Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
34f3f3f
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
Participant[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.
ParticipantIt’s interesting they couldn’t get the company name in the URL. High interest rates in foreign bank accounts are not unusual …but in US$s? It sounds feasible, but not exactly a traditional banking model and the saying that springs to mind is “Only fools go where angles fear to tread”. The blurb on currency is incomprehensible. I wonder what debt enforcement methods they apply 🙂 Nicely put together site though.
ParticipantIt’s interesting they couldn’t get the company name in the URL. High interest rates in foreign bank accounts are not unusual …but in US$s? It sounds feasible, but not exactly a traditional banking model and the saying that springs to mind is “Only fools go where angles fear to tread”. The blurb on currency is incomprehensible. I wonder what debt enforcement methods they apply 🙂 Nicely put together site though.
ParticipantIt’s interesting they couldn’t get the company name in the URL. High interest rates in foreign bank accounts are not unusual …but in US$s? It sounds feasible, but not exactly a traditional banking model and the saying that springs to mind is “Only fools go where angles fear to tread”. The blurb on currency is incomprehensible. I wonder what debt enforcement methods they apply 🙂 Nicely put together site though.
ParticipantIt’s interesting they couldn’t get the company name in the URL. High interest rates in foreign bank accounts are not unusual …but in US$s? It sounds feasible, but not exactly a traditional banking model and the saying that springs to mind is “Only fools go where angles fear to tread”. The blurb on currency is incomprehensible. I wonder what debt enforcement methods they apply 🙂 Nicely put together site though.
ParticipantIt’s interesting they couldn’t get the company name in the URL. High interest rates in foreign bank accounts are not unusual …but in US$s? It sounds feasible, but not exactly a traditional banking model and the saying that springs to mind is “Only fools go where angles fear to tread”. The blurb on currency is incomprehensible. I wonder what debt enforcement methods they apply 🙂 Nicely put together site though.
Participant[quote=greekfire]Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization[/quote]
Really? http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/02/tennessee-center-for-policy-research.html
Participant[quote=greekfire]Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization[/quote]
Really? http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/02/tennessee-center-for-policy-research.html
Participant[quote=greekfire]Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization[/quote]
Really? http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/02/tennessee-center-for-policy-research.html
Participant[quote=greekfire]Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization[/quote]
Really? http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/02/tennessee-center-for-policy-research.html
Participant[quote=greekfire]Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization[/quote]
Really? http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2007/02/tennessee-center-for-policy-research.html
-
AuthorPosts
