My experience with the French Heath Care System
Nov 18th, 2009, 03:51 PM
#61
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PS
The US Government seems to be doing a pretty goob job administering medicare - so there should not be much of a learning curve involved in extending it to more people - like Iris/Richard suggested.
Stu Dudley
The US Government seems to be doing a pretty goob job administering medicare - so there should not be much of a learning curve involved in extending it to more people - like Iris/Richard suggested.
Stu Dudley
Nov 18th, 2009, 07:46 PM
#62
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what i have heard frmo friends who lived in U k & now living in France the French system is better but a bit more expensive. Mortgages in U K do not have 30 yr fixed rates so are subjected to the rise & fall,
The 18 % Vat is added for sales & service such as home & car repair utilities, etc.car & road tax higher & Gas approx $10 a gallon.house taxes are higher.
I know we personaly could not live as well as we do here in CA .
I am sure most of us would like a system similar to Europe but would we be willing to pay as they do.
The 18 % Vat is added for sales & service such as home & car repair utilities, etc.car & road tax higher & Gas approx $10 a gallon.house taxes are higher.
I know we personaly could not live as well as we do here in CA .
I am sure most of us would like a system similar to Europe but would we be willing to pay as they do.
Nov 18th, 2009, 08:34 PM
#63
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 12,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My sister had a bad cough. We went to the doc (in Germany). He complimented me on my good German (I had looked up the word for "cough"), diagnosed her cough, gave her 10 days worth of antibiotics, and charged us $27.
What a ghastly experience! I would so much rather have waited 4 hours in an emergemcy room and paid $1200 or gone to her doc and had the insurance company pay $400 for the visit.
What a ghastly experience! I would so much rather have waited 4 hours in an emergemcy room and paid $1200 or gone to her doc and had the insurance company pay $400 for the visit.
Nov 18th, 2009, 08:55 PM
#64
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"would we be willing to pay as they do."
How often do you people have to be told:
<b> You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system </b>
America's illness industry doesn't just produce the developed world's unhealthiest people: it sucks more money out of its citizens than real democracies would ever tolerate.
Quite how, given the extortionate price Americans pay for their insurance industry protection racket, so many believe a civilised health system is unaffordable is one of those great mysteries ordinary mortals will never understand.
But certainly proof that the US illness industry's lobbyists have discovered how you really can fool all of the people all of the time.
How often do you people have to be told:
<b> You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system </b>
America's illness industry doesn't just produce the developed world's unhealthiest people: it sucks more money out of its citizens than real democracies would ever tolerate.
Quite how, given the extortionate price Americans pay for their insurance industry protection racket, so many believe a civilised health system is unaffordable is one of those great mysteries ordinary mortals will never understand.
But certainly proof that the US illness industry's lobbyists have discovered how you really can fool all of the people all of the time.
Nov 19th, 2009, 12:12 AM
#65
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"So far, none of the European contributors to this thread have mentioned anything about their government health insurance administrators doing a poor/incompetent job. Is their government capable of doing a better job than you suspect our govenment can do??? Or are they doing a poor job & we (US) are not aware of it??"
I don't really understand what you mean by "government health insurance administrators"?
I either pay National Insurance from my salary, or now I am self employed I pay £9.60 a month.... If I need to go to the doctor I ring and make an appointment and go and see her. If I need a further referral I get a letter telling me to go to a hospital appointment.
My Mother, who is over 80 had one knee replaced in May, 10 weeks after she was told she needed it, and her 2nd knee replaced in October, again 10 weeks after being OK'd for it (an unusally short gap between ops) She will have a carpel tunnel operation 'when she feels ready for it'. She also had an unplanned admission last year in October as she got a urine infection (serious in older people)She as in for a week. As I am in Scotland a prescription charge is only £4, in England it's £7.20. Some people are exempt from prescription charges.
My understanding that the French system is better than ours in the UK.
I don't really understand what you mean by "government health insurance administrators"?
I either pay National Insurance from my salary, or now I am self employed I pay £9.60 a month.... If I need to go to the doctor I ring and make an appointment and go and see her. If I need a further referral I get a letter telling me to go to a hospital appointment.
My Mother, who is over 80 had one knee replaced in May, 10 weeks after she was told she needed it, and her 2nd knee replaced in October, again 10 weeks after being OK'd for it (an unusally short gap between ops) She will have a carpel tunnel operation 'when she feels ready for it'. She also had an unplanned admission last year in October as she got a urine infection (serious in older people)She as in for a week. As I am in Scotland a prescription charge is only £4, in England it's £7.20. Some people are exempt from prescription charges.
My understanding that the French system is better than ours in the UK.
Nov 19th, 2009, 01:06 AM
#66
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm, thought I'd get this back to cafegoddess' original post. I broke a tooth in London the morning of the day we were going to Paris - damned muesli!!
I was booked into a dentist the next day who x-rayed it, fixed it - using lasers, so NO drilling, no pain relief, no trauma, no recovery time ie numb face etc. He put in a 'temporary' filling that lasted a good 12 months. 70 euros - I was a very happy traveller.
He had very little English and I have schoolgirl French, but between us we figured out what was going on. He was delightful and very keen to be helpful. The tooth really needed a crown which he would have done if we'd been staying a little longer, I have often wondered what that would have cost. here in Australia a crown costs about $1,000 and my health fund refunds about 1/2 of the cost.
I was booked into a dentist the next day who x-rayed it, fixed it - using lasers, so NO drilling, no pain relief, no trauma, no recovery time ie numb face etc. He put in a 'temporary' filling that lasted a good 12 months. 70 euros - I was a very happy traveller.
He had very little English and I have schoolgirl French, but between us we figured out what was going on. He was delightful and very keen to be helpful. The tooth really needed a crown which he would have done if we'd been staying a little longer, I have often wondered what that would have cost. here in Australia a crown costs about $1,000 and my health fund refunds about 1/2 of the cost.
Nov 19th, 2009, 02:59 AM
#67
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>none of the European contributors to this thread have mentioned anything about their government health insurance administrators doing a poor/incompetent job.<<
There are different sorts of system. The UK NHS is tax-financed and organised through block contracts, so there is little or no question of different groups of administrative staff having to chase and track individual payments for each patient. Other systems on the Continent are insurance-based, but it sounds as though the French system, at least, has a single process which is heavily computerised, which presumably cuts down on tracking such payments.
There are different sorts of system. The UK NHS is tax-financed and organised through block contracts, so there is little or no question of different groups of administrative staff having to chase and track individual payments for each patient. Other systems on the Continent are insurance-based, but it sounds as though the French system, at least, has a single process which is heavily computerised, which presumably cuts down on tracking such payments.
Nov 19th, 2009, 04:00 AM
#68
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmmm wrote: "Kerouac says he pays NOTHING for prescribed medicine. Is that (zero) the true cost to the pharmacist of purchasing, stocking and dispensing the medicine, or is the government confiscating money from others to provide the patient with medicine at a price he finds desireable (irrespective of the true cost of the medicine)?"
Kerouac's prescriptions are covered 100%. Back in the dark ages, this meant paying for them up front and submitting forms to get reimbursed. Now the health care card, like a medical credit card, is presented to the pharmacist, Kerouac pays nothing and the pharmacist gets reimbursed by the state. Prescription medication prices are uniform and often negotiated by the French government.
Kerouac's prescriptions are covered 100%. Back in the dark ages, this meant paying for them up front and submitting forms to get reimbursed. Now the health care card, like a medical credit card, is presented to the pharmacist, Kerouac pays nothing and the pharmacist gets reimbursed by the state. Prescription medication prices are uniform and often negotiated by the French government.
Nov 19th, 2009, 04:36 AM
#69
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could look on European systems as a range of different ways for the state to regulate the market, on price as well as on quality and safety: which, given the inherent imperfect knowledge of the customer, is only right and proper.
Nov 19th, 2009, 05:30 AM
#70
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 448
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EU health insurance systems aren't all alike. But as PatrickLondon says, all seek (and mostly find) a way to give all their citizens proper health insurance.
The Dutch systems works as follows (since about 3 years after a great reform):
Everybody is obliged to take a (basic) health insurnce policy. You can choose your own policy from one of the(private) companies offering these.
A basic health insurance (covering all normal medical procedures and medicens) costs about € 100 per month(some companies are cheaper, some are more expensive).
You as a customer, pays this amount to the private company.
Additional, through your salary, you pay a maximum of 6,1% of your income as a kind of 'health insurance tax'. The Duth employers have agreed to pay back to their employees this 6,1%. Difference is; the 'health insurance tax' is a net amount (in my case around € 250), the pay back by employers is a gross amount (meaning you pay income tax over this amount). In my case; I pay about € 250 and receive back about 150.
So all in all, I pay about € 200 (€ 100 to the health insurance company, and € 100 through my salary) a month for my health insurance.
One additional measure hase been taken to compensate people with a low income; they receive some extra support from the government, the Dutch IRS makes sure you get this support.
This system may seem difficult. But there is a imnportant reason why they have choosen to do it like this.
Up until 3 years ago, people with low and middle incomes, were obliged to take a state health insurance. Costs for this health insureance wre much lower than the cost now.
Above a certain income, you no longer were able to take the state health insurance, but had to take a private health insurance. Costs of these were much higer than the costs now.
So there was a big difference between low/middle and middle/high incomes reagdering their costs of healt insurance.
In both case, the link between the real costs of health insurance and the costs you had to pay, were not very visible.
In the new system, you pay a relative high amount for your health insurance policy. This amount is equal for about everybody. Plus a income dependent amount. These costs, are about the actual costs of a health insurance policy, was there no government interference and/or pay back through your employer. So for everybody it is clearly visible; health insurance isn't free. By choosing a cheaper (or more expensive) health insurer, you can save some money. Additional to your basic health insurance, you can choose to extend your coverage in some areas (for additonal costs of course).
Most employers paid a cerrtain amount in the former system too for their employees, so they still pay back their employees a little bit for their health insurance.
In general the system works fine here. Almost 99,9% (or something like that) of the people have a health insurance. Everybodye has a GP for your everyday pains and aches (if necesarry, they also make house calls). Medicines are 'free'.
In general you do not have to pay a GP, pharmacy, hospital etc if you receive treatment. The insurer covers all this.
In some ways the system is a little bit difficult; for instance, why do you have a income dependent amount ot pay + a pay back by you employer. But hey, all systems have their imperfections!
The Dutch systems works as follows (since about 3 years after a great reform):
Everybody is obliged to take a (basic) health insurnce policy. You can choose your own policy from one of the(private) companies offering these.
A basic health insurance (covering all normal medical procedures and medicens) costs about € 100 per month(some companies are cheaper, some are more expensive).
You as a customer, pays this amount to the private company.
Additional, through your salary, you pay a maximum of 6,1% of your income as a kind of 'health insurance tax'. The Duth employers have agreed to pay back to their employees this 6,1%. Difference is; the 'health insurance tax' is a net amount (in my case around € 250), the pay back by employers is a gross amount (meaning you pay income tax over this amount). In my case; I pay about € 250 and receive back about 150.
So all in all, I pay about € 200 (€ 100 to the health insurance company, and € 100 through my salary) a month for my health insurance.
One additional measure hase been taken to compensate people with a low income; they receive some extra support from the government, the Dutch IRS makes sure you get this support.
This system may seem difficult. But there is a imnportant reason why they have choosen to do it like this.
Up until 3 years ago, people with low and middle incomes, were obliged to take a state health insurance. Costs for this health insureance wre much lower than the cost now.
Above a certain income, you no longer were able to take the state health insurance, but had to take a private health insurance. Costs of these were much higer than the costs now.
So there was a big difference between low/middle and middle/high incomes reagdering their costs of healt insurance.
In both case, the link between the real costs of health insurance and the costs you had to pay, were not very visible.
In the new system, you pay a relative high amount for your health insurance policy. This amount is equal for about everybody. Plus a income dependent amount. These costs, are about the actual costs of a health insurance policy, was there no government interference and/or pay back through your employer. So for everybody it is clearly visible; health insurance isn't free. By choosing a cheaper (or more expensive) health insurer, you can save some money. Additional to your basic health insurance, you can choose to extend your coverage in some areas (for additonal costs of course).
Most employers paid a cerrtain amount in the former system too for their employees, so they still pay back their employees a little bit for their health insurance.
In general the system works fine here. Almost 99,9% (or something like that) of the people have a health insurance. Everybodye has a GP for your everyday pains and aches (if necesarry, they also make house calls). Medicines are 'free'.
In general you do not have to pay a GP, pharmacy, hospital etc if you receive treatment. The insurer covers all this.
In some ways the system is a little bit difficult; for instance, why do you have a income dependent amount ot pay + a pay back by you employer. But hey, all systems have their imperfections!
Nov 19th, 2009, 06:42 AM
#71
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 74,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ArtsN,
I agree,
>If everyone pursues their self-interest, we will arrive at some happy medium......<
And Adam Smith's "invisible hand" makes regulation of the market unnecessary, and Ayn Rand was right.
>Those who continue to say that there should be health care for all as long as it costs them nothing personally just need to spend a little time without insurance........<
These are the folks who claim to be "social liberals and fiscal conservatives".
.................................................. .............
DanM brings up his religious views,
>Medicaid, farm aid,..........etc. are the only programs the federal government seems to have a problem running.<
Unlike the major financial services corporations, or the energy providers, or the hedge funds, or the meat packers, etc, etc, etc.
.................................................. ...................
Hi Ann,
>....here in the "socialist" UK we abolished mortgage tax relief some time ago.<
In both the US and the UK, about 70% of the population are homeowners. How did you folks get that done?
.................................................. ......
Hi Stu
Congrats on being retired.
>The problem isn't that Cigna or Mills are incompetent - I think that there are just too many layers.......<
I think that you are being too kind. IME, medical accounts are the most messed up area of the economy. Umpteen years ago, my MIL who was living with us) went to the hospital for heart surgery. Two years later she passed away. Six months after that, BC/BS finally paid the bills for the heart surgery.
I received a check, in her name, for about 2 years salary. Had I not been the upright and honest person that I am, I would have taken the money and run.
.................................................. ............
Hi Hmmmm,
>Kerouac says he pays NOTHING for prescribed medicine.<
You'll have to take your question to Kerouac.
For myself: I have copays of $5-15 for various medications. AFAIK, the people administering my drug plan feel that they, the pharmacist and the manufacturer can all make money on the deal - although my local independent pharmacist says that he is being squeezed out of business - even though the retail prices of my meds are far higher than what the pharmacist gets.
Recently, Wal Mart, Publix and other firms have begun giving away Rx products just to get people into their stores.
In addition, the copay on one of my meds just went to zero.
So, how can one determine the "true cost" if the professionals are giving it away.
>...is the government confiscating money from others to provide the patient with medicine ....<
Of course not. You might as well say that my insurance carriers are stealing money from others .......<
Kerouac has been paying for healthcare his entire working life.
.................................................. ............
DanM writes,
>If it is a wash, I think the growth in government and national debt is not worth it.<
An increase in the National Debt of $X is not worth how many lives saved?
Was an increase in gov't and a doubling of the national debt to prosecute an unnecessary war with Iraq worth it? Was almost $4000 Billion thrown at the Wall Street banks worth it?
>As for the mortgage interest deduction, there is a very valid argument that it helped precipitate the latest financial crisis.<
That is a mere rationalization to try to cover up why the careless, irresponsible Bush Administration failed to properly regulate the housing market and let greedy bankers defraud the public.
.................................................. .......
Hey ArtsN,
>...I'm not saying it's a "fair" program, since, as formerly noted, it benefits primarily the middle class,......<
It also benefits the wealthy. Does benefitting about 70% of the population make it seem more "fair"?
.................................................. ........
Hi Iris,
I'm on your side.
>It would be great if all could be covered by medicare, but that will never happen. <
Why not? It's been under discussion since Truman's day. It's about time.
.................................................. ........
Hi Jean,
>I am sure most of us would like a system similar to Europe but would we be willing to pay as they do?<
It depends on whether you think a $3000 bottle of wine at a fancy resto in NYC is more important than a child receiving eyeglasses.
.................................................. ...........
><b>You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system</b> <
Not exactly the way I would have phrased it, flanner, but you have nailed the problem.
I agree,
>If everyone pursues their self-interest, we will arrive at some happy medium......<
And Adam Smith's "invisible hand" makes regulation of the market unnecessary, and Ayn Rand was right.
>Those who continue to say that there should be health care for all as long as it costs them nothing personally just need to spend a little time without insurance........<
These are the folks who claim to be "social liberals and fiscal conservatives".
.................................................. .............
DanM brings up his religious views,
>Medicaid, farm aid,..........etc. are the only programs the federal government seems to have a problem running.<
Unlike the major financial services corporations, or the energy providers, or the hedge funds, or the meat packers, etc, etc, etc.
.................................................. ...................
Hi Ann,
>....here in the "socialist" UK we abolished mortgage tax relief some time ago.<
In both the US and the UK, about 70% of the population are homeowners. How did you folks get that done?
.................................................. ......
Hi Stu
Congrats on being retired.
>The problem isn't that Cigna or Mills are incompetent - I think that there are just too many layers.......<
I think that you are being too kind. IME, medical accounts are the most messed up area of the economy. Umpteen years ago, my MIL who was living with us) went to the hospital for heart surgery. Two years later she passed away. Six months after that, BC/BS finally paid the bills for the heart surgery.
I received a check, in her name, for about 2 years salary. Had I not been the upright and honest person that I am, I would have taken the money and run.
.................................................. ............
Hi Hmmmm,
>Kerouac says he pays NOTHING for prescribed medicine.<
You'll have to take your question to Kerouac.
For myself: I have copays of $5-15 for various medications. AFAIK, the people administering my drug plan feel that they, the pharmacist and the manufacturer can all make money on the deal - although my local independent pharmacist says that he is being squeezed out of business - even though the retail prices of my meds are far higher than what the pharmacist gets.
Recently, Wal Mart, Publix and other firms have begun giving away Rx products just to get people into their stores.
In addition, the copay on one of my meds just went to zero.
So, how can one determine the "true cost" if the professionals are giving it away.
>...is the government confiscating money from others to provide the patient with medicine ....<
Of course not. You might as well say that my insurance carriers are stealing money from others .......<
Kerouac has been paying for healthcare his entire working life.
.................................................. ............
DanM writes,
>If it is a wash, I think the growth in government and national debt is not worth it.<
An increase in the National Debt of $X is not worth how many lives saved?
Was an increase in gov't and a doubling of the national debt to prosecute an unnecessary war with Iraq worth it? Was almost $4000 Billion thrown at the Wall Street banks worth it?
>As for the mortgage interest deduction, there is a very valid argument that it helped precipitate the latest financial crisis.<
That is a mere rationalization to try to cover up why the careless, irresponsible Bush Administration failed to properly regulate the housing market and let greedy bankers defraud the public.
.................................................. .......
Hey ArtsN,
>...I'm not saying it's a "fair" program, since, as formerly noted, it benefits primarily the middle class,......<
It also benefits the wealthy. Does benefitting about 70% of the population make it seem more "fair"?
.................................................. ........
Hi Iris,
I'm on your side.
>It would be great if all could be covered by medicare, but that will never happen. <
Why not? It's been under discussion since Truman's day. It's about time.
.................................................. ........
Hi Jean,
>I am sure most of us would like a system similar to Europe but would we be willing to pay as they do?<
It depends on whether you think a $3000 bottle of wine at a fancy resto in NYC is more important than a child receiving eyeglasses.
.................................................. ...........
><b>You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system</b> <
Not exactly the way I would have phrased it, flanner, but you have nailed the problem.
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:22 AM
#72
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system<<
Everything I have read & heard (from different sources including the World Health Organization) in the last 15 years or so has indicated that this is true. Has anyone found any studies that says it is not true and that we rank up there with France, Germany, etc in quality/cost. A lot depends, of course, on who "we" are. If a US person has good health insurance that someone else is paying for (their employer, most likely) and thinks that their salary/wages would not increase if their employer stopped offering health insurance, then that person would not want any national/government mandated health insurance system and is happy with his quality/$. Someone who owns a small company and is pouring all their $ into the company, or looses their insurance because of divorce or loss of job, or is in a situation like artsnletters' law school graduate, or can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition (like about half the people my age - including my wife if her retiree insurance was ever cancelled) or anyone who does not have a job - then they would surely welcome some change to our health care system and would like to get better quality/$.
Also, if that person with the good insurance that their employer pays for is a GM employee - congratulations - you helped put your employer in deep trouble and you might want to start looking for some other way to earn a living & get insurance.
Stu Dudley
Everything I have read & heard (from different sources including the World Health Organization) in the last 15 years or so has indicated that this is true. Has anyone found any studies that says it is not true and that we rank up there with France, Germany, etc in quality/cost. A lot depends, of course, on who "we" are. If a US person has good health insurance that someone else is paying for (their employer, most likely) and thinks that their salary/wages would not increase if their employer stopped offering health insurance, then that person would not want any national/government mandated health insurance system and is happy with his quality/$. Someone who owns a small company and is pouring all their $ into the company, or looses their insurance because of divorce or loss of job, or is in a situation like artsnletters' law school graduate, or can't get insurance because of a pre-existing condition (like about half the people my age - including my wife if her retiree insurance was ever cancelled) or anyone who does not have a job - then they would surely welcome some change to our health care system and would like to get better quality/$.
Also, if that person with the good insurance that their employer pays for is a GM employee - congratulations - you helped put your employer in deep trouble and you might want to start looking for some other way to earn a living & get insurance.
Stu Dudley
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:27 AM
#73
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 728
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ira, I don't need to take my question to Kerouac to know that the true cost of distributing prescribed medicines is more than zero. Surely the person who delivers the medicines to the pharmacy charges for his services, and, I suspect the pharmacy employees, landlords, utility providers, drug makers, insurers... do also, irrespective of whether those charges are built into a zero "market price" the government sets for the dispensed medicine. Large retailers sell generic drugs at low prices because they can buy them cheaply in large quantities and use them as loss leaders. They don't sell very expensive new drugs on the cheap. And, if a privately owned pharmacy errs and sets its prices too low to cover its costs it will fail and go out of business. The government will simply confiscate more of someone else's money.
The medicare system is wildly popular among its users because it shifts costs onto others who are not insureds under that plan and is grossly underfunded because the public would not stomach paying the true costs. Same for social security, medicaid, Amtrak, postal service, "public" education establishments. Nice deal when one can vote to force others to pay for one's own consumption and needn't worry about how much it costs.
Funny that tax evasion is rampant in those european socialist utopias where everything is free. Perhaps the welfare state is not such a perceived bargain by those who imposed it on themselves.
To your health.
.
The medicare system is wildly popular among its users because it shifts costs onto others who are not insureds under that plan and is grossly underfunded because the public would not stomach paying the true costs. Same for social security, medicaid, Amtrak, postal service, "public" education establishments. Nice deal when one can vote to force others to pay for one's own consumption and needn't worry about how much it costs.
Funny that tax evasion is rampant in those european socialist utopias where everything is free. Perhaps the welfare state is not such a perceived bargain by those who imposed it on themselves.
To your health.
.
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:34 AM
#74
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learnt a lot about the U.S. health care system from this thread and find it hard to believe, especially what Stu Dudley wrote.
Here some clarifications about the European health systems:
Only very few European countries (including UK and Denmark) have public health systems.
The vast majority of European countries have insurance-based health systems. The difference to the USA is
(1) that health insurance in most European countries is mandatory, hence, there are no persons without health insurance,
(2) that health insurance companies are regulated, especially coverage and conditions in order to ensure a high standard of quality,
(3) that in most countries, the social security contributions are collected directly from the monthly salaries, usually employers and employees share the contributions.
After all, health insurance in most European countries is neither communist nor tax-payed but an insurance system.
Here some clarifications about the European health systems:
Only very few European countries (including UK and Denmark) have public health systems.
The vast majority of European countries have insurance-based health systems. The difference to the USA is
(1) that health insurance in most European countries is mandatory, hence, there are no persons without health insurance,
(2) that health insurance companies are regulated, especially coverage and conditions in order to ensure a high standard of quality,
(3) that in most countries, the social security contributions are collected directly from the monthly salaries, usually employers and employees share the contributions.
After all, health insurance in most European countries is neither communist nor tax-payed but an insurance system.
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:35 AM
#75
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,523
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi ira,
<<And Adam Smith's "invisible hand" makes regulation of the market unnecessary>>
I think you're being sarcastic, right? Because leaving everything to the free market doesn't take into account "market failure" (and I use this term in the economic sense, not in the financial crisis sense).
I stick with my position about living without insurance. My medications cost $1,200 a month in the US and are not optional. When I lost insurance to cover them, I was forced to break the law by having them shipped from Canada (stupid law anyway), where I can get a <i>three-month</i> supply for less than that. And again, I was lucky enough to have $4,000 to spend for my 2-1/2 months without insurance. Now that I have a job and insurance again, I would be happy to pay more to know that I will <i>never</i> be in that position again - and that nor will anyone else.
<<It also benefits the wealthy. Does benefitting about 70% of the population make it seem more "fair"?>>
It depends on which 70% we're speaking of. This particular social benefit doesn't help the 30% of the population that spends the largest proportion of their income on housing. Many low-income renters are paying percentages of their income for housing that a mortgage lender adhering to conventional standards would <i>never</i> accept. <i>Someone</i> has to do those low-income jobs - there aren't enough teenagers or people just looking for pin money, and there aren't enough living-wage jobs for heads of households to go around, especially right now. Since those people are playing by the rules (working, paying their bills, etc.), I think they deserve a decent life, and that's hard to afford when 60% or more of your very limited take-home income is going for rent, often for substandard housing.
<<It depends on whether you think a $3000 bottle of wine at a fancy resto in NYC is more important than a child receiving eyeglasses.
.................................................. ...........
>You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system <
Not exactly the way I would have phrased it, flanner, but you have nailed the problem.>>
I just soooo agree.
<<And Adam Smith's "invisible hand" makes regulation of the market unnecessary>>
I think you're being sarcastic, right? Because leaving everything to the free market doesn't take into account "market failure" (and I use this term in the economic sense, not in the financial crisis sense).
I stick with my position about living without insurance. My medications cost $1,200 a month in the US and are not optional. When I lost insurance to cover them, I was forced to break the law by having them shipped from Canada (stupid law anyway), where I can get a <i>three-month</i> supply for less than that. And again, I was lucky enough to have $4,000 to spend for my 2-1/2 months without insurance. Now that I have a job and insurance again, I would be happy to pay more to know that I will <i>never</i> be in that position again - and that nor will anyone else.
<<It also benefits the wealthy. Does benefitting about 70% of the population make it seem more "fair"?>>
It depends on which 70% we're speaking of. This particular social benefit doesn't help the 30% of the population that spends the largest proportion of their income on housing. Many low-income renters are paying percentages of their income for housing that a mortgage lender adhering to conventional standards would <i>never</i> accept. <i>Someone</i> has to do those low-income jobs - there aren't enough teenagers or people just looking for pin money, and there aren't enough living-wage jobs for heads of households to go around, especially right now. Since those people are playing by the rules (working, paying their bills, etc.), I think they deserve a decent life, and that's hard to afford when 60% or more of your very limited take-home income is going for rent, often for substandard housing.
<<It depends on whether you think a $3000 bottle of wine at a fancy resto in NYC is more important than a child receiving eyeglasses.
.................................................. ...........
>You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system <
Not exactly the way I would have phrased it, flanner, but you have nailed the problem.>>
I just soooo agree.
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:39 AM
#76
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 6,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>You're paying twice as much as we do for a crappier system<<
In the USA, the total expenditures for health are 16.0% of the GDP, in France 11.0%, in Germany 10.4%, in UK 8.4% and in Denmark 9.8%.
Source: OECD
http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoa...uestedData.xls
In the USA, the total expenditures for health are 16.0% of the GDP, in France 11.0%, in Germany 10.4%, in UK 8.4% and in Denmark 9.8%.
Source: OECD
http://www.irdes.fr/EcoSante/DownLoa...uestedData.xls
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:39 AM
#77
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ira:
Interesting that people assume that I am going to disagree with them about Bush's failures. For all you know I cannot stand either one of the parties. Also, I am not sure when I raised religion.
As for people dying becuase they do not have health insurance, that is hard to quantify. People have tried, but largely been unsuccessful. I am not sure if the issue is one of a lack of coverage, education, typical male failure to go to the doctor, or what. My point is that I am not sure it would be better than what we have, but I am sure that I do not want government to grow.
Interesting that people assume that I am going to disagree with them about Bush's failures. For all you know I cannot stand either one of the parties. Also, I am not sure when I raised religion.
As for people dying becuase they do not have health insurance, that is hard to quantify. People have tried, but largely been unsuccessful. I am not sure if the issue is one of a lack of coverage, education, typical male failure to go to the doctor, or what. My point is that I am not sure it would be better than what we have, but I am sure that I do not want government to grow.
Nov 19th, 2009, 07:45 AM
#78
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 653
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I posted on another, similar thread about my wife's exceptional treatment for a brief illness while we were visiting Paris. I assume that, in addition to tax and/or salary-reductions used to fund the French health care system, there are at least two other reasons the out-of-pocket costs to the patient/resident are low: physicians' medical education/training costs are low or non-existent, leading to lower pay needed while in practice, and there are lower (or no) "free enterprise system" administrative costs (e.g., salaries and bonuses)and profits.
Nov 19th, 2009, 08:05 AM
#79
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>I learnt a lot about the U.S. health care system from this thread and find it hard to believe, especially what Stu Dudley wrote.<<
I'm curious - what did you find hard to believe???
Stu Dudley
I'm curious - what did you find hard to believe???
Stu Dudley
Nov 19th, 2009, 08:33 AM
#80
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 16,500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>As for people dying becuase they do not have health insurance, that is hard to quantify. People have tried, but largely been unsuccessful.<<
Within the last week, there was an article in Time, or Newsweek, or our local paper about people dying who were admitted to trauma centers because of car accidents, gunshot wounds, etc. The article noted that the doctors who treated the patients were required by law to treat them - regardless of whether they had insurance or not. Most of the doctors & administrators interviewed said that they treat all patients the same. I have a very close friend who is an emergency room doctor & he confirms this. The study found that people who did not have insurance died at a rate 89% higher than those that did have insurance. The reason for this was the lack of post trauma treatment for the un-insured - assuming that the patient had to seek this treatment on his/her own. I suppose one could argue that a certain number of un-insured people entering trauma centers are "low lifes" who get into gang wars, reckless driving, and are generally leading dangerous lives - but I don't think that would account for most of the 89%.
Stu Dudley
Within the last week, there was an article in Time, or Newsweek, or our local paper about people dying who were admitted to trauma centers because of car accidents, gunshot wounds, etc. The article noted that the doctors who treated the patients were required by law to treat them - regardless of whether they had insurance or not. Most of the doctors & administrators interviewed said that they treat all patients the same. I have a very close friend who is an emergency room doctor & he confirms this. The study found that people who did not have insurance died at a rate 89% higher than those that did have insurance. The reason for this was the lack of post trauma treatment for the un-insured - assuming that the patient had to seek this treatment on his/her own. I suppose one could argue that a certain number of un-insured people entering trauma centers are "low lifes" who get into gang wars, reckless driving, and are generally leading dangerous lives - but I don't think that would account for most of the 89%.
Stu Dudley
