Other countries' health care

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
yakbladder

yakbladder

Grunt Third Class
Joined
Sep 17, 2008
Messages
1,534
Likes
20
Points
38
We've hashed the health care debate to death, but I thought this article was fairly interesting.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/4countrieswithbetterhealthcarethanours

Canada: Percent rating the healthcare system A or B: 46 percent; D or F: 15 percent; annual healthcare spending per person: $3,895

France: A or B: 63 percent; D or F: 12 percent; spending: $3,601

Germany: A or B: 18 percent; D or F: 44 percent; spending: $3,588

Switzerland: A or B: 66 percent; D or F: 14 percent; spending: $4,417

United Kingdom: A or B: 32 percent; D or F: 20 percent; spending: $2,992

United States: A or B: 22 percent; D or F: 38 percent; spending: $7,290

And this...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/
 
A fairly succinct description of the Swiss plan:

Switzerland has a statutory national health insurance system with compulsory basic
coverage of all Swiss residents through plans purchased by individuals from a choice of
about 90 competing private health insurance funds. All residents and their dependents
are required to have coverage, unless they have health insurance in a member country
of the European Union.44 In 2007 nearly all of the 7.6 million Swiss residents were
covered by compulsory basic health insurance.45
In addition, 32.5% of the population voluntarily purchased private supplemental
insurance in 2005,46 which paid for certain out-of-pocket costs not covered or not
covered in full by the health insurance plans; Swiss supplemental insurance is prohibited
from covering the cost sharing required by the compulsory system. Other types of
insurance in the Swiss system include disability insurance, statutory mandatory accident
insurance for employed persons, and military insurance.
The 26 autonomous Swiss cantons (i.e., states) that make up the Swiss Confederation
are responsible for organizing health care in their geographic areas, including providing
and regulating care, preventing disease, providing health education, and implementing
health-related federal laws. As a result, the cantons have slightly different health
systems. Health insurance premiums are community-rated within cantons, and insurers
must accept all applicants. Other features of the Swiss health insurance system include
patient cost sharing, free choice of provider within cantons, and choice of insurer within a
canton during an annual open enrollment period.47
The Swiss system is funded by premium payments and out-of-pocket payments by
individuals, and by government funding. Means-tested premium subsidies are available
for low-income individuals and large families.48 The proportion of total health care
expenditures paid out-of-pocket by households in 2006 was 30.3%; 60.3% was paid by
public funds, 8.5% by private insurance, and 0.9% percent by other private funds.49
Click to expand...

barfo
 
I lived in Japan for several years and was enrolled in their national health insurance.

By law Full time workers have to enroll, pay about $150 a month and their employers are obligated to match that. The national health care covers 80% of the costs and there are private insurance plans you can enroll in to cover the other 20%

I was happy with the care I received. I only went to the hospital a few times though. Once for a nasty flu bug and once to the dentist to get a root canal. I paid about $30 to see the doctor and the root canal set me back $300.
 
Are those satisfaction numbers independent of cost? Something tells me that putting the cost and satisfaction might be redundant.

Would the satisfaction numbers change drastically if the costs went down significantly? If not, then it seems that the current reform proposals won't really improve our satisfaction numbers as shown in this study.
 
That is what I have been saying all along. There are so many folks that think the USA is just the best at everything. It's not. Some folks say they are happy with their help coverage. Why wouldn't they be happy with it for cheaper? Health insurance companies here in the USA typically mark it up over 30%. They are also trying to get a bill passed that will make it so that the person will be responsible for up to 35% of the bill when it comes. Yet folks just run around with their head up their ass, opposing health the health bill because they oppose the democrats in general. It has to be impossible that the party they oppose comes up with a good idea actually, right?

That is why all the arguments against health care that you see for the most part, are just bullshit thrown to the wind. Because they don't have a legitimate argument against it. With our current health care system, the fat cats keep getting fat, and the joe average guy gets fucked. End of Story.
 
I once spoke with a gentleman who was born outside London. He said the average wait to see a dentist was four months.
 
hasoos said:
That is what I have been saying all along. There are so many folks that think the USA is just the best at everything. It's not. Some folks say they are happy with their help coverage. Why wouldn't they be happy with it for cheaper? Health insurance companies here in the USA typically mark it up over 30%. They are also trying to get a bill passed that will make it so that the person will be responsible for up to 35% of the bill when it comes. Yet folks just run around with their head up their ass, opposing health the health bill because they oppose the democrats in general. It has to be impossible that the party they oppose comes up with a good idea actually, right?

That is why all the arguments against health care that you see for the most part, are just bullshit thrown to the wind. Because they don't have a legitimate argument against it. With our current health care system, the fat cats keep getting fat, and the joe average guy gets fucked. End of Story.
Click to expand...

As long as you don't care about how long you have to wait for treatment, what the nurse/patient ratio is, how qualified the physicians are that treat you and how new the equipment is that's used to diagnose you, socialized health care is great.

BTW, I like the Swiss system quite a bit. It's the best of the programs out there.
 
I don't really understand the anger. All Democrats have to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done. Since it's only Republicans and Independents "oppose" progress on health care, why don't we already have a bill?
 
maxiep said:
I don't really understand the anger. All Democrats have to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done. Since it's only Republicans and Independents "oppose" progress on health care, why don't we already have a bill?
Click to expand...

You could also say

All Congress has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done.

or

All the country has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done.

My point, you ask? It's that Democrats don't all share one opinion about what the right plan is. Otherwise, I guess it probably would be done already.

But then, your question was probably rhetorical anyway.

barfo
 
barfo said:
You could also say

All Congress has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done.

or

All the country has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done.

My point, you ask? It's that Democrats don't all share one opinion about what the right plan is. Otherwise, I guess it probably would be done already.

But then, your question was probably rhetorical anyway.

barfo
Click to expand...

But many of them are trying to paint the picture than the Republicans are responsible for holding up healthcare reform... just to spite the Democrats.
 
yakbladder said:
We've hashed the health care debate to death, but I thought this article was fairly interesting.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/4countrieswithbetterhealthcarethanours

Canada: Percent rating the healthcare system A or B: 46 percent; D or F: 15 percent; annual healthcare spending per person: $3,895

France: A or B: 63 percent; D or F: 12 percent; spending: $3,601

Germany: A or B: 18 percent; D or F: 44 percent; spending: $3,588

Switzerland: A or B: 66 percent; D or F: 14 percent; spending: $4,417

United Kingdom: A or B: 32 percent; D or F: 20 percent; spending: $2,992

United States: A or B: 22 percent; D or F: 38 percent; spending: $7,290

And this...

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/health-reform-without-a-public-plan-the-german-model/
Click to expand...

What about comparing countries with populations and economies in line with the United States?
 
maxiep said:
Switzerland? Are you kidding? Why do you think "Papers, please" are always made more ominous with a German accent?
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting they deny them?
 
barfo said:
You could also say

All Congress has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done.

or

All the country has to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done.

My point, you ask? It's that Democrats don't all share one opinion about what the right plan is. Otherwise, I guess it probably would be done already.

But then, your question was probably rhetorical anyway.

barfo
Click to expand...


I think the issue at hand is not only deciding on what reform measures congress wants to implement, but how to transform out of what we have and into what we may want to have without losing millions of jobs and creating upheavel (or however it's spelled) in he medical profession. Also, without some deeply meaningful tort reform, the situation will just get worse.

In fact, if it could be done smoothly, I also like the Swiss program.
 
blazerboy30 said:
But many of them are trying to paint the picture than the Republicans are responsible for holding up healthcare reform... just to spite the Democrats.
Click to expand...

There are more ways to hold up legislation than a filibuster. Creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt is one way.

barfo
 
barfo said:
There are more ways to hold up legislation than a filibuster. Creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt is one way.

barfo
Click to expand...

That's not true. If the Democrats truly believe in this program and all the people that voted for the Democrats this time 'round believe in their policy prescriptions, then there's no obstacle.

The real reason they won't pass it without Republican support is they know it's going to be wildly unpopular and they're going to pay a heavy political price. They want the Republicans to join them in jumping off the cliff.
 
Natebishop3 said:
Most countries don't allow people to waltz across their borders as if they owned the place.
Click to expand...

I was just curious why maxiep liked their system because I know he doesn't agree with illegal immigrants receiving treatment, but in the current Swiss system they do treat them. It's become a big problem for them. They've recently tried getting rid of Anchor babies to curb the appeal of illegals having babies born in their country, but it hasn't had the effect they were hoping for.

I though maybe maxiep knew of something else they were trying to do to fix the problem.

I hate how the health system is abused by illegal immigrants. At the same time I don't think it's right to just deny someone if they're dying or having complications during birth and don't have money to pay for the treatment.
 
maxiep said:
That's not true. If the Democrats truly believe in this program and all the people that voted for the Democrats this time 'round believe in their policy prescriptions, then there's no obstacle.

The real reason they won't pass it without Republican support is they know it's going to be wildly unpopular and they're going to pay a heavy political price. They want the Republicans to join them in jumping off the cliff.
Click to expand...

I think the Democrats holding out are just waiting for better "pork" money. You know the bill is going to be filled with a bunch of crap that has nothing to do with healthcare.
 
blazerboy30 said:
Are those satisfaction numbers independent of cost? Something tells me that putting the cost and satisfaction might be redundant.

Would the satisfaction numbers change drastically if the costs went down significantly? If not, then it seems that the current reform proposals won't really improve our satisfaction numbers as shown in this study.
Click to expand...

I am presuming they are independent of cost.
 
BLAZER PROPHET said:
In fact, if it could be done smoothly, I also like the Swiss program.
Click to expand...

To be frank (not Jim or Tony), I'm a little surprised that conservatives would like the Swiss program. There are a couple of features I could see them liking, but overall? There is lots of government intervention.

What does everyone else think? Personally I'd be willing to give it a shot, even though I disagree with a couple of aspects.

From Wikipedia...

Regulations also restrict the allowable policies and profits that a private insurer may offer, as noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA. Reinhardt writes that,

"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).

Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."[1]


Another set of interesting articles that summarizes the situation:

http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/11/27/swiss-healthcare-system/
http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/02/26/swiss-healthcare-system-part-ii/



A fascinating "personal perspective" of the Swiss system (I know - for you righties, it's NPR, but try and bear through reading it)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92106731

"The costs have increased in the last 10 years by 50 to 60 percent," says Roland Brunner, a banker from Baden."

And the fact that that chunk of the budget grows each year has been particularly frustrating for members of the Swiss parliament, Zweifel says, because "those poor [who get the subsidies] are not those that go to the polls and give you the votes."

"But even with the subsidy, there's still a regressive aspect of the Swiss system: health insurance premiums are not linked to income. So everyone pays the same."
 
maxiep said:
That's not true. If the Democrats truly believe in this program and all the people that voted for the Democrats this time 'round believe in their policy prescriptions, then there's no obstacle.
Click to expand...

Sure. I'm not sure what you are saying isn't true, though. Creating fear, uncertainty, and doubt tends to impinge upon the certainty of at least the latter, if not the former, set of people.

The real reason they won't pass it without Republican support is they know it's going to be wildly unpopular and they're going to pay a heavy political price. They want the Republicans to join them in jumping off the cliff.
Click to expand...

That would be the preference, but it is clear now that that isn't going to happen. So they'll either pass it without the Rs, or give up.

barfo
 
maxiep said:
I don't really understand the anger. All Democrats have to do is decide which health care plan is going to pass and it's done. Since it's only Republicans and Independents "oppose" progress on health care, why don't we already have a bill?
Click to expand...

Because Democrats are absolutely useless. Seriously.

I cannot even begin to tell you how much it pains me to have to vote for them...

You are 100% correct: there is no excuse, whatsoever, for the Democrats not to pass, on a party-line basis, a good health reform plan. Instead they're watering it down in an absolutely futile effort to "compromise" with people who fundamentally have no interest in compromising with them, and won't support it in the end anyway. The bill that Max Baucus is hyping today is perhaps the worst piece of legislation in the history of the American republic. If the Democrats actually pass that steaming pile of shit, they will absolutely deserve the crushing defeat they'll suffer in the next election.

Sometimes I can't believe how inept they are, honestly. If they pass a strong bill (one that would create a Swiss-style system, saving tons of money while providing better care to more people) they will enjoy not only good policy, but also great partisan politics. People will love the system and they'll get all the credit.

But instead they seem intent on passing a useless pile of crap that will do nothing to control costs or improve care, will apparently coerce individuals to buy shitty private insurance plans that they don't want, and will bankrupt the country. Everyone will (justifiably) hate it, and everyone will (justifiably) blame the Democrats for passing it. And all in the name of "bipartisanship" and "compromise" with an opposition party that obviously just doesn't want health insurance reform at all. (Which is perfectly fine! But why the F are the Democrats trying to negotiate with them? Oh yeah, because they suck!)

SR
 
Stepping Razor said:
But why the F are the Democrats trying to negotiate with them? Oh yeah, because they suck!)

SR
Click to expand...

Pretty much you could've cut your post down to this.

On the flip side, Republicans get a lot of crap for being unwilling to negotiate when they are in power. So, really, neither side wins. Either you put out a program, try to involve the other side, and look weak or you push through a program and look oppressive and unbending.

I think the bill is kind of crappy the way it is, but I think their original tact was right on. What they should have done is said "Look, we've given you A,B,C,D,E from your list of demands. We expect a little support" and then if they didn't get it revoke A,B,C,D,E from the list and just say the GOP wasn't willing to budge an inch, which they aren't.

The problem when you have super-majorities (problem?) is that the minority always seems to act like they have no other power than to go the "nuclear route" of defiance the entire time. So even if some Repubs did agree they're being pressured to put up this party of no crap.
 
Yeah, I would love to see the democrats come out and say, well, we tried, but they didn't want to compromise, so we are going to do what we believe is the right thing, and start over from scratch with a real reform plan instead of this incremental fiddling.

But that aint gonna happen.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top