The Bill Moyers piece was very interesting.
The "HEALTH CARE MAFIA" vs. Obama -learn the facts!!! -not the LIES
- Thread starter muckraker10021
- Start date
Oh the irony. I live on the fattest country on earth and health care is an issue. 34.3% of Americans are obese and 32.7% are overweight. Sickening numbers. In California Obesity costs 41 billion dollars a year!!!!!!!!! 41 fucking billion.
How do we offset the huge costs fat people are putting on our health care system?
How do we offset the huge costs fat people are putting on our health care system?
nice read que..
<iframe src="http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_of_the_uninsured_are_us.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
<iframe src="http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
Thanks Que and Thoughtone for your excellent information.
A very compelling argument can be made that there are 45-50 million uninsured in this country is true in the aggregate but the way it's being presented by supporters of the Democrats plan are using it in a misleading way to hype the problem in a effort to pass a unwarranted radical change in how health care is delivered.
Dems say they want to reform the system. If true why wouldn't they consider these reforms as a start:
1) Tell the truth about the multitude of reasons why citizens are uninsured.Doing this will give a true picture of the problem enabling that debate to end and to get people focused on solutions.
2)A real effort to cover those eligible but aren't because of,lets face facts, minor bureaucratic reasons on the part of government and the insurance industry.Millions are ready to go on the rolls. DO IT DAMMIT!!!!...NOW!!
3) Those with pre-existing conditions appear to be where the costs are highest and are having the greatest difficulty in obtaining insurance. Place them in a separate pool where everybody contributes to it. This should spread the pain lessoning the tax burden and reducing the cost of private insurance for everyone also since those that are the greatest burden are seperated from the rest.
4) Those that choose not to have insurance are going to have to understand you're pretty much on your own. If you need major medical care the bill is on you. We as a society won't leave you in the gutter to die but when time comes we gonna take all your shit and sell it on ebay or something then garnish any future income til the bill is paid. Don't have a job you say,we'll find something you can do to begin paying the public back.
5) The cost of health care is definitely near the top in importance but should not override the need to get people insurance coverage. This is an ongoing issue and will have to be dealt with in that manner. There is no permanent fix for this, only good long range management will keep cost under control.
Reform in the true meaning of the word can be accomplished.Whether Obama and the Democrats understand that politics is the art of the possible remains to be seen. To me, it seems Dems and Repugs are more interested in winning ideological battles and not dealing with the problem at hand.
BigUnc
A very compelling argument can be made that there are 45-50 million uninsured in this country is true in the aggregate but the way it's being presented by supporters of the Democrats plan are using it in a misleading way to hype the problem in a effort to pass a unwarranted radical change in how health care is delivered.
Dems say they want to reform the system. If true why wouldn't they consider these reforms as a start:
1) Tell the truth about the multitude of reasons why citizens are uninsured.Doing this will give a true picture of the problem enabling that debate to end and to get people focused on solutions.
2)A real effort to cover those eligible but aren't because of,lets face facts, minor bureaucratic reasons on the part of government and the insurance industry.Millions are ready to go on the rolls. DO IT DAMMIT!!!!...NOW!!
3) Those with pre-existing conditions appear to be where the costs are highest and are having the greatest difficulty in obtaining insurance. Place them in a separate pool where everybody contributes to it. This should spread the pain lessoning the tax burden and reducing the cost of private insurance for everyone also since those that are the greatest burden are seperated from the rest.
4) Those that choose not to have insurance are going to have to understand you're pretty much on your own. If you need major medical care the bill is on you. We as a society won't leave you in the gutter to die but when time comes we gonna take all your shit and sell it on ebay or something then garnish any future income til the bill is paid. Don't have a job you say,we'll find something you can do to begin paying the public back.
5) The cost of health care is definitely near the top in importance but should not override the need to get people insurance coverage. This is an ongoing issue and will have to be dealt with in that manner. There is no permanent fix for this, only good long range management will keep cost under control.
Reform in the true meaning of the word can be accomplished.Whether Obama and the Democrats understand that politics is the art of the possible remains to be seen. To me, it seems Dems and Repugs are more interested in winning ideological battles and not dealing with the problem at hand.
BigUnc
Conyers Says Why Read The Health Care Bill! You got ta be kidding me! <object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GduzuzqGqG" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=GduzuzqGqG" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
<iframe src=" http://www.healthcarereformmyths.org/HealthcareReformMyths.php?Act=Home" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
I don't think anyone has read the bill
The bill is not complete. The Blue Dogs and conservatives are trying to water it down so it will be less effective. That’s how bills are made, in committees.
Aight, if anyone has a link to the bill then please let post it.
After checking the following interview it's obvious that the system needs a fundamental change.
The problem with the current system in the States is that the insurers have too much power and the system is to expensive. Poor or elder people can't afford it.
Let's think about what type of system they should choose in the USA.
I checked for a couple of HC systems (like what they have in Canada, Japan, France, UK etc.)
What would be a solution ?
After checking the following interview it's obvious that the system needs a fundamental change.
The problem with the current system in the States is that the insurers have too much power and the system is to expensive. Poor or elder people can't afford it.
Let's think about what type of system they should choose in the USA.
I checked for a couple of HC systems (like what they have in Canada, Japan, France, UK etc.)
What would be a solution ?
Last edited:
Just curious:
- what do you mean by "insurers have too much power"; and
- what do you think would be a solution ???
Honestly, the best way to fix the health care mess is to change the market entirely. I mean we, as americans, can by car insurance, home insurance, hell even LIFE insurance reasonably cheaper than buying health insurance. Common sense will show you that the types of insurance I just mentioned all give the customer a decent rate due to COMPETITION. *the word that people on the left are afraid to even utter*
Competition drives the price down, not government takeover.
Oh yea, I bet thought is going to say "well you rather do nothing" left wing talking point. Doing nothing in his eyes means we are doing the correct thing.
Competition drives the price down, not government takeover.
Oh yea, I bet thought is going to say "well you rather do nothing" left wing talking point. Doing nothing in his eyes means we are doing the correct thing.
Change it how ???
If life was so simple.
Do you live along a U.S. coast where Hurricanes are a possibility ??? If you think there is a healthcare insurance problem, try buying a homeowners policy in one of those regions. Did you know that many homeowners in those regions are treated just like people with preexisting illnesses ???
What about those who live along great rivers and river basins ??? Did you know? - that for so many Americans living in those, it was difficult to even obtain insurance because insurers wouldn't write policies to them ??? AND, did you know that the answser to that was Federal Intervention ??? If this was Jeopardy, your correct answer would have been: What is National Flood Insurance.
What about those people who live in fire prone areas of Southern California ??? Is insurance as cheap as pie there ???
What about auto insurance if you happen to live in higher crime areas (many people do and not by choice). Is auto insurance on the cheap there ???
As ecomomic priniciple, I agree: competition does tend to drive down prices. However:
- Does that mean competition for THOSE PEOPLE you want to sell insurance to ??? or
- Does that mean competiting NOT to sell insurance to those who you DON'T want to sell insurance to ???
So, what would you do to straighten this mess out ???
QueEx
You must be one of those blonde-hair, blue-eyed Al-Qaeda boys. We have to do something NOW, just think of how bad it would be without TARP, the Stimulus, FEMA, TSA, & "Cash for Clunkers".
SARCASM
Last edited:
GOP's 'Kill Granny' Media Campaign Alarms Seniors
source: Washington Post
Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors
Provision for End-of-Life Counseling Is Described by Right as 'Death Care'
Saturday, August 1, 2009
A campaign on conservative talk radio, fueled by President Obama's calls to control exorbitant medical bills, has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life "rationing" and even "euthanasia."
The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.
But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."
Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. At a forum sponsored by the seniors group AARP that was intended to pitch comprehensive reform, Obama was asked about the "rumors." He used the question to promote living wills, noting that he and the first lady have them.
Democratic strategists privately acknowledged that they were hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors.
The side battle also undercuts what many say is the more fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive, costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers.
"I don't think it's about cutting costs; it's about quality," said Tia Powell, director of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Bioethics. Pointing to extensive research, she said: "The good news is if you get people in an environment that is of their choosing, where there is support and they have good pain control, it is very likely to extend their life."
Not since 2003, when Congress and President George W. Bush became involved in the case of Terri Schiavo, who lay in a vegetative state in a hospice in Florida, have lawmakers waded into the highly charged subject, said Howard Brody, director of an ethics institute at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The attacks on talk radio began when Betsy McCaughey, who helped defeat President Bill Clinton's health-care overhaul 16 years ago, told former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) that mandatory counseling sessions with Medicare beneficiaries would "tell them how to end their life sooner" and would teach the elderly how to "decline nutrition . . . and cut your life short."
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) said they object to the idea because it "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
Brody says the proposal to reimburse counseling sessions "is an excellent idea," because too few doctors or adult children know what an elderly person wants, even sometimes when the patient has signed a medical directive.
About one-third of Americans have living wills or a document designating a health-care proxy who would make decisions if they become incapacitated, said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit group that focuses on the rights of the terminally ill. "But it's alarming how rarely they actually get honored because often doctors haven't familiarized themselves with the patient's wishes," she said.
Wesley Smith, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, said Obama's focus on controlling costs and the legalese in the bill have contributed to the confusion. "People fear these counseling sessions will push toward less care because the point is to cut costs," he said. The average cost of care for a chronically ill Medicare patient in the final six months of life is $46,400, according to Dartmouth University data.
The emphasis on cost containment means "you'll end up with denial of care for the elderly," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who also testified against the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Possible abortion coverage and end-of-life care in the health bill will be "a watershed battle for the life community."
In the past two weeks, AARP has fielded a few thousand calls from people who mistakenly think the legislation would require every Medicare recipient to "choose how they want to die," said James Dau, a spokesman for the organization.
Though he is "willing to give the benefit of the doubt" to some who may be confused, Dau complained that the effort to "intentionally distort" the proposal "is just plain cruel to anyone who is forced to make one of these difficult decisions at the end of life."
The American Medical Association, which supports the provision, has received similar inquiries and protests from patients who fear doctors will begin denying care late in life.
"These are important discussions everyone should have when they are healthy and not entering a hospital, so they are fully informed and can make their wishes known," said association President J. James Rohack. "That's not controversial; it's plain, old-fashioned patient-centered care."
After letting the controversy simmer on talk radio and the blogosphere, expecting that it might blow over, Democrats have begun to respond.
The allegations of mandatory counseling and euthanasia "are blatantly false," Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) wrote colleagues. The accusations are "as offensive as they are untrue."
source: Washington Post
Talk Radio Campaign Frightening Seniors
Provision for End-of-Life Counseling Is Described by Right as 'Death Care'
Saturday, August 1, 2009
A campaign on conservative talk radio, fueled by President Obama's calls to control exorbitant medical bills, has sparked fear among senior citizens that the health-care bill moving through Congress will lead to end-of-life "rationing" and even "euthanasia."
The controversy stems from a proposal to pay physicians who counsel elderly or terminally ill patients about what medical interventions they would prefer near the end of life and how to prepare instructions such as living wills. Under the plan, Medicare would reimburse doctors for one session every five years to confer with a patient about his or her wishes and how to ensure those preferences are followed. The counseling sessions would be voluntary.
But on right-leaning radio programs, religious e-mail lists and Internet blogs, the proposal has been described as "guiding you in how to die," "an ORDER from the Government to end your life," promoting "death care" and, in the words of antiabortion leader Randall Terry, an attempt to "kill Granny."
Though the counseling provision is a tiny part of a behemoth bill, the skirmish over end-of-life care, like arguments about abortion coverage, has become a distraction and provided an opening for opponents of the president's broader health-care agenda. At a forum sponsored by the seniors group AARP that was intended to pitch comprehensive reform, Obama was asked about the "rumors." He used the question to promote living wills, noting that he and the first lady have them.
Democratic strategists privately acknowledged that they were hesitant to give extra attention to the issue by refuting the inaccuracies, but they worry that it will further agitate already-skeptical seniors.
The side battle also undercuts what many say is the more fundamental challenge of discussing sensitive, costly societal questions about how to align patient wishes at the end of life with financial realities, for both the family and taxpayers.
"I don't think it's about cutting costs; it's about quality," said Tia Powell, director of the Montefiore-Einstein Center for Bioethics. Pointing to extensive research, she said: "The good news is if you get people in an environment that is of their choosing, where there is support and they have good pain control, it is very likely to extend their life."
Not since 2003, when Congress and President George W. Bush became involved in the case of Terri Schiavo, who lay in a vegetative state in a hospice in Florida, have lawmakers waded into the highly charged subject, said Howard Brody, director of an ethics institute at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.
The attacks on talk radio began when Betsy McCaughey, who helped defeat President Bill Clinton's health-care overhaul 16 years ago, told former senator Fred D. Thompson (R-Tenn.) that mandatory counseling sessions with Medicare beneficiaries would "tell them how to end their life sooner" and would teach the elderly how to "decline nutrition . . . and cut your life short."
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Republican Policy Committee Chairman Thaddeus McCotter (Mich.) said they object to the idea because it "may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."
Brody says the proposal to reimburse counseling sessions "is an excellent idea," because too few doctors or adult children know what an elderly person wants, even sometimes when the patient has signed a medical directive.
About one-third of Americans have living wills or a document designating a health-care proxy who would make decisions if they become incapacitated, said Barbara Coombs Lee, president of Compassion & Choices, a nonprofit group that focuses on the rights of the terminally ill. "But it's alarming how rarely they actually get honored because often doctors haven't familiarized themselves with the patient's wishes," she said.
Wesley Smith, an attorney for the International Task Force on Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, said Obama's focus on controlling costs and the legalese in the bill have contributed to the confusion. "People fear these counseling sessions will push toward less care because the point is to cut costs," he said. The average cost of care for a chronically ill Medicare patient in the final six months of life is $46,400, according to Dartmouth University data.
The emphasis on cost containment means "you'll end up with denial of care for the elderly," said Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, who also testified against the Supreme Court nomination of Sonia Sotomayor. Possible abortion coverage and end-of-life care in the health bill will be "a watershed battle for the life community."
In the past two weeks, AARP has fielded a few thousand calls from people who mistakenly think the legislation would require every Medicare recipient to "choose how they want to die," said James Dau, a spokesman for the organization.
Though he is "willing to give the benefit of the doubt" to some who may be confused, Dau complained that the effort to "intentionally distort" the proposal "is just plain cruel to anyone who is forced to make one of these difficult decisions at the end of life."
The American Medical Association, which supports the provision, has received similar inquiries and protests from patients who fear doctors will begin denying care late in life.
"These are important discussions everyone should have when they are healthy and not entering a hospital, so they are fully informed and can make their wishes known," said association President J. James Rohack. "That's not controversial; it's plain, old-fashioned patient-centered care."
After letting the controversy simmer on talk radio and the blogosphere, expecting that it might blow over, Democrats have begun to respond.
The allegations of mandatory counseling and euthanasia "are blatantly false," Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) and Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) wrote colleagues. The accusations are "as offensive as they are untrue."
link to HR 3200 The "Death Care" bill. I have more to follow!
Where is the senate’s version?
Just curious:
- what do you mean by "insurers have too much power"; and
No disrespect, but I wonder if you watched the complete interview with the interview with Wendell Potter I provided.
Instead I'll quote what Wendel said about the insurers with their Profit before patients mentality.
"The industry and its backers are using fear tactics, as they did in 1994, to tar a transparent and accountable, publicly accountable health care option as, quote, "government-run health care." What we have today, Mr. Chairman, is Wall Street-run health care that has proven itself an untrustworthy partner to its customers, to the doctors and hospitals who deliver care and to the state and federal governments that attempt to regulate it.
If you want to know why he says that watch the whole interview.
- what do you think would be a solution ???
That is the hardest question. I thought I had found a HC system on google but I forgot the money issue. How and Who is going to pay for it ?
I urge everyone to check the complete interview and forward it to everyone you know.
QueEx, I think the Dutch HC system would be a good choice.
How does it work
The new system is a private health insurance with social conditions. The system is operated by private health insurance companies; the insurers are obliged to accept every resident in their area of activity. A system of risk equalisation enables the acceptance obligation and prevents direct or indirect risk selection.
This system came into effect in January 2006. For those who would otherwise have insufficient income, an extra government allowance is paid to make sure everyone can pay for their health care insurance. People are free to purchase additional packages from the insurance companies to cover additional treatments such as dental procedures and physiotherapy. These additional packages are optional.
A key feature of the Dutch system is that premiums are set at a flat rate for all purchasers regardless of health status or age. Risk variances between funds due to the different risks presented by individual policy holders are compensated through risk equalization and a common risk pool which makes it more attractive for insurers to attract risky clients. Funding for all short term health care is 50% from employers, and 45 percent from the insured person and 5% by the government. Children until age 18 are covered for free. Those on low incomes receive compensation to help them pay their insurance. Premiums paid by the insured are about 100 € per month (about US$145 in Jan 2008) with variation of about 5% between the various competing insurers.
And when you look at the video clip below of the Department of Healthcare of the Netherlands they explain in more detail why they made certains choices. I like the part where they explained how they made the insurers compete with each other.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/YkLxk335cHs[/FLASH]
Last edited:
Thanks for calling my attention to it again, but no, I didn't view the video. I'm a reader and I don't watch a lot of the clips, especially long ones, unless I first know, in particular, what they are about (too often I run into irrelevant clips that end up being a good waste of time).
I did, however, read the transcript. I wasn't sure from reading the script, however, what you meant by too much power. I think I understand where you're coming from but instead of looking at it as too much power, I look at it as not properly regulated.
Wendell Powell made a good point that insurers use the maze of conflicting and confusing state laws to deny coverage. In my opinion, this is precisely why the federal government should "preempt the field" and provide consistent "coverage rules" across the board to elimnate inconsistent decisions by the industry -- and get rid of a lot of the state "industry-tainted" regulation that operates too heavily in favor of the insurers.
Of course, you have a lot of so-called connservatives who know nothing about, and are misguided by, the heathcare-provider-industry. That is, many of those in Congress (and many on this board) misguidedly sing the so-called "Free Market" song put out by the industry and have no idea how they are buying into the well-disquised "script" given to them by the industry. Nevertheless, they repeat the misconceptions, ad nausem. In the meantime, they sincerely believe they are protecting the concepts of capitalism and free-market -- not knowing that what they are protecting isn't free market, at all. Captive market. But not free market.
However, having said all of that, I do have one overridding concern: how are we going to pay for the expansion of healtcare availability ???
QueEx
Last edited:
Thanks for calling my attention to it again, but no, I didn't view the video. I'm a reader and I don't watch a lot of the clips, especially long ones, unless I first know, in particular, what they are about (too often I run into irrelevant clips that end up being a good waste of time).
While I understand this, you are missing out a lot. IMO I have referred to relevant information.
I did, however, read the transcript. I wasn't sure from reading the script, however, what you meant by too much power. I think I understand where you're coming from but instead of looking at it as too much power, I look at it as not properly regulated.
This is one of problems. No regulated sounds to soft for me.
Not regulated is way to soft, but IMO a more drastic change is necessary. What I mean by power is this:
"When times are good, the insurance company is happy to sign you up and take your money in the form of premiums," Stupak said.
"But when times are bad, and you are afflicted with cancer or some other life-threatening disease, it is supposed to honor its commitments and stand by you in your time of need.
"Instead, some insurance companies use a technicality to justify breaking its promise, at a time when most patients are too weak to fight back," he said.
That's what they can do to the insured and that's just crazy
The other form of Power I am talking about is the BIG lobbying machine they have in place. They know how to reach the most influential people to get BILLS changed/stopped. (Check the Wendel Potter interview for more details.)
So they have power over the insured and power in Washington.
Wendell Powell made a good point that insurers use the maze of conflicting and confusing state laws to deny coverage. In my opinion, this is precisely why the federal government should "preempt the field" and provide consistent "coverage rules" across the board to elimnate inconsistent decisions by the industry -- and get rid of a lot of the state "industry-tainted" regulation that operates too heavily in favor of the insurers.
Of course, you have a lot of so-called connservatives who know nothing about, and are misguided by, the heathcare-provider-industry. That is, many of those in Congress (and many on this board) misguidedly sing the so-called "Free Market" song put out by the industry and have no idea how they are buying into the well-disquised "script" given to them by the industry. Nevertheless, they repeat the misconceptions, ad nausem. In the meantime, they sincerely believe they are protecting the concepts of capitalism and free-market -- not knowing that what they are protecting isn't free market, at all. Captive market. But not free market.
However, having said all of that, I do have one overridding concern: how are we going to pay for the expansion of healtcare availability ???
QueEx
QueEX, why do you think that the expansion of healthcare availability will cost the USA more ?
To the other readers and QueEx. You haven't made any comment on the Dutch health care model I proposed.
I would like to hear from y'all what obstables you would see in implenting such a system.
The German Model also has some good ideas to increase competition between service providers.
To the other readers and QueEx. You haven't made any comment on the Dutch health care model I proposed.
I would like to hear from y'all what obstables you would see in implenting such a system.
it was a thread a couple weeks ago describing the successes of Norway (Dutch). In a nut shell, they, as a nation, have no debt! They can afford to implement these services for their people. We, on the other hand, are the world's largest debtor nation. As a nation, we can't afford the extravagance we enjoy today, let alone adding healthcare to the bill.
Not trying to be facetious but how does anyone expect us to finance this endeavor?
And we spend more money per capita on each person than any other country with fewer results. How can we continue “to finance this endeavor"? (and we spend more than Norway does)
<iframe src=" http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
nice charts!
I'm not saying the prices are not high as hell, My question is how does the country finance "Universal Health Care"? If it's unaffordable at this present time, What makes you think it will, all of a sudden, be affordable if the govt runs it? Someone still has to pay for the services rendered, now how will this happen? You think China will continue to finance our irresponsibility when their own citizens don't even enjoy a "healthcare" system anywhere close to ours? Or should we do like Dubya, and just print the difference?
Bottom line: If the govt wants to provide these services to its citizens, it must act responsibly, period. Thats what your article regarding Norway was all about, being responsible, to provide it's citizens a greater quality of life.
QueEx, I think the Dutch HC system would be a good choice.
How does it work
The new system is a private health insurance with social conditions. The system is operated by private health insurance companies; the insurers are obliged to accept every resident in their area of activity. A system of risk equalisation enables the acceptance obligation and prevents direct or indirect risk selection.
This system came into effect in January 2006. For those who would otherwise have insufficient income, an extra government allowance is paid to make sure everyone can pay for their health care insurance. People are free to purchase additional packages from the insurance companies to cover additional treatments such as dental procedures and physiotherapy. These additional packages are optional.
A key feature of the Dutch system is that premiums are set at a flat rate for all purchasers regardless of health status or age. Risk variances between funds due to the different risks presented by individual policy holders are compensated through risk equalization and a common risk pool which makes it more attractive for insurers to attract risky clients. Funding for all short term health care is 50% from employers, and 45 percent from the insured person and 5% by the government. Children until age 18 are covered for free. Those on low incomes receive compensation to help them pay their insurance. Premiums paid by the insured are about 100 € per month (about US$145 in Jan 2008) with variation of about 5% between the various competing insurers.
And when you look at the video clip below of the Department of Healthcare of the Netherlands they explain in more detail why they made certains choices. I like the part where they explained how they made the insurers compete with each other.
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/YkLxk335cHs[/FLASH]
I'm currently taking a look at the health care system in the Netherlands. You have left out an important aspect of it. The system in the Netherlands is a two tiered system. A short term and a long term system. I haven't found out what time period separates short and long term exactly.
The short term system is the one you are speaking of and obligates everyone to basic have private insurance with some government assistance depending on income. This appears to cover routine medical procedures and short hospital stays. One thing I noted in the video was a passing reference that those considered as high risk are subsidized by the government so the insurance company incurs no addition risk in insuring them.
The long term system covers longer and permanent hospitalizations, durable medical goods and disability issues. This "long term" system is totally covered by the government through taxes.
Basically what they have done is separated what we call major medical out of private insurance and socialized it nationally. A sleight of hand to get people to think they have reduced the cost of insurance but in actuality they just passed the cost on to taxpayers completely. There are no savings because whatever premium reductions individuals see is eaten up in higher taxes to pay for the socialized long term ( major medical)costs,also, the inherit inefficiencies that exist when one entity has a monopoly on a product must be added in.
No matter how anyone tries to juggle the numbers the bottom line is someone is gonna have to pay. That someone will always be the customer. You can't get around it, under it or over it. Face the reality and deal with it.
EDIT: Here's another view of the Netherlands health care system. After you finish reading the article continue to the comments, especially the 2nd comment from Ingrid it's very eye opening.
http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/06/the-dutch-healt.html
BigUnc
Last edited:
Don’t credit me, they are all over the net for all to see, IF you really want to know about the subject.
Did you read the bill you posted which is about one of four that has not been reconciled and finalized through the various committees of congress and then reconciled and finalized with the senate’s version?
Allow me to show you the bigger picture!
I haven't heard about the Senate version yet, gotta link? I got some more info on HR 3200, I gotta verify my source
Seriously, Wake up, that chart tells us that tax revenue is falling dramatically. Where is the $$$ gonna come from? I understand the intentions are worthy but it is simply not affordable. We are on the verge of a dollar crisis and it deeply saddens me because this sh*t aint gon' end pretty, just bein real.
I didn't mention it, cause I figured that everyone would click on the Wikipedia link I supplied.
The comment of Ingrid is something that IMO has nothing to do with the Health care model chosen. I believe it has to do with labour shortages. And that problem has been there for a while (at least since 2000).
At the end of the day every health care model has it's pro's and cons (don't forget to view the video by choosing watch online)..
It's going to be hard to come up with a solution.
Similar threads
