How 5 Capitalist Democracies Do Health Care

[Colin]

anyone who has half a brain in britain goes private... They don't use the nhs unless they can't afford insurance... Because it's crap.

FACT!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually Patek, only 11% of those in the UK bother with health insurance. A figure that doesn't support that statement. Private healthcare gets you to the front of the queue so it is useful for minor operations and dental care. If you require urgent surgery there is no waiting in the public sector.

 

[Polk]

Canada, France and the UK are the models for 0bamacare. The are also the most messed up (in that order) state run systems. We mention them because that is what 0bamacare is trying for, and what those who don't like state run medical care fear most.

The US is the last large state to instal government health insurance. We are not using models that work, like Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Switzerland. I think if 0bamacare was like those plans, he could have passed it back in February. Instead of cherrypicking the best of the worlds plans, they went and picked the worst lemons.

It is worthy of note that in the Orient, there are huge costs carried by the families of those in care that are not cash based. It is expected to have a family member with the patient at all times to do what is done by nurses' aides here. Families are also expected to provide food as well. And do the laundry.

Also, there are things that are permitted here that would not be permitted anywhere else, that raise costs a lot for the insurers and the state.

1. The systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France aren't remotely comparable.
2. France is widely regarded as having one the world's best systems.
3. If anything, this proposal most clearly resembles the Swiss system.

 

[Polk]

Social Security funding is the issue? Let's see, I suspect that you think that increase the tax from 6.2% to 25.3% of wages and eliminating the salary cap all together would be sufficient.

No need to increase the rate. Increase the salary cap and you've solved the program's long-term budget hole.

A third problem with Social Security is the poor investment management of the funds. T-Bills (government IOUs) are simply not realistic by themselves to provide a return on the funds especially when T-Bills don't even keep up with inflation.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Canada, France and the UK are the models for 0bamacare. The are also the most messed up (in that order) state run systems. We mention them because that is what 0bamacare is trying for, and what those who don't like state run medical care fear most.

The US is the last large state to instal government health insurance. We are not using models that work, like Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Switzerland. I think if 0bamacare was like those plans, he could have passed it back in February. Instead of cherrypicking the best of the worlds plans, they went and picked the worst lemons.

It is worthy of note that in the Orient, there are huge costs carried by the families of those in care that are not cash based. It is expected to have a family member with the patient at all times to do what is done by nurses' aides here. Families are also expected to provide food as well. And do the laundry.

Also, there are things that are permitted here that would not be permitted anywhere else, that raise costs a lot for the insurers and the state.

1. The systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France aren't remotely comparable.
2. France is widely regarded as having one the world's best systems.
3. If anything, this proposal most clearly resembles the Swiss system.

The French system is the horror that folks like me like to shake at those who support government health care. Through either ineptitude or criminal neglect they had several thousand people die of a cause that could have been handled by a boy scout, but they died in hospitals.

France is also the place where aids was spread by deliberate cheese paring on the part of the government who couldn't be bothered to test, and used blood supplies from a known bad source.

Britain and Canada are bad enough, but France is the model of what to avoid.

 

[Polk]

Canada, France and the UK are the models for 0bamacare. The are also the most messed up (in that order) state run systems. We mention them because that is what 0bamacare is trying for, and what those who don't like state run medical care fear most.

The US is the last large state to instal government health insurance. We are not using models that work, like Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Switzerland. I think if 0bamacare was like those plans, he could have passed it back in February. Instead of cherrypicking the best of the worlds plans, they went and picked the worst lemons.

It is worthy of note that in the Orient, there are huge costs carried by the families of those in care that are not cash based. It is expected to have a family member with the patient at all times to do what is done by nurses' aides here. Families are also expected to provide food as well. And do the laundry.

Also, there are things that are permitted here that would not be permitted anywhere else, that raise costs a lot for the insurers and the state.

1. The systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France aren't remotely comparable.
2. France is widely regarded as having one the world's best systems.
3. If anything, this proposal most clearly resembles the Swiss system.

The French system is the horror that folks like me like to shake at those who support government health care. Through either ineptitude or criminal neglect they had several thousand people die of a cause that could have been handled by a boy scout, but they died in hospitals.

France is also the place where aids was spread by deliberate cheese paring on the part of the government who couldn't be bothered to test, and used blood supplies from a known bad source.

Britain and Canada are bad enough, but France is the model of what to avoid.

You can find a few horror stories anywhere. Overall though, France is seen as having a top-notch system.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

 

[Immanuel]

Social Security funding is the issue? Let's see, I suspect that you think that increase the tax from 6.2% to 25.3% of wages and eliminating the salary cap all together would be sufficient.

No need to increase the rate. Increase the salary cap and you've solved the program's long-term budget hole.

A third problem with Social Security is the poor investment management of the funds. T-Bills (government IOUs) are simply not realistic by themselves to provide a return on the funds especially when T-Bills don't even keep up with inflation.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

I don't believe that simply increasing the salary cap would do the trick. That is pie in the sky BS presented by liberals. It is still not enough and even if it was, it does not solve the problem that the program should be attempting to solve. Basically, the program should be modernized to promote a future for retirees. I realize it was designed to be a safety net, but that was almost 100 years ago and life has changed and Social Security has not kept up.

My suggestion?

See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-right-in-america-politics-6.html#post1848814

Posts 79, 86, 89, 98 and 101.

Certainly, I'm open to discussion on how to improve things. I don't have all the answers, but I'd love to see honest solutions to the problem.

Immie

 

[Polk]

Social Security funding is the issue? Let's see, I suspect that you think that increase the tax from 6.2% to 25.3% of wages and eliminating the salary cap all together would be sufficient.

No need to increase the rate. Increase the salary cap and you've solved the program's long-term budget hole.

A third problem with Social Security is the poor investment management of the funds. T-Bills (government IOUs) are simply not realistic by themselves to provide a return on the funds especially when T-Bills don't even keep up with inflation.

What would you suggest as an alternative?

I don't believe that simply increasing the salary cap would do the trick. That is pie in the sky BS presented by liberals. It is still not enough and even if it was, it does not solve the problem that the program should be attempting to solve. Basically, the program should be modernized to promote a future for retirees. I realize it was designed to be a safety net, but that was almost 100 years ago and life has changed and Social Security has not kept up.

Don't have to take the word of liberals on it. That's what the independent analysts say.

My suggestion?

See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-right-in-america-politics-6.html#post1848814

Posts 79, 86, 89, 98 and 101.

Certainly, I'm open to discussion on how to improve things. I don't have all the answers, but I'd love to see honest solutions to the problem.

Immie

So basically, your suggestion is to put it into locked mutual funds. Any way you slice it, that's still gambling with the money.

 

[Immanuel]

No need to increase the rate. Increase the salary cap and you've solved the program's long-term budget hole.



What would you suggest as an alternative?

I don't believe that simply increasing the salary cap would do the trick. That is pie in the sky BS presented by liberals. It is still not enough and even if it was, it does not solve the problem that the program should be attempting to solve. Basically, the program should be modernized to promote a future for retirees. I realize it was designed to be a safety net, but that was almost 100 years ago and life has changed and Social Security has not kept up.

Don't have to take the word of liberals on it. That's what the independent analysts say.

My suggestion?

See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-right-in-america-politics-6.html#post1848814

Posts 79, 86, 89, 98 and 101.

Certainly, I'm open to discussion on how to improve things. I don't have all the answers, but I'd love to see honest solutions to the problem.

Immie

So basically, your suggestion is to put it into locked mutual funds. Any way you slice it, that's still gambling with the money.

Better than giving all growth away to a corrupt government.

Any way you slice it, the mutual funds are going to produce a better return that the current system.

If you are really afraid of touching that money, then you could always lock it up in a government bond account which I am sure would be provided. You would still do better than you do under the current plan. You won't beat inflation, but you won't lose all or most of it to the government.

Immie

 

[GWV5903]

1. The systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France aren't remotely comparable.
2. France is widely regarded as having one the world's best systems.
3. If anything, this proposal most clearly resembles the Swiss system.

The French system is the horror that folks like me like to shake at those who support government health care. Through either ineptitude or criminal neglect they had several thousand people die of a cause that could have been handled by a boy scout, but they died in hospitals.

France is also the place where aids was spread by deliberate cheese paring on the part of the government who couldn't be bothered to test, and used blood supplies from a known bad source.

Britain and Canada are bad enough, but France is the model of what to avoid.

You can find a few horror stories anywhere. Overall though, France is seen as having a top-notch system.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

Using the WHO as your benchmark for validation is like asking the drug dealer to sell you more drugs, it's not a very good source.....

TORT reform is the first step, the only true action the current Administration/Congress needs to consider reforming is the Pre Existing Conditions dispute....

 

[Baruch Menachem]

1. The systems of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France aren't remotely comparable.
2. France is widely regarded as having one the world's best systems.
3. If anything, this proposal most clearly resembles the Swiss system.

The French system is the horror that folks like me like to shake at those who support government health care. Through either ineptitude or criminal neglect they had several thousand people die of a cause that could have been handled by a boy scout, but they died in hospitals.

France is also the place where aids was spread by deliberate cheese paring on the part of the government who couldn't be bothered to test, and used blood supplies from a known bad source.

Britain and Canada are bad enough, but France is the model of what to avoid.

You can find a few horror stories anywhere. Overall though, France is seen as having a top-notch system.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

France just bleeds horror stories like this. This is not isolated idiots, this is deliberate government policy that creates these stories.

Horror story of the week, famous musician got his routine operation so badly fskd up that he had to fly to LA to get it repaired. The french doctors not only didn't fix the problem, they gave him such a bad infection he had to be put to sleep for several days

French medical care

Hallyday had an operation overnight on Wednesday to Thursday at LA's Cedars Sinai hospital to fix lingering back trouble from a Nov 26 operation in Paris - led by Dr Delajoux - for a herniated disc.

Hallyday's press service said on Thursday that lesions from the initial operation required more surgery, and that he had suffered an infection following the first operation.

Mr Camus told France's TF1 television on Friday that Hallyday was put in a coma "so he won't suffer," and the outlook was positive.

"The news is very positive, he's very strong," the rocker's son David Hallyday, himself a singer, told France-Info radio as he arrived at the hospital late on Friday.

Mr Camus, speaking Friday on French radio, said the American medical team treating Hallyday said the rocker had suffered ill-effects from the operation in France, and that infection "was attacking his bone marrow".

"If what I'm being told in the United States is true, this operation was a massacre," he said on RTL radio. On France-Info, Camus said: "It seems the Americans fixed things that they found that were very badly done."

 

[Polk]

I don't believe that simply increasing the salary cap would do the trick. That is pie in the sky BS presented by liberals. It is still not enough and even if it was, it does not solve the problem that the program should be attempting to solve. Basically, the program should be modernized to promote a future for retirees. I realize it was designed to be a safety net, but that was almost 100 years ago and life has changed and Social Security has not kept up.

Don't have to take the word of liberals on it. That's what the independent analysts say.

My suggestion?

See this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...-right-in-america-politics-6.html#post1848814

Posts 79, 86, 89, 98 and 101.

Certainly, I'm open to discussion on how to improve things. I don't have all the answers, but I'd love to see honest solutions to the problem.

Immie

So basically, your suggestion is to put it into locked mutual funds. Any way you slice it, that's still gambling with the money.

Better than giving all growth away to a corrupt government.

Any way you slice it, the mutual funds are going to produce a better return that the current system.

If you are really afraid of touching that money, then you could always lock it up in a government bond account which I am sure would be provided. You would still do better than you do under the current plan. You won't beat inflation, but you won't lose all or most of it to the government.

Immie

I disagree with this notion mutual funds will outperform the current system. Stock prices have historically risen over the long-run, but that's by no means a certainty. Look at Japan. If you had invested in Japan in 1989 and held on over the past twenty years, the return on investment would be zero.

 

[Polk]

The French system is the horror that folks like me like to shake at those who support government health care. Through either ineptitude or criminal neglect they had several thousand people die of a cause that could have been handled by a boy scout, but they died in hospitals.

France is also the place where aids was spread by deliberate cheese paring on the part of the government who couldn't be bothered to test, and used blood supplies from a known bad source.

Britain and Canada are bad enough, but France is the model of what to avoid.

You can find a few horror stories anywhere. Overall though, France is seen as having a top-notch system.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

Using the WHO as your benchmark for validation is like asking the drug dealer to sell you more drugs, it's not a very good source.....

TORT reform is the first step, the only true action the current Administration/Congress needs to consider reforming is the Pre Existing Conditions dispute....

What incentive does the WHO have to make up numbers? None.

 

[Immanuel]

Don't have to take the word of liberals on it. That's what the independent analysts say.



So basically, your suggestion is to put it into locked mutual funds. Any way you slice it, that's still gambling with the money.

Better than giving all growth away to a corrupt government.

Any way you slice it, the mutual funds are going to produce a better return that the current system.

If you are really afraid of touching that money, then you could always lock it up in a government bond account which I am sure would be provided. You would still do better than you do under the current plan. You won't beat inflation, but you won't lose all or most of it to the government.

Immie

I disagree with this notion mutual funds will outperform the current system. Stock prices have historically risen over the long-run, but that's by no means a certainty. Look at Japan. If you had invested in Japan in 1989 and held on over the past twenty years, the return on investment would be zero.

Three words: Dollar Cost Averaging.

Which is pretty much what you would be doing if your FICA taxes went straight from your paycheck into a retirement account in your name.

You would not take all of your retirement account and invest it all in 1989. You would start small with your small checks when you first enter the work force and then as your earnings potential grew the amount you average would go up, but you would continue to invest that percentage of your check every payday and you would do very well in the long run.

Immie

 

[Polk]

Better than giving all growth away to a corrupt government.

Any way you slice it, the mutual funds are going to produce a better return that the current system.

If you are really afraid of touching that money, then you could always lock it up in a government bond account which I am sure would be provided. You would still do better than you do under the current plan. You won't beat inflation, but you won't lose all or most of it to the government.

Immie

I disagree with this notion mutual funds will outperform the current system. Stock prices have historically risen over the long-run, but that's by no means a certainty. Look at Japan. If you had invested in Japan in 1989 and held on over the past twenty years, the return on investment would be zero.

Three words: Dollar Cost Averaging.

Which is pretty much what you would be doing if your FICA taxes went straight from your paycheck into a retirement account in your name.

You would not take all of your retirement account and invest it all in 1989. You would start small with your small checks when you first enter the work force and then as your earnings potential grew the amount you average would go up, but you would continue to invest that percentage of your check every payday and you would do very well in the long run.

Immie

I know dollar cost averaging.

My point is that there is no guarantee of increase.

 

[Immanuel]

I disagree with this notion mutual funds will outperform the current system. Stock prices have historically risen over the long-run, but that's by no means a certainty. Look at Japan. If you had invested in Japan in 1989 and held on over the past twenty years, the return on investment would be zero.

Three words: Dollar Cost Averaging.

Which is pretty much what you would be doing if your FICA taxes went straight from your paycheck into a retirement account in your name.

You would not take all of your retirement account and invest it all in 1989. You would start small with your small checks when you first enter the work force and then as your earnings potential grew the amount you average would go up, but you would continue to invest that percentage of your check every payday and you would do very well in the long run.

Immie

I know dollar cost averaging.

My point is that there is no guarantee of increase.

You might know it, but somebody out there might not.

There is never a guarantee and there is no guarantee that when I reach retirement age... if it is not raised to 128 before I reach it, that Social Security will be around either. Or even that the USA will still be the USA and that I can collect my benefits.

Given the choice, I'd go with a fund in my name.

Immie

 

[Polk]

Three words: Dollar Cost Averaging.

Which is pretty much what you would be doing if your FICA taxes went straight from your paycheck into a retirement account in your name.

You would not take all of your retirement account and invest it all in 1989. You would start small with your small checks when you first enter the work force and then as your earnings potential grew the amount you average would go up, but you would continue to invest that percentage of your check every payday and you would do very well in the long run.

Immie

I know dollar cost averaging.

My point is that there is no guarantee of increase.

You might know it, but somebody out there might not.

There is never a guarantee and there is no guarantee that when I reach retirement age... if it is not raised to 128 before I reach it, that Social Security will be around either. Or even that the USA will still be the USA and that I can collect my benefits.

Given the choice, I'd go with a fund in my name.

Immie

Sure, but collapse of the nation is infinitely less likely than a low or no return on investments.

 

[Immanuel]

I know dollar cost averaging.

My point is that there is no guarantee of increase.

You might know it, but somebody out there might not.

There is never a guarantee and there is no guarantee that when I reach retirement age... if it is not raised to 128 before I reach it, that Social Security will be around either. Or even that the USA will still be the USA and that I can collect my benefits.

Given the choice, I'd go with a fund in my name.

Immie

Sure, but collapse of the nation is infinitely less likely than a low or no return on investments.

Sure, but if you were to look at the return on Social Security Benefits/Social Security Taxes paid you would find it negative in all but a very few who reach very old ages. Low returns trump negative returns and with the market performing as it has throughout history, you are much more likely to do well with a private fund compared to the current SS system.

And if you don't happen to reach retirement age, at least your heirs have something oh forgive me, if you die before reaching retirement age, your heirs get a whopping $276.

Immie

 

[Polk]

You might know it, but somebody out there might not.

There is never a guarantee and there is no guarantee that when I reach retirement age... if it is not raised to 128 before I reach it, that Social Security will be around either. Or even that the USA will still be the USA and that I can collect my benefits.

Given the choice, I'd go with a fund in my name.

Immie

Sure, but collapse of the nation is infinitely less likely than a low or no return on investments.

Sure, but if you were to look at the return on Social Security Benefits/Social Security Taxes paid you would find it negative in all but a very few who reach very old ages. Low returns trump negative returns and with the market performing as it has throughout history, you are much more likely to do well with a private fund compared to the current SS system.

And if you don't happen to reach retirement age, at least your heirs have something.

Immie

I would disagree with the assessment that it's negative returns. Of course, I'd also point out that Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance.

 

[Immanuel]

Sure, but collapse of the nation is infinitely less likely than a low or no return on investments.

Sure, but if you were to look at the return on Social Security Benefits/Social Security Taxes paid you would find it negative in all but a very few who reach very old ages. Low returns trump negative returns and with the market performing as it has throughout history, you are much more likely to do well with a private fund compared to the current SS system.

And if you don't happen to reach retirement age, at least your heirs have something.

Immie

I would disagree with the assessment that it's negative returns. Of course, I'd also point out that Social Security isn't a retirement plan. It's a form of social insurance.

Piss poor insurance that I am forced by the government to pay for and that no one in their right minds would buy if they were not forced to do so... hmm, Health Care Reform anyone?

At one time, I did an analysis on my own situation if the money I had put into SS as taxes were to have gone into a mutual fund account as my retirement savings making very easy annual returns. I think I used 4% which is very moderate. I have to live to be 86 years old to break even and that was before I began making what I am now which is about 50% better than I was making at the time. Seeing as how, no one in my family has lived that long and I am slightly over weight, have back problems and use those back problems as an excuse to sit on my lazy ass rather than work out, I don't expect to "break even". Since my youngest child is two months from being 18, my kids won't get a dime of my social security benefits when I die. Should my wife die, she will get my benefits at the forfeiture of her own because I make more than she does but then she loses her benefits.

Face it, SS is not a good insurance plan and set up as it is would be a downright shitty investment plan.

Immie

 

[GWV5903]

You can find a few horror stories anywhere. Overall though, France is seen as having a top-notch system.

WHO | World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems

Using the WHO as your benchmark for validation is like asking the drug dealer to sell you more drugs, it's not a very good source.....

TORT reform is the first step, the only true action the current Administration/Congress needs to consider reforming is the Pre Existing Conditions dispute....

What incentive does the WHO have to make up numbers? None.

Are you serious, you believe they have none?

You can start with the current H1N1 virus, to date their are 1,630 deaths in the US that can be directly linked to H1N1. Now considering that they predicted 2 billion would be infected with it world wide and 36,000 Americans died of Flu related causes each year during the 1990's, the deaths to date don't add up. These are just a few of the damaging facts to the WHO and their leading influenza consultant Professor Albert Osterhaus.....

A popular rebutal to the World Health Organization’s Health Care Ranking System is this short article By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

But to understand how WHO derives this misleading statistic, which has been ballyhooed widely by both the media and politicians alike, you need to understand how it is created. WHO’s health care rankings are constructed from five factors each weighted according to a formula derived by WHO. These are:

1. Health Level: 25 percent

2. Health Distribution: 25 percent

3. Responsiveness: 12.5 percent

4. Responsiveness Distribution: 12.5 percent

5. Financial Fairness: 25 percent

“Health level” is a measure of a countries “disability adjusted life expectancy”. This factor makes sense, since it is a direct measure of the health of a country’s residents. However, even “life expectancy” can be affected by many factors not related to health care per se, such as poverty, homicide rate, dietary habits, accident rate, tobacco use, etc. In fact, if you remove the homicide rate and accidental death rate from MVA’s from this statistic, citizens of the US have a longer life expectancy than any other country on earth.2

“Responsiveness” measures a variety of factors such as speed of service, choice of doctors, and amenities (e.g. quality of linens). Some of these make sense to include (speed of service) but some have no direct relationship to health care (quality of linens). These two factors at least make some sense in a ranking of health care, but each is problematic as well.

The other three factors are even worse. “Financial fairness” measures the percentage of household income spent on health care. It can be expected that the “percentage” of income spent on health care decreases with increasing income, just as is true for food purchases and housing. Thus, this factor does not measure the quality or delivery of health care, but the value judgment that everyone should pay the same “percentage” of their income on health care even regardless of their income or use of the system. This factor is biased to make countries that rely on free market incentives look inferior. It rewards countries that spend the same percentage of household income on health care, and punishes those that spend either a higher or lower percentage, regardless of the impact on health. In the extreme then, a country in which all health care is paid for by the government (with money derived from a progressive tax system), but delivers horrible health care, will score perfectly in this ranking, whereas a country where the amount paid for health care is based on use of the system, but delivers excellent health care will rank poorly. To use this factor to justify more government involvement in health care, therefore, is using circular reasoning since this factor is designed to favor government intervention.

“Health Distribution and Responsiveness Distribution” measure inequality in the other factors. In other words, neither factor actually measures the quality of health care delivery, because “inequality of delivery” is independent of “quality of care”. It is possible, for example, to have great inequality in a health care system where the majority of the population gets “excellent” health care, but a minority only gets “good” health care. This system would rank more poorly on these measures than another country that had “equal”, but poor, health care throughout the system.

In summary, therefore, the WHO ranking system has minimal objectivity in its “ranking” of world health. It more accurately can be described as a ranking system inherently biased to reward the uniformity of “government” delivered (i.e. “socialized”) health care, independent of the care actually delivered. In that regard the relatively low ranking of the US in the WHO system can be viewed as a “positive” testament to at least some residual “free market” influence (also read “personal freedom”) in the American Health Care system. The American health care consumer needs to understand what the WHO ranking does and does not say about American health. Don’t be fooled by “big government” politicians and the liberal media who are attempting to use this statistic to push for socialized medicine in the United States. It says essentially nothing about the delivery of health care or the quality of that delivery in the US. It does say that, so far, the American health care consumer has at least some personal freedom to seek the best health care available, and is not yet relegated to the “one size fits all” philosophy of government sponsored health care systems.

If you choose to be oblivious to the other side of the story, then you may have a point and the WHO has no reason to distort the facts, but there are too many FACTS that do not support your assertion.....