Quote :

" Then ask yourself why people come to this country for healthcare from the stat superior systems?"

in What rates does this happen?

There are plenty of situations where someone goes overseas of healthcare too.

3/11/2009 9:14:05 PM

The tales i hear of people going overseas are bc its cheaper. Agreed?

The tales I hear of people coming here is for access and quality.


here is a great example I learned from my CE last week. There is an injection for wet armd, its very expensive but very effective. Thousands per injection. This is covered current in the US. Across the pond? Its covered after you go blind in one eye. Pretty amazing stuff. But i suppose that is why they also have private hospitals in europe too.. bc the quality is SO great in the public ones.. they just wanted something to complain about so they opened up the privates for shits and giggles.

Oh i forgot the bit about americans going overseas to test US drugs that are being experimented in other countries bc of fear of lawsuits... sorry i left that one out.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 9:32 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2009 9:19:06 PM

Socializing Health Care is not going to improve it. Changing a few things in our current system can improve it greatly.

* Introduce Health insurance products that only cover major expenditures
* Tort reform

3/11/2009 11:19:43 PM

Between Big Pharma and the health care industry I think some gov't policies need to be removed and other policies should be enacted to make it affordable.

Health care costs should be reasonable and attainable for those working full time, have worked (now retired), disabled veterans, those in between jobs after being laid off, and maybe those legitimately a victim of circumstance who can not hold a normal job (ie woman gets hit by a drunk driver who fled scene, rare disease, etc)

Nonetheless I think Universal health care is a horrible and gov't should not go into business of overseeing this massive industry. Health care is not a right. I cringe at the thought of working my ass off to subsidize peoples irresponsible, lazy, and destructive lifestyle. Not only due to my own selfishness but also in eliminates people's incentives to act/live responsibly.

-No longer faced with high medication costs from obesity related diseases perhaps Tammy Sue will have less incentive to lay off that Triple Thick burger or the never ending past bowl at Olive Garden.

- LaShawnda will not tell her boyfriend to wrap his tool since she can have Obama pay the medical costs of a 7th child.

- Steve will wait till he finds a new job before quitting the job he hates b.c its not worth the risk of flipping his truck off roading, breaking his leg/neck, and getting stuck with a 90K hospital bill while he has no health insurance.

Quote :

"* Introduce Health insurance products that only cover major expenditures * Tort reform"

Tort Reform is way overdue. I partially disagree with your first point though. The health care liberals gain a lot of ammunition from the current debacle within ERs and frankly i somewhat agree. Primary care physicians should be affordable to anyone who just wants to walk in. This would be achievable through tort reform and other measures that would lower mal-practice insurance.

Doing this would relieve the ER system of its current stress by non-insured patients coming in simply for the flu or a more serious problem (to which that waited until they were pretty my keeling over) that should not be there. This distracts ER staff from real emergencies and raises the costs for everyone else.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 11:45 PM. Reason : l]

3/11/2009 11:40:30 PM

I wish we would do a system like Australia has. Everyone pays into the public health insurance, which pays out up to, if I remember correctly, 80% of your costs. Then if you'd like you can buy private health insurance to cover the other 20%.

Japan also has a similar system, but their doctors kind of scare me, so I'd prefer Australia's version of health care

^ I can guarantee you health costs are not a consideration to the people you mention in your examples. Under the current system they go to the hospital anyway and everyone else still shoulders the costs of their health care, just at a much higher rate.

[Edited on March 11, 2009 at 11:59 PM. Reason : .]

3/11/2009 11:56:14 PM

Health Insurance should be viewed more like house insurance. For instance, house maintenance (repainting, reroofing, re siding, general repairs etc.) costs are not covered under house insurance. Nor should they be. But people have this idea that every medical expense should be covered under health insurance policy. This expectation leads to higher premiums in general. Health insurance should be insurance against major expenditures that a person couldn't possibly pay back in the course of a life time.

3/11/2009 11:57:51 PM

wolfpackgrr is correct, In our area a bulk of the patients using the ER for their primary care have medicaid. But these are, for the most part, adult children and irresponsible people.. so it matters not how much thier visits costs anyone.. bc they dont pay for it anyway. Allowing the ERs to turn away people is the solution.

Hoff, I agree with you. The first step is to uncouple employment with health insurance. The govt started this mess and now we have grown with the atttitude that someone else should pay for my insurance if I work. It takes the decision making away from the individual. So as thier involvement in thier healthcare choices lessen, thier expectations increase.. leading to people feeling unsatisfied. There is no reason why we cannot have a govt HSA so people are covered for the big stuff and have tax free money put into YOUR account. This could be purchased through your employer, like a payroll deduction, or purchased on your own. Now if one does not purchase this and has to pay then hospitals/drs should be allowed to deduct some amount of money per month from whatever income they have up to a percentage as incentive to get the insurance and not leach.

Cash paying consumers will not only lower healthcare costs it will also increase pressures on practices to keep moving forward in technologies to earn your business, so care should increase as well. We have factual information of that happening now, people just dont want to hear it.

3/12/2009 8:54:25 AM

Quote :

"Allowing the ERs to turn away people is the solution. "

Agreed. Unless you are dying, your arm is falling off, or in labor; you should not be allowed to visit the ER.

If you have a sniffle and to lazy/cheap/irresponsible to have health insurance than you either need to tough it out or pay up.
Maybe if you saved some money instead of buying that 45" Big screen, the unlimited txt message plan, or hennesey every week
this wouldn't be a problem.

Quote :

"first step is to uncouple employment with health insurance.... someone else should pay for my insurance if I work"

You do pay for it as I am sure it is taken into consideration for your fair market value salary. I do not see a problem; a big corpoaration
can provide cheaper health insurance due to economies of scale. Even so I still pay $30/month for my insurance and have various
co-pays so its still not all free.

Quote :

"There is no reason why we cannot have a govt HSA so people are covered for the big stuff and have tax free money put into YOUR account"

I already have tax-free money put into my account. I do think the FSA program needs to fixed. Why is it that I have to plan
my FSA allocation amount at beginning of the year and i lose any unspent money at the end?????

This is MY money deducted from my paycheck. True it goes untaxed but as long as I am spending it on medical expenses what is the big
deal of rolling over allotted money or increasing the amount in my plan.

3/12/2009 1:03:04 PM

^the problem with tying health insurance to employers is that, if you don't get to individually shop for your own insurance company. Why can't health insurance be more like car insurance. That way you change jobs or get laid off you will still have coverage under the same insurance company.

The FSA/HSA thing is a good idea. Government could legislate a taxfree account to hold money designated only for spending on medical costs. This is a good idea because it allows people to control their money and puts the responsibility of spending it wisely on the individual. This is the most efficient way.

3/12/2009 8:56:58 PM

Quote :

"People aren't smoking because smoking is no longer the popular thing to do, as well as the fact that you are practically hated by the hippies if you smoke. It has nothing to do w/ doctors telling their patients not to smoke."

lol what fucking planet do you live on

i know plenty of actual hippies from spending a bunch of time in Austin, TX, and I've never met a single one who doesn't smoke cigarettes

3/13/2009 7:19:20 AM

you know that it wasn't literally meaning "the hippies," jackass

3/13/2009 12:48:46 PM

Quote :

"the problem with tying health insurance to employers is that, if you don't get to individually shop for your own insurance company."

Yeah, my dad was just bitching to me about this today. Apparently they raised his costs 10% this year like they always do, but at the same time reduced the benefits. His company is a bunch of cheapskates when it comes to health insurance.

3/15/2009 11:22:26 AM

You think its bad now? Obama just put some more CHANGE into healthcare.. he really is trying to force people into govt plans.. imo

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/15/america/health.php

"The Obama administration is signaling to Congress that the president could support taxing some employee health benefits, as several influential lawmakers and many economists favor, to help pay for overhauling the U.S. health care system.

The proposal is politically problematic for President Barack Obama, however, since it is similar to one he denounced in the presidential campaign as "the largest middle-class tax increase in history." Most Americans with insurance get it from their employers, and taxing workers for the benefit is opposed by union leaders and some businesses.

In television advertisements last fall, Mr. Obama criticized his Republican rival for the presidency, Senator John McCain of Arizona, for proposing to tax all employer-provided health benefits. The benefits have long been tax-free, regardless of how generous they are or how much an employee earns. The advertisements did not point out that Mr. McCain, in exchange, wanted to give all families a tax credit to subsidize the purchase of coverage."


And dont blame your fathers company raising premiums as them being greedy, i bet they are only passing on a small portion of the increase to the actual employees. Ins premiums are really increasing and will continue to do so as the population ages and people demand/expect more coverage from their ins. Im able to see both sides of it, so in one year our health ins premiums rose 22% while the SAME ins. company cut our dr reimbursements by 4%. To continue to have my wife covered under the group plan at the office would have double to 400/month. We went out and got her covered for a little over 100 a month. One thing most people dont consider is that the employer plans are group plans of which many have older population working for them which will drive the prices higher.

3/15/2009 12:05:13 PM

Quote :

"And dont blame your fathers company raising premiums as them being greedy, i bet they are only passing on a small portion of the increase to the actual employees."

At my last company they did it as a cost cutting measure to benefit the companies bottom line, ultimately, the shareholders.

My view of health care is actually framed around the idea that my employer paid about 25 grand or so for my insurance over the past 6 years and I probably had 5000 in costs over that entire time. If you remove the past year where I had an xray, mri, and maybe 5 physical therapy appointments for a buldging disc in my low back, that number drops to about 1500. This is an enormous cost to society.

3/15/2009 12:48:41 PM

Sure Fail boat, your company is in business to make money not provide health ins. So when healthcare costs are increasing faster than profits then they have to make cuts somewhere.

Can you rephrase your point on the costs of your healthcare? Im not sure I understand the point you are making.

3/15/2009 12:54:24 PM

Quote :

"Obama just put some more CHANGE into healthcare.. he really is trying to force people into govt plans.. imo"

i don't get what you guys continue to push back about. I understand that you fundamentally don't want the gov't providing or paying for healthcare. I get that, on an ideological basis.

but at the same time all you do is complain about how much it costs the businesses to insure their employees.

So, what do you want? Is your ideal utopia where everyone buys insurance on their own, without employer or gov't involvement? Sure, maybe that would be the best - but that is never going to happen. Now that we've had 40 year of employer subsidized insurance, we are never going to go back to a buy-it-yourself system. So starting where we are now, someone is going to have to continue to subsidize insurance. The options are employers or the gov't. Both options are problematic and have problems, but the employer-sponsored system we have now has been shown to be completely untenable. It cannot continue like this, so where do you want it to go, realistically?

3/15/2009 1:08:05 PM

maybe you havent seen my past discussion on this agent, yes I do think getting govt completely out of healthcare is the best answer, but most unlikely. What I do feel we can do very short term is to move to govt HSAs. This tax free money would be yours and you have a cat. policy so the biggies are covered while giving people the options to choose thier own doctors and level of care.(and lowering govt costs) This also changes the practice model back to providing great service and lowering costs. You can see this is exactly the case NOW with uncovered procedures. (procedures/tech improve while costs decline)

3/15/2009 1:20:29 PM

Quote :

"Can you rephrase your point on the costs of your healthcare? Im not sure I understand the point you are making."

The insurance company profited 5-6 grand a year on me not using health care services. This went to their execs and shareholders. It's a bit telling when you compare Aetna to the S&P 500 index. Since March 17, 1995 Atena's stock price is up 250% compared to the S&Ps 54%. Aetna has also been paying a dividend for awhile (chopping it down a bit when the company was in the doldrums in the early part of the decade). Their CEO made 23 million last year and has about 200 million in stock options (down 100 million as the price has come down since Feb).

I really haven't spent a ton of time thinking about health care because I do agree with you that liberals and republicans alike don't have the political guts to go on their record and call this country fat and unhealthy and we need to get in shape and stop demanding the best health care at the fastest speed. However, when I just look at the surface about how much I am paying for how little I have used, I tend to think there has to be some alternative out there that makes society richer, not executives and shareholders.

3/15/2009 1:25:14 PM

Failboat, I think you actually back my point. However, you need to realize what insurance is. Ive paid car ins since i was 16 and have only used it to replace a windshield. Look at all that money wasted. I pay 30 dollars a month in life ins. that I hope i never have to use... but you might consider wasted money. But moving PAST that, I do agree with you. If you do not like how your ins company is spending YOUR money the choose another one.. OH thats right, we currently only favor companies to make these decisions and not individuals with our tax code.

Your situation is exactly why INDIVIDUALS need more control. You could simply pick another ins. company if it wasnt structured the way things are. And I consider you to be in the top 40% of americans educated on healthcare bc you actually KNOW what ins. company you have. More than half of my patients do not, which is just sad... but shows how people are becoming bystanders in thier own healthcare decisions. That has to change, imo

3/15/2009 1:32:50 PM

Quote :

"The insurance company profited 5-6 grand a year on me not using health care services."

This is called Insurance

oh no's GEICO takes my $630 premiums so that its CEO can buy a new yacht and cover their losses for 17 yr old punks running their car into trees and little old ladies hurt by a hit and run driver.

HIGHWAY ROBBERY!

Health coverage provided by your employer does have a downfall like you said but when will the bitching stop. Universal health coverage provided by the gov't is unacceptable even in my book, employer subsidized health insurance is sub-par in your book. Honestly it would be nice to be able to "shop" for my health insurance using tax-deductible dollars but on the other hand I do not mind my current coverage. I think there are so many lazy, dumb, cheap people around though that if we were in a "free-for-all" open market coverage system you'd have a lot of people uninsured or underinsured. This would give liberals and lil old grandmas more ammo to bitch and push for universal health care.

3/15/2009 2:29:16 PM

Quote :

"Both options are problematic and have problems, but the employer-sponsored system we have now has been shown to be completely untenable."

Of course it's untenable when the gov't comes in and fucks it up. It's a great way to push a new system into being

3/15/2009 9:45:45 PM

of course it was our govt who basically pushed the employer provided healthcare... and now people want the govt to continue to provide us with "solutions"? go figure.

3/16/2009 10:23:25 AM

I'm ready for healthcare reform. The routine physical I went to is going to cost me over four hundred bucks. And I have [crappy] insurance.

I'm staying away from doctors from now on. That or asking exactly how much everything costs.

3/16/2009 10:26:31 AM

If you would have paid cash, I guarantee it would not be close to that much. THere is no way a doctor get 400 bucks for a routine physical. Unless you had them run extra tests and/or have a high deductible.

We get paid on an established level 4 patient 78 bucks I believe.

3/16/2009 12:01:58 PM

ability to obtain health care should be based on ability to work.

no work, no care.

this goes for all providers, public and private. no handouts. be strong.

not to mention, the harder you work, the healthier you are.

3/16/2009 9:50:58 PM

Quote :

"It's a great way to push a new system into being"

Here's another great way....

Quote :

"WASHINGTON, March 16 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The leader of the nation's largest veterans organization says he is "deeply disappointed and concerned" after a meeting with President Obama today to discuss a proposal to force private insurance companies to pay for the treatment of military veterans who have suffered service-connected disabilities and injuries. The American Legion believes that the reimbursement plan would be inconsistent with the mandate that VA treat service-connected injuries and disabilities given that the United States government sends members of the armed forces into harm's way, and not private insurance companies. The proposed requirement for these companies to reimburse the VA would not only be unfair, says the Legion, but would have an adverse impact on service-connected disabled veterans and their families. "

So take the current health care system which is not set up to handle the myriad of war-injured veterans. Force all of the vets into it, and then wait for the complaints. Obama comes out and explains how the current private system is letting down our beloved veterans...so we must scrap the system and set up socialized medicine.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20090316/pl_usnw/the_american_legion_strongly_opposed_to_president_s_plan_to_charge_wounded_heroes_for_treatment

3/16/2009 10:40:05 PM

yes, the intricate conspiracy way. obama is sitting somewhere stroking a cat and cackling at the thought of defeating the heroic libertarian american.

V BECAUSE ITS ALL A HUGE CONSPIRACY, PROBABLY FROM THE TRILATERAL COMMISSION

[Edited on March 16, 2009 at 11:01 PM. Reason : .]

3/16/2009 10:59:02 PM

Question: If government <funded/paid for/provided/managed/universal/single payer/regulated/insert term of the day> heathcare is the answer to all that ails us, why do we need private insurers to pay for wounded veteran care? Can't the government use this subset of the american populace and show us just how fantastic GovCare would be for the rest of us?

3/16/2009 10:59:20 PM

That's a good point.

Obama expanded the SCHIP program and got more people into the gov't system, many of which already had private health care.

Quote :

""The way I see it, providing coverage to 11 million children … is a down payment on my commitment to cover every single American," Obama said before signing the bill in the White House."

So why would he kick the veterans off the gov't plan and into the private system?

To screw up the private system of course.

The gov't sent those troops into war, not the private insurance companies. The private system has not prepared to cover injured veterans, it isn't organized to handle them. Turning over the vets to the private sector would overload it and create mayhem. All of which would play into the hands of Obama.

3/16/2009 11:13:40 PM

Quote :

"So why would he kick the veterans off the gov't plan and into the private system? To screw up the private system of course. "

nice theory.
It's kind of like the opposite of what some people thought Bush did during Katrina. i.e. He bungled the government response on Katrina so badly on purpose, just so he could prove the point that the government can't do anything right, in order to pave the way for allowing more private involvement in rescue and rebuilding for disasters in the future.

So, you buy into both theories?

3/16/2009 11:33:29 PM

Quote :

"So, you buy into both theories?"

I would agree that both Bush and Obama are big government guys. Bush gave us Patriot Acts which reduced our privacy and increased state control. He also went along with the GOP congress as it doubled our debt.

Obama is your basic liberal tax and spender, class warrior.

I wouldn't give you a bag or rocks for either one of them.

3/17/2009 1:28:10 AM

No offense, but some of you guys who I previously thought were fairly level-headed individuals are now sounding like Kooky nutjobs when ranting about Obama conspiracy theories. It's funny how this always happens to seemingly normal people after their candidate loses an election.

3/17/2009 9:06:32 AM

Quote :

"Question: If government <funded/paid for/provided/managed/universal/single payer/regulated/insert term of the day> heathcare is the answer to all that ails us, why do we need private insurers to pay for wounded veteran care? Can't the government use this subset of the american populace and show us just how fantastic GovCare would be for the rest of us? "

A great point that will be lost on SO many. One has to laugh when they point to the VA system as being the "goal" for healthcare in this country. Other than the cost, I find little that are happy with thier care.

3/17/2009 9:26:00 AM

Quote :

"If you would have paid cash, I guarantee it would not be close to that much."

I don't have any reason to believe you. Why would payment type affect the price? I could still pay cash; I haven't paid anything at the moment.

Quote :

"THere is no way a doctor get 400 bucks for a routine physical."

The total was over seven hundred dollars. My insurance is covering some of it. (A hundred dollars less than they should, but I doubt I'll be able to get that sorted out.) Most of the expense came from tests, not the doctor herself.

Quote :

"Unless you had them run extra tests and/or have a high deductible."

The doctor ordered various tests, of course not telling me anything about how much they'd cost. I have a very high deductible, but my insurance should cover the first four hundred dollars of preventive care.

3/17/2009 9:43:48 AM

Quote :

"Why would payment type affect the price? I could still pay cash; I haven't paid anything at the moment."

listen to:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101706614
Bills from doctors vary wildly based on who is paying, who the patient is, and which doctor you went to.

this is also a good listen, from the same show
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=101693943

3/17/2009 10:32:15 AM

^^ how you pay your doctor can have huge impacts on how much you'll pay. I've been to some doctors where if you pay cash and all at once you get nearly 40% off the bill. By contrast when I went to the hospital not only did they charge full price when I paid via insurance, but they actually charged the insurance company more than the bill they gave me at checkout.

3/17/2009 12:58:58 PM

Quote :

"I don't have any reason to believe you. "

LOL. Other than me being a doctor and working in healthcare, I guess not.

Thanks for the links agent.


1337 hospitals actually have more clout when nego with insurances. So your ins might have an agreement with anthem to pay them 200 for a test. However, they only charge 130 for that test normally. We had one girl here get screwed over with just that bc she had a high deductible.

We typically charge 25% less if someone pays cash. we LOVE our cash payers. Although some insurances only reimburse 25 bucks for an exam. Total BS, why my boss doesnt drop it Ill never know.

If you can scan your EOB that your ins company sends you. Id be curious to see how in the world they can bill 800 for a routine exam and not be a flashing red light for an audit.

3/17/2009 1:45:48 PM

here's another good Fresh Air interview from last week. It's with a doctor talking about end of life care. It's not specifically about "healthcare reform" or the current administration's plans, but to does touch on some current problems and some potential areas for reform
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=102638208

4/12/2009 1:53:05 PM

OMG FRESH AIR LIBERAL COMMUNISM!!!!!

4/12/2009 2:59:36 PM

yes, and her ideology is clearly the topic of conversation when she's talking to a doctor about his dying mother.

4/12/2009 5:16:31 PM

From economist, Keith Hennessey's blog - a rough breakdown of the uninsured as measured by the census bureau. The entire post (via the link below) is well worth reading).

http://keithhennessey.com/2009/04/09/how-many-uninsured-people-need-additional-help-from-taxpayers/

4/12/2009 8:21:59 PM

Quote :

"LOL. Other than me being a doctor and working in healthcare, I guess not. "

this is almost like saying the people in the factories are well-informed enough to run GM, no disrespect to doctors. there's a difference between doing the vocation and running a company/being an industry expert, but i'm sure you're smart enough to know everything based on this thread.

I mean, the major complaint isn't with hospitals, doctors, staff, etc anyway it's with insurance companies.

and if health care in these other countries is so bad, why do they keep electing people to keep it in place? because they're stupid?

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 9:00 PM. Reason : .]

4/12/2009 8:57:58 PM

I'm sure that most people have seen this video, but in case you haven't:

FRONTLINE: Sick Around the World
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/video/flv/generic.html?s=frol02p101&continuous=1


And from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/countries/models.html, Health Care Systems - The Four Basic Models:

Quote :

"There are about 200 countries on our planet, and each country devises its own set of arrangements for meeting the three basic goals of a health care system: keeping people healthy, treating the sick, and protecting families against financial ruin from medical bills. But we don't have to study 200 different systems to get a picture of how other countries manage health care. For all the local variations, health care systems tend to follow general patterns. There are four basic systems: The Beveridge Model Named after William Beveridge, the daring social reformer who designed Britain's National Health Service. In this system, health care is provided and financed by the government through tax payments, just like the police force or the public library. Many, but not all, hospitals and clinics are owned by the government; some doctors are government employees, but there are also private doctors who collect their fees from the government. In Britain, you never get a doctor bill. These systems tend to have low costs per capita, because the government, as the sole payer, controls what doctors can do and what they can charge. Countries using the Beveridge plan or variations on it include its birthplace Great Britain, Spain, most of Scandinavia and New Zealand. Hong Kong still has its own Beveridge-style health care, because the populace simply refused to give it up when the Chinese took over that former British colony in 1997. Cuba represents the extreme application of the Beveridge approach; it is probably the world's purest example of total government control. The Bismarck Model Named for the Prussian Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, who invented the welfare state as part of the unification of Germany in the 19th century. Despite its European heritage, this system of providing health care would look fairly familiar to Americans. It uses an insurance system -- the insurers are called "sickness funds" -- usually financed jointly by employers and employees through payroll deduction. Unlike the U.S. insurance industry, though, Bismarck-type health insurance plans have to cover everybody, and they don't make a profit. Doctors and hospitals tend to be private in Bismarck countries; Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S. Although this is a multi-payer model -- Germany has about 240 different funds -- tight regulation gives government much of the cost-control clout that the single-payer Beveridge Model provides. The Bismarck model is found in Germany, of course, and France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Japan, Switzerland, and, to a degree, in Latin America. The National Health Insurance Model This system has elements of both Beveridge and Bismarck. It uses private-sector providers, but payment comes from a government-run insurance program that every citizen pays into. Since there's no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance. The single payer tends to have considerable market power to negotiate for lower prices; Canada's system, for example, has negotiated such low prices from pharmaceutical companies that Americans have spurned their own drug stores to buy pills north of the border. National Health Insurance plans also control costs by limiting the medical services they will pay for, or by making patients wait to be treated. The classic NHI system is found in Canada, but some newly industrialized countries -- Taiwan and South Korea, for example -- have also adopted the NHI model. The Out-of-Pocket Model Only the developed, industrialized countries -- perhaps 40 of the world's 200 countries -- have established health care systems. Most of the nations on the planet are too poor and too disorganized to provide any kind of mass medical care. The basic rule in such countries is that the rich get medical care; the poor stay sick or die. In rural regions of Africa, India, China and South America, hundreds of millions of people go their whole lives without ever seeing a doctor. They may have access, though, to a village healer using home-brewed remedies that may or not be effective against disease. In the poor world, patients can sometimes scratch together enough money to pay a doctor bill; otherwise, they pay in potatoes or goat's milk or child care or whatever else they may have to give. If they have nothing, they don't get medical care. These four models should be fairly easy for Americans to understand because we have elements of all of them in our fragmented national health care apparatus. When it comes to treating veterans, we're Britain or Cuba. For Americans over the age of 65 on Medicare, we're Canada. For working Americans who get insurance on the job, we're Germany. For the 15 percent of the population who have no health insurance, the United States is Cambodia or Burkina Faso or rural India, with access to a doctor available if you can pay the bill out-of-pocket at the time of treatment or if you're sick enough to be admitted to the emergency ward at the public hospital. The United States is unlike every other country because it maintains so many separate systems for separate classes of people. All the other countries have settled on one model for everybody. This is much simpler than the U.S. system; it's fairer and cheaper, too."

[Edited on April 12, 2009 at 11:31 PM. Reason : ]

4/12/2009 11:30:52 PM

Quote :

"Japan has more private hospitals than the U.S."

That's a bit misleading if you don't understand how health care works in Japan.

The Japanese treat the hospital like American treat the doctor's office. Have a cough? Go to the hospital. Need some Claritin? Go to the hospital. You go to the hospital for basic care and you go to a specialized clinic when you know what's wrong with you (dermatologist, etc). So really, the private hospitals are like giant, private doctor's offices.

4/13/2009 12:18:12 AM

Quote :

" and if health care in these other countries is so bad, why do they keep electing people to keep it in place? because they're stupid?"

I would suggest they do so for the same reason we continue to subsidize corporate farms and tax imported sugar: special interests. Also part of the problem is the difficulty for an elected official to campaign on taking away something that is provided "free" to the public.

4/13/2009 6:27:42 AM

^^^ Interesting stuff on that site.

4/13/2009 6:37:12 AM

dear god that was so blatantly biased it wasn't funny.

4/13/2009 11:36:24 PM

why don't you elaborate on what you find to be biased and give some support?

4/13/2009 11:48:59 PM

Quote :

"It was only a matter of time before this story appeared, as it did in yesterday’s New York Times. Having promised lavish subsidies for expansive health insurance, it seems state officials in Massachusetts have finally begun to admit that their health-care reform program, passed in 2006, is unaffordable for the state’s taxpayers. This should surprise no one. Whatever else might be said about the Massachusetts plan, it was clear from the get-go that it would overwhelm the state’s budget—it was just a matter of time. All the state really did was buy hundreds of thousands of residents into heavily regulated insurance plans by moving around some existing pots of money and raising taxes. They didn’t build a functioning marketplace with cost-conscious consumers, nor did they pursue—initially—the kinds of heavy-handed, government-imposed cost controls that many Democrats actually favor. In short, there was never any reason to expect health-care premiums in the state to escalate less rapidly after the “reform” than they did before the plan was adopted. But, just as predictably, now that it is difficult to turn back and start over (hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts households are now enrolled in newly-subsidized insurance), the state wants to impose cost controls. There is much talk of new whiz-bang systems for paying doctors and hospitals, devised by government officials, which reward more efficient ways of delivering care. Don’t count on it. Inevitably, when the government tries to micromanage payments and prices, the result is indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts, protection of incumbents, and strong disincentives for innovation. Indeed, Massachusetts’ Democratic Governor Deval Patrick has already signaled where this is all likely to head: state-imposed caps on private health insurance premiums. There are lessons here for the unfolding debate in Washington. The Obama team is essentially pursuing the Massachusetts political strategy—cover everybody first with a massive new entitlement program and worry about imposing cost controls later. In fact, Sen. Ted Kennedy’s top lieutenant assigned to pulling together a health-care bill was a principal architect of the Massachusetts’s approach. And, on costs, the Obama administration keeps touting the same benign-sounding initiatives—like expanded use of health information technology—that Massachusetts officials used to cite, even though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has already said these kinds of steps won’t come close to solving the cost problem. It is obvious that the administration is hoping it can get a bill passed without endorsing the kinds of measures which would rightly be attacked as rationing care. But make no mistake: If President Obama succeeds, he and the Congress will be back in a year or two or three—when the coverage train has already left the station—to say the financial future of the country depends on agreeing to government-imposed cost constraints, just as Massachusetts officials are doing today. Even the Times story hints at what’s really at stake here. If we don’t rely on market principles to allocate health-care resources, the country will inevitably turn to the government to keep premiums in line with income. And, as some anonymous “experts” candidly admit in the Times piece, government-written “payment practices” are highly unlikely to do the trick. Instead, these “experts” say, “the state and federal governments may need to place actual limits on health spending, which could lead to rationing of care.”"

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/blog/diagnosis/no-miracle-in-massachusetts

4/14/2009 7:45:49 AM

^^ let's see:

glowing reviews for the gov't-run systems. Doom and gloom for the market-based system. Very little mention of the rationing of care that occurs in every gov't run system.
And how about this gem:

Quote :

"Since there's no need for marketing, no financial motive to deny claims and no profit, these universal insurance programs tend to be cheaper and much simpler administratively than American-style for-profit insurance."

If you'll buy that, then I've got a bridge in Alaska I'd like to sell you.

The last two paragraphs are practically liberal talking points:
15 percent w/out insurance. Oh wait, is that when you include illegal aliens and people on Medicare?
Separate classes of people? John Edwards anyone?

And then the final kicker:

Quote :

"it's fairer and cheaper, too."

I'd appreciate it if my publicly funded stations would stick to reporting news and fluff pieces and stay the fuck out of opinion pieces, thank you very much.

And "cheaper?" Hardly. Governments can't do anything cheaper than private markets can. It's kind of, you know, a fact.

4/14/2009 8:31:45 AM