ObamaCare…coming soon

[SDEngineer]

[quote=AN]
It’s a fine line. I hope they pull it off. They didn’t reference Germany or other European country in their example of universal health care, but they reference Canada A LOT. I just hope they don’t go to that extreme. One huge difference between us vs everyone else is malpractice insurance. Here in the US, we can sue for almost anything. A doctor career can be destroyed by 1-2 lawsuit. That in itself contribute to the huge cost. That’s also one of the many reasons why 90% of med students decide to go into specialized area instead of general practice.

Sorry, I never have to look for health insurance. My employers have always provided that to me. So, it’s not the question of who should I choose but more a long the line of, PPO vs HMO. My health care insurance is better today than it was 6 years ago because the employer decided to give a really good plan. My out of pocket either stayed the same or went down (don’t remember exactly).[/quote]

Are you sure it’s not just the naysayers who are referencing Canada?

BTW, on the malpractice thing – my father is a MD (still practicing). Malpractice is an occupational hazard – it does not ruin an MD’s career unless it’s very extreme. All MD’s carry hefty malpractice insurance (btw, specialists, not GP’s are the most frequently sued). Most MD’s are sued several times during their career for malpractice. Yes, some of the extreme abuses need to be curtailed (and in many states, like CA, they already are), but it’s largely overblown. The average MD spends less than 5% of their salary on malpractice insurance. Curtailing malpractice clearly would not even come close to closing the cost gap between our healthcare system and other developed nations healthcare systems.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2003-03-04-malpractice-cover_x.htm

[34f3f3f]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=AN]

A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
[/quote]

I’m not sure this is entirely accurate, at least it wasn’t when I lived in Europe. My understanding is that Canada’s Health Care system is similar to most of Europe’s, which is by and large government funded, and there is no really effective competition from the private sector (although it is available).

What seems to be missing from this debate is the philosophy behind welfare states, which largely came about as a result of class inequalities after WWII. Healthcare in Europe is perceived as a ‘right’, just as voting is, and not something that is either subject to market forces, or a privilege. Whether one system works better than the other, will therefore depend on whether you view it through the sociological, or free market prism. If the health of the nation as a whole is tantamount, the former may apply, but if efficiencies of service and advancement through research are primary then the latter applies. The common complaint of nationalized health care is of under funding, and wasteful administration, whereas in the US healthcare is controlled by powerful interest groups with potential conflicts of interest. Taxes in Europe are extremely high as a result of the costs in running a welfare state. However, if you treat health insurance in the US as an additional tax, the differences in terms of cost to the individual are probably marginal.

On the face of it two factors weigh against the US system; one is the World Health Organization results show the US spends twice as much as any European country, but the average US citizen lives a shorter life span, and the other fly in the ointment is the health of the individual versus corporate interests.

It’s quite obvious that it’s not a case of which system, or health provision is better, but what can each system learn from others to improve itself.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=AN]

A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
[/quote]

I’m not sure this is entirely accurate, at least it wasn’t when I lived in Europe. My understanding is that Canada’s Health Care system is similar to most of Europe’s, which is by and large government funded, and there is no really effective competition from the private sector (although it is available).

What seems to be missing from this debate is the philosophy behind welfare states, which largely came about as a result of class inequalities after WWII. Healthcare in Europe is perceived as a ‘right’, just as voting is, and not something that is either subject to market forces, or a privilege. Whether one system works better than the other, will therefore depend on whether you view it through the sociological, or free market prism. If the health of the nation as a whole is tantamount, the former may apply, but if efficiencies of service and advancement through research are primary then the latter applies. The common complaint of nationalized health care is of under funding, and wasteful administration, whereas in the US healthcare is controlled by powerful interest groups with potential conflicts of interest. Taxes in Europe are extremely high as a result of the costs in running a welfare state. However, if you treat health insurance in the US as an additional tax, the differences in terms of cost to the individual are probably marginal.

On the face of it two factors weigh against the US system; one is the World Health Organization results show the US spends twice as much as any European country, but the average US citizen lives a shorter life span, and the other fly in the ointment is the health of the individual versus corporate interests.

It’s quite obvious that it’s not a case of which system, or health provision is better, but what can each system learn from others to improve itself.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=AN]

A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
[/quote]

I’m not sure this is entirely accurate, at least it wasn’t when I lived in Europe. My understanding is that Canada’s Health Care system is similar to most of Europe’s, which is by and large government funded, and there is no really effective competition from the private sector (although it is available).

What seems to be missing from this debate is the philosophy behind welfare states, which largely came about as a result of class inequalities after WWII. Healthcare in Europe is perceived as a ‘right’, just as voting is, and not something that is either subject to market forces, or a privilege. Whether one system works better than the other, will therefore depend on whether you view it through the sociological, or free market prism. If the health of the nation as a whole is tantamount, the former may apply, but if efficiencies of service and advancement through research are primary then the latter applies. The common complaint of nationalized health care is of under funding, and wasteful administration, whereas in the US healthcare is controlled by powerful interest groups with potential conflicts of interest. Taxes in Europe are extremely high as a result of the costs in running a welfare state. However, if you treat health insurance in the US as an additional tax, the differences in terms of cost to the individual are probably marginal.

On the face of it two factors weigh against the US system; one is the World Health Organization results show the US spends twice as much as any European country, but the average US citizen lives a shorter life span, and the other fly in the ointment is the health of the individual versus corporate interests.

It’s quite obvious that it’s not a case of which system, or health provision is better, but what can each system learn from others to improve itself.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=AN]

A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
[/quote]

I’m not sure this is entirely accurate, at least it wasn’t when I lived in Europe. My understanding is that Canada’s Health Care system is similar to most of Europe’s, which is by and large government funded, and there is no really effective competition from the private sector (although it is available).

What seems to be missing from this debate is the philosophy behind welfare states, which largely came about as a result of class inequalities after WWII. Healthcare in Europe is perceived as a ‘right’, just as voting is, and not something that is either subject to market forces, or a privilege. Whether one system works better than the other, will therefore depend on whether you view it through the sociological, or free market prism. If the health of the nation as a whole is tantamount, the former may apply, but if efficiencies of service and advancement through research are primary then the latter applies. The common complaint of nationalized health care is of under funding, and wasteful administration, whereas in the US healthcare is controlled by powerful interest groups with potential conflicts of interest. Taxes in Europe are extremely high as a result of the costs in running a welfare state. However, if you treat health insurance in the US as an additional tax, the differences in terms of cost to the individual are probably marginal.

On the face of it two factors weigh against the US system; one is the World Health Organization results show the US spends twice as much as any European country, but the average US citizen lives a shorter life span, and the other fly in the ointment is the health of the individual versus corporate interests.

It’s quite obvious that it’s not a case of which system, or health provision is better, but what can each system learn from others to improve itself.

[34f3f3f]

[quote=SDEngineer][quote=AN]

A better comparison would be to Germany’s healthcare system (or, for that matter, most of the healthcare systems in Europe). In those healthcare systems, private healthcare insurance providers compete with the government’s last resort healthcare insurance. In most cases, this leads to a very effective healthcare system (wait times in Europe are comparable to US wait times for all but elective surgeries – but at a cost half to 2/3rds of what ours costs per capita).
[/quote]

I’m not sure this is entirely accurate, at least it wasn’t when I lived in Europe. My understanding is that Canada’s Health Care system is similar to most of Europe’s, which is by and large government funded, and there is no really effective competition from the private sector (although it is available).

What seems to be missing from this debate is the philosophy behind welfare states, which largely came about as a result of class inequalities after WWII. Healthcare in Europe is perceived as a ‘right’, just as voting is, and not something that is either subject to market forces, or a privilege. Whether one system works better than the other, will therefore depend on whether you view it through the sociological, or free market prism. If the health of the nation as a whole is tantamount, the former may apply, but if efficiencies of service and advancement through research are primary then the latter applies. The common complaint of nationalized health care is of under funding, and wasteful administration, whereas in the US healthcare is controlled by powerful interest groups with potential conflicts of interest. Taxes in Europe are extremely high as a result of the costs in running a welfare state. However, if you treat health insurance in the US as an additional tax, the differences in terms of cost to the individual are probably marginal.

On the face of it two factors weigh against the US system; one is the World Health Organization results show the US spends twice as much as any European country, but the average US citizen lives a shorter life span, and the other fly in the ointment is the health of the individual versus corporate interests.

It’s quite obvious that it’s not a case of which system, or health provision is better, but what can each system learn from others to improve itself.

[ralphfurley]

[quote=AN]
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you.
[/quote]
Wanna bet? While I work at a hospital where they dont turn you away, others sure will. I know, because we get the patients that other hospitals “patch up” and ship off. Unless of course, we are at capacity, then we would keep the really emergent cases and send the others away.

[quote=AN]If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Between IOUs and any money the state actually coughs up for medical reimbursement, there sure isn’t much to go around. Hospitals are operating in the red. How much longer do you figure they can go on like that?

[ralphfurley]

[quote=AN]
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you.
[/quote]
Wanna bet? While I work at a hospital where they dont turn you away, others sure will. I know, because we get the patients that other hospitals “patch up” and ship off. Unless of course, we are at capacity, then we would keep the really emergent cases and send the others away.

[quote=AN]If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Between IOUs and any money the state actually coughs up for medical reimbursement, there sure isn’t much to go around. Hospitals are operating in the red. How much longer do you figure they can go on like that?

[ralphfurley]

[quote=AN]
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you.
[/quote]
Wanna bet? While I work at a hospital where they dont turn you away, others sure will. I know, because we get the patients that other hospitals “patch up” and ship off. Unless of course, we are at capacity, then we would keep the really emergent cases and send the others away.

[quote=AN]If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Between IOUs and any money the state actually coughs up for medical reimbursement, there sure isn’t much to go around. Hospitals are operating in the red. How much longer do you figure they can go on like that?

[ralphfurley]

[quote=AN]
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you.
[/quote]
Wanna bet? While I work at a hospital where they dont turn you away, others sure will. I know, because we get the patients that other hospitals “patch up” and ship off. Unless of course, we are at capacity, then we would keep the really emergent cases and send the others away.

[quote=AN]If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Between IOUs and any money the state actually coughs up for medical reimbursement, there sure isn’t much to go around. Hospitals are operating in the red. How much longer do you figure they can go on like that?

[ralphfurley]

[quote=AN]
If you don’t have insurance, Hospital can’t turn you away. They have to treat you.
[/quote]
Wanna bet? While I work at a hospital where they dont turn you away, others sure will. I know, because we get the patients that other hospitals “patch up” and ship off. Unless of course, we are at capacity, then we would keep the really emergent cases and send the others away.

[quote=AN]If you tell them, they’ll work with you. They have an uninsured fund.[/quote]
Between IOUs and any money the state actually coughs up for medical reimbursement, there sure isn’t much to go around. Hospitals are operating in the red. How much longer do you figure they can go on like that?

[an]

Seems like socialism is the best system then. In Sweden, maternity leave is 12 months and paternity leave is 6 months. That’s a lot than what we have here. Lets also have education system like the Finnish since we’re at it. They have the best public school system, so lets copy them there too. I guess I won’t have to worry about unemployment either since health care is free and their unemployment benefit are amazing. All of these benefit sounds great.

One thing I forgot to ask, how much are they taxed over there? Sales tax, income tax, taxes on goods, taxes on cars? Must not be much more than us, right? They also have the same immigration issue as us too, I’d assume. They must also have very similar demographic as us, right?

[an]

Seems like socialism is the best system then. In Sweden, maternity leave is 12 months and paternity leave is 6 months. That’s a lot than what we have here. Lets also have education system like the Finnish since we’re at it. They have the best public school system, so lets copy them there too. I guess I won’t have to worry about unemployment either since health care is free and their unemployment benefit are amazing. All of these benefit sounds great.

One thing I forgot to ask, how much are they taxed over there? Sales tax, income tax, taxes on goods, taxes on cars? Must not be much more than us, right? They also have the same immigration issue as us too, I’d assume. They must also have very similar demographic as us, right?

[an]

Seems like socialism is the best system then. In Sweden, maternity leave is 12 months and paternity leave is 6 months. That’s a lot than what we have here. Lets also have education system like the Finnish since we’re at it. They have the best public school system, so lets copy them there too. I guess I won’t have to worry about unemployment either since health care is free and their unemployment benefit are amazing. All of these benefit sounds great.

One thing I forgot to ask, how much are they taxed over there? Sales tax, income tax, taxes on goods, taxes on cars? Must not be much more than us, right? They also have the same immigration issue as us too, I’d assume. They must also have very similar demographic as us, right?

[an]

Seems like socialism is the best system then. In Sweden, maternity leave is 12 months and paternity leave is 6 months. That’s a lot than what we have here. Lets also have education system like the Finnish since we’re at it. They have the best public school system, so lets copy them there too. I guess I won’t have to worry about unemployment either since health care is free and their unemployment benefit are amazing. All of these benefit sounds great.

One thing I forgot to ask, how much are they taxed over there? Sales tax, income tax, taxes on goods, taxes on cars? Must not be much more than us, right? They also have the same immigration issue as us too, I’d assume. They must also have very similar demographic as us, right?

[Author]

Posts