Health care question

The T wrote: InvisibleUnicorns wrote: Raff wrote: Personally, I don't believe something like healthcare should become a way for people to make money. What are the defining qualities that make one way of making money legitimate and another illegitimate?   Maybe the fact that we're talking about SAVING LIFES here? Of course doctors have to make money like everybody else, they actually study 2398209 years to be doctors... BUT IT'S NOT THEM WHO REALLY MAKE HEALTHCARE SO PROHIBITLY EXPENSIVE IN AMERICA... IS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES.... They're the ones making the real money... while denying people with pre-existing conditions any coverage... The system here is REPULSIVE. To any human, that is.   My sister was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2000. I thank nature or whomever that she lives in Germany. Not only was she taken care of and received TOP treatment, she was treaten as a human being, not as a number, she was given spas for recovery, the doctors and the system really made sure that she recovered perfectly. And she did.   In the repulsive money-based system in the US she would be GONE. Or she would be here and all my family would have debts that it would take our entire lifetime to pay back.   Is quite repulsive, again, that the richest nation on earth, the one that prioduces and consumes the most amount of sh*t, is the only industrialized one in the world with no universal heath care system.   But it all comes to the ME ME ME mentality of americans.... the only thing I will never like of my adoptive country.   EDIT: I remember every time my sister comes to visit, she's baffled when she sees commercial ads on tv for doctors.... commercial ads... Immediately followed by ads like "sleeping only on the right side of the bed? You may suffer from rightsiditis syndrome - TRY Moonesta by Pfeizer! Please ask your doctor about it!"........ Yes.... here they encourage you to go ask the doctor for medicine... here is all a business....   A repulsive business, that is.....

had no intentions to log in this morning.. but was just surfing while having the first cup of coffee...

but let me add one thing to what you said Teo...

*if Raff finally see the light and ditches my ass.... I'm yours... all yours*

you couldn't have hit the nail on the head any better on this issue... 

I am no socialist... but I agree with Raff... it IS repulsive that this 'free market mania' that grips this country... where everything is a commodity.. and everyone is a consumer is repulsive.. and makes me sick.  It's like I said with human rights... what makes the wacky world of human rights so wacky are the wackos that think human rights is a point of debate....  what makes this issue so repulsive in the eyes of so many is the fact that a basic need like quality health care is something to be bought... not provided.

It's like the debate of hurricane Katrina.... what else do we have a central government for... but to provide for it's citizens when they can not provide for themselves....  bah!!!.  

COming back to T's post - it seems that Germany has multiple private companies that run the health care system. Non-profit private corporations. The reason why any one company would try to do better than another - the more "clients/patients" you have, the bigger your company, therefore the bigger the salaries as you go up the chain of management.
How do you pay - there is a health care deduction on your pay stub, a set percentage. Those who are not in the paid workforce have their premiums covered by the government.
How does it work - each year or two, the various stakeholders get together and decide on a payment schedule for procedures / services / treatments / medications etc.
The surprising thing - the origins of German Universal health care - Bismarck ! That's right. Late 19th century militaristic society leads the way.
Other example - France - combination of private & public health care. How does it work - single payor - the government. How is the private / public component balanced - same as Germany - the fees are set, in this case by the government, and the service provider cannot charge the patient extra. Therefore, a private company can compete if they so wish.
Indeed, there have been some stories in the news recently where French citizens were complaining of some difficulties in getting doctors to make house calls.
Imagine.
Other success stories - Japan, Taiwan, Switzerland. The sticking point - political resistance to increasing health care premiums when costs rise.
For those who think the U.S. has an advantage there - HMOs are increasing theirs by a higher rate, often for less coverage. Add to that the 40 million Americans that have no insurance. You can't legally be "refused" treatment, but it happens. Often. Along with bankruptcies due to health care costs.
I wish Canada could look at adopting parts of the Europeen models. But we have too many people who would rather add a "private pay for services by those who can afford to pay" component to our system. None of them seem willing to think that this somehow would not contribute to political pressure from these "taxpayers" that would undermine funding for the public system.

And most of all , remember the two world wars - EVERYBODY GAVE THEIR ALL. This was not based on your income, your class or status. SO if any country would expect the ultimate sacrifice from all their sons & daughters in case of war, why would they not provide the ultimate support for all their citizens.
Not to mention the actual financial benefits that flow to business - lower health benefit costs. Healthier employees. Could this possibly actually probably increase productivity ?
Wanna bet that most Americans can't figure this one out ?

Slartibartfast wrote: And what's just more scary anyway, faceless corporate bureaucrats or faceless government  bureaucrats?  At least one of those types can be held accountable to the people.

  Ah, thank you, I needed a big laugh.

Consider also (just looked this up), our (USA) national health expenditures come to almost $8000 per capita (mix of private insurance and Medicare/Medicaid), whereas in England it's about $2600 per capita (using figures that NHS England has as 2008-09 budget of 92.5bn GBP and England has a population (2007) of 51 million people).  Clearly the #1 issue when formulating a single-payer national health system in this country is cost containment.

Dean wrote: Our company provided BUPA, but I refused it and since I've never needed to use it, over the past 25 years I've "saved" the company 10s of thousands of pounds.

My wife's company actually gives her extra money per paycheck because she's refused their health insurance (my whole family is covered under mine).

Finnforest wrote: Private Insurance vs. Single-payer national health....

Well, nothing beats National Health. 

NaturalScience wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: And what's just more scary anyway, faceless corporate bureaucrats or faceless government  bureaucrats?  At least one of those types can be held accountable to the people.   Ah, thank you, I needed a big laugh.

Hey now, the operative word there was "can", and I did use it on purpose.

NaturalScience wrote: Finnforest wrote: Private Insurance vs. Single-payer national health.... Well, nothing beats National Health.

Yes but will it make you feel much better than you could know, no for that you need Songs From The Wood.


Edited by Slartibartfast - March 26 2009 at 11:52

Why pray to God to cure you ? Couldn't she have stopped it in the first place ? And if he's omniscient (like Ziltoid), why the need to inform or to ask ? If illness is deserved or brought upon one's self, explain why Mother Teresa died and not Dick Cheney ? Or rather why it wasn't Dick's hunting partner that shot Dick instead of vice versa ?
P.S. I am a Christian. Just not your type of Christian (to paraphrase an old Dave Mustaine lyric)

visitor2035 wrote: Firstly...the NHS is overloaded with beaurocrats and managers is not because of Labour, but had become heavily subsided due to the Tories, who wanted more friends in the system.....at least get your facts right Blacksword.

What exactly are you referring to, and did you see it in the Daily Mirror?

“[Canada and Great Britain] don’t have the appreciation of life, as we do in our society, evidently. A lot of people are gonna die. This ‘government option’ that’s being touted as this panacea — the savior of allowing people to have quality health care at an affordable price — is gonna kill people.”

— Congressman Paul Broun, in a July 10 statement on the floor of the House

Any comments from our Canadian or British friends on this one?