Four Reasons Why the Public Health Care Option is Irrefutable | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
Interesting Piece (none / 1)
Granted, I'm for single payer and I'm less optimistic that a public option plan here would be serious enough to actually compete and put private insurers out of business, as explained in a good Huffington Post comment:

"...Most seem to imagine it would be some kind of Medicare clone that would be so attractive that it would wipe out the private insurers. Well . . . guess again. It's likely to be a clone of the private insurers with a phony "public" branding designed to gull the credulous while achieving it's real objective: keeping most of the system in the hands of the rapacious private insurers.

The first inkling of the details of the public option came about a month ago from AHIP shill Chuck Schumer, who devised the scheme at the behest the HMO-owned Max Baucus. Here are the devilish details, according to The New York Times:

�The public plan must be self-sustaining. It should pay claims with money raised from premiums and co-payments. It should not receive tax revenue or appropriations from the government.

�The public plan should pay doctors and hospitals more than what Medicare pays. Medicare rates, set by law and regulation, are often lower than what private insurers pay."

In other words, a guaranteed-to-fail farce that would replicate all the worst features of private insurance and offer none of the cost-savings or coverage expansion of the single risk pool of true single payer..."

by Tom Hanc on 06/11/2009 02:43:36 PM EST

CEO Roundtable Report (none / 1)
I forgot to include the CEO Roundtable Report on healthcare since it's the perfect time for it.

"...It compares statistics on life expectancy, death rates and even cholesterol readings and blood pressures. The health measures are factored together with costs into a 100-point "value" scale. That hasn't been done before, the authors said....

The United States is 23 points behind five leading economic competitors: Canada, Japan, Germany, the United Kingdom and France. The five nations cover all their citizens, and though their systems differ, in each country the government plays a much larger role than in the U.S.

The cost-benefit disparity is even wider -- 46 points -- when the U.S. is compared with emerging competitors: China, Brazil and India..."

by Tom Hanc on 06/11/2009 02:48:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Public vs. private healthcare insurance (none / 1)
I do not know how the comparison between different countries is acutally calculated but I would guess that there are many sources for errors.

For example in Germany (and Austria) all of the public insurance companies make deficits. The actual costs are much higher than the money payed by the insurants, the difference is thrown in by the government. The positive side effect of this is that the government cares about costs very much. As a result, drugs are much more cheaper in Europe than in the USA - obviously it is not so easy to milk the people when this results in a greater budget deficit.

Another characteristic of the public insurance in Germany is, that the amount of money you have to pay is coupled to your income. You have to pay a percentage of your income rather than a fixed amount of money. The private insurance companies have fixed fees and so people with higher incomes are trying to get private coverage.

All physicians I know are whining about how few they get payed by the public insurance companies for their patients. Usually you have to wait longer for operations too. There are studies that even the probability to get an operation at all is higher if you got private coverage. Ironically in some cases operations are serving the wealth of the surgeon better than the health of the patient.

Public insurance companies in Germany are heavy bloated - oh - may be that must be mentioned explicitly: There is not ONE public company, there are many of them. Everyone responsible for another occupation group, no competition at all, may be that is the reason why they are so bloated.

I am curious how the public option will evolve in America, I am sure it will be pretty different than in Europe, basically because there are some characteristics in the european way of handling the issue that are someway socialistic and therefore not very attractive for Americans in general I guess.

by snoewchen on 06/11/2009 07:38:03 PM EST

[ Parent ]
10 Myths About Health Care, Busted (none / 1)

(I know you spoke of Germany, but I figured I'd post this because it has a lot of great information and touches on some of what you mentioned).

10 Myths About Canadian Health Care, Busted

I don't want to repost the whole thing here, so I'll just post the 10 myths and the first sentence or two of each response:

1. Canada’s health care system is “socialized medicine.” False. In socialized medical systems, the doctors work directly for the state...

2. Doctors are hurt financially by single-payer health care. True and False. Doctors in Canada do make less than their US counterparts. But they also have lower overhead, and usually much better working conditions...

3. Wait times in Canada are horrendous. True and False again — it depends on which province you live in, and what’s wrong with you...

4. You have to wait forever to get a family doctor.
False for the vast majority of Canadians, but True for a few...

5. You don’t get to choose your own doctor.
Scurrilously False...

6. Canada’s care plan only covers the basics. You’re still on your own for any extras, including prescription drugs. And you still have to pay for it.
True — but not as big an issue as you might think...

7. Canadian drugs are not the same.
More preposterious bogosity...

8. Publicly-funded programs will inevitably lead to rationed health care, particularly for the elderly.
False. And bogglingly so. The papers would have a field day if there was the barest hint that this might be true...

9. People won’t be responsible for their own health if they’re not being forced to pay for the consequences. False...

10. This all sounds great — but the taxes to cover it are just unaffordable. And besides, isn’t the system in bad financial shape? False. On one hand, our annual Canadian tax bite runs about 10% higher than our U.S. taxes did. On the other, we’re not paying out the equivalent of two new car payments every month to keep the family insured here. When you balance out the difference, we’re actually money ahead....

by Tom Hanc on 06/11/2009 08:00:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Four Reasons Why the Public Health Care Option is Irrefutable | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)