The Biggest Study Yet of Obamacare Indicates Insurance Will Be Cheaper Than Expected

[Bern80]

No. Of the countries that have single payer systems, there is not a single one that has a debt to gdp ratio higher that the US.

Government Debt To GDP - Countries - List
List of Countries with Universal Healthcare | True Cost - Analyzing our economy, government policy, and society through the lens of cost-benefit

Yes, there is. France's healthcare system is billions of dollars in debt. And of course we know about Canada's issues where it takes an eternity to treated for certain medical problems. Here is an excellent, objective article about your beloved French medical system. You will find it praises many aspect of their system, but also points out it's faults and yes one of them is the public segment being deeply in debt as well as the atrocious pay of their physicians.

French Lessons On Health Care - NationalJournal.com

The French healthcare system is a two tiered system, not single payer and they have a lower debt relative to GDP than the US.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system. Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

The US single payer system, Medicare does not limit supply and thus does not experience the wait times seen in Canada. We could do the same thing Canada does in the US and see similar cost savings but we choose not to.

Pretty sure I learned in econ when quantity supplied goes down and quantity demand stays the same, cost goes UP, not down. Frances debt to GDP is irrelevant. The point is their not paying for it, therefore it is unsustainable as is, which is causing them to have to cut back on what the state pays for. It would be wholly unworkable system here because it would require the pay of physicians to be cut drastically, which will reduce the supply of providers. Cheap is irrelevant if you can't get in to see anyone to be treated.

 

[Flopper]

Yes, there is. France's healthcare system is billions of dollars in debt. And of course we know about Canada's issues where it takes an eternity to treated for certain medical problems. Here is an excellent, objective article about your beloved French medical system. You will find it praises many aspect of their system, but also points out it's faults and yes one of them is the public segment being deeply in debt as well as the atrocious pay of their physicians.

French Lessons On Health Care - NationalJournal.com

The French healthcare system is a two tiered system, not single payer and they have a lower debt relative to GDP than the US.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system. Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

The US single payer system, Medicare does not limit supply and thus does not experience the wait times seen in Canada. We could do the same thing Canada does in the US and see similar cost savings but we choose not to.

Pretty sure I learned in econ when quantity supplied goes down and quantity demand stays the same, cost goes UP, not down. Frances debt to GDP is irrelevant. The point is their not paying for it, therefore it is unsustainable as is, which is causing them to have to cut back on what the state pays for. It would be wholly unworkable system here because it would require the pay of physicians to be cut drastically, which will reduce the supply of providers. Cheap is irrelevant if you can't get in to see anyone to be treated.

France spends 9.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, compared with 13.4 percent in the United States. However, in the US the customer pays a higher percent of the healthcare costs.

The reason why the healthcare costs are such a drain on government finances has nothing to do with single payer. The problem is the amount of coverage and small amount paid by the public. There are no deductibles and copays are small or non-existent. The French National Insurance provides far more coverage than our single payer system, Medicare. NHI provides extensive prescription drugs coverage (including homeopathic products), thermal cures in spas, extended nursing home care, cash benefits, dental and vision care. In addition the system maintains excess capacity to minimize waits for service.

 

[Old Rocks]

I would so much like to jump on the moderate, 'forget politics, let's just get this done' bandwagon, but I can't. The problem of rising health care costs and how Obama is attempting to solve that problem is such an excellent example of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives that it really is about 'R' and 'D'. The only commonality between the parties and really all of us is we really do all want the same thing; less expensive health care. The problem is the solutions put in place by the left have absolutely no means of actually accomplishing that.

I have seen nothing put up by the right that even resembles a solution. Just endless rhetoric about how bad the ACA is.

Well, I happen to agree that we can do better. Full Universal Single Payer health care, such as they have in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, and Taiwan, just to name a few. They pay 1/2 to 3/4 per capita what we do for their health care, and their statistics are far better than ours. Longer lives, and much better numbers on infant mortality.

You 'Conservatives' want some respect on this issue? Address it. Otherwise, don't stand in the doorway, don't block off the hall.

Lets create another crazy law that forces people to do what they don't want to do.

There, does that make it all better?

Yep, we have all kinds of crazy laws like that. You are not allowed to put your outhouse over a creek, even if the creek is on your property, they force you to use either a septic or public sewer. See how unreasonable the government is?

Bluntly, just add an additional 5% to 10% of everybodys taxes, to be targeted for universal single payer health care for all, and be done with it. Then we have a far healthier population.

 

[Old Rocks]

The French healthcare system is a two tiered system, not single payer and they have a lower debt relative to GDP than the US.

The wait times that Canada might experience are not caused by its being a single-payer system. Canadians have made a conscious decision to hold down costs. One of the ways they do that is by limiting supply, mostly for elective things, which can create wait times. Their outcomes are otherwise comparable to ours.

The US single payer system, Medicare does not limit supply and thus does not experience the wait times seen in Canada. We could do the same thing Canada does in the US and see similar cost savings but we choose not to.

Pretty sure I learned in econ when quantity supplied goes down and quantity demand stays the same, cost goes UP, not down. Frances debt to GDP is irrelevant. The point is their not paying for it, therefore it is unsustainable as is, which is causing them to have to cut back on what the state pays for. It would be wholly unworkable system here because it would require the pay of physicians to be cut drastically, which will reduce the supply of providers. Cheap is irrelevant if you can't get in to see anyone to be treated.

France spends 9.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, compared with 13.4 percent in the United States. However, in the US the customer pays a higher percent of the healthcare costs.

The reason why the healthcare costs are such a drain on government finances has nothing to do with single payer. The problem is the amount of coverage and small amount paid by the public. There are no deductibles and copays are small or non-existent. The French National Insurance provides far more coverage than our single payer system, Medicare. NHI provides extensive prescription drugs coverage (including homeopathic products), thermal cures in spas, extended nursing home care, cash benefits, dental and vision care. In addition the system maintains excess capacity to minimize waits for service.

And their results are so terrible that they come in with the 1st or 2nd longest lived population among the nations. And their infant mortality is far, far less than ours, plus they have a far healthier citizenery. And pay less of their GDP for all of this.

Taiwan, when it went to a universal system, went out and judged everybodies systems, looked at what they thought would work for them, and adapted it. They even looked at our system, and stated among the people judging what to adapt, a big "NO WAY!!!".

 

[Bern80]

France spends 9.1 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care, compared with 13.4 percent in the United States. However, in the US the customer pays a higher percent of the healthcare costs.

Again it's entirely irrelevant statistic. There are all kinds of contributing factors to that outside of a state run program. The fact that we don't take very good care of ourselves for starters.

The reason why the healthcare costs are such a drain on government finances has nothing to do with single payer. The problem is the amount of coverage and small amount paid by the public. There are no deductibles and copays are small or non-existent. The French National Insurance provides far more coverage than our single payer system, Medicare. NHI provides extensive prescription drugs coverage (including homeopathic products), thermal cures in spas, extended nursing home care, cash benefits, dental and vision care. In addition the system maintains excess capacity to minimize waits for service.

It has EVERYTHING to do with it being single payer. When you remove the customer from the expense of whatever it is they consume the cost of that something goes up. You have to stop looking at this as an issue of how many people can get covered by insurance. That isn't a long term solution to the problem. There is a difference between less cost to the consumer through government subsidies and and a system that truly brings down the cost of services. If you re-connect people to the financial decisions of taking care of their health then you will truly see the cost of services go down. It has to get paid for either way. Right now we're passing the cost on to our debt and others not actually connected to the service itself. Someone has to pay for it. It may as well be the people actually consuming the service as it will make for more educated healthier consumers.