The US Healthcare Mass Debate

[Tero]

America! Marriage of Capitalism and Government! Best monopolies ever! Wealth through regulation. GOP can’t get is out of it.

It's what you voted for in 2008. It's Obamacare. Don't pretend you weren't in favor of the crony capitalism you voted for....

There was no single payer candidate.Obama used a modified GOP plan. Romney plan was to leave it to states. It works only in blue populated states.

McCain Palin only had death panels to scare you with. Zero solutions.

[Brian Peacock]

You've missed the point. Lak is saying it's silly having to pay for things like sex reassignment and maternity if you will never need them. For some reason the option to opt out of those things doesn't exist in the US. It does here in our private insurance sector.

That's called premium loading. Like inflating the coat of coverage by forcing Dutch policy holders to take out volcano insurance.

[pErvinalia]

Yep. In the case of a single collective insurance system it might make sense (to save money via simplicity). But in a market competitive system it makes no sense unless collusion is involved. Or unless the individual insurance companies are getting their own insurance from the same shared pools.

[Tero]

Simplicity is a consideration. But when you are talking about private insurance markets, that's called collusion.

The private insurance market, and even private clinics, is a nice choice to have. But when the public has no public insurance part, then you need to take care of illnesses such as pregnancy by regulating (Obamacare) the insurance. Canada seems to have driven most of the private part out, but many countries have both systems. Finns prefer a diagnosis at a private clinic (they have insurance for that) and treatment at a public hospital or clinic. But sometimes they do not wait. Some go abroad for cataract treatment (Estonia for example).

[Tero]

Insurance company
https://twitter.com/healthnet
dnies ALS patient breathing device
https://twitter.com/AdyBarkan/status/950645840393072640

[pErvinalia]

In Australia we have both private and public, with many doctors and surgeons belonging to both systems. So in reality with private all you are really getting is a better room, and more post operative care at home (if you are on a good plan). I guess in some cases the private hospitals might have better and/or more equipment, so I guess there is that consideration.

[Brian Peacock]

We have a private/public mix in the UK too, with private often amounting to a paid-for queue jumping service.

[Scot Dutchy]

You've missed the point. Lak is saying it's silly having to pay for things like sex reassignment and maternity if you will never need them. For some reason the option to opt out of those things doesn't exist in the US. It does here in our private insurance sector.

That's called premium loading. Like inflating the coat of coverage by forcing Dutch policy holders to take out volcano insurance.

No it does not. What in the hell are you talking about. We dont have a private insurance system. It is not a public one either. It is a hybrid; taking the best out both systems which is why it is not comprehended here. It is kept simple on purpose. It would cost too much time and money if everyone had a tailored policy.

Healthcare Systems: The Netherlands

https://healthpowerhouse.com/files/EHCI ... report.pdf

NHS leaders should read that.

[Scot Dutchy]

The final conclusion from the report:

From this brief study and according to several health reform commentators, it is possible that the ‘Beveridgean’ NHS could learn much from the Bismarckian (insurance and competition based) health reforms in the Netherlands, particularly when it comes to bringing in competition between funding bodies, rather than simply between care providers. Politically the UK Government would have to tread carefully if they were ever to suggest a dramatic move
away from the ‘free at the point of use’ model but nevertheless, even if the Netherlands health care system cannot be used as an exact blueprint for Britain, the UK government would be wise to follow the methods of implementation used in the Netherlands to bring in the 2006 reforms.
For example, the Dutch were meticulous in their openness, ensuring that they kept the public informed throughout the reform process. Furthermore, the 2006 reforms were not the result of rushed ideas but rather the culmination of decades’ worth of deliberation and discussion which helped to avoid later costly U-turns. Thus, if the UK is to follow NHS reform through successfully, the Government would be wise to learn from the ‘particularly effective public information
campaign’ that was deemed to be ‘a model of robustness and clarity’ in the Netherlands76 and to bring reforms in gradually.

[laklak]

Y'all did it correctly, analyzing and understanding the industry then meticulously crafting the legislation. That is how you develop a robust and working system of any type. We did exactly the opposite, passed a raft of legislation and then bothered to look at how the system worked. Like I said earlier, predictable and inevitable failure.

[Tero]

We have a private/public mix in the UK too, with private often amounting to a paid-for queue jumping service.

Yeah, the Finns do that too. More accurate diagnosis, faster service. Doctors can book surgery on Sat or Sun and pay rent for facility. Mostly when you can go home same day.

[pErvinalia]

Y'all did it correctly, analyzing and understanding the industry then meticulously crafting the legislation. That is how you develop a robust and working system of any type. We did exactly the opposite, passed a raft of legislation and then bothered to look at how the system worked. Like I said earlier, predictable and inevitable failure.

That's the result of crony capitalism and a dysfunctional political system.

[Tero]

Y'all did it correctly, analyzing and understanding the industry then meticulously crafting the legislation. That is how you develop a robust and working system of any type. We did exactly the opposite, passed a raft of legislation and then bothered to look at how the system worked. Like I said earlier, predictable and inevitable failure.

Where we failed is employing an army of people to fill claim forms and another army to deny claims. All that work is wasted. Example.
1.guy gets hernia
2. guy gets operation
3. two people look at the paperwork at most for 1 minute
4 doctor gets paid
5 patient pays amount over 6000
done!

[Scot Dutchy]

Y'all did it correctly, analyzing and understanding the industry then meticulously crafting the legislation. That is how you develop a robust and working system of any type. We did exactly the opposite, passed a raft of legislation and then bothered to look at how the system worked. Like I said earlier, predictable and inevitable failure.

Obama did consult the health authorities here many times but decided he did not have the time and resources to implement a version of the Dutch system.

[Tero]

Or the votes. If he had expanded Medicare and funded that, the patriotic Americans would have shot him for being a socialist.