How 5 Capitalist Democracies Do Health Care

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Here is how 5 Capitalist Democracies have dealt with health care. Maybe we can pick and choose things from them and stay away from mistakes made and stop trying to say as the GOP does, that we should re-invent the wheel?

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.

- link...link....sickaroundtheworld/countries/

 

[saveliberty]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.

Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?

We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.

Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?

We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.

there is not legitimate reason to have a for profit health insurance industry. we can try different approaches but what you propose is similar to the nation under the articles of confederation where each state goes it's own way....nuts!

As long as some Americans buy the Health Insurance Indutry's line, we will be forever behind the trend in looking out for one of the most bsic needs of a free and civilized society.

when you come out of your self imposed nightmare, you will find that a federal approach is nothing at all to be so fearful of.

 

[Immanuel]

Because our government is corrupt and totally incapable of running a social program that successfully and efficiently provides for those it intends to help.

Immie

 

[California Girl]

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.

 

[saveliberty]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.

Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?

We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.

there is not legitimate reason to have a for profit health insurance industry. we can try different approaches but what you propose is similar to the nation under the articles of confederation where each state goes it's own way....nuts!

As long as some Americans buy the Health Insurance Indutry's line, we will be forever behind the trend in looking out for one of the most bsic needs of a free and civilized society.

when you come out of your self imposed nightmare, you will find that a federal approach is nothing at all to be so fearful of.

When I exit the nightmare, you will be under a very different system.

 

[code1211]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.

Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?

We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.

there is not legitimate reason to have a for profit health insurance industry. we can try different approaches but what you propose is similar to the nation under the articles of confederation where each state goes it's own way....nuts!

As long as some Americans buy the Health Insurance Indutry's line, we will be forever behind the trend in looking out for one of the most bsic needs of a free and civilized society.

when you come out of your self imposed nightmare, you will find that a federal approach is nothing at all to be so fearful of.

This is going to be interesting. I wonder if it will become a Constitutional battle over the mandate to buy insurance.

Every state regulates its own insurnace and that is why insurance cannot be sold across state lines. I would suppose that somewhere in those 2000+ pages there is some referance to this, but if it has always been a state regulated item...

On the same track, if the Feds can sell the same policy across state lines, can other companies sell the same policy across state lines? Sauce for the goose and all that.

Will the same policy that works in NYC work on the plains of North Dakota? Will there be preferred provider networks recomended? Will there be HMO's structured to take advantage of the system's new capabilities? Will the fairly recent phenomenon of mega network hospitals be utilized in this or will they be regarded as too powerful and be broken up?

How much direction will the Feds assume and how much penatly will be charged to those who either fail to particiapate or who carry private insurance?

The Swiss pay $750/mo.? There are many insurance policies that can be had for $750/mo. right now that those w/o insurance could purchase. How many of these folks have the $9000.00/year to spend on this?

Not a real problem I suppose. With the 10 year added cost of the program which covers the costs of 30 million folks for the last 6 years of that period while not covering another 24 million, the average annual cost PER PERSON ADDED is $5,555.00 so that should about work out.

Too bad about the other 24 million and those that will be cut from Medicare.

 

[Old Rocks]

Because our government is corrupt and totally incapable of running a social program that successfully and efficiently provides for those it intends to help.

Immie

Really? Social Security is doing quite well, thank you. As is Medicare, if we could get some real enforcement against thieves like Rick Scott.

 

[Immanuel]

Because our government is corrupt and totally incapable of running a social program that successfully and efficiently provides for those it intends to help.

Immie

Really? Social Security is doing quite well, thank you. As is Medicare, if we could get some real enforcement against thieves like Rick Scott.

Yeah, right. If you knew anything at all about retirement planning, you would know that Social Security is piss poor at best.

And Merry Christmas Old as Rocks and may you have a blessed New Year.

Immie

 

[Old Rocks]

Because Canada's system is fubarred about as bad as England's.

Then why do you guys keep mentioning all these other countries and why we should be like them?

We have a lot of respect for Americans far beyond just their ingenuity. There could have been 50 individual experiments on this problem, but the federal government decided to try just one. Then when they couldn't make a reasonable plan that saved money, they came up with this bastardization. Ignoring waht Americans told them they didn't want by the way.

there is not legitimate reason to have a for profit health insurance industry. we can try different approaches but what you propose is similar to the nation under the articles of confederation where each state goes it's own way....nuts!

As long as some Americans buy the Health Insurance Indutry's line, we will be forever behind the trend in looking out for one of the most bsic needs of a free and civilized society.

when you come out of your self imposed nightmare, you will find that a federal approach is nothing at all to be so fearful of.

This is going to be interesting. I wonder if it will become a Constitutional battle over the mandate to buy insurance.

Every state regulates its own insurnace and that is why insurance cannot be sold across state lines. I would suppose that somewhere in those 2000+ pages there is some referance to this, but if it has always been a state regulated item...

On the same track, if the Feds can sell the same policy across state lines, can other companies sell the same policy across state lines? Sauce for the goose and all that.

Will the same policy that works in NYC work on the plains of North Dakota? Will there be preferred provider networks recomended? Will there be HMO's structured to take advantage of the system's new capabilities? Will the fairly recent phenomenon of mega network hospitals be utilized in this or will they be regarded as too powerful and be broken up?

How much direction will the Feds assume and how much penatly will be charged to those who either fail to particiapate or who carry private insurance?

The Swiss pay $750/mo.? There are many insurance policies that can be had for $750/mo. right now that those w/o insurance could purchase. How many of these folks have the $9000.00/year to spend on this?

Not a real problem I suppose. With the 10 year added cost of the program which covers the costs of 30 million folks for the last 6 years of that period while not covering another 24 million, the average annual cost PER PERSON ADDED is $5,555.00 so that should about work out.

Too bad about the other 24 million and those that will be cut from Medicare.

Odd numbers. Since Switzeland spends about 3/4 as much per capita for their health care as we do, and cover all their citizens, are you saying that the US is currently spending much more than $1000 per citizen, as we do not cover all our citizens?

If so, why is ours so high, and failing to cover all of our citizens?

Could it be because of thieves in the Health Care Insurance Industry? The ones that have been spending 1.4 million dollars a day to prevent any kind of real health care reform?

 

[saveliberty]

there is not legitimate reason to have a for profit health insurance industry. we can try different approaches but what you propose is similar to the nation under the articles of confederation where each state goes it's own way....nuts!

As long as some Americans buy the Health Insurance Indutry's line, we will be forever behind the trend in looking out for one of the most bsic needs of a free and civilized society.

when you come out of your self imposed nightmare, you will find that a federal approach is nothing at all to be so fearful of.

This is going to be interesting. I wonder if it will become a Constitutional battle over the mandate to buy insurance.

Every state regulates its own insurnace and that is why insurance cannot be sold across state lines. I would suppose that somewhere in those 2000+ pages there is some referance to this, but if it has always been a state regulated item...

On the same track, if the Feds can sell the same policy across state lines, can other companies sell the same policy across state lines? Sauce for the goose and all that.

Will the same policy that works in NYC work on the plains of North Dakota? Will there be preferred provider networks recomended? Will there be HMO's structured to take advantage of the system's new capabilities? Will the fairly recent phenomenon of mega network hospitals be utilized in this or will they be regarded as too powerful and be broken up?

How much direction will the Feds assume and how much penatly will be charged to those who either fail to particiapate or who carry private insurance?

The Swiss pay $750/mo.? There are many insurance policies that can be had for $750/mo. right now that those w/o insurance could purchase. How many of these folks have the $9000.00/year to spend on this?

Not a real problem I suppose. With the 10 year added cost of the program which covers the costs of 30 million folks for the last 6 years of that period while not covering another 24 million, the average annual cost PER PERSON ADDED is $5,555.00 so that should about work out.

Too bad about the other 24 million and those that will be cut from Medicare.

Odd numbers. Since Switzeland spends about 3/4 as much per capita for their health care as we do, and cover all their citizens, are you saying that the US is currently spending much more than $1000 per citizen, as we do not cover all our citizens?

If so, why is ours so high, and failing to cover all of our citizens?

Could it be because of thieves in the Health Care Insurance Industry? The ones that have been spending 1.4 million dollars a day to prevent any kind of real health care reform?

No, it is because we are pioneers in many areas and that costs a lot of money to develop. Also, we have a system that places no responsibility on the consumer to determine if the charges are correct or if the service was medically necessary or just a CYA on the part of the provider.

 

[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.

 

[GWV5903]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Here is how 5 Capitalist Democracies have dealt with health care. Maybe we can pick and choose things from them and stay away from mistakes made and stop trying to say as the GOP does, that we should re-invent the wheel?

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.

- link...link....sickaroundtheworld/countries/

The lazy want to follow, the real working class wants to pay their own way and the liberal left really has NO grasp of what makes America great and very different from Canada, UK, France and so on....

The idiot(s) that the left and independents elected last year have not had an original thought or idea since they where potty trained.....No they would rather try to copy a health care system(s) that EVERYONE knows are utter failures.....

So many try to claim that malpractice only adds 10% to our HC cost.....then why did Lawyers/Law Firms contribute $233+ million in the '08 campaign cycle? And since when did 10% become negligible?

Litigation has an immense impact on ALL of our cost, ultimately affecting everything, why is the liberal left so stupid? Could it be they are bought and paid for more than the right? Of that $233+ million (I left out the $37,000,000 from Lobbyist, still lawyers) 74% went to Democrats / 26% to Republicans.....

 

[Political Junky]

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.

Link?

 

[Political Junky]

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.

The Senate bill maintains private insurance ... no public option.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

So, basically... this bill, aside from all the pork the Dems demanded for their votes, requires that we purchase insurance from private companies because we don't have the money to have done so already?

 

[Old Rocks]

The lazy want to follow, the real working class wants to pay their own way and the liberal left really has NO grasp of what makes America great and very different from Canada, UK, France and so on....

The idiot(s) that the left and independents elected last year have not had an original thought or idea since they where potty trained.....No they would rather try to copy a health care system(s) that EVERYONE knows are utter failures.....

GWV5903

So many try to claim that malpractice only adds 10% to our HC cost.....then why did Lawyers/Law Firms contribute $233+ million in the '08 campaign cycle? And since when did 10% become negligible?

Litigation has an immense impact on ALL of our cost, ultimately affecting everything, why is the liberal left so stupid? Could it be they are bought and paid for more than the right? Of that $233+ million (I left out the $37,000,000 from Lobbyist, still lawyers) 74% went to Democrats / 26% to Republicans.....

And most of the money from the Health Care lobby went to Republicans. But that will change, since the Republicans no longer hold the power. Lobbyists pay money where they can get results.No, silly one, you are not going to get away with that 10% nonsense. The real cost of litigation in the overall picture of health care is a very small fraction of 1%.

Report Debunks the Myths of Medical Malpractice Litigation and Health Care Costs and Shows that Most Compensated Injuries are Extremely Serious | www.newyorkinjuries.com

Myth 1: Medical malpractice litigation’s share of overall health care costs is crippling the system. Fact: Medical malpractice litigation’s share always has been minuscule, has fallen to the lowest level on record – less than 0.18 percent of all health costs. Even if one includes in the calculation the cost of all medical malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors and hospitals, which premiums cover not only malpractice settlements, verdicts and the cost of litigation, but also insurance companies’ overhead and profits, the share is just 0.58 percent of all health costs.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why do the right wing-nuts always mention Canada and also misrepresent Great Britain?

Why do the conservatives always ignore that what Americans want and will do is make their own way and not copy a system from others?

Why does the GOP have so little respect for American ingenuity when it comes to figuring out a way around the health care crisis even they admit is real?

Here is how 5 Capitalist Democracies have dealt with health care. Maybe we can pick and choose things from them and stay away from mistakes made and stop trying to say as the GOP does, that we should re-invent the wheel?

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.

- link...link....sickaroundtheworld/countries/

"In France, at least, this has until recently provided a good blend of universal coverage and high-quality care— the holy grail of any health reform. The big problem is cost. The system constantly consumes far more than citizens pay in dedicated taxes and other health-related contributions. Between 1997 and 2006, the French health system ran up a cumulative deficit of $61 billion (adjusted for inflation) for a population of 65 million—a little over 20 percent of the current U.S. population.

Germany, too, has long relied on its mandatory sickness funds, which insure about 90 percent of the population (those over a certain income can choose to buy private insurance). These funds are required to give certain health benefits to subscribers, as well as provide temporary income to those too sick to work. In theory, the funds sustain themselves from a 14 percent payroll tax, split equally between the employer and employee. In reality, the funds increasingly rely on taxpayer support through general revenues. Health-care costs in Germany are exploding, with estimates reckoning that it will consume 30 percent of GDP by 2020 if left unreformed.

Central governments in both countries have responded to ballooning health-care costs by rationing care and tightening control over the system, undermining patient choice and access.

In 2004, 286 of France’s most senior hospital doctors signed a petition bemoaning the increases in waiting lists. “In casualty units, sick people have to wait for hours, sometimes even days, on gurneys, because there are no beds for them in the hospital,” said the doctors’ petition, sent to Le Monde.

The focus on containing costs has also had the perverse effects of reducing competition between providers and limiting the use of technological innovations that could lead to the cure of costly chronic conditions and help keep patients out of more expensive, hospital-based care.

Switzerland enjoys some of the highest quality health care in the world, largely because it has avoided some of the pitfalls of the Franco-German model, allowing a large measure of consumer-driven competition while subsidizing premiums for the indigent with taxpayer dollars. It’s not perfect: mandatory insurance has led to some cartel-like behavior among insurers and given the government increased control over health-care provision, but it has kept a lid on health-care inflation while continuing to offer patients high quality and more choices.

The Dutch have followed suit. The Netherlands for years labored under a Franco-German health-care model that absorbed 30 percent of its GDP growth. In 2006, it shifted to a Swiss-style system in which all citizens must purchase insurance from one of 41 competing private-insurance funds. This introduced a strong element of price competition into the system, with large numbers of switching customers forcing insurers to focus on patients’ needs and increase their back-office efficiency.

As Switzerland and the Netherlands demonstrate, lifting barriers to competition among insurers can provide a more sustainable solution to the cost and access problems that plague American health care. Mandatory insurance, however, needs careful checks on insurance cartel power.

A combination of high-deductible catastrophic health insurance and HSAs is the only kind of “universal health care” that will, in the long run, work."
Health Care’s Swiss Solution by Alphonse Crespo, Philip Stevens, City Journal 2 October 2009

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

As usual Ca. G. is full of crap. Check out UK Message Boards for discussions by GB residents on the NHS and you will see the system works. It has flaws, but more supporters than detractors.
I spent some time on the MSNBC UK board and asked some questions. Generally, even those who thought NHS was flawed, and those who had bad experiences, believed their system of providing care was far superior to ours.
This is not to suggest that our ability to provide preventative or healing services is inferior, only that the method of paying for such services is absurd.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

As usual Ca. G. is full of crap. Check out UK Message Boards for discussions by GB residents on the NHS and you will see the system works. It has flaws, but more supporters than detractors.
I spent some time on the MSNBC UK board and asked some questions. Generally, even those who thought NHS was flawed, and those who had bad experiences, believed their system of providing care was far superior to ours.
This is not to suggest that our ability to provide preventative or healing services is inferior, only that the method of paying for such services is absurd.

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE): tells Brits if their life is worth living- in actual dollars and cents. As the NYTimes states, its job is to develop “a standard method of rationing. NICE has decided that Britain, except in rare cases, can afford only £15,000, or about $22,750, to save six months of a citizen’s life.”
(http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html)
So, the average one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan is worth way more than a Brits’ life!(March 2009 Manhattan Rental Market Report | Rental Market Reports | TREGNY)

So, it has concluded that if you have breast cancer, the drug Tykerb, shown to delay the progression of the disease, is worth more than you are “despite Glaxo’s offer to pay for the first 12 weeks of treatment.”
U.K. Says Tykerb Isn’t Worth Cost, Even With 12 Free Weeks - Health Blog - WSJ

Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle praised NICE-type policies in his book about healthcare and advocated a ‘super board’ that would tell doctors how to treat you. This board would choose “what it will cover and how much it will pay.” Can you spell “NICE”? (Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis by Tom Daschle, Jeanne M. Lambrew, and Scott S. Greenberger (Hardcover - Feb 19, 2008) p. 158 BTW, Daschle was Barack Obama’s first choice as Sec’y of HHS.

The Bush Administration sent chief medical officer of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Sean Tunis to learn about NICE and try to adopt the processes and mechanisms they used, “and we just couldn’t…[use]price to determine which drugs or devices Medicare or Medicaid provides has provoked fierce protests.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/03/health/03nice.html

In Great Britain, about 20% of patients with treatable colon cancer at the time of discovery are considered incurable by the time treatment is finally available.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-613.pdf