's see if this makes sense..

The marginal cost to treat an additional patient over the current case load has very little if any 'fixed' costs involved... and for that matter very little 'variable' costs.
The buildings and equipment are gonna be there if the Hospitals treat 100 more patients a month. The patient may have to wait a bit longer.. The percentage of beds being used will increase until someone decides to delay elective procedures etc.. but the only incremental cost I can think of is the medicine, bandages and the like consumed on the 100 more patients..

There are hospitals all around that can handle an increase in patient load.. may have to hire more providers at the end of the day but that amortized over the entire patient base means better care for all..
So just why is the UHC such an issue?
Me thinks it is because it is an industry for profit. AND they don't have to patient base over which to amortize the fixed costs in a reasonable manner... I suppose when the technology increases so fast they'd ought to welcome every patient they can get so to reduce the per patient cost of service...

Let's nationalize the health care industry and see where that goes..
Seems to me..

 

[TruePaige]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: TruePaige

Originally posted by: glenn1

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Something that always irritate me about these. The question "How much do you have to pay for care" Answer is always "Free" The only people this is free to is people who don't pay taxes, to everyone else there is a price.

Well, let's see...in the USA you pay:

Taxes for Medicare that you're not entitled to use...yet

Rapidly rising premiums to cover profits/increasing costs

Rising costs/copays to cover losses from uninsured patients or medical bankruptcies

And if your employer covers your premiums, that's money they deducted from your salary before you receive your gross.

In the US, you pay more for less.

Personally, I don't care what kind of public healtcare system gets passed. This is just bread and circuses to distract the masses. Anyone who honestly thinks that the government is going to provide improved healthcare services to the poor isn't thinking straight. The government will provide the same quality of care that they do for welfare recipients, or Katrina vicitims, or patients at VA hospitals. I can forsee the quality of healthcare for the poor actually going down after the government takes over. Let the suckers have their wonderful soylent green "universal healthcare" and take the issue off the table.

Yeah right, that is why it has worked in Britain since the 1950's.

You wear your ignorance on your sleeve.

I wouldnt call what Britain has "working". I personally know 4 people in the UK, 3 are on public assistance. They have it FAR FAR worse than than our poor here. Anecdotal, perhaps.

They have a NHS. Of course they are on some kind of public assitance.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Just watched the video, really insightful

Taiwan was lucky, they let all the other countries experiment and they took the best ideas out of all of them.

I like how they looked at the US's market based approach and said, 'uh fuck that no' :laugh:

Not surprisingly, they said it most closely matched Medicare and Canada's system, much to the chagrin of conservatives here.

Yeah Taiwan is real lucky. Since switching to single payer in 1995 they are deficit spending, hitting 1 trillion this year. Real lucky. But deficit spending is the new cool thing to do, so it wont get much thought.

 

[Genx87]

lol the United States is "market" based healthcare. In what way?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Govt intervenes with Medicare and Medicaid. And it mandates insurance and providers provide levels of care regardless of cost. I cant even buy health insurance across state lines. Then to top it off with insurance and govt programs the end users never really feel the cost of the service. What a wonderful "market".

There is no true open market healthcare in this country. Which is one of the reasons why the costs never cease to stop going up.

 

[TheSlamma]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: TheSlamma
Something that always irritate me about these. The question "How much do you have to pay for care" Answer is always "Free" The only people this is free to is people who don't pay taxes, to everyone else there is a price.

Well, let's see...in the USA you pay:

Taxes for Medicare that you're not entitled to use...yet

Rapidly rising premiums to cover profits/increasing costs

Rising costs/copays to cover losses from uninsured patients or medical bankruptcies

And if your employer covers your premiums, that's money they deducted from your salary before you receive your gross.

In the US, you pay more for less.

Thanks for the lesson.. too bad it didn't address my statement at all. :thumbsdown: I'm against justifying things with 1/2 truths. If you are at all capable of reading I said:
I think if I was to be part of any of these systems in their countries I'd want to be in Japan, outside of them needing to balance the prices to get the hospitals out of debt theirs sounds pretty good IMO." I seem to have complimented the Japanese system, isn't reading the whole post cool?

 

[Adn4n]

Originally posted by: Genx87
lol the United States is "market" based healthcare. In what way?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Govt intervenes with Medicare and Medicaid. And it mandates insurance and providers provide levels of care regardless of cost. I cant even buy health insurance across state lines. Then to top it off with insurance and govt programs the end users never really feel the cost of the service. What a wonderful "market".

There is no true open market healthcare in this country. Which is one of the reasons why the costs never cease to stop going up.

I remember President Obama saying, during one of the presidential debates, that the reason health policies aren't national is because all companies would operate from the state with the least stringent laws. The example he brought up are credit card companies, which I believe he said operate from Delaware.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Doesn't that fit most of what the government does - occassionally when something gets good funding, it usually goes pretty well. Moon landings, an energy plant, interstate roads.

So is your solution that government well-fund everything you find important?

 

[Patranus]

Originally posted by: Adn4n
Sick around the world.

Having lived in Germany for a decade I can confirm what they say 100% about that country. As diverse as all these systems are, all countries have a few things in common: no profits, no bankruptcies.

Well this is America not Germany.

Did socialism built America into the only super power? How did socialism work out for the Soviet Union?

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: Adn4n

Originally posted by: Genx87
lol the United States is "market" based healthcare. In what way?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Govt intervenes with Medicare and Medicaid. And it mandates insurance and providers provide levels of care regardless of cost. I cant even buy health insurance across state lines. Then to top it off with insurance and govt programs the end users never really feel the cost of the service. What a wonderful "market".

There is no true open market healthcare in this country. Which is one of the reasons why the costs never cease to stop going up.

I remember President Obama saying, during one of the presidential debates, that the reason health policies aren't national is because all companies would operate from the state with the least stringent laws. The example he brought up are credit card companies, which I believe he said operate from Delaware.

except for the ones in south dakota... god forbid that companies should move to a state with a favorable business climate for their industry... we can't have that...

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
lol the United States is "market" based healthcare. In what way?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Adverse Selection and Risk Selection (not that you actually give a damn about the inherent failings of a free market healthcare system, government regulation or no government regulation)

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Adn4n
I remember President Obama saying, during one of the presidential debates, that the reason health policies aren't national is because all companies would operate from the state with the least stringent laws. The example he brought up are credit card companies, which I believe he said operate from Delaware.

They operate from South Dakota. And the reason they do is because of the 1978 decision known as Marquette Nat. Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp.. That was when the Supreme Court decided that states had no right to regulate interest on credit cards issued to state residents.

Citibank persuaded the governor of South Dakota to raise the state's rates and the rest is history. Many attribute the subsequent growth in credit card debt and the abuses with fees and penalties as dating to that decision.

Those who think that insurance companies should enjoy the same unfettered access as credit card companies might want to be careful what they wish for.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: Phokus
Just watched the video, really insightful

Taiwan was lucky, they let all the other countries experiment and they took the best ideas out of all of them.

I like how they looked at the US's market based approach and said, 'uh fuck that no' :laugh:

Not surprisingly, they said it most closely matched Medicare and Canada's system, much to the chagrin of conservatives here.

Yeah Taiwan is real lucky. Since switching to single payer in 1995 they are deficit spending, hitting 1 trillion this year. Real lucky. But deficit spending is the new cool thing to do, so it wont get much thought.

That deficit is astounding considering their revenues were 50.91 billion, expenditures were 54.7 billion and GDP was roughly 400 billion in 2008 :roll:

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/pu...-factbook/geos/tw.html"><a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/tw.html">https://www.cia.gov/libr.........k/geos/tw.html</a></a>

Where the hell did you even get such a bullshit number

http://in.reuters.com/article/.../idINSEO17881120090116

TAIPEI, Jan 16 (Reuters) - Taiwan's parliament late on Thursday passed the central government's 2009 general budget, which will yield a shortfall of T$134.6 billion ($4 billion), the second deficit in a row but bigger than in 2008.

 

[Athena]

FYI: T.R. Reid's book about the health care in different countries will be published at the end of August.

The Healing of America: A Global Quest for Better, Cheaper, and Fairer Health Care

Another good PBS documentary about health care was Critical Condition, produced by Hedrick Smith almost 10 years ago.

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: BansheeX
But what about bankruptcy on a national level?

Do you mean as opposed to bankruptcy at a personal, corporate, and national levels?
After all, 75% of 2007 bankrupts had health insurance and yet 60% listed medical bills as a major factor in their failure. Blue Cross was GM's largest single vendor for over 15 years; how many other companies do you think are trying to decide how to avoid following them over the abyss? Not to mention the rising costs of Medicare, Medicaid and benefits for federal employees.

And yet, while we spend more than 15% GDP to cover 82% of the population, those other countries spend 8%-10% to cover 98 - 100%.

...The socialists will try to say that something else is to blame, but we've seen this stuff over and over and over again.

Are you saying classifying the Swiss, Australians, French, Dutch, etc. all as "socialists" based on their conclusion that that affordable access to medical care is a a fundamental element for their national security?

 

[Athena]

Originally posted by: Patranus
Well this is America not Germany.

You are right; this is the US with a net trade deficit last year of almost $700 billion while the Germans, the largest exporter in the world, closed out the year with a net surplus of 177 EUR (250 USD). Could there be any truth to the idea that US corporations are disadvantaged when they compete with companies from countries with different health care financing models?

Did socialism built America into the only super power? How did socialism work out for the Soviet Union?

How did capitalistic hubris work out for the UK? After all in 1900, it was the financial, manufacturing, military and political leader of the world. Whatever got them there certainly didn't keep them in that position. Looking backward certainly won't keep us at the top of the heap either.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: miniMUNCH
Institute profit margin limitations (I'd like to see hem mandated at no more than 5%...

Given that they are already only 3.2%, I'm not sure that would help much.