World Politics

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Question:

If the European model of health care is so much better than what we have here in the US, how come every time I go back to the motherland (Hungary), there are hoards of medical tourists from all over Europe getting dental work and various routine surgeries done there?

 

[Anonymous]

Question:

If the European model of health care is so much better than what we have here in the US, how come every time I go back to the motherland (Hungary), there are hoards of medical tourists from all over Europe getting dental work and various routine surgeries done there?

If the American model of health care is so much better, why is it that Costa Rica is a mecca for Americans who want dental work? Why are people going to Singapore to get heart surgery? Might want to answer those questions before pointing the finger at the counter argument.

http://financialedge.investopedia.c...-Can-Americans-Go-for-Cheaper-Healthcare.aspx

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

If the American model of health care is so much better, why is it that Costa Rica is a mecca for Americans who want dental work? Why are people going to Singapore to get heart surgery? Might want to answer those questions before pointing the finger at the counter argument.

http://financialedge.investopedia.c...-Can-Americans-Go-for-Cheaper-Healthcare.aspx

Let me rephrase that: For the camp in the US that believes that the European model is a better system (like Obama), why are wealthy Europeans (with health insurance) going on medical holidays in Eastern European countries? Americans follow this blueprint by having procedures done in South America and Asia? There's no "change" in this behavior. So, What's the difference?

 

[Anonymous]

Let me rephrase that: For the camp in the US that believes that the European model is a better system (like Obama), why are wealthy Europeans (with health insurance) going on medical holidays in Eastern European countries? Americans follow this blueprint by having procedures done in South America and Asia? There's no "change" in this behavior. So, What's the difference?

That is EXACTLY the point. YOU pointed to the fact that Europeans wet to Hungary for medical procedures as evidence that it is INFERIOR to our current system and you know it. To somehow suggest you were equating is disingenuous at best.

Now, if the issue of health care was one primarily concerned with the people WHO HAVE the means to travel for procedures, you would have a point. The reality is that the issue is about the people WHO DON'T have the means for procedures there or here.

 

[scribe]

Does anyone actually dispute that American's medical system isn't world class? I think the issue is about who has access to it.

 

[Anonymous]

Does anyone actually dispute that American's medical system isn't world class? I think the issue is about who has access to it.

Precisely the point.

 

[Anonymous]

And if you would like RDV4ROUBAIX, please illuminate us on exactly how health care is a "market" and should have traditional market philosophy govern it because I can tell you hundreds of reasons it ISN'T a "market" and should therefore be approached without the false premise that it is.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

That is EXACTLY the point. YOU pointed to the fact that Europeans wet to Hungary for medical procedures as evidence that it is INFERIOR to our current system and you know it. To somehow suggest you were equating is disingenuous at best.

Now, if the issue of health care was one primarily concerned with the people WHO HAVE the means to travel for procedures, you would have a point. The reality is that the issue is about the people WHO DON'T have the means for procedures there or here.

Jebezus TFF, I'm not being disingenuous or pointing fingers, just trying to get a simple answer to a simple question. Then why is Obama so keen on the Euro health care system if it changes nothing?

 

[Anonymous]

Jebezus TFF, I'm not being disingenuous or pointing fingers, just trying to get a simple answer to a simple question. Then why is Obama so keen on the Euro health care system if it changes nothing?

You are misrepresenting his point. His point isn't, and has never been stated, that the European system is better so lets get some. His point is that there is a problem in our health care system that has devastating repercussions for many working families and the very poor. He would like to enact legislation that helps these people specifically. Now, disagreeing with his methods is fine, but to couch the argument as though he is just a kid looking at other kids eating candy, and plotting how to get him some is again disingenuous.

I would also suspect that he does think the reforms he backs will help those at a disadvantage in our system. To accuse him of simply plotting evil ala Glen Beck is just political rhetoric and does little to nothing in terms of substantive debate. I am actually quite sick of the tea bag mentality.

 

[auscyclefan94]

I'm not disputing for a moment that GWB is a moron, but he's our moron,gosh darn it. If anybody is gonna pick on him it's gonna be us.
Actually I was just trying to make a humorous point that the world doesn't criticize your leaders because nobody outside of Aus. knows what they do.
Dammit, I am rapidly catching up to TFF in terms of number of jokes that require explanation.

That's not such a bad thing. It means that the world doesn't revolve around our country like the USA

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

You are misrepresenting his point. His point isn't, and has never been stated, that the European system is better so lets get some. His point is that there is a problem in our health care system that has devastating repercussions for many working families and the very poor. He would like to enact legislation that helps these people specifically. Now, disagreeing with his methods is fine, but to couch the argument as though he is just a kid looking at other kids eating candy, and plotting how to get him some is again disingenuous.

I would also suspect that he does think the reforms he backs will help those at a disadvantage in our system. To accuse him of simply plotting evil ala Glen Beck is just political rhetoric and does little to nothing in terms of substantive debate. I am actually quite sick of the tea bag mentality.

Good enough. I was just looking for answers, not to be ridiculed for asking a question. I don't have vast knowledge on these issues like some of you on these topics, and don't choose sides left/right, so I came here. Thanks for your help.

 

[Anonymous]

Good enough. I was just looking for answers, not to be ridiculed for asking a question. I don't have vast knowledge on these issues like some of you on these topics, and don't choose sides left/right, so I came here. Thanks for your help.

I apologize if I was demeaning. My point is that any position can be demeaned, but if it is demeaned with a question, then the question is rhetorical in nature and isn't to be answered, but challenged. I mistook your question for that and responded based on a faulty assumption apparently. Sorry.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

Does anyone actually dispute that American's medical system isn't world class? I think the issue is about who has access to it.

And the cost. Why is it so insanely expensive? I mean, I can get a prescription for doxycycline, and at the pharmacy it's $200. Or I can go over to the pet store and buy the same exact product and volume for my fish for $18. This is just one example, but everything in health care is obscenely expensive, everything. Why? Where's the money going?

But, as a nation we are ready to cast aside a system without attempting to fix the problems. That is a point that I don't get.

Are we really casting aside our system? You make it sound like this health care bill Congress is addressing now is a single payer system for all, that completely socializes all treatment, development, and research.

I do agree with your statements on profit though, to an extent. There's nothing wrong with turning a profit. Doctors should make good money, so should nurses, PAs, PTs, researchers, scientists, etc. But is that were all the money is going? It seems to a lot of people much of the money is going to insurance adjusters and administrators, and the highest amount to CEOs, shareholders, board members, lobbyists, etc. And in many cases (AIG) almost completely to the very tip top, and in enormous payouts of money, more money than anyone could possibly spend. Do people truly need salaries and bonuses in excess of $10 million a year to be motivated? $27,000 per day isn't enough?

 

[BroDeal]

Jebezus TFF, I'm not being disingenuous or pointing fingers, just trying to get a simple answer to a simple question. Then why is Obama so keen on the Euro health care system if it changes nothing?

There is no "Euro" healthcare system. There are many different solutions. They range from completely public systems to highly regulated private industry. Universal healthcare does not necessarily equate to a public, one payer system. There is a good argument for treating healthcare like a utility. Many utilities in the U.S. are privately owned but operate under strict government regulation and oversight. Profits are often restricted to reasonable percentages.

The goal of insurance is to distribute a small number of large costs into a large pool of small costs. Currently the insurance industry is allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Not only do they get to charge an "average" rate for the average person, but they get to identify the non-average persons and jack their rates. There are many simple laws that could be enacted to make the market more free. Off the top of my head:

1) Make switching from one insurance company to another easier by making coverage instantaneous with no lapse.

2) Eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Previous medical history cannot be taken into account when acquiring insurance customers. No customer can be turned away.

3) Enforce a one price policy where an insurance company is required to grant all insurance at the same price for all customers with very few modifiers. There should not be a situation where a large corporation negotiates a lower rate than what is paid by a smaller company or an individual.

4) Modify 3) above to allow an upcharge for certain types of conditions that are under control of the customer and result in better health, namely things like smoking and body fat percentage, even exercising. The upcharge needs to be a borne by the customer directly, not hidden by the payments made by an employer. Example: An employee is covered by his employer but he has a greater than 20% body fat percentage so he has to pay out of pocket $100 per month.

5) Related to 4), force more costs on to the customer. If an employer currently pays $10K per year for an employee's healthcare, it is better that the employer pay $6K to an insurance company, an extra $4K to the employee, and the employee pays the $4K to the insurance company as services are rendered. Those who see the doctor for every sniffle (or H1N1 virus ) need to have an incentive to suck it up and be a man.

6) Get rid of punative damages in malpractice suits unless something was done deliberately or with malice.

7) Cover all members of Congress with a plan than mimics the medical coverage of the average American. More devious would be to determine average plan for each quartile of the population and let each member of the legislature draw by lot which of the four plans he will be covered by for the year.

 

[RDV4ROUBAIX]

Thanks BroDeal. My "Euro heath care" comment was a generalization. I know now that we are looking at elements of health care programs that various European, and other countries around the world use.

I'm lucky enough to live in an area of the country where health care is well above average, but I think we're all in agreement that the system still needs to be revamped to work for everyone.

 

[scribe]

And the cost. Why is it so insanely expensive? I mean, I can get a prescription for doxycycline, and at the pharmacy it's $200. Or I can go over to the pet store and buy the same exact product and volume for my fish for $18. This is just one example, but everything in health care is obscenely expensive, everything. Why? Where's the money going?


Are we really casting aside our system? You make it sound like this health care bill Congress is addressing now is a single payer system for all, that completely socializes all treatment, development, and research.

I do agree with your statements on profit though, to an extent. There's nothing wrong with turning a profit. Doctors should make good money, so should nurses, PAs, PTs, researchers, scientists, etc. But is that were all the money is going? It seems to a lot of people much of the money is going to insurance adjusters and administrators, and the highest amount to CEOs, shareholders, board members, lobbyists, etc. And in many cases (AIG) almost completely to the very tip top, and in enormous payouts of money, more money than anyone could possibly spend. Do people truly need salaries and bonuses in excess of $10 million a year to be motivated? $27,000 per day isn't enough?

The worst part is the insurance providers and existing government subsidized coverages all pay different (much less) amounts than what is billed to uninsured individuals.

 

[Anonymous]

And the cost. Why is it so insanely expensive? I mean, I can get a prescription for doxycycline, and at the pharmacy it's $200. Or I can go over to the pet store and buy the same exact product and volume for my fish for $18. This is just one example, but everything in health care is obscenely expensive, everything. Why? Where's the money going?


Are we really casting aside our system? You make it sound like this health care bill Congress is addressing now is a single payer system for all, that completely socializes all treatment, development, and research.

I do agree with your statements on profit though, to an extent. There's nothing wrong with turning a profit. Doctors should make good money, so should nurses, PAs, PTs, researchers, scientists, etc. But is that were all the money is going? It seems to a lot of people much of the money is going to insurance adjusters and administrators, and the highest amount to CEOs, shareholders, board members, lobbyists, etc. And in many cases (AIG) almost completely to the very tip top, and in enormous payouts of money, more money than anyone could possibly spend. Do people truly need salaries and bonuses in excess of $10 million a year to be motivated? $27,000 per day isn't enough?

Pet owners don't routinely sue pharma's for their pets reaction (or lack thereof) to drugs administered. Talk to a physician sometime and ask when his/her annual med/mal premiums are. Better yet, talk to a hospital administrator and ask what their liability premiums (or set aside accurals) are. That's not to say that is the only problem but it's a large piece of the cost question.

For your second part, do you really think a single payer system is not coming? Obama is on record stating this as his goal. So the leftist can't get it right now. The "public option" will eventually be "the only option." Take a look at how the Health Insurers are demonized now? Why do you think this is?

I'm not about to defend AIG or ridiculous compensation packages. I believe this type of inequity can be changed without flushing the system.

Please point to something this govt does well, efficient, cutting edge and world class. What evidence is there the govt can do this and do it well?

Actors and actress's, sports stars and others making millions of dollars per year... I mean look at the payday Contador is alledgedly to be getting. Are you troubled by that or is it only when people get paid in the health industry that is a problem for you? Finally, how much should these folks make?

 

[Anonymous]

There is no "Euro" healthcare system. There are many different solutions. They range from completely public systems to highly regulated private industry. Universal healthcare does not necessarily equate to a public, one payer system. There is a good argument for treating healthcare like a utility. Many utilities in the U.S. are privately owned but operate under strict government regulation and oversight. Profits are often restricted to reasonable percentages.

The goal of insurance is to distribute a small number of large costs into a large pool of small costs. Currently the insurance industry is allowed to have their cake and eat it too. Not only do they get to charge an "average" rate for the average person, but they get to identify the non-average persons and jack their rates. There are many simple laws that could be enacted to make the market more free. Off the top of my head:

1) Make switching from one insurance company to another easier by making coverage instantaneous with no lapse.

2) Eliminate denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Previous medical history cannot be taken into account when acquiring insurance customers. No customer can be turned away.

3) Enforce a one price policy where an insurance company is required to grant all insurance at the same price for all customers with very few modifiers. There should not be a situation where a large corporation negotiates a lower rate than what is paid by a smaller company or an individual.

4) Modify 3) above to allow an upcharge for certain types of conditions that are under control of the customer and result in better health, namely things like smoking and body fat percentage, even exercising. The upcharge needs to be a borne by the customer directly, not hidden by the payments made by an employer. Example: An employee is covered by his employer but he has a greater than 20% body fat percentage so he has to pay out of pocket $100 per month.

5) Related to 4), force more costs on to the customer. If an employer currently pays $10K per year for an employee's healthcare, it is better that the employer pay $6K to an insurance company, an extra $4K to the employee, and the employee pays the $4K to the insurance company as services are rendered. Those who see the doctor for every sniffle (or H1N1 virus ) need to have an incentive to suck it up and be a man.

6) Get rid of punative damages in malpractice suits unless something was done deliberately or with malice.

7) Cover all members of Congress with a plan than mimics the medical coverage of the average American. More devious would be to determine average plan for each quartile of the population and let each member of the legislature draw by lot which of the four plans he will be covered by for the year.

This is a good post.

Another thing that could be done is force health insurers to provide insurance polices loaded with optional coverages AND force regulators to allow this to happen. Formulate similar to auto policies. Offer catastrophic coverage policies for healthy and/or young people who don't go to the doctor much. Long Term Care policies routinely have 800 or 900 different combinations to customize a policy for particular needs. This is not brain surgery (pun intended). The reality of this (and what was posted above) not being seriously discussed is that those in power pushing nationalized health care are doing so not for the greater good but for the absolute power over the population, IMO. My evidence? Zero tort reform.

 

[Anonymous]

This is a good post.

Another thing that could be done is force health insurers to provide insurance polices loaded with optional coverages AND force regulators to allow this to happen. Formulate similar to auto policies. Offer catastrophic coverage policies for healthy and/or young people who don't go to the doctor much. Long Term Care policies routinely have 800 or 900 different combinations to customize a policy for particular needs. This is not brain surgery (pun intended). The reality of this (and what was posted above) not being seriously discussed is that those in power pushing nationalized health care are doing so not for the greater good but for the absolute power over the population, IMO. My evidence? Zero tort reform.

Everyone wants tort reform until it is their mom who the Dr left a sponge in. In most cases, tort reform is a political issue aimed at the fact that trial lawyers donate heavily to Democrats. Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one. Then their case is special and warrants the efforts of the attorney to get their settlement. It is everyone else's settlement that is too big.

Also, and you can check me on this with any litigator, but there has been tort reform in the form of an effective and long term media campaign against attorneys conducted by the insurance industry, Republican politicians, physicians, etc. Go ask an attorney what the level of settlement for jury trials is compared to 20 years ago. Tort reform is a propaganda issue. The reality is that jury awards have progressively diminished (many times ridiculously so) steadily over the past 20 years. Its just easy to beat on a lawyer and have people join in to help you. This issue is pointed to as being indicative of political chicanery, but it is just a side show meant to obfuscate the real issues.

 

[fatandfast]

Everyone wants tort reform until it is their mom who the Dr left a sponge in. In most cases, tort reform is a political issue aimed at the fact that trial lawyers donate heavily to Democrats. Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one. Then their case is special and warrants the efforts of the attorney to get their settlement. It is everyone else's settlement that is too big.

Also, and you can check me on this with any litigator, but there has been tort reform in the form of an effective and long term media campaign against attorneys conducted by the insurance industry, Republican politicians, physicians, etc. Go ask an attorney what the level of settlement for jury trials is compared to 20 years ago. Tort reform is a propaganda issue. The reality is that jury awards have progressively diminished (many times ridiculously so) steadily over the past 20 years. Its just easy to beat on a lawyer and have people join in to help you. This issue is pointed to as being indicative of political chicanery, but it is just a side show meant to obfuscate the real issues.

Lobby groups from every part of the legal community donate millions to both Dems and Republicans and everybody in between,sometimes with no paperwork in an envelope. Or the money can be in the glove box of the 911 left in your driveway.

Mistakes are made all over the world,wrong legs removed, tools left behind in peoples bodies. The US is different because you can be the victim of a mistake and get 10's of millions of dollars depending on...well,there is no set way of doing things. If the jury likes you and feels pity the awards can be doubled or tripled. It's not just medical torts it's stinking up our whole system

 

[Anonymous]

Lobby groups from every part of the legal community donate millions to both Dems and Republicans and everybody in between,sometimes with no paperwork in an envelope. Or the money can be in the glove box of the 911 left in your driveway.

Mistakes are made all over the world,wrong legs removed, tools left behind in peoples bodies. The US is different because you can be the victim of a mistake and get 10's of millions of dollars depending on...well,there is no set way of doing things. If the jury likes you and feels pity the awards can be doubled or tripled. It's not just medical torts it's stinking up our whole system

Cry me a river for a doctor who amputates the wrong limb...he should have to pay millions. Wouldn't it be great for the insurance industry to be able to say, "Tough sh!t, you get $600,000" because the government says so." "I realize the Dr had been cited several times for various issues, and that there is clear indication in his record that something like this could occur, but the government says that you get $600,000 for the lost limb. Now go away."

Now, imagine the person who lost the limb was your child. Oh, you'd just take the $600K and be happy they instituted tort reform. Again, its always someone else's leg that isn't worth the money.

 

[Anonymous]

Everyone wants tort reform until it is their mom who the Dr left a sponge in. In most cases, tort reform is a political issue aimed at the fact that trial lawyers donate heavily to Democrats. Everyone hates a lawyer until they need one. Then their case is special and warrants the efforts of the attorney to get their settlement. It is everyone else's settlement that is too big.

Also, and you can check me on this with any litigator, but there has been tort reform in the form of an effective and long term media campaign against attorneys conducted by the insurance industry, Republican politicians, physicians, etc. Go ask an attorney what the level of settlement for jury trials is compared to 20 years ago. Tort reform is a propaganda issue. The reality is that jury awards have progressively diminished (many times ridiculously so) steadily over the past 20 years. Its just easy to beat on a lawyer and have people join in to help you. This issue is pointed to as being indicative of political chicanery, but it is just a side show meant to obfuscate the real issues.

Go ask any doctor (especially family physician) what their income was 20 years ago vs. today. Ask them how much they pay for med/mal insurance compared to 20 years ago.

Ok. Limit the income of everyone in the health insustry (for the greater good, of course) but refuse to address the other problems driving up costs? The mere threat of litigation forces doctors/hospitals to practice "defensive medicine." Every test under the sun, procedures often unnecessary to avoid the appearance that everything possible was not done. The same situation exists with the pharmas. R&D costs are astronomical due to the threat of litigation. Pharmas behave more like insurance companies putting away large sums of dollars (litigation reserves, not unlike claim loss reserves) from the sale of thier products for the lawsuits that will eventually come.

BTW, the real issues are cost and access. So, to me, we need to discuss ways to reduce cost and provide access. Don't think for a second that the trial lawyers have not contributed negatively to this. I'm not saying the entire problem of cost and access is due to litigation but it is certainly part of the problem and it needs to be looked at.

 

[Anonymous]

Cry me a river for a doctor who amputates the wrong limb...he should have to pay millions. Wouldn't it be great for the insurance industry to be able to say, "Tough sh!t, you get $600,000" because the government says so." "I realize the Dr had been cited several times for various issues, and that there is clear indication in his record that something like this could occur, but the government says that you get $600,000 for the lost limb. Now go away."

Now, imagine the person who lost the limb was your child. Oh, you'd just take the $600K and be happy they instituted tort reform. Again, its always someone else's leg that isn't worth the money.

Ok, you made me chuckle.

So now trial lawyers are fighting for the little guy and represent all that is good? When a DB like John Edwards wins a contingency case and takes his 40% of a $25,000,000 award has he brought justice to an industry that really needs it?

Of all the physicians in this country would you say the ratio of bad ones to good ones is any different than the ratio of bad lawyers to good ones?

 

[fatandfast]

Cry me a river for a doctor who amputates the wrong limb...he should have to pay millions. Wouldn't it be great for the insurance industry to be able to say, "Tough sh!t, you get $600,000" because the government says so." "I realize the Dr had been cited several times for various issues, and that there is clear indication in his record that something like this could occur, but the government says that you get $600,000 for the lost limb. Now go away."

Now, imagine the person who lost the limb was your child. Oh, you'd just take the $600K and be happy they instituted tort reform. Again, its always someone else's leg that isn't worth the money.

I didn't make my point very clear. In the rest of the western/modern world a limb is worth lets say 300,000 whatevers and in the US it's worth 10 million? Why are all our own companies moving a huge % of their operation out of the US? Legal and labor they say it every time they pack up. Thank god for fishermen and loggers,miners,farmers. I don't want the gene pool to think life is risk less. PS if I could get 600k for a kids leg I would have lopped off both and went on holiday,and bought the kid a pair of shorts. If your listening you will hear us call ourselves " sue happy" the rest of the world has been saying it for a long while. You can print "hot coffee" on it,tell them it's hot, have them order it hot but when it spills in their lap only in the US is it somebody else's fault

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, you made me chuckle.

So now trial lawyers are fighting for the little guy and represent all that is good? When a DB like John Edwards wins a contingency case and takes his 40% of a $25,000,000 award has he brought justice to an industry that really needs it?

Of all the physicians in this country would you say the ratio of bad ones to good ones is any different than the ratio of bad lawyers to good ones?

DB because of his affair, yes. The funny thing about his money is that much of it came from a settlement that involved a little girl being disemboweled by a water recirculation pump in a swimming pool. You read that right, the water intake grate sucked the girl onto it, and then her intestines were pulled from here body through her anus and she died. Now the company who made the product had been warned on NUMEROUS occasions of the problem with their product and did NOTHING about it. I would say that if it were your little girl, you would want a good attorney.

The other major case involved a fire at a plant. See, the owner of the company had decided to chain shut the fire exit to help solve a small problem. Oh, he was warned. Then when the fire killed most of his work force, the families of those killed were a bit upset at the pile of bodies inside the only exit available to most of them. I think maybe you would have hired a good attorney too.