I'm surprised Australia is 32 on the WHO list but then the difference between 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, etc may be inconsequential. Our national health system is not perfect but it is very good and having lived 4 years in Italy (mid - late 90's) Australia's was far superior in the public sector so I wonder if Italy has improved significantly or whether the list is flawed? Not sure. The Australian system is a universal "free" health care with Private Health Care providers providing extra "luxuries" if you want to insure for them. The sysytem is paid for higher income earners paying a 1% levy on their annual tax. Low income earners pay no levy and get free health & hospital care.
I present to you, the new Healthcare plan!!
I'm surprised Australia is 32 on the WHO list but then the difference between 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, etc may be inconsequential. Our national health system is not perfect but it is very good and having lived 4 years in Italy (mid - late 90's) Australia's was far superior in the public sector so I wonder if Italy has improved significantly or whether the list is flawed? Not sure. The Australian system is a universal "free" health care with Private Health Care providers providing extra "luxuries" if you want to insure for them. The sysytem is paid for higher income earners paying a 1% levy on their annual tax. Low income earners pay no levy and get free health & hospital care.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
You don't understand.
Having a government version that works gives private companies a permanent competition and one that is very difficult to plot together with in order to jack up prices.
Don't think companies ever collude?
It's how they bought some airwave frequencies for discount prices. The government put an auction up for the frequencies that communications companies could use and they made bids where they actually put in their area codes into the bid (i.e. the last three digits in the bid). The companies, having had a slight discussion about this before, could tell who was bidding for what and they did not compete against each other and ended up getting frequencies for peanuts.
If the government alternative is, as you claim, expensive and poor in quality (actually a very good way to describe the current private insurance), the private insurance companies have nothing to worry about.
No I think there's something weird about that list.
I would not rate a Thai or Malaysian hospital over a South Korean one. That is a joke. Not just a joke but a very bad one.
Having a government version that works gives private companies a permanent competition and one that is very difficult to plot together with in order to jack up prices.
Don't think companies ever collude?
It's how they bought some airwave frequencies for discount prices. The government put an auction up for the frequencies that communications companies could use and they made bids where they actually put in their area codes into the bid (i.e. the last three digits in the bid). The companies, having had a slight discussion about this before, could tell who was bidding for what and they did not compete against each other and ended up getting frequencies for peanuts.
If the government alternative is, as you claim, expensive and poor in quality (actually a very good way to describe the current private insurance), the private insurance companies have nothing to worry about.
No I think there's something weird about that list.
I would not rate a Thai or Malaysian hospital over a South Korean one. That is a joke. Not just a joke but a very bad one.
Oh yea the govt did just great with that one didn't they?
mmarsh
Active member
They did actually when Medicare and Medicade were first designed under FDR, they were very good programs. Unfortunately all programs need to be updated every few decades or so, and while Social Security was revised under Nixon Medicare and Medicade never were which is why they are falling apart.
So these were great programs, only that they are in need of a massive overhaul.
Medicare dates from LBJs time.
Bror Jace
Active member
Redneck, I figure if they allow both types to exist, the government insurance will be priced very, very low to appear to be saving money. This will force private insurance to lower their rates and/or go out of business. But then the government will spend a fortune on care as they cannot control costs properly and are fraught with waste, fraud and abuse. After a decade or so, they will realize they are running massive
For example, Medicaid (medical care for the poor) is a $50 Billion program in New York State alone. Conservative estimates put the waste, fraud and abuse number at 10-15% ... $5 -$7.5 Billion dollars alone and we in the state are just now (after decades) just getting serious about going after the abusers.
Government care simply doesn't work well ... and especially not in a country as large and diverse as the United States.
The media in this country is pro-socialism and is overstating the problems with private insurance. Private insurance works well enough and even indirectly subsidizes care for poorer citizens by keeping emergency rooms in hospitals open when they would otherwise be forced to close.
The problem is MMarsh, these programs are so massive, updating them becomes a hurculean task that no one wants to do. Politically, it's just not sexy enough so there is not a lot of political will behind the many steps it takes. The only thing politicians will want to take credit for are the additions/expansions of what will be covered ... which will bankrupt the country even faster.
For example, Medicaid (medical care for the poor) is a $50 Billion program in New York State alone. Conservative estimates put the waste, fraud and abuse number at 10-15% ... $5 -$7.5 Billion dollars alone and we in the state are just now (after decades) just getting serious about going after the abusers.
Government care simply doesn't work well ... and especially not in a country as large and diverse as the United States.
The media in this country is pro-socialism and is overstating the problems with private insurance. Private insurance works well enough and even indirectly subsidizes care for poorer citizens by keeping emergency rooms in hospitals open when they would otherwise be forced to close.
The problem is MMarsh, these programs are so massive, updating them becomes a hurculean task that no one wants to do. Politically, it's just not sexy enough so there is not a lot of political will behind the many steps it takes. The only thing politicians will want to take credit for are the additions/expansions of what will be covered ... which will bankrupt the country even faster.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Just a random idea that I just thought of:
What if this was done like the Postal Service and UPS/FedEx? It's a happy medium of a government service and a capitalist one.
What if this was done like the Postal Service and UPS/FedEx? It's a happy medium of a government service and a capitalist one.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Actually the government coverage, if it is as wasteful and incompetent as you say it is, will not replace private coverage. If the private sector can't compete against something that is cheaper but clearly inferior, then it has a problem.
Of course the government version will be cheaper. That's the point.
As for the expenses involved, you have to look at how the program is actually being run, not just the amount of money being spent. Also you have to establish as to what constitutes "abuse and misuse of funds." Government agencies, including the military, have to use all their funds before the fiscal year is up in order to be eligible for either the same amount of funds next fiscal year or an increase (if lucky). So if they decided to build a rooftop garden with those funds, would that also constitute as waste? Often the funding for that sort of stuff does come from the extra left over money but I feel that it does do a nice job of area beautification.
Let me rephrase what you said, "Government care doesn't work well, if it's poorly run as it is in the United States." The United States is large and diverse, but that's why each state has its own governing powers to a degree.
Some problems come about as a result of incompetence, others come about because the system is flawed and it encourages individuals to make some very bizzare decisions.
Although I am pro-military, I think it's time the US mothballed an aircraft carrier or two and SERIOUSLY invested in education and health care coverage. And instead of saying "our way is the best, the world has nothing to teach us" that seems to PLAGUE American thinking sometimes, the government needs to establish a task force that will go out into the world, study and experience first hand the medical services and bring back the lessons and apply them in the United States.
Do you know what brought about the downfall of the Chinese as a superpower many hundreds of years ago? It was their attitude that China was the best, and there was nothing to be learned by exploring the world of barbarians.
The two major obsticles so far in making this work:
The fact that no President really gives a damn what's going to happen after his first term, during his first term.
The fact that no one who's seen the world and understands it has been in Washington long enough to brown nose enough people to have a shot at being President.
TOG: That is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
That makes it easier for everyone to understand.
The Other Guy
Spam King
Glad to help
My own concept has the NHS as a base insurance, with the Companies providing supplementary plans.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Yes that would be how it would work.
Basic coverage would be government.
Anything in addition to what the government covers, that would be done privately.
Has anyone stopped to think what would happen to the police force if they were totally privately run? They'd only be around protecting the rich while the rest would fall under the protection of gangs. Yes, it's sort of like that even now but it would make it even worse.
Remeber Kozmo? They had lots of problems and eventually law suits against them regarding refusal to deliver to really bad neighborhoods sealed their fate.
Basic coverage would be government.
Anything in addition to what the government covers, that would be done privately.
Has anyone stopped to think what would happen to the police force if they were totally privately run? They'd only be around protecting the rich while the rest would fall under the protection of gangs. Yes, it's sort of like that even now but it would make it even worse.
Remeber Kozmo? They had lots of problems and eventually law suits against them regarding refusal to deliver to really bad neighborhoods sealed their fate.
mmarsh
Active member
Unfortunatly thats what the British have, and its a pretty rotten system too. Sort of the worst of both worlds. Government Bureaucracy AND the Greed of the private insurerers.
France is the other way around. The Social Security (as they call it, but its the National healthcare system) pays most of it and the private insurence (which is required for all employees) pays the difference.
As I said before, as long as healthcare is FOR-PROFIT there will never be a decent system, because they will always have an incentive to provide the CHEAPEST solutions possible, and cheap healthcare often means none at all.
I am not a socialist but healthcare is one of the few industries Capitalism cannot be counted on to run fairly. It has to be taken out of its hands.
Last edited:
DTop
Active member
Just out of curiosity mmarsh. Admittedly, I have never researched the French healthcare system but, you say private insurance pays what the government doesn't. My question is if they're not profiting from it why on Earth are the private companies doing it? If the government is forcing them to do it, aren't they in essence controlling the entire healthcare system by extension?mmarsh said:
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Mmarsh the idea I had was that basic health care would be covered by the government and any additionals would be covered by the private companies.
I think that it could work.
For example, national insurance may actually not cover people who get lung cancer through smoking (which I think is a good idea because it would discourage smoking and wouldn't cost tax payer money on something you shouldn't do in the first place), but there can be a private insurance for this. The policy will assume that anyone who smokes and gets lung, mouth or throat cancer (or any cancer that is normally caused by smoking) will have gotten it because of smoking.
17% of males who smoke get lung cancer and 11% of females who smoke get lung cancer. 83% of males won't, and 89% of females won't. Which means if smokers actually took out the lung cancer treatment insurance (from a random sample), the company would have to pay out for 17% of the males who got insured and 11% of the females who got insured. And since there's not very many ways to know whether or not you'd be one of those people, if you're a smoker, you'd have an incentive to take out a policy.
That's how a private insurance could work.
I think that it could work.
For example, national insurance may actually not cover people who get lung cancer through smoking (which I think is a good idea because it would discourage smoking and wouldn't cost tax payer money on something you shouldn't do in the first place), but there can be a private insurance for this. The policy will assume that anyone who smokes and gets lung, mouth or throat cancer (or any cancer that is normally caused by smoking) will have gotten it because of smoking.
17% of males who smoke get lung cancer and 11% of females who smoke get lung cancer. 83% of males won't, and 89% of females won't. Which means if smokers actually took out the lung cancer treatment insurance (from a random sample), the company would have to pay out for 17% of the males who got insured and 11% of the females who got insured. And since there's not very many ways to know whether or not you'd be one of those people, if you're a smoker, you'd have an incentive to take out a policy.
That's how a private insurance could work.
FedEx is a private company that competes for profit, & makes one. Post Office is a semi-government operation that looses money & raises fees often, while threatening to reduce service. USPS is probably a good example of what will happen under Obamacare
mmarsh
Active member
Sorry, I wasnt very clear.
When I said not for Profit, what I meant was in context of making medical decisons. Private Insurence are Backup Players in France, and their contact to doctors is limited. They cannot tell a doctor to refuse treatment, and they cannot tell a patient they refuse to pay because it costs too much. In the US, Private insurence is a business (a very lucrative one), unfortunatly that means the company bottom line, not patients treatment, comes first.
All private insurence does in France is reimbourse medical costs and is basically designed to limit the "red tape". Think of it like a "accounts payable" department that is outsourced by the government. The PI reembourses the patient (the part not covered by French Social Security) and is paid by the government+employer in return. The patient does have to contribute on certain things, nor is everything reimboursed. But you dont have to worry about bankruptcy because of medical costs.
Now you can take additional private insurence (if for example your're company insurence is bad, or if you have a specific conditon that might be better covered). But this is are always SECONDARY to the Social Security system. If your're reasonably healthy people opt not to take it.
I hope that makes a degree of sense, unfortuntly this system is quite complicated, and I am no expert. The basic advatage of letting the government deal with healthcare is that the government isnt trying to make a buck. They will of course try and keep costs down where they can, but there is no financial incentive to offer poor care.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Maybe, but the post office is still cheaper, my parcels and letters do arrive and they do so on time.
There are times when I want to use FedEx... for documents that cannot afford to get lost and need to get there faster.
So what's the beauty of this system?
For every day stuff, I can use the regular postal service, no problem.
But when I need quality at the expense of money, I have that option too.
You as a consumer get to choose which one you want to use.
If you used FedEx for everything, you'd be burning through your wallet pretty quick.
Or imagine FedEx managed to get a monopoly over a certain area. They can screw with the prices all they want and no one could say anything about it.
A government postal service prevents that from happening.
The long term plan of the Democrat Party leadership is Govt control of health care. That is the goal, anything short of that is temporary untill they can move forward again.
The Other Guy
Spam King
My god, you're even against the mailmen!
Stating the obvious, loses money, threatens to reduce service & raise prices. Sounds a lot like what ObamaCare will be like.
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
You seem to have a lot of faith in some of these companies.
Remember the financial melt down? The government didn't cause it.
Remember the financial melt down? The government didn't cause it.