Affordable Care Act

[playtime]

Your costs went up because the insurance companies still want to make a profit off of your health, or lack of.

All companies make a profit off of us. If they didn't, they wouldn't provide us anything.

The question is which system is better. I maintain that the previous system was better at providing us care at a better price, than the current.

You mandated that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. That drives up prices.
You mandated that they cover more services. That drives up price.
You mandated that they have a lower out-of-pocket max. That drives up price.

The more you require that insurance covers... the higher the price is on us.

The fundamental problem is healthcare for profit. Remove the profit factor & that problem goes bye-bye. The mandate now requires 80-85% of your premium is spent directly on your healthcare or you get a refund. You know what truly drives up cost?

Greed.

Then why is food cheaper in the US than anywhere else?
Why is computers, housing, and transportation, cheaper here than anywhere else?

Why does computer technology fall in price? Why has oil fallen in price?

Greed is the intellectually lazy way out, and it doesn't stand up to the facts.

If Greed was the answer, then every single apartment rental would be a million dollars a month.

That's not a valid explanation.

Food is 'cheaper' here for a variety of reasons. Climate that is conducive for native crops & subsidies.

Technology, as it is mass produced naturally brings cost down.

Who is going to rent an apartment for a million dollars as an avg going price when most people can't naturally afford that?
The avg landlord would not be in business very long. Demographics & location dictate the mkt. Housing in Bumfuck, Iowa will not be the same going rate as the exact same square footage of a dwelling in NYC.

Transportation is cheaper, yes.... but that is because a lot of taxes are built into gas & mass transit costs where there's a universal healthcare system... so the 'cost' is shared. I'd rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas if that meant no premiums, no copays, no co insurance, no out of pocket expenses ever again. Oil, right NOW is cheaper because ISIS is pumping it & selling it on the open market, Iran will also be dumping more for consumption that will help keep the glut going. And greed certainly factors in on the oil companies... BP is still fighting the decision to pay for causing the Gulf disaster.

Those are real facts.

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

 

[Andylusion]

All companies make a profit off of us. If they didn't, they wouldn't provide us anything.

The question is which system is better. I maintain that the previous system was better at providing us care at a better price, than the current.

You mandated that they cover people with pre-existing conditions. That drives up prices.
You mandated that they cover more services. That drives up price.
You mandated that they have a lower out-of-pocket max. That drives up price.

The more you require that insurance covers... the higher the price is on us.

The fundamental problem is healthcare for profit. Remove the profit factor & that problem goes bye-bye. The mandate now requires 80-85% of your premium is spent directly on your healthcare or you get a refund. You know what truly drives up cost?

Greed.

Then why is food cheaper in the US than anywhere else?
Why is computers, housing, and transportation, cheaper here than anywhere else?

Why does computer technology fall in price? Why has oil fallen in price?

Greed is the intellectually lazy way out, and it doesn't stand up to the facts.

If Greed was the answer, then every single apartment rental would be a million dollars a month.

That's not a valid explanation.

Food is 'cheaper' here for a variety of reasons. Climate that is conducive for native crops & subsidies.

Technology, as it is mass produced naturally brings cost down.

Who is going to rent an apartment for a million dollars as an avg going price when most people can't naturally afford that?
The avg landlord would not be in business very long. Demographics & location dictate the mkt. Housing in Bumfuck, Iowa will not be the same going rate as the exact same square footage of a dwelling in NYC.

Transportation is cheaper, yes.... but that is because a lot of taxes are built into gas & mass transit costs where there's a universal healthcare system... so the 'cost' is shared. I'd rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas if that meant no premiums, no copays, no co insurance, no out of pocket expenses ever again. Oil, right NOW is cheaper because ISIS is pumping it & selling it on the open market, Iran will also be dumping more for consumption that will help keep the glut going. And greed certainly factors in on the oil companies... BP is still fighting the decision to pay for causing the Gulf disaster.

Those are real facts.

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

Listen, if health care was not driven by profit, then you would have no health care. No one spends billions to come up with a new technology to help people, if there's no profit. Zero profit... zero care.

That's life dude. Get over it.

All of those reasons DO have to do with health care. There is nothing 'special' about health care that makes it exempt from the fundamentals of economics. Nothing. And every system that denies that, ends up with no health care. Before the current reforms in Cuba, the average Cuban couldn't even get Aspirin in Cuba. Aspirin. You know, that space age technology.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting off of health care. That's mindless babbling.

I didn't say Obama Care is universal health care. I said universal health care does have co-pays and out of pocket expenses. You are wrong.

Patient co-payments - Help with NHS health costs in England - NHS Choices

UK Co-pays.

What's the cost of beating NHS waiting lists?

And if you want to not wait a year for some treatments, you have to pay a massive fee to be treated sooner.

See a doctor in France: hospitals, emergencies and the EHIC card
The impact of Hollande's healthcare reforms in France - PMLiVE

Now it used to be that all the fees and co-pays in France were reimbursed. But they were going broke. Now they are not reimbursed. And it looks like reimbursements will be cut in the future.

Most of the "universal health care" countries you think have free health care, all have co-pays and fees.

But even those that don't..... Like France before, everyone said "well isn't this great", but in reality they were going broke the whole time, and eventually the system had to be reformed.

If they had not reformed their system, they would have ended up like Greece. Greece's health care was free.... now it barely even exists. Well done. They followed your plan to the letter... and look where it got them.

 

[dblack]

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

I'm still not seeing why it's morally wrong. And if it is, would you also argue that it's morally wrong for any other necessities of life to be profit driven? (food, clothing, shelter, etc...)

 

[Andylusion]

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

I'm still not seeing why it's morally wrong. And if it is, would you also argue that it's morally wrong for any other necessities of life to be profit driven? (food, clothing, shelter, etc...)

I agree. Oddly, it's less likely to be 'morally wrong', than other things. Humans have survived for thousands of years without health care. There are places in the world today that have no health care, and still survive.

But no food, no water? See how long humans can go without either of those.

Is it wrong for food and water to be profit driven? And yet which place has more food and water... profit driven America, or some of these third world countries?

Again, the left would rather people die, as long as no one profits from it. Profiting from making people well.... that's morally wrong. Makes absolutely no logical sense to be a leftist.

 

[David_42]

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

I'm still not seeing why it's morally wrong. And if it is, would you also argue that it's morally wrong for any other necessities of life to be profit driven? (food, clothing, shelter, etc...)

I agree. Oddly, it's less likely to be 'morally wrong', than other things. Humans have survived for thousands of years without health care. There are places in the world today that have no health care, and still survive.

But no food, no water? See how long humans can go without either of those.

Is it wrong for food and water to be profit driven? And yet which place has more food and water... profit driven America, or some of these third world countries?

Again, the left would rather people die, as long as no one profits from it. Profiting from making people well.... that's morally wrong. Makes absolutely no logical sense to be a leftist.

Humans have survived with pitiful life spans and rampant disease without healthcare for thousands of years, how the hell is that something to bring up? I agree, humans need food and water, it's why we shouldn't have corporations polluting/wasting water and failing to distribute food.

 

[Andylusion]

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

I'm still not seeing why it's morally wrong. And if it is, would you also argue that it's morally wrong for any other necessities of life to be profit driven? (food, clothing, shelter, etc...)

I agree. Oddly, it's less likely to be 'morally wrong', than other things. Humans have survived for thousands of years without health care. There are places in the world today that have no health care, and still survive.

But no food, no water? See how long humans can go without either of those.

Is it wrong for food and water to be profit driven? And yet which place has more food and water... profit driven America, or some of these third world countries?

Again, the left would rather people die, as long as no one profits from it. Profiting from making people well.... that's morally wrong. Makes absolutely no logical sense to be a leftist.

Humans have survived with pitiful life spans and rampant disease without healthcare for thousands of years, how the hell is that something to bring up? I agree, humans need food and water, it's why we shouldn't have corporations polluting/wasting water and failing to distribute food.

I just explained this. Try reading.

If you are going to say it's immoral to make a profit by supplying a service to heal people.... then how is it moral to provide food, without which we all die? Or water, without which we all die?

And yet, the profit motive provides better, and more, food and water for people all over the planet. pollution/wasting, that's a strawman.

Fact is, the profit motive has provided more food, to more people, than any socialized system. There is a reason the Soviets were on the verge of mass starvation before the crash of the union.

There's a reason for mass graves in North Korea today.
There's a reason for the mass starvation of Communist China.
There's a reason for the massive food shortages in Venezuela.

And I'll give you at hint... it wasn't because people were profiting from it.

The leftist position isn't logical.

 

[playtime]

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

I'm still not seeing why it's morally wrong. And if it is, would you also argue that it's morally wrong for any other necessities of life to be profit driven? (food, clothing, shelter, etc...)

I agree. Oddly, it's less likely to be 'morally wrong', than other things. Humans have survived for thousands of years without health care. There are places in the world today that have no health care, and still survive.

But no food, no water? See how long humans can go without either of those.

Is it wrong for food and water to be profit driven? And yet which place has more food and water... profit driven America, or some of these third world countries?

Again, the left would rather people die, as long as no one profits from it. Profiting from making people well.... that's morally wrong. Makes absolutely no logical sense to be a leftist.

Humans have survived with pitiful life spans and rampant disease without healthcare for thousands of years, how the hell is that something to bring up? I agree, humans need food and water, it's why we shouldn't have corporations polluting/wasting water and failing to distribute food.

I just explained this. Try reading.

If you are going to say it's immoral to make a profit by supplying a service to heal people.... then how is it moral to provide food, without which we all die? Or water, without which we all die?

And yet, the profit motive provides better, and more, food and water for people all over the planet. pollution/wasting, that's a strawman.

Fact is, the profit motive has provided more food, to more people, than any socialized system. There is a reason the Soviets were on the verge of mass starvation before the crash of the union.

There's a reason for mass graves in North Korea today.
There's a reason for the mass starvation of Communist China.
There's a reason for the massive food shortages in Venezuela.

And I'll give you at hint... it wasn't because people were profiting from it.

The leftist position isn't logical.

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

I'm still not seeing why it's morally wrong. And if it is, would you also argue that it's morally wrong for any other necessities of life to be profit driven? (food, clothing, shelter, etc...)

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

 

[dblack]

I agree, humans need food and water, it's why we shouldn't have corporations polluting/wasting water and failing to distribute food.

So would you make the same argument against profit-driven agriculture that we're hearing against profit-driven health care?

 

[dblack]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

 

[playtime]

The fundamental problem is healthcare for profit. Remove the profit factor & that problem goes bye-bye. The mandate now requires 80-85% of your premium is spent directly on your healthcare or you get a refund. You know what truly drives up cost?

Greed.

Then why is food cheaper in the US than anywhere else?
Why is computers, housing, and transportation, cheaper here than anywhere else?

Why does computer technology fall in price? Why has oil fallen in price?

Greed is the intellectually lazy way out, and it doesn't stand up to the facts.

If Greed was the answer, then every single apartment rental would be a million dollars a month.

That's not a valid explanation.

Food is 'cheaper' here for a variety of reasons. Climate that is conducive for native crops & subsidies.

Technology, as it is mass produced naturally brings cost down.

Who is going to rent an apartment for a million dollars as an avg going price when most people can't naturally afford that?
The avg landlord would not be in business very long. Demographics & location dictate the mkt. Housing in Bumfuck, Iowa will not be the same going rate as the exact same square footage of a dwelling in NYC.

Transportation is cheaper, yes.... but that is because a lot of taxes are built into gas & mass transit costs where there's a universal healthcare system... so the 'cost' is shared. I'd rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas if that meant no premiums, no copays, no co insurance, no out of pocket expenses ever again. Oil, right NOW is cheaper because ISIS is pumping it & selling it on the open market, Iran will also be dumping more for consumption that will help keep the glut going. And greed certainly factors in on the oil companies... BP is still fighting the decision to pay for causing the Gulf disaster.

Those are real facts.

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

Listen, if health care was not driven by profit, then you would have no health care. No one spends billions to come up with a new technology to help people, if there's no profit. Zero profit... zero care.

That's life dude. Get over it.

All of those reasons DO have to do with health care. There is nothing 'special' about health care that makes it exempt from the fundamentals of economics. Nothing. And every system that denies that, ends up with no health care. Before the current reforms in Cuba, the average Cuban couldn't even get Aspirin in Cuba. Aspirin. You know, that space age technology.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting off of health care. That's mindless babbling.

I didn't say Obama Care is universal health care. I said universal health care does have co-pays and out of pocket expenses. You are wrong.

Patient co-payments - Help with NHS health costs in England - NHS Choices

UK Co-pays.

What's the cost of beating NHS waiting lists?

And if you want to not wait a year for some treatments, you have to pay a massive fee to be treated sooner.

See a doctor in France: hospitals, emergencies and the EHIC card
The impact of Hollande's healthcare reforms in France - PMLiVE

Now it used to be that all the fees and co-pays in France were reimbursed. But they were going broke. Now they are not reimbursed. And it looks like reimbursements will be cut in the future.

Most of the "universal health care" countries you think have free health care, all have co-pays and fees.

But even those that don't..... Like France before, everyone said "well isn't this great", but in reality they were going broke the whole time, and eventually the system had to be reformed.

If they had not reformed their system, they would have ended up like Greece. Greece's health care was free.... now it barely even exists. Well done. They followed your plan to the letter... and look where it got them.

No system under 'universal healthcare' is perfect & I never said it was. I also said, if I had my druthers, I'd rather have zero copays etc... I suggest you watch this sometime. 5 countries compare their healthcare systems to ours at the time was completely in the hands of the healthcare corps. Are their systems perfect? No. Did any claim they were? No. Is there room for improvements? Always. But not one person interviewed... when asked if they would trade their healthcare system with that of Americans/United States- not one said they would.

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

Watch The Full Program | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Each has a health care system that delivers health care for everyone -- but with remarkable differences.

United Kingdom

An interview with an expert on the UK's system +
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

An interview with an expert on Japan's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

An interview with an expert on Germany's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +
Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

 

[playtime]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

 

[dblack]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

You claim that not helping someone is immoral. You're not helping millions right now. Why not?

 

[Andylusion]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

 

[Andylusion]

Then why is food cheaper in the US than anywhere else?
Why is computers, housing, and transportation, cheaper here than anywhere else?

Why does computer technology fall in price? Why has oil fallen in price?

Greed is the intellectually lazy way out, and it doesn't stand up to the facts.

If Greed was the answer, then every single apartment rental would be a million dollars a month.

That's not a valid explanation.

Food is 'cheaper' here for a variety of reasons. Climate that is conducive for native crops & subsidies.

Technology, as it is mass produced naturally brings cost down.

Who is going to rent an apartment for a million dollars as an avg going price when most people can't naturally afford that?
The avg landlord would not be in business very long. Demographics & location dictate the mkt. Housing in Bumfuck, Iowa will not be the same going rate as the exact same square footage of a dwelling in NYC.

Transportation is cheaper, yes.... but that is because a lot of taxes are built into gas & mass transit costs where there's a universal healthcare system... so the 'cost' is shared. I'd rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas if that meant no premiums, no copays, no co insurance, no out of pocket expenses ever again. Oil, right NOW is cheaper because ISIS is pumping it & selling it on the open market, Iran will also be dumping more for consumption that will help keep the glut going. And greed certainly factors in on the oil companies... BP is still fighting the decision to pay for causing the Gulf disaster.

Those are real facts.

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

Listen, if health care was not driven by profit, then you would have no health care. No one spends billions to come up with a new technology to help people, if there's no profit. Zero profit... zero care.

That's life dude. Get over it.

All of those reasons DO have to do with health care. There is nothing 'special' about health care that makes it exempt from the fundamentals of economics. Nothing. And every system that denies that, ends up with no health care. Before the current reforms in Cuba, the average Cuban couldn't even get Aspirin in Cuba. Aspirin. You know, that space age technology.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting off of health care. That's mindless babbling.

I didn't say Obama Care is universal health care. I said universal health care does have co-pays and out of pocket expenses. You are wrong.

Patient co-payments - Help with NHS health costs in England - NHS Choices

UK Co-pays.

What's the cost of beating NHS waiting lists?

And if you want to not wait a year for some treatments, you have to pay a massive fee to be treated sooner.

See a doctor in France: hospitals, emergencies and the EHIC card
The impact of Hollande's healthcare reforms in France - PMLiVE

Now it used to be that all the fees and co-pays in France were reimbursed. But they were going broke. Now they are not reimbursed. And it looks like reimbursements will be cut in the future.

Most of the "universal health care" countries you think have free health care, all have co-pays and fees.

But even those that don't..... Like France before, everyone said "well isn't this great", but in reality they were going broke the whole time, and eventually the system had to be reformed.

If they had not reformed their system, they would have ended up like Greece. Greece's health care was free.... now it barely even exists. Well done. They followed your plan to the letter... and look where it got them.

No system under 'universal healthcare' is perfect & I never said it was. I also said, if I had my druthers, I'd rather have zero copays etc... I suggest you watch this sometime. 5 countries compare their healthcare systems to ours at the time was completely in the hands of the healthcare corps. Are their systems perfect? No. Did any claim they were? No. Is there room for improvements? Always. But not one person interviewed... when asked if they would trade their healthcare system with that of Americans/United States- not one said they would.

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

Watch The Full Program | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Each has a health care system that delivers health care for everyone -- but with remarkable differences.

United Kingdom

An interview with an expert on the UK's system +
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

An interview with an expert on Japan's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

An interview with an expert on Germany's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +
Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

So you just proved my entire point. Thanks.

The idea that Universal Health Care, involves no out of pocket expenses, is false. I provided evidence, now you provided evidence.

So we can clearly state with certainty, that this idea of "government will provide us with free health care" is false.

Please continue.

 

[David_42]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

 

[David_42]

Food is 'cheaper' here for a variety of reasons. Climate that is conducive for native crops & subsidies.

Technology, as it is mass produced naturally brings cost down.

Who is going to rent an apartment for a million dollars as an avg going price when most people can't naturally afford that?
The avg landlord would not be in business very long. Demographics & location dictate the mkt. Housing in Bumfuck, Iowa will not be the same going rate as the exact same square footage of a dwelling in NYC.

Transportation is cheaper, yes.... but that is because a lot of taxes are built into gas & mass transit costs where there's a universal healthcare system... so the 'cost' is shared. I'd rather pay $10 for a gallon of gas if that meant no premiums, no copays, no co insurance, no out of pocket expenses ever again. Oil, right NOW is cheaper because ISIS is pumping it & selling it on the open market, Iran will also be dumping more for consumption that will help keep the glut going. And greed certainly factors in on the oil companies... BP is still fighting the decision to pay for causing the Gulf disaster.

Those are real facts.

That can't be! Greed should drive up the cost of technology, making food super expensive! Doesn't matter what the climate is, greed should drive up the cost no matter how much is produced.... right? Greed is the only answer.

Greed should drive up the cost of a rental, regardless... right?

So you are saying that greed isn't the dominating factor in the market?

Oh but you are wrong..... sorry you are wrong. There are co-pays and co-insurance, and there are out-of-pocket expenses in nearly all "universal" care systems.

But wouldn't greed keep the prices up? Are you saying ISIS isn't greedy? Iran isn't Greedy? Doesn't greed drive up prices on everyone? Or is greed not the defining factor of a market?

Nobody says that running a business does not mean not earning a profit. I'm specifically saying healthcare shouldn't be profit driven. You deflected by bringing in a slew of other 'reasons' that has zero to do with healthcare. Any business will mark up their product or service to get as much as they can without tipping it past affordability & staying competitive in any demographic or they will go bankrupt. That's economics 101. But to profit off of healthcare is morally wrong.

Obamacare is not universal healthcare. Any other so called copays etc in a real universal plan drops that out of pocket expense to nearly zero in comparison to what it costs in this country. & the healthcare corps are as greedy as they can get away with. if the status quo were still in effect, people would STILL lose their homes for no other reason but for the misfortune of getting cancer or through no fault of their own, got involved in a bad car crash... why would that be ok with you? And if the ins companies thought that theirs was the best system, why did they fight tooth & nail... spending millions of dollars for their lobbyists to get rid of the public option? because they knew they would not be able to compete & their greed would not survive.

So much for the capitalistic free market system.

Listen, if health care was not driven by profit, then you would have no health care. No one spends billions to come up with a new technology to help people, if there's no profit. Zero profit... zero care.

That's life dude. Get over it.

All of those reasons DO have to do with health care. There is nothing 'special' about health care that makes it exempt from the fundamentals of economics. Nothing. And every system that denies that, ends up with no health care. Before the current reforms in Cuba, the average Cuban couldn't even get Aspirin in Cuba. Aspirin. You know, that space age technology.

There is nothing morally wrong with profiting off of health care. That's mindless babbling.

I didn't say Obama Care is universal health care. I said universal health care does have co-pays and out of pocket expenses. You are wrong.

Patient co-payments - Help with NHS health costs in England - NHS Choices

UK Co-pays.

What's the cost of beating NHS waiting lists?

And if you want to not wait a year for some treatments, you have to pay a massive fee to be treated sooner.

See a doctor in France: hospitals, emergencies and the EHIC card
The impact of Hollande's healthcare reforms in France - PMLiVE

Now it used to be that all the fees and co-pays in France were reimbursed. But they were going broke. Now they are not reimbursed. And it looks like reimbursements will be cut in the future.

Most of the "universal health care" countries you think have free health care, all have co-pays and fees.

But even those that don't..... Like France before, everyone said "well isn't this great", but in reality they were going broke the whole time, and eventually the system had to be reformed.

If they had not reformed their system, they would have ended up like Greece. Greece's health care was free.... now it barely even exists. Well done. They followed your plan to the letter... and look where it got them.

No system under 'universal healthcare' is perfect & I never said it was. I also said, if I had my druthers, I'd rather have zero copays etc... I suggest you watch this sometime. 5 countries compare their healthcare systems to ours at the time was completely in the hands of the healthcare corps. Are their systems perfect? No. Did any claim they were? No. Is there room for improvements? Always. But not one person interviewed... when asked if they would trade their healthcare system with that of Americans/United States- not one said they would.

In Sick Around the World, FRONTLINE teams up with veteran Washington Post foreign correspondent T.R. Reid to find out how five other capitalist democracies -- the United Kingdom, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland -- deliver health care, and what the United States might learn from their successes and their failures.

Watch The Full Program | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

Each has a health care system that delivers health care for everyone -- but with remarkable differences.

United Kingdom

An interview with an expert on the UK's system +
Percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) spent on health care: 8.3

Average family premium: None; funded by taxation.

Co-payments: None for most services; some co-pays for dental care, eyeglasses and 5 percent of prescriptions. Young people and the elderly are exempt from all drug co-pays.

What is it? The British system is "socialized medicine" because the government both provides and pays for health care. Britons pay taxes for health care, and the government-run National Health Service (NHS) distributes those funds to health care providers. Hospital doctors are paid salaries. General practitioners (GPs), who run private practices, are paid based on the number of patients they see. A small number of specialists work outside the NHS and see private-pay patients.

How does it work? Because the system is funded through taxes, administrative costs are low; there are no bills to collect or claims to review. Patients have a "medical home" in their GP, who also serves as a gatekeeper to the rest of the system; patients must see their GP before going to a specialist. GPs, who are paid extra for keeping their patients healthy, are instrumental in preventive care, an area in which Britain is a world leader.

What are the concerns? The stereotype of socialized medicine -- long waits and limited choice -- still has some truth. In response, the British government has instituted reforms to help make care more competitive and give patients more choice. Hospitals now compete for NHS funds distributed by local Primary Care Trusts, and starting in April 2008 patients are able to choose where they want to be treated for many procedures.

Japan

An interview with an expert on Japan's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 8

Average family premium: $280 per month, with employers paying more than half.

Co-payments: 30 percent of the cost of a procedure, but the total amount paid in a month is capped according to income.

What is it? Japan uses a "social insurance" system in which all citizens are required to have health insurance, either through their work or purchased from a nonprofit, community-based plan. Those who can't afford the premiums receive public assistance. Most health insurance is private; doctors and almost all hospitals are in the private sector.

How does it work? Japan boasts some of the best health statistics in the world, no doubt due in part to the Japanese diet and lifestyle. Unlike the U.K., there are no gatekeepers; the Japanese can go to any specialist when and as often as they like. Every two years the Ministry of Health negotiates with physicians to set the price for every procedure. This helps keeps costs down.

What are the concerns? In fact, Japan has been so successful at keeping costs down that Japan now spends too little on health care; half of the hospitals in Japan are operating in the red. Having no gatekeepers means there's no check on how often the Japanese use health care, and patients may lack a medical home.

Germany

An interview with an expert on Germany's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 10.7

Average family premium: $750 per month; premiums are pegged to patients' income.

Co-payments: 10 euros ($15) every three months; some patients, like pregnant women, are exempt.

What is it? Germany, like Japan, uses a social insurance model. In fact, Germany is the birthplace of social insurance, which dates back to Chancellor Otto von Bismarck. But unlike the Japanese, who get insurance from work or are assigned to a community fund, Germans are free to buy their insurance from one of more than 200 private, nonprofit "sickness funds." As in Japan, the poor receive public assistance to pay their premiums.

How does it work? Sickness funds are nonprofit and cannot deny coverage based on preexisting conditions; they compete with each other for members, and fund managers are paid based on the size of their enrollments. Like Japan, Germany is a single-payment system, but instead of the government negotiating the prices, the sickness funds bargain with doctors as a group. Germans can go straight to a specialist without first seeing a gatekeeper doctor, but they may pay a higher co-pay if they do.

What are the concerns? The single-payment system leaves some German doctors feeling underpaid. A family doctor in Germany makes about two-thirds as much as he or she would in America. (Then again, German doctors pay much less for malpractice insurance, and many attend medical school for free.) Germany also lets the richest 10 percent opt out of the sickness funds in favor of U.S.-style for-profit insurance. These patients are generally seen more quickly by doctors, because the for-profit insurers pay doctors more than the sickness funds.

Taiwan

An interview with an expert on Taiwan's system +
Percentage GDP spent on health care: 6.3

Average family premium: $650 per year for a family for four.

Co-payments: 20 percent of the cost of drugs, up to $6.50; up to $7 for outpatient care; $1.80 for dental and traditional Chinese medicine. There are exemptions for major diseases, childbirth, preventive services, and for the poor, veterans, and children.

What is it? Taiwan adopted a "National Health Insurance" model in 1995 after studying other countries' systems. Like Japan and Germany, all citizens must have insurance, but there is only one, government-run insurer. Working people pay premiums split with their employers; others pay flat rates with government help; and some groups, like the poor and veterans, are fully subsidized. The resulting system is similar to Canada's -- and the U.S. Medicare program.

How does it work? Taiwan's new health system extended insurance to the 40 percent of the population that lacked it while actually decreasing the growth of health care spending. The Taiwanese can see any doctor without a referral. Every citizen has a smart card, which is used to store his or her medical history and bill the national insurer. The system also helps public health officials monitor standards and effect policy changes nationwide. Thanks to this use of technology and the country's single insurer, Taiwan's health care system has the lowest administrative costs in the world.

What are the concerns? Like Japan, Taiwan's system is not taking in enough money to cover the medical care it provides. The problem is compounded by politics, because it is up to Taiwan's parliament to approve an increase in insurance premiums, which it has only done once since the program was enacted.

Switzerland

An interview with an expert on Switzerland's system +
Percentage of GDP spent on health care: 11.6

Average monthly family premium: $750, paid entirely by consumers; there are government subsidies for low-income citizens.

Co-payments: 10 percent of the cost of services, up to $420 per year.

What is it? The Swiss system is social insurance like in Japan and Germany, voted in by a national referendum in 1994. Switzerland didn't have far to go to achieve universal coverage; 95 percent of the population already had voluntary insurance when the law was passed. All citizens are required to have coverage; those not covered were automatically assigned to a company. The government provides assistance to those who can't afford the premiums.

How does it work? The Swiss example shows that universal coverage is possible, even in a highly capitalist nation with powerful insurance and pharmaceutical industries. Insurance companies are not allowed to make a profit on basic care and are prohibited from cherry-picking only young and healthy applicants. They can make money on supplemental insurance, however. As in Germany, the insurers negotiate with providers to set standard prices for services, but drug prices are set by the government.

What are the concerns? The Swiss system is the second most expensive in the world -- but it's still far cheaper than U.S. health care. Drug prices are still slightly higher than in other European nations, and even then the discounts may be subsidized by the more expensive U.S. market, where some Swiss drug companies make one-third of their profits. In general, the Swiss do not have gatekeeper doctors, although some insurance plans require them or give a discount to consumers who use them.

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

So you just proved my entire point. Thanks.

The idea that Universal Health Care, involves no out of pocket expenses, is false. I provided evidence, now you provided evidence.

So we can clearly state with certainty, that this idea of "government will provide us with free health care" is false.

Please continue.

Of course nothing is free, but it's a hell of a lot better then our current healthcare system, even though they pay higher taxes, and they're ok with it.

 

[David_42]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

 

[dblack]

I'm still wondering how the anti-profit folks think health care is any different than any of the other necessities of life. If you don't think doctors should be allowed to make a profit, why should farmers?

 

[Andylusion]

To not help heal someone solely based on their affordability isn't immoral? Unbelievable.

How many people did you let die today?

I have no problem with my taxes being raised so others that can't afford it won't.

I already said that. How about YOU?

First off, I doubt that. You say that now, but then if you don't have a problem with higher taxes to pay for others, why do you have a problem with higher premiums to pay for others? The whole reason premiums are jacked up, is to pay for other people's care.

The fact is, most people do have a problem paying for everyone else's stuff. AND THEY SHOULD. It's morally evil to force people to pay for everyone else's care.

And you self-righteous arrogant types are all hypocrites too. Tell me, how much money have you donated to charity health care? I have.... have you?

Besides that, we still have the best quality care in the world.

But the bottom line is.... government health care sucks. We've seen that with the VA. We've seen that in Canadians coming to hte US for care. We've seen that in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of people going for medical tourism. We've seen that around the world.

So you, while trying to claim moral superiority, or dooming people to terrible care. How is that a win?

American tax rates are low compared to other countries that live longer, and how much debt do we have? Raising taxes is a way to help this. Universal healthcare is a different animal then the ACA bud. Morally evil? Welcome to a civilized society where people pay taxes to help those less advantaged, sorry about that. Best quality care? Sure, if you're loaded. The VA is underfunded and mismanaged, not a good way to attempt to judge government healthcare worldwide bud. Oh, the Canadian myth.. You see, countries with UHC put back more cosmetic problems, those are the people who come here, and they're not coming in droves. People in Britain and Canada don't want a different healthcare system, they know ours fucks over those who aren't rich.

The VA is typical of socialized care. Every gov-care system is overloaded and underfunded. That's how socialism is. There is not enough taxes in the world to fix a ponzi scheme.

Yes it is morally evil. IF that's what "civilized society" is, then you have redefined "civilized society" to mean tyrannical oppression in the name of moral arrogance.

I never said that Universal Health care was the same as the ACA. Can I just make up what you say, and attack you for it?

EXCLUSIVE 200,000 desperate Britons go ABROAD for medical care as NHS waiting lists spiral

200,000 people travel out of Britain to get away from "Free" health care, to pay for health care out of the country.

In nation of only 65 Million people, 200,000 a year, is pretty close to "droves".



Canadians hate our health care system?

http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/11/report-thousands-fled-canada-for-health-care-in-2011/

A Canadian study released Wednesday found that many provinces in our neighbor to the north have seen patients fleeing the country and opting for medical treatment in the United States.
The nonpartisan Fraser Institute reported that 46,159 Canadians sought medical treatment outside of Canada in 2011, as wait times increased 104 percent — more than double — compared with statistics from 1993.
​

46,000 patients a year, leaving their "free" health care system in order to PAY for health care outside their country.... and with a population of only 35 Million. Not quite as bad as the UK, but pretty terrible.

Do you not see a problem here?

U.S. Hospitals Worth The Trip

Most of those patients in search of the best care, including 38% from Latin America, 35% from the Middle East, 16% from Europe and 7% from Canada, are heading to the United States. Additionally, it’s estimated that 32% of all medical travelers simply want better care than is available in their home countries, mostly those in the developing world, and 15% want quicker access to medically necessary procedures. That’s compared to only 9% of medical travelers seeking medically necessary procedures at lower prices and 4% seeking low-cost discretionary procedures.

Notice.... of all medical tourism coming to the United States.... 16% from Europe, and 7% from Canada. 1st world, so called Universal Healthcare countries?

Notice the reasons.... Better quality in the US. Faster treatment in the US.

Better, faster than what? Their "free" health care systems at home.

Sounds like the VA system is operating in other countries. And... that's basically the truth. The same problems we seen in the VA, are the problems that are happening in all government run health care systems.... and it doesn't work. That's why they are coming here.

 

[Andylusion]

Also, Andy, having healthcare be profit driven in a place like INDIA is horrible.

Really? Then why do millions of people go to India every single year for health care? They clearly don't see it as horrible as you do.