Health Care for Everyone
- Thread starter Danoff
- 1,658 comments
- 200,314 views
- 3,194
Dont know for sure,... we need to find a Canadian to finish this discussion I think....
OMG,.. did I just say what I think I said? I need a Canadian for something,.. whats the world commin to?
j/k, I only dislike french/canadians 
- 10,832
All the democratic candidates want to socialize heath care. They want to take away the tax cut and spend it on health care. Hearing that really pissed me off on my way home from work yesterday. These people are like a different species from me. They see it as self evident that my money should go to someone else, and my health coverage should be degraded so that the government can become even more bloated and clogged. Further they think that to see it any other way is un-compassionate, that if you don't want the government to control everything, you must be for illness and death. I'm convinced they haven't thought this through. The just can't have thought it through.
I can't even stand going to the DMV for a drivers license. I can't imagine having a similar experience at the doctor.
I have to say that this thread, and others in recent months (but especially this one), has prompted me to analyze much more exactly what my political inclinations are. I'd been saying for a long time that democrats are great for personal freedom, republicans are great with money and small government, and moderates will only inevitably disappoint you. I'd considered libertarianism before via the spewings of Pat Buchanan, who is a pinch-faced churchgoer. I was right with him until he started talking about moral issues and he suddenly sounded like a conservative republican. But more recently I have taken it upon myself to organize my thoughts on these issues, and look for who or what could represent my interests and beliefs. Upon accomplishing this, however, I have found myself infuriated more often than not at what our government does. The inane bantering back and forth, the tit-for-tat over matters they shouldn't be wasting their time on, over their "solutions" that are nothing but contrived attempts to placate a restless and dissatisfied mob for votes. I see Howard Dean's face superimposed over an image of Lenin. I see Bush's over Mussolini. And just when I can calm myself down I hear about their plans for the future and am once again infuriated. I sound like an old man when I say "this country's going down the ****ter." But I say it for different reasons. I don't care what the kids are wearing and saying nowadays. I don't care if Joe Millionaire has more than me. I don't care that illegal immigrants are mowing lawns in my neighborhood. I only want to feel reasonably secure in knowing that the foreseeable future will offer an opportunity for a modicum of prosperity. That is so simple. That allows the pursuit of happiness. It opens up the space for freedom to breath and live. Our current government seems to have practically thrown its hands up in resignation and is now churning out the most extreme and ridiculous ideologies, both liberal and conservative, just to see how far it can go before a revolution occurs. And the worst thing of all is that in the short-term, liberals will prevail. Yes. Liberals!
So I owe the thoughtful and confrontational participants on this forum, particularly (but not limited to) danoff and neon duke, a thank-you for encouraging me to pay attention in a way I hadn't before. Before I was just dissatisfied. Now I know why and what will change it. Thanks.
I can't even stand going to the DMV for a drivers license. I can't imagine having a similar experience at the doctor.
I have to say that this thread, and others in recent months (but especially this one), has prompted me to analyze much more exactly what my political inclinations are. I'd been saying for a long time that democrats are great for personal freedom, republicans are great with money and small government, and moderates will only inevitably disappoint you. I'd considered libertarianism before via the spewings of Pat Buchanan, who is a pinch-faced churchgoer. I was right with him until he started talking about moral issues and he suddenly sounded like a conservative republican. But more recently I have taken it upon myself to organize my thoughts on these issues, and look for who or what could represent my interests and beliefs. Upon accomplishing this, however, I have found myself infuriated more often than not at what our government does. The inane bantering back and forth, the tit-for-tat over matters they shouldn't be wasting their time on, over their "solutions" that are nothing but contrived attempts to placate a restless and dissatisfied mob for votes. I see Howard Dean's face superimposed over an image of Lenin. I see Bush's over Mussolini. And just when I can calm myself down I hear about their plans for the future and am once again infuriated. I sound like an old man when I say "this country's going down the ****ter." But I say it for different reasons. I don't care what the kids are wearing and saying nowadays. I don't care if Joe Millionaire has more than me. I don't care that illegal immigrants are mowing lawns in my neighborhood. I only want to feel reasonably secure in knowing that the foreseeable future will offer an opportunity for a modicum of prosperity. That is so simple. That allows the pursuit of happiness. It opens up the space for freedom to breath and live. Our current government seems to have practically thrown its hands up in resignation and is now churning out the most extreme and ridiculous ideologies, both liberal and conservative, just to see how far it can go before a revolution occurs. And the worst thing of all is that in the short-term, liberals will prevail. Yes. Liberals!
So I owe the thoughtful and confrontational participants on this forum, particularly (but not limited to) danoff and neon duke, a thank-you for encouraging me to pay attention in a way I hadn't before. Before I was just dissatisfied. Now I know why and what will change it. Thanks.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Well, glad to hear that you are reinvestigating your own thinking. Although it may not seem like it, that's the main reason why I come to this forum. I'm sorry to have pushed you along the edge at times but I'm glad it's led to you looking into new areas of political thought.
I've always had a strong Libertarian streak, but my dissatisfaction with the current American political machine became complete in the early 90s. That was the cusp where after 12 years of Republican presidencies (blocked at most turns by a Democratic majority in Congress), America elected a weak Democratic president, then turned around and promptly blocked him with the first Republican-led Congress in decades.
That's what utterly convinced me that the American bicameral system is all about inertia and status quo, and nothing about progress. It's all about bread and circuses, and nothing about examining what the Constitution actually says, and then stripping back the Federal government to meet those goals with strength and efficiency.
That's why I've voted Libertarian or other Independent for every seat I've felt there was a decent candidate to elect.
In general, the blame falls on the citizens, of course. Americans aren't unique in that regard, though; in fact, I'd say we're more resitant to the siren song of "bread and circuses" than most of the free world has proven to be. It's just disappointing to have glimpses of what it could be, and then see what it is.
Dare I say it, Eric? I don't want to push you too fast... ah hell. If you haven't already, run to your local library and read Atlas Shrugged. If you have read it, read it again with this new frame of mind.
👍
Keep it up, man! Remember, the unexamined life ain't worth living.
I've always had a strong Libertarian streak, but my dissatisfaction with the current American political machine became complete in the early 90s. That was the cusp where after 12 years of Republican presidencies (blocked at most turns by a Democratic majority in Congress), America elected a weak Democratic president, then turned around and promptly blocked him with the first Republican-led Congress in decades.
That's what utterly convinced me that the American bicameral system is all about inertia and status quo, and nothing about progress. It's all about bread and circuses, and nothing about examining what the Constitution actually says, and then stripping back the Federal government to meet those goals with strength and efficiency.
That's why I've voted Libertarian or other Independent for every seat I've felt there was a decent candidate to elect.
In general, the blame falls on the citizens, of course. Americans aren't unique in that regard, though; in fact, I'd say we're more resitant to the siren song of "bread and circuses" than most of the free world has proven to be. It's just disappointing to have glimpses of what it could be, and then see what it is.
Dare I say it, Eric? I don't want to push you too fast... ah hell. If you haven't already, run to your local library and read Atlas Shrugged. If you have read it, read it again with this new frame of mind.
👍
Keep it up, man! Remember, the unexamined life ain't worth living.
- 10,832
Okay. It has touched me personally for the first time and I am outraged. I just found this out. But I will start at the beginning...
Two months ago my son was getting his first round of immunizations. They were out of one of them, so he had to go back three weeks later to get it. This was inconvenient and not very nice for Alex since one shot is as bad as four at once for a two month old. We just figured their being out was a fluke and didn't think much of it. But last week we went for his four month appointment and they were out again. My wife and I were annoyed and the Doctor started making all these excuses, which I won't reiterate here. A week later my wife calls the office to see if they have the shot in yet, and, after being treated very rudely, was asked what kind of insurance she had. That has been driving me nuts ever since so I called the office and asked why what kind of insurance we have would matter at all? And I should've known. If you have insurance, they are out. If you are on Access, or, state welfare insurance, they have the shot.
Do you understand?! My wife and I work hard and pay for insurance and yet we cannot get immunizations for our son so some welfare mom who lives off of my tax dollars can.
I am mad about it.
So I went to share this little tid-bit with a co-worker and during our comiseration, he told me about a Mexican immigrant who works here with his wife. Currently they pay for family insurance through the company. But he is having my co-worker fill out state forms so he can get on the dreaded Access. He wants to take his wife off the insurance and put her on welfare, even though they both work, because they don't want to pay for their own insurance.
It's really sickening. This asshole wants me and you to pay for his wife's health insurance so he doesn't have to.
I am really really mad.
Two months ago my son was getting his first round of immunizations. They were out of one of them, so he had to go back three weeks later to get it. This was inconvenient and not very nice for Alex since one shot is as bad as four at once for a two month old. We just figured their being out was a fluke and didn't think much of it. But last week we went for his four month appointment and they were out again. My wife and I were annoyed and the Doctor started making all these excuses, which I won't reiterate here. A week later my wife calls the office to see if they have the shot in yet, and, after being treated very rudely, was asked what kind of insurance she had. That has been driving me nuts ever since so I called the office and asked why what kind of insurance we have would matter at all? And I should've known. If you have insurance, they are out. If you are on Access, or, state welfare insurance, they have the shot.
Do you understand?! My wife and I work hard and pay for insurance and yet we cannot get immunizations for our son so some welfare mom who lives off of my tax dollars can.
I am mad about it.
So I went to share this little tid-bit with a co-worker and during our comiseration, he told me about a Mexican immigrant who works here with his wife. Currently they pay for family insurance through the company. But he is having my co-worker fill out state forms so he can get on the dreaded Access. He wants to take his wife off the insurance and put her on welfare, even though they both work, because they don't want to pay for their own insurance.
It's really sickening. This asshole wants me and you to pay for his wife's health insurance so he doesn't have to.
I am really really mad.
- 10,832
Glad to have arrived.
I also wanted to mention that Alex is getting his shot tomorrow at another doctor's office. We switched to one in an area where it is very unlikely that any state welfare cases will be draining the resources.
You'd think if you can't provide for yourself you'd at least be put at the end of the line, if you get anything at all. At least that would provide some incentive to work toward the front of the line. But why bother when you get first dibs?
- 3,194
OMFG dude,.... that makes me wanna friggin puke my gutts out.......
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Good story mile, but the good socialist would argue that if there was universal health care, it wouldn't matter because you and everyone else would have the same coverage and there wouldn't be this issue. You would all stand in the same line together and get access to the same inventory. Wouldn't that benefit everyone?
- 10,832
No. It would only benefit those who were unable to provide for themselves. Those who had succeeded at maintaining a modicum of security for themselves would just feel like they wasted their time, and see no point in trying to grow and prosper as a person in the future because it would make no difference. The people who already feel that way would continue to.
- 1,727
We have implemented public health insurance in Canada very sucessfully. The health outcomes of Canada, Sweden, and other public insurance states exceed those of the US, while we spend less. The issue of queing for non-urgent surgeries is a factor, but this is hardly unique to publicly insured systems. While income taxation is higher than in the US, Canadian firmly support public health insurace. In fact, the word 'privatization' in political suicide outside of Alberta.
- 3,052
dbartucci
And that's an end of it. No need for further explanation. If it works there, it can work EVERYWHERE and ANYWHERE.
I'm not an advocate of raising taxes -- I'm a Republican. However, I would like to see a re-distribution of the tax revenues.
- 1,727
As a Canadian, and a student of health economics, I eagerly wait your evidence.
In the interim I suggest a report by the Conference Board of Canada done in 2004, entitled "Understanding Health Care Cost Drivers and Escalators." It gives an overview of the Canadian system compared to systems all over the world. Unfortunately it is too large to attach, and you must sign up to receive it.
In the interim I suggest a report by the Conference Board of Canada done in 2004, entitled "Understanding Health Care Cost Drivers and Escalators." It gives an overview of the Canadian system compared to systems all over the world. Unfortunately it is too large to attach, and you must sign up to receive it.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Detroit News Health
Canada's health care in crisis
A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to the Associated Press. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.
Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.
"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.
"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," Pelton said.
Here's the rest of the article.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/health/0503/21/A04-123561.htm
Canada's health care in crisis
A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer-generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."
The patient wasn't dead, according to the doctor who showed the letter to the Associated Press. But there are many Canadians who claim the long wait for the test and the frigid formality of the letter are indicative of a health system badly in need of emergency care.
Americans who flock to Canada for cheap flu shots often come away impressed at the free and first-class medical care available to Canadians, rich or poor. But tell that to hospital administrators constantly having to cut staff for lack of funds, or to the mother whose teenager was advised she would have to wait up to three years for surgery to repair a torn knee ligament.
"It's like somebody's telling you that you can buy this car, and you've paid for the car, but you can't have it right now," said Jane Pelton. Rather than leave daughter Emily in pain and a knee brace, the Ottawa family opted to pay $3,300 for arthroscopic surgery at a private clinic in Vancouver, with no help from the government.
"Every day we're paying for health care, yet when we go to access it, it's just not there," Pelton said.
Here's the rest of the article.
http://www.detnews.com/2005/health/0503/21/A04-123561.htm
- 1,727
I acknowledged the queue problem for non-urgent surgeries in my previous post. This problem is hardly unique to Canada however. In fact, I'm sure you can find problems of NHS waiting list problems, which only began to go down after a massive cash infusion.
Canada still ranks highly in various other health outcomes.
Canada still ranks highly in various other health outcomes.
- 4,680
I don't care how you look at it, but Ontario's healthcare system is going down like a burning plane (I'd comment on the rest of Canada if I felt I was well enough informed).
Firstly, I'd like to make a concession though. Ontario does have good healthcare; albeit only in two or three hospitals (Sick Kids and St. Michaels are two good hospitals in Toronto). Otherwise, it's pretty much the same situation everywhere else. Overworked doctors and nurses, understaffed hospitals, long waiting times (5+ hour waits are commonplace now), lack of beds, and so forth.
And I could regale all of you with horror stories (the word horror is not a hyperbole) from Ontario hospitals. But, I feel one should suffice, unless I feel the need to post more. So, the morning DJ on my radio station, John Derringer, recently visited a suburban Toronto hospital's ER since his pregnant wife was experiencing unusual pains early in her pregnancy. So, after a nine hour wait, she finally saw a doctor (I won't mention the incredibly rude staff Mr. Derringer had to deal with). They took some tests, and they let her go home. Eventually, the results came back, and she was diagnosed with a miscarriage. This was obviously very big news which devastated Derringer and his whole family. But, more tests were carried out to confirm the results, and it turns out there was a misdiagnosis. The baby was infact developing very normally. Needless to say, Derringer was exceedingly pissed off over this.
And what is our government doing about this? Jack ****. I sure as hell am all for high taxes if the result is world class social programs, such as health care. But when we pay some of the world's highest taxes, and our social programs are continuing to move towards ruin, something is seriously wrong. Damn useless government.
Firstly, I'd like to make a concession though. Ontario does have good healthcare; albeit only in two or three hospitals (Sick Kids and St. Michaels are two good hospitals in Toronto). Otherwise, it's pretty much the same situation everywhere else. Overworked doctors and nurses, understaffed hospitals, long waiting times (5+ hour waits are commonplace now), lack of beds, and so forth.
And I could regale all of you with horror stories (the word horror is not a hyperbole) from Ontario hospitals. But, I feel one should suffice, unless I feel the need to post more. So, the morning DJ on my radio station, John Derringer, recently visited a suburban Toronto hospital's ER since his pregnant wife was experiencing unusual pains early in her pregnancy. So, after a nine hour wait, she finally saw a doctor (I won't mention the incredibly rude staff Mr. Derringer had to deal with). They took some tests, and they let her go home. Eventually, the results came back, and she was diagnosed with a miscarriage. This was obviously very big news which devastated Derringer and his whole family. But, more tests were carried out to confirm the results, and it turns out there was a misdiagnosis. The baby was infact developing very normally. Needless to say, Derringer was exceedingly pissed off over this.
And what is our government doing about this? Jack ****. I sure as hell am all for high taxes if the result is world class social programs, such as health care. But when we pay some of the world's highest taxes, and our social programs are continuing to move towards ruin, something is seriously wrong. Damn useless government.
- 1,727
I'll remind you, EvO, that waiting lists in ERs are a different story than waiting lists for surgery, waiting lists are determined based on when you arrive and the severity of condition. Waiting times in Toronto are significantly worse than they are in every other part of the province. I've been to hospitals in Mississauga and had to wait 4 hours, other times I went pretty much right in. In Kingston I've only waited once, and that was for less than an hour.
Unless you've experienced care facilities in other parts of the province how can you claim that Sick Kids and St. Mikes are the only good ones. I can think of 4 in TO off the top of my head, Sunnybrook (known for emergency), St. Josephs (emergency), Toronto Western, Mt Sinai, Women's College (teaching hospital) that all provide excellent health care. In addition to the regional cancer care centre in Kingston at KGH.
Our government is trying to make hospitals more accountable for how they spend their dollars rather than the soft budgets they get every year. Hospitals are by far the largest component of our health care spending, and costs rise by 8-11% a year.
I don't deny that our system is plagued by overcrowded ERs, a poor response to SARS, and wait times for non-urgent surgeries, but it's hardly collapsing in ruin.
Unless you've experienced care facilities in other parts of the province how can you claim that Sick Kids and St. Mikes are the only good ones. I can think of 4 in TO off the top of my head, Sunnybrook (known for emergency), St. Josephs (emergency), Toronto Western, Mt Sinai, Women's College (teaching hospital) that all provide excellent health care. In addition to the regional cancer care centre in Kingston at KGH.
Our government is trying to make hospitals more accountable for how they spend their dollars rather than the soft budgets they get every year. Hospitals are by far the largest component of our health care spending, and costs rise by 8-11% a year.
I don't deny that our system is plagued by overcrowded ERs, a poor response to SARS, and wait times for non-urgent surgeries, but it's hardly collapsing in ruin.
- 4,680
That's all good, but keep in mind the Greater Toronto Area makes up 33% of the province's population, and should therefore have around 33% of the hospitals. I'd think that if 33% of the hospitals have exceedingly poor waiting times, you've got a crisis. And I don't care if all you're going into emergency for is a broken bone; 9 hour waits are simply unacceptable.dbartucci
I knew I was missing a couple of Toronto hospitals, thanks for filling in the blanks I left. But aside from the good ones, the rest are afwul. Don't make me tell you about what my Grandpa experinced at the Rouge Valley hospital.
Basically, the government is not fixing the problem. The real issue is that there is a lack of funds for hospitals, and making hospitals more accountable for their budgets isn't going to do much. Maybe if the damn government wasn't so busy embezzeling taxpayer money, we wouldn't have the problems we're having now.
Not only did you contradict a point you made earlier, but the wait time for surgeries that are urgent (ie: life saving) are extremely high in most cases. About the only way you'll get immediate surgery is if you were in something like a car accident. And trust me, ask anyone who was recently a paitient in one of the weaker hospitals in Ontario (or, the majority of Ontario hospitals), and they will say the healthcare system is crumbling based on the numerous problems they are bound to encounter. It's really bad out there.
- 2,093
It's funny how a discussion is skewed by its discussors. I've been on another discussion board for this same stuff, and there, even most U.S. residents agree that the U.S. system comes off very poorly compared to most countries using a UHC system. Whereas there are a lot of Bush people on that board, the only defender of the current system is someone who in fact works for an insurance company.
Fact is, the U.S. system doesn't work. The rankings are in fact true, Danoff, and a crying shame for the richest country in the world. But a lot of that money is being spent on needless medicine (45% of all global spendings on pharmaceuticals are from the purse of U.S. residents) and the costs of health insurance and care are a lot higher in the U.S., even with millions of people having no coverage, and people with healthy incomes going bancrupt over hospital bills.
Sure, we complain about our systems, and there is always room for improvement, but the U.S. is not well off in this regard. People from the U.S. think they make a lot of money when compared to other countries, but if you factor out the costs for insurance and health-care, wow, are you in for a shock.
***** about Canada all you like, but Canada still ranks higher in nearly all surveys. And compare to Canada all you like, but there are still tens of countries ranking higher, most of them socialised.
The additional paperwork created by the U.S. system alone amounts to nearly 20% price increase over your average UHC system.
Here's a copy of a post of mine from another discussion board:
Waiting lists have been an issue in the Netherlands, but they have been dealth with in a combined effort between insurance companies, hospitals and specialists. Sometimes if certain specialised treatments were cheaper and faster dealt with in, say, the South of Spain, then if a patient agreed because he wanted to be treated quicker, an insurance company would arrange for all of that. The same of course, for different hospitals in the Netherlands - if one had a shorter waitinglist, and the patient did not object, he or she would be treated in that hospital rather than in the nearest one around.
I think over here, in the Netherlands, we healthily strive to improve matters, balancing costs and waitinglists, for instance. One part of our health system involves guaranteed low-cost insurance for people earning below a certain threshhold. Above this, people take their private insurance - but either way, everyone is obliged to have an insurance, so there are really hardly any people that do not have one (illegal immigrants are the exception).
Note that no European system is like the other, there are sometimes fundamental differences between neighbouring countries. Belgium, the U.K., the Netherlands, or Germany, each have their own specific differences and problems. The big advantage of that is that we can learn from those differences, if we want to. Germany, for instance, has a very expensive system - probably too expensive for the country to bear now - but the quality and luxury is also extremely high. They get what they pay for.
The dynamic in the Dutch system lies in the way the insurance companies, government, hospitals and pharmaceuticals interact. Until recently, those with an income above a certain threshold had to pay for their own insurance fully, and below that threshold people would receive a state sponsored insurance (if you work, you and your employer each contributed something like 15 euros, and say the first 200 euros you had to pay on your own).
Then however, we privatized that insurance, while maintaining the maximum premiums for people with a yearly income below the threshold (currently something like 34.000 euro a year, if I remember correctly - quite high, I'm just a bit above it myself). Every insurance company is required to offer this package, if it also wants to offer health insurance to those above the threshold. This does mean that those above the threshold will probably end up paying a bit of premium for those below the threshold, but at the same time this partial free-market system stimulates the insurance companies to try to work as efficiently as possible at all levels, as the less money they lose (if any!) on the below-threshold clients, the more money they can make overall, and for instance offer relatively lower premiums to the above-threshold clients. That this works is partially seen in the negotiations they have with pharmaceuticals on med-prices, and the effort they put in to help get their clients the health-care they want as cheaply and quickly as possible. Semi-free market at its best, imho.
Again, I'm not saying that we have it perfected, but it seems very promising.
No matter how great the differences, this does seem to be something most European countries agree on - the U.S. system is not something we either ambition or envy with regards to leaving some out in the cold and returning to a class society where those with money are substantially priviliged over those without, in this regard. At the same time, you see how the Netherlands attempts to find a balance so that the advantages of a free-market system still come into play. As they say, the truth is often somewhere inbetween.
Fact is, the U.S. system doesn't work. The rankings are in fact true, Danoff, and a crying shame for the richest country in the world. But a lot of that money is being spent on needless medicine (45% of all global spendings on pharmaceuticals are from the purse of U.S. residents) and the costs of health insurance and care are a lot higher in the U.S., even with millions of people having no coverage, and people with healthy incomes going bancrupt over hospital bills.
Sure, we complain about our systems, and there is always room for improvement, but the U.S. is not well off in this regard. People from the U.S. think they make a lot of money when compared to other countries, but if you factor out the costs for insurance and health-care, wow, are you in for a shock.
***** about Canada all you like, but Canada still ranks higher in nearly all surveys. And compare to Canada all you like, but there are still tens of countries ranking higher, most of them socialised.
The additional paperwork created by the U.S. system alone amounts to nearly 20% price increase over your average UHC system.
Here's a copy of a post of mine from another discussion board:
Waiting lists have been an issue in the Netherlands, but they have been dealth with in a combined effort between insurance companies, hospitals and specialists. Sometimes if certain specialised treatments were cheaper and faster dealt with in, say, the South of Spain, then if a patient agreed because he wanted to be treated quicker, an insurance company would arrange for all of that. The same of course, for different hospitals in the Netherlands - if one had a shorter waitinglist, and the patient did not object, he or she would be treated in that hospital rather than in the nearest one around.
I think over here, in the Netherlands, we healthily strive to improve matters, balancing costs and waitinglists, for instance. One part of our health system involves guaranteed low-cost insurance for people earning below a certain threshhold. Above this, people take their private insurance - but either way, everyone is obliged to have an insurance, so there are really hardly any people that do not have one (illegal immigrants are the exception).
Note that no European system is like the other, there are sometimes fundamental differences between neighbouring countries. Belgium, the U.K., the Netherlands, or Germany, each have their own specific differences and problems. The big advantage of that is that we can learn from those differences, if we want to. Germany, for instance, has a very expensive system - probably too expensive for the country to bear now - but the quality and luxury is also extremely high. They get what they pay for.
The dynamic in the Dutch system lies in the way the insurance companies, government, hospitals and pharmaceuticals interact. Until recently, those with an income above a certain threshold had to pay for their own insurance fully, and below that threshold people would receive a state sponsored insurance (if you work, you and your employer each contributed something like 15 euros, and say the first 200 euros you had to pay on your own).
Then however, we privatized that insurance, while maintaining the maximum premiums for people with a yearly income below the threshold (currently something like 34.000 euro a year, if I remember correctly - quite high, I'm just a bit above it myself). Every insurance company is required to offer this package, if it also wants to offer health insurance to those above the threshold. This does mean that those above the threshold will probably end up paying a bit of premium for those below the threshold, but at the same time this partial free-market system stimulates the insurance companies to try to work as efficiently as possible at all levels, as the less money they lose (if any!) on the below-threshold clients, the more money they can make overall, and for instance offer relatively lower premiums to the above-threshold clients. That this works is partially seen in the negotiations they have with pharmaceuticals on med-prices, and the effort they put in to help get their clients the health-care they want as cheaply and quickly as possible. Semi-free market at its best, imho.
Again, I'm not saying that we have it perfected, but it seems very promising.
No matter how great the differences, this does seem to be something most European countries agree on - the U.S. system is not something we either ambition or envy with regards to leaving some out in the cold and returning to a class society where those with money are substantially priviliged over those without, in this regard. At the same time, you see how the Netherlands attempts to find a balance so that the advantages of a free-market system still come into play. As they say, the truth is often somewhere inbetween.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,011
- Mile High City
Cost or spending? True cost or true spending?
Personally, if I live in a system that is ranked low because fewer people are covered - because other people aren't forced to pay for them, then I'm happy to have a low rank - much happier than with a high one.
...as if the ranking weren't subjective.
Sounds like we're doing very well. I wonder how much of that spending is choice rather than forced.
- 2,093
danoff
No, you asked only about cost or spending - true cost or true spending? That's not a question about my view, that's a factual question you can find on the internet, again, if you cared. And the true cost and true spending, yes, the U.S. is ripping itself off.
Here's a nice thread on this on another board.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=312484&page=1&pp=50
Similar threads
