Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Spinning the globe offers lessons in health care

Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:18 AM EDT
business, health, technology, obama, health-care, only-on-msnbc-com, insurance, care, primary, doctors
msnbc.com News — Arthur Caplan, Ph.D, msnbc.com - Only on msnbc.com

msnbc.com / photo illustration

Advertise | AdChoices

— We are 37th! We are 37th! No, this is not the cheer to be heard this week at a Notre Dame football pep rally. Rather, it is, according to the last rankings done by the World Health Organization, the chant appropriate for the U.S. health care system.

The pressure is building to do something about our broken system.

President Obama says he will not back down — we have to reform our system before more Americans die prematurely or go broke.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus has put forward his Obama-lite plan, which abandons the option of a government-run basic insurance option competing against the private market to get coverage for everyone. Instead, Baucus calls for tax credits for small business, the end of underwriting and a mishmash of government-subsidized insurance plans — co-ops to make health care affordable for all.

The Republicans continue to wring their hands at the prospect of a trillion dollars being poured into a reform plan at a time when government debt has reached the nearly incalculable stage.

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is watching to see if we will really finally do what nearly all of them did decades ago — provide health insurance for everyone. The French, Swedes, British, Canadians, Taiwanese, Singaporese, Dutch, Germans, Spaniards and Italians cannot believe that we plod on year after year with exploding costs and hordes of uninsured.

So what do they know that we don't?

First, we spend more money to insure fewer people than our peer-group nations. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, we are spending twice as much or more than other comparable countries around the globe. Those spending less per person include Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Singapore — well you get the idea — while covering everyone in their country.

And, the cost gap is getting worse. Our rate of inflation for health care costs is the fastest growing among rich nations on the planet. If you earn more money in the years to come at least half of it will go to cover your out-of-pocket health care costs if the inflation rate is not slowed. Things are so out of control that we have a form of bankruptcy unheard of anywhere else in the world — the inability to cover medical costs is tied to more than 60 percent of all personal bankruptcies in America.

Not only do we lag far behind many nations in terms of how much we pay, we get less for our money. We rank 52nd in the number of doctors per thousand people. Sure, we rank behind the usual suspects: Italy, France, Sweden and Norway. But did you know America also trails Cuba, Uzbekistan, Moldova and Mongolia?

We also limp along behind many nations in the number of babies who die at childbirth, including Singapore, Bermuda, Britain, Sweden and Japan. And they live longer than we do in Singapore, Japan, Israel and Italy, while spending a heck of a lot less for their care.

All that said, I do not hesitate to use American health care. After all, I have good insurance with access to a world-class academic medical center as a University of Pennsylvania employee. People from all over the world come here to train as doctors because when American medicine is good, we are very, very good.

But when you look at how we do as a nation overall, our health care system is just shy of awful. Being 37th in the world in key health measures, spending a ton more money while leaving a good chunk of our friends and neighbors to fend for themselves or go bankrupt, dying sooner than they do elsewhere and having a less than stellar infant mortality rate only shows that as a national system, American health care is a mess.

As we move toward the end-game for health reform, a quick spin around the globe reveals that No. 37 has a lot to learn from the rest of the world.

Canada
The denizens of the Great White North know they do at least two things better than Americans — hockey and health care. There is a lot of talk about waiting lists in Canada but the reality is that there is no delay in getting urgent medical needs attended to and the rich and the poor both get high quality care. Primary care works well. And if you don’t want to wait for elective procedures you can simply buy more insurance or pay out of pocket and get out of the line. Canada has everyone covered and the quality of care is very good.

Switzerland
There is no place more in love with markets and capitalism then this nation. So how do the Swiss handle health care? Surprise — the Swiss have Obamacare!

Health insurance is mandatory — mandatory — so everyone has basic health insurance. No one in Switzerland can be denied basic insurance coverage no matter how sick or disabled they or their children may be. The government subsidizes care for the poor but they still have to pay something. This is the Swiss version of a co-op plan. There are private insurers who compete for business above the basic minimal insurance and do quite well.

The Swiss do pay something out of pocket for each health care visit but usually no more than 10 percent of the cost. Those in the subsidized basic insurance system have somewhat restricted choice in where they can go to the doctor. Everyone else can go to any doctor or hospital anywhere they want in the entire nation.

Israel
Israel has superb primary care. It is not just that everyone is insured but there is primary care available in nearly every city and town all over the country. This makes a big difference, as shows up in the care of chronic diseases like diabetes.

In the U.S., lots of visits to emergency rooms are related to diabetic ketoacidosis — people becoming faint, feverish and dehydrated because their insulin is out of whack. The condition is very serious and costs a bundle to treat in hospital ERs.

In Israel, very few cases make it to the hospital. There is readily available primary care and diabetics are closely monitored by their doctors. As the Israeli system becomes increasingly computerized, something Obama has been calling for here, it becomes easier to see which diabetics are having problems and to proactively intervene to make sure their disease is being properly managed at home so they don’t wind up costing a fortune in the hospital. The big lesson out of Israel is that ready access to good primary care will save money.

Britain
The Brits have something very important to teach us about health care. And it is not just the all-in national health system that they so staunchly defend. It is about the value of prevention.

They have developed a system of caring for newborn babies that the U.S. should have instituted long ago. In America, mom has a baby and goes home. You are on your own even if you don’t have a clue about how to breast-feed or what to watch for in terms of your or your baby’s health problems. Not so in the National Health Service in the U.K.

When you have a baby in Britain, a midwife will come to your house to check on you and the child at least a few times for 10 days after the birth. Then a community nurse will visit at least once over the next month or two. You can then go to see a midwife or a doctor for as long as you wish if you are having problems breast-feeding or for any other concerns for five more years. The Brits not only have a smart preventive focus on newborns, they are making smart use of non-physician health care personnel. Taking full advantage of nurses, midwives, pharmacists, physician-assistants, and social workers has to be a key part of our health reform.

Japan
Everyone must be insured in Japan but there are many private insurance plans. One especially interesting feature of health care in Japan is that insurers are prohibited from advertising. So all the money wasted here on ads, TV campaigns, marketing and sales gimmicks goes to the actual delivery of care.

Any citizen of Japan can visit any primary care physician with or without an appointment and will be seen, albeit briefly, within an hour or two. They will pay a fixed fee of about $50 for which their insurance pays 70 percent. Why is this possible? Because doctors are not drowning in paperwork or on the phone arguing with insurance companies or managed care bureaucrats. One fee everywhere with a small co-pay means the doctor will see you now.

One other interesting feature of universal health care that has not gotten much attention is its connection to tort reform. Japan, like all other nations with universal coverage, has nothing like the malpractice crisis that we do. Most doctors pay about $1,000 per year for malpractice insurance. There are only a tiny number of lawsuits every year. One major reason is that if a mistake happens you don’t have to sue to get your medical costs covered — they already are. Plenty to be learned from the land of the rising sun.

Australia
Two interesting features about health care in Oz. First, they pay much less than we do for their prescriptions. Why? Because the government won’t pay without some demonstration of cost/benefit analysis involving efficacy, safety and a fair price from the drug company.

Emergency room visits are free, but they make sure to push primary care. Visits to a primary care doctor are heavily subsidized, costing on average about $20. While the U.S. has great specialty care for many of its citizens, what gets the best return on the health care dollar is, as the Aussies, as well as everyone else outside the USA seems to know, primary care.

France
The French are recognized around the world as having a fabulous health care system. Not only do outsiders admire what they have, the French report the highest satisfaction rates of any country in the world with their health care. The government provides easy access to primary care and insures that every person can utilize a full array of specialty services by keeping a close eye on where new technology and services get placed. In fact, the French have better access to most forms of high technology care than do Americans.

Two features in particular stand out about the French health care system. In 2002, France instituted a national no-fault insurance scheme for medical errors and mishaps. As a result, people who are injured in a hospital or nursing home receive prompt payment and there are nearly zero lawsuits.

The other remarkable feature is that medical school in France is free. This means more doctors are willing to practice primary care unlike American doctors who, saddled with huge debt from their time in medical school, head toward specialties in droves. And since medical education is free, salaries and fees paid to French doctors are far more reasonable then they are in the USA.

The bottom line
A lot of what the President is calling for is reflected in the health care of these nations. An emphasis on having widely available primary and preventive care is the key to controlling cost and getting better outcomes. Covering everyone will help reduce malpractice costs. Getting rid of paperwork will give doctors time to actually see you. And giving non-physician providers a bigger role in basic health care management is the key to handling chronic illnesses and pre and postnatal care. There are many places doing better than we are. We can and should change that.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Arthur Caplan, Ph.D's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (452)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 5
Joannet-1148959

Is Tort Reform in the USA Health Card Bill like they have in France (national no-fault insurance scheme)? Current statistics on the No one rated Health care in France indicates it is going broke. So much for the French Health Care Program. Also France as Approx. 65mil people. The USA has over 300 Million People, the third largest population in the world next to China and India. What kind of Health Care system do they have? The USA develops most of the advances in medicine because we have profit making organization that put funds into research. If we take this away ,who will develop the advancements in Medicine?

The current program needs reform, not a new Health Care system. I would suggest going back to the drawing boards and correct the problems we have in the current system.

Tort Reform for malpractice insurance and Defense Medicine practices, Expand Medicaid, and Medicare to handle the uninsured. Insurance companies go to the State Insurance commissioners (Government) for increases in their products. Limit the amount of these increases to control costs. Most of the countries in this article do not provide health care unless you are a legal resident of that country. Not like in the USA where you get health care regardless if you can pay or not. Limit health care to legal residents.

These are just a few ideas on reducing the cost of Health care and providing for the uninsured.

The company i work for shops around for lower prices every year. This is the third Health Insurance company I've been with in the last three years. All to reduce costs while maintaining basic insurance for their employees.

The French Health Care System

http://www.understandfrance.org/Paris/Life4.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124958049241511735.html

http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb2France.php

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/9994.php

  • 11 votes
#1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:53 AM EDT
david-1352334

I have to agree with Joannet, this article cavalierly depicts only the "positive" aspects from each country without mention of any issues that directly arrive from the "benefits" mentioned in each country.

The current governmental regulations actually prevent competition across states and individual counties to allow additional carriers to compete with incumbent carriers.

Tort reform is as necessary as common sense in the judicial system, the waste and frivolousness is absurd.

The actual idea that an employer is responcible to cover health care for the employees actually makes little sense: how is it possible for the employer collectively able to provide for the needs for each of the employees and increasing the "bottom line" for the business?

It is proposed that the leading cause of the continued increase in medical expense is obesity. Obesity is clearly not going to be solved by any proposed health plan.

  • 5 votes
#1.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:26 PM EDT
rdefazio

Tort reform is important, but there are two other factors that are the primary contributors to health care costs. First is the fact that when people have health insurance, they tend to go to the doctor more frequently because they have insurance. The impression is that they don't have to spend as much to get more care, so why not go? This, of course, requires that they look at annual premiums as a form of dues to join the club of the insured and that those dues not be factored into the overall cost of going to the doctor more frequently.

Let's say that the cost of the co-pay is $20 for a visit to the doctor. If the cost of insurance is $500 per month and you go to the doctor 12 times per year, then the cost of that doctor visit is actually $520 per visit! That's not cheap, and it is that total figure that gets added into the cost equations that are being discussed in Congress now.

That leads to the second cause of expense. Some say it is the greedy insurance companies. After all, weren't they the ones that were castigated by the administration early this year? Well, no, they weren't. AIG, a reinsurer of last resort, was the one whose failure threatened to bring down the entire system. It should be born in mind that AIG's potential failure was not one that resulted from an evil conspiracy to sink the ship of the United States. After all, AIG would not even exist if it were not for the fact that everyone seems to think that when insurance companies pay claims, they just print money to do so or that the funds come from the planet Mars or a secret place that no one knows except for them.

Insurance companies get funds from revenues, premiums. They make extensive use of statistics to project the likely losses given any number of different scenarios in which things could go south on them. Then they take the gamble that no one who pays those premiums wants to take as an individual. He wants the insurance company to be left holding the bag so he can walk away with no strings attached. Well, the way I was brought up, that would be called cowardice. In this case it is financial cowardice. AIG was simply the embodiment of the message that used to sit on Harry Truman's Oval Office desk, "The buck stops here." There was no other place for AIG to lay off the risk, so it was indeed too big to be allowed to fail.

No, the second primary cause of medical expense is the medical community, or more properly the sense of entitlement that the medical community seems to have with respect to compensation. Why is it that the medical industry feels it is normal for a person four or five years out of medical school to drive a Mercedes? Why is it those five minutes of face time with someone having "M.D." at the end of his name are deemed to be worth $100? Why do two Tylenol cost $5.00?

Anyone who has ever been in the investment business and who has dealt with a physician as a client knows that the God-complex that exists in the examination room extends to every other area of his life. He knows better than anyone else how to invest, how to run a business, how to manage a marriage, how to raise children, and how to fix the ills of society.

So, it comes as no shock when we see that the medical industry and its participants expect to receive significantly more money than the rest of society's peons. They charge more for their goods and services than they are actually worth.

We complain about health insurance because that is the point of contact that policyholders have with the financial end of medical care. We don’t deal on a dollars and cents basis in the way that insurance companies do. So, complaining about the magnitude of health costs under the premise that insurance companies make unconscionable profits and that doctors fees are modest is like saying that an auto loan from the bank is padded with obscenely high interest and that the little Ferrari Testarossa it was used to purchase was inexpensive. The insurance is the means of financing the product purchased, so if the insurance is expensive, it suggests that what it pays for is perhaps incorrectly priced or too expensive in itself.

That said, ensuring that there are doctors, hospitals, and clinics uniformly scattered across the country and not just concentrated in the areas of greatest population and economic density is something that health officials have sought to achieve for years, but it requires finding doctors who are willing to take on a country practice. That means lower income, and judging by the success rate in enlisting doctors to do this, the prospects of getting lower income appears to have all the charm of bug spray.

In this discussion of universal health care, it would help greatly if all the moving parts of the health care delivery system were subjected to the same level of scrutiny as that directed toward the insurance industry. The administration and Congress showed no hesitation in its approach to General Motors when it fired its CEO, forced it to come up with a plan to save itself in 90 days, and castigated its executives for arriving for congressional hearings in corporate jets. It would seem to me that the same handling (the effectiveness of that approach is yet to be seen) doled out to General Motors should be applied to all the primary players in the health care industry. After all, what’s good for Detroit is equally good for Beverly Hills.

Congress, take off the kid gloves and use some bare knuckles on the medical industry before compelling all of us to buy insurance to pay for the as yet unquestioned fee structure of the medical industry. If you haven’t done that, you haven’t done your job, and if we have to pay for legislative ineptitude for the rest of our lives, believe me, we will remember and vote everyone out of office that has hung this albatross around our nation’s neck.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:06 PM EDT
Dee Rice

This article clearly shows what we can learn and what we should implement in our healthcare system now. All the Republican opposition need to cease and they need to start caring about the citizens of this country, not about political gain.

  • 13 votes
#1.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
frenchandproudDeleted
Orlando Fabelo

The bottom line is people in these countries are healthier than we are, live longer than we do, are paying less for medical expenses and it is the moral thing to do to cure the sick. Period. People need to stop being selfish and drop this I got mine and screw you mentality. We are Americans, we can do better and we will.

  • 17 votes
#1.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
Debbie McCarten

I would like single payer universal health care for all citizens.

It is time insurance companies change right along with the rest of us...............37th and 52nd are shameful places for the US to be.

If this extreme capitalism that the US seems to practice is destroying our great country then I think maybe shifting a little further away from capitalism for the sake of our survival is imperative.

I mean, after all what is more important to you..a few extra dollars or a good long happy healthy life for everyone and their generations to come?

Money can't buy happiness.......

If you have your health you have everything.

  • 9 votes
#1.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
Wayne-780911

Wow, frenchandpround!!!  What a concept!!!  Only a country's citizens getting to use and benefit from the Gov't program. 

  • 3 votes
#1.7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
frenchandproudDeleted
Irvmani

frenchandproud

Why do 81% of your fellow countrymen by additional private insurance and pay more per person by percentage than U S people.

  • 2 votes
#1.9 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:03 PM EDT
Chris-537131

I know Dr. Kaplan personally and he is a straight arrow. People who have devoted their lives to the study of medical ethics tend to be honest individuals.

I have lived in both Britain and Japan and currently live in Alabama. I would take either country's health care system in a New York Minute. Unfortunately I have Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama. I was recently in Canada (Vancouver and Toronto) and you couldn't even talk to Canadians about their health care system because of the umbrage over the lies and misinformation being spread around their system.

About tort reform. Since 1975, several states have imposed caps on medical malpractice awards. In those states, the average malpractice insurance rate has climbed higher and faster than the national average. Caps on awards reward malpractice. Why are their rates higher if this is a good thing?

About malpractice. This country leads the world in malpractice rates --- not insurance rates, actual percentages of bad medicine, bad drugs, bad practices. Medical malpractice is the fifth leading cause of death in this country. It is not even in the top ten in any other country in the world. Why? Maybe it is a contributing reason to why we are #37 in health care.

Malpractice insurance current operates over 95% on settlements, not jury awards. Why? Because settlements include provisions that victims cannot seek further awards if their condition worsens or new effects surface, they also cannot participate in any criminal prosecution or disciplinary action against the physician, hospital, pharmacy, or employee. This part of malpractice insurance physicians want left absolutely alone. There was an article today about a woman who caught fire and burned to death because of the inappropriate use of oxygen in surgery. The insurance company will settle and no person will be prosecuted or punished and no procedure will change. Most stories about huge jury awards do not check out. For the most part jury awards have a solid basis in the egregiousness of the malpractice and the seriousness of the harm and the youth of the victim. The court always presents them guidance on how to determine both real and punitive damages. Juries who stray outside of those guidelines virtually always have their awards overturned. Most of the stories I have heard, going back to the woman with the hot coffee that Reagan spoke of simply do not check out.

Currently the AMA is pushing for award caps in place (and future award caps) to be allowed to be annuitized at the payor's discretion. This would effectively reduce awards by as much as another 60%. Malpractice insurance is already the most profitable sector if the insurance industry. Maybe the AMA needs to go after the malpractice insurance companies.

Malpractice insurance is experience-rates just like car insurance. If you have a lot of car wrecks, your rates go up. If you have medical malpractice your rates go up. Since most malpractice insurance is issued to LLP's or PC's instead of individuals, one "bad apple" can spoil it for everyone. Physicians always insist that their rates went up with no known reason for exactly the same reason that most people in prison claim to be innocent. They are simply not telling you the truth. Their rates go up because their risk goes up.

And malpractice insurance works just like car insurance in another important aspect. Have you seen the Geico ads that say you can save $400 by switching from Allstate? And the Allstate ads that say you can save $400 by switching from Geico? Did you know that are both true? Why? As you stay with the same insurance company for years, the value of your car declines, but the premiums that you pay do not (they usually go up a small amount.) You can save $400 by switching from any insurance company to any other insurance company. But medical malpractice doesn't work that way. Malpractice insurance companies "share" malpractice settlement information and figure it is if you try to change companies (usually denying coverage.) It's a legal form of price fixing that keeps their profits high.

Recently the NIH funded a major study of the use of checklist in surgery (just like pilots are required to use) to reduce malpractice. Hospitals, physicians, the AMA, JCAH and many medical journals vocally and loudly opposed the study. No U.S. hospital would participate and so the study was conducted in Europe. Even in two countries (Italy and Spain) with much lower malpractice rates than here, the researchers were amazed at how much just a simple step like checklists reduced malpractice. Currently most European countries are implementing requirements that such checklists be used (after conducting their own confirmatory studies.) No such luck here.

You frequently see the reasoning that because a country is smaller, it is easier for them to offer universal health care. This is simply economic nonsense and probably a knowing untruth. The smaller a country is, the more difficult it is to keep costs down because they lack the bargaining power and economies of scale that the larger countries have. And also you hear a lot about deficits and costs overruns in smaller countries with universal health care. Much of this is related to the recent recession and is part of those country's social safety nets and of course those costs (and deficits) go up --- just as ours did.

This country has the potential to have the best health care system in the world. There is already enough money in the system to cover everyone with better health care than France with no additional money. The other countries serve as models for best practices that could reform our health care system. Who really cares if it's socialistic if it works?

In the military years ago I had a drill sergeant tell me that if I looked around and everyone else was out of step, I was about to be whacked on the head. Well this country is out of step in the world and it is about to be whacked on the head as health care coverage is declining in both number of people covered and the benefits provides, but rates paid are expected to double in the next five years and double again in the following three. That's an 4-fold increase over the next 8 years. Can you afford it? Can the business you work for afford it?

And where is this increase going? Inflation is pretty much at a standstill. It's going to profits and administrative overhead and off-the-books subsidiaries and owners. Some drugs anticipate an 8000% profit even though they were developed with taxpayer money. No federal agency makes a profit. No federal agency has even a fourth the administrative overhead that the for-profit medical industry has --- including sham not-for-profit companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield. No federal official makes as much the average specialist, hospital administrator, insurance company executive, or drug company executive --- not Congressmen, not the President.

There is also a Judeo-Christian moral issue involved. Everyone remembers that Cain asked God "Am I my brother's keeper?" after ke killed Abel. But everyone conveniently forgets that God replies in the affirmative over and over and over. We are our brothers' keepers and we have a moral obligation to help the poor and weak.

  • 9 votes
#1.10 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
Nan-377725

I wish people would stop throwing around the suggestion that other countries have lower infant mortality and longer life expectancy. You cannot compare the figures without knowing how each country compiles those figures. The United States figures infant mortality on all births starting at the moment of birth. Some countries only start infant mortality rates at the age of 3 months. This obviously skews the number in their favor.  The United States figures life expectancy using deaths from all causes--natural, disease, murder, accidental, etc.  Other countries only use the number of natural and disease-caused deaths. It is easy to see why the United States would have a higher rate without having inferior care. You can't compare apples and oranges. As far as the cost of health care, once you figure in higher taxes you may not like the real cost of your universal health care.  It will cost more and be of lower quality than what is available now. It is not selfish, it is a matter of personal responsibility. I work hard for my health insurance and I don't buy other 'luxuries' in order to afford it. You should do the same or don't complain about it. It is not my responsibility to pay for your insurance. (And I am not a republican or a democrat. I am a Libertarian, the party of less government and more personal responsibility.)

  • 3 votes
#1.11 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
frenchandproudDeleted
-michael-

Why do 81% of your fellow countrymen by additional private insurance and pay more per person by percentage than U S people.

I have private insurance in France, and it costs about 20 Euros per month (27 bucks), which is nowhere near what I paid in the US.

Emergency care is nearly free in France, but routine care is not. If you go to the doctor here for consultation, you will likely be charged around 25 Euros, of which the government system will pay about 11 Euros. You can either pick up the rest, or buy a private insurance which pays the rest for you (how much they pay depends on your plan, of course).

For dental and optical care, the French government system is particularly weak, and private insurance is very useful. I recently bought a pair of glasses that cost 250 Euros, and the government system paid 6! My private insurance paid 200, and i paid the remaining 44.

For routine care, the French system is not that different than in the US. Costs are kept lower for various reasons (some mentioned in this article), but you pay some part of it and the gov just helps you out. The big difference is that you never risk your life or financial security here. Severe problems are very well covered, and the average family will never be faced with 10s or even 100s of thousand of dollars in bills like in the US.

and frenchandproud was mistaken, you do not have to be a citizen to use the french health care system, but you do have to be here legally, and you do have to pay into the system (via taxes).

And for the record, my healthcare was always good in the US, but I had a good job with good coverage and never had any health emergencies. The one time i decided to take 4 months off between jobs though, I paid 800 bucks per month for my COBRA insurance (for me and my wife).

  • 5 votes
#1.13 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:32 PM EDT
Jerry-352313

Do you want to talk about the 71%you pay as acombination of VAT and income tax, do you want to talk ablut the standard 10 % unemployment rate?

Do you want to talk about the factories that closae and have peopel chaining acetylene bottles all the way around i.

May be you would like to talk about the 12 billion dollare deficit for las year, with a population of only 63 million.

The only good thing aboutyour system is to serve asa model of what will happen if we keep going that way.

  • 3 votes
#1.14 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:33 PM EDT
Chris-537131

Nan,

The numbers are compiled directly by WHO personnel and all rules are the same for all countries. You will find a few countries that are heavily starred, such as Rhodesia, but those countries have public health systems that are so broken that there is no way to get accurate figures.

As an example you cite a very incorrect statement about infant mortality. Infant mortality is defined exactly the same way world-wide: "The number of children dying under a year of age divided by the number of live births that year. The infant mortality rate is also called the infant death rate."

You also question longevity rates and I assure you that dead is dead. I'm not going to even look up a reference. You are exactly the same dead if you are shot as if you die from cancer. You have crossed the meanings of life expectancy and life span. They are different and almost entirely unrelated.

The idea that different countries are measured differently is complete nonsense and probably comes from a truly knowledgeable source like Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh.

  • 2 votes
#1.15 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:45 PM EDT
Carl W

Jerry,

really?

12 billion dollar deficit? Are you serious? What do we have this year in the USA--over a trillion???

And as for 10 percent unemployment--the USA is only a couple ticks away from 10% here too.

And factories closing--yep, the USA has tons of closed factories too.

And at least the French don't send you up to your neck in medical debt if you get sick or injured at a time when you're unemployed.

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:47 PM EDT
Michael Cronk

I wrote the following letter to Arthur Caplan, Ph.D. Let me know if you agree.

Dear sir,

After read your article although a good one I find it is very one sided. As a journalist, you should have the integrity to explore all aspects of this issue. You have not.

Warren Buffet said, "Somebody once said that in looking for people to hire, you look for three qualities: integrity, intelligence, and energy. And if they don't have the first the other two will kill you.

You sir show intelligence as you have a Ph.D., You show energy to have achieved the position you are in, but you do not show integrity as proven by this artical.

It is no wonder there is a lack of faith in the media.

Regards,

Michael Cronk

  • 2 votes
#1.17 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
Roger-356271

rdefazio,

Your post sounds like and insurance booklet. The problem with your post however is that the Doctors who contract with an insurance company do so at the rate the insurance will pay per procedure. You are trying to make it sound like the Doctor can charge the insurance company what they want which is not the case and you know it.

The problem is with the system where you have to go to Doctor A who runs tests then refers you to Doctor B who runs tests then either performs the procedure or refers you to Doctor C. You walk in to your Primary Care Doctor and he or she has 6-10 people scheduled in the same time slot. That is fine if your problem is not serious.

  • 2 votes
#1.18 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:52 PM EDT
-michael-

Jerry-352313, I assume you are responding to me.

Do you want to talk about the 71%you pay as acombination of VAT and income tax, do you want to talk ablut the standard 10 % unemployment rate?

I pay about 38% in income taxes (I do not own a house or have kids or anything like that, so i have no deductions). And yes, the consumption taxes here are insane--the VAT, which you pay on most non-food items is 20% (compared to 8.5% when I lived in Seattle), but the tax burden here (in France) is nowhere near 71%. You have to go to the nordic countries for that :-P

By comparisson, I was in the 24% tax bracket in the US, and since I lived in Seattle I had no state tax, but many do. I also paid about $500 per month in health care premiums (wich is another 5-10% depending on your salary), and of course everyone in the US pays nearly 8% in social security tax, so all of these things add up to a pretty hefty rate as well.

You do certainly pay more here, and generally make less, so from a financial standpoint, most people who are upper-middle class or higher would be better off in the US. For people not in the upper pay rates, I doubt there is much difference.

And you get more for your tax dollars here. Education is nearly free from day care to university (even med school, as mentioned in this article). That adds up to a lot of saved dollars. Unemployment and retirement benefits are much higher here than in the US, and the freedom of not having your health insurance tied to your job status is quite nice as well.

May be you would like to talk about the 12 billion dollare deficit for las year, with a population of only 63 million.

This is in comparisson to the US deficit of 455 billion with a population of 300 million?

I'm not trying to paint living in France as all roses. Some things here are absolutely horrible, but a few things actually work quite well. :-) Personally I would prefer something in the middle of the current American system and the French system.

  • 5 votes
#1.19 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:54 PM EDT
tony-268769

This country has a lot of issues that many others do not deal with that lower average life expectancy for Americans.

Most countries do not have 1000 or so soldiers dying in wars, training exercises, helicopter & plane crashes.

Many countries do not allow citizens to own weapons, especially handguns...that add to the death toll with easy to perform homicides and suicides.

Most countries do not have a zillion miles of roads and highways litererally infested with millions of automobiles in every direction...often flying into each other and producing deaths by the thousands as the billions of miles get driven and driven again.

Most countries do not have workforces working 49-50 weeks per year....adding to the deaths-by-traffic accident totals and also to the amounts of stresses loaded onto workers lives, which many believe contributes to and/or worsens many diseases.

And risking being called a 'racist' as so often easily happens on this site...most countries do not have the dozens and dozens of vastly overpopulated and vastly undereducated inner cities...where the main entertainment at times appears to be killing one another. The little capitol city in our state, population: 130,000, produces 30-50 murders per year. Multiply that by however many "small" cities there in this country and add to that the number of murders happening in the mid-sized to large cities from Detroit to New York City to Miami, Houston, New Orleans, LA, Chicago, etcetera, etcetera, and etcetera. Do the math on this one.....there are thousands of inner city residents killing thousands of inner city residents. The reasons "why" are another topic altogether.

There are many reasons why Americans' life expectancy rates poorly against other countries...and you won't see many news articles mentioning that last one. Sorry if I've offended by being blunt...but facts become facts when truthfully faced.

  • 1 vote
#1.20 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:04 PM EDT
SheikhYerbouti

defazio, you don't know what it's like being a doctor in the US, so enough with the stone-throwing. I don't know of any whose income matches the lowest paid CEO of those insurance companies you defend so slavishly.

Chris, you are TOTALLY WRONG about the malpractice rate increases in those states who have enacted real tort controls. California is the elephant in the room here; rates have been quite stable and reasonable since 1975, the year MICRA was passed. Do you work for the American  Bar Association?

    #1.21 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:16 PM EDT
    GregL-671049

    SheikhYerbouti,

    I figured it out a few weeks ago..I was told that law suits only account for 2% of the cost of health care..Using 2007 figures of 2.2 trillion for health care it is simple math to figure the savings..It figures out to be 44 billion a year..That's 440 billion over ten years...That's approximately half of the cost of the projected cost of the proposed health care bill..

    There's one million seven hundred thousand lawyers in The US and not all are civil lawyers..Divide how many lawyers there are in to 44 billion and it's plain to see why the lawyers in Congress don't want tort reform... Some one is getting very rich...

      #1.22 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:43 PM EDT
      SheikhYerbouti

      Thanks, Greg. In addition, there is the cost of defensive medicine to avoid law suits. This number tends to be minimized by those who are profiting from the tort status quo, but it is likely in the billions annually. Also, tests, especially imaging tests like MRI, CT, caths are quite expensive, but if you're the doctor and you don't get one on a borderline patient, and something happens...kaching!!

        #1.23 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:58 PM EDT
        wall.al37Deleted
        wall.al37Deleted
        wall.al37Deleted
        codocfp

        The commonality between all the countries that do better than us is good access to primary care. Study after study has shown that good primary care does more than anything else to improve access, drive down costs and lower lawsuits. I have not seen anywhere in the current or proposed reform bills the current shortage of primary care physicians in the US addressed. ANY and ALL reform will fail until the shortage of primary care physicians is dealt with. And, I'm sure much to the chagrin of other posters here, the way to do that will be via money. Doctors are not generally money grubbing people, but we do work very hard, take on huge amounts of liability and come out of very expensive medical schools with enormous amounts of debt (average is 150,000). We do deserve to make a reasonable amount of money. Until primary care physicians are paid appropriately, medical students will continue to go to specialties which not only don't help the current crisis, but actually make it worse.

          #1.27 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:52 PM EDT
          J.Heron

          Chris-537131..

          Very intilligent and informative post. Its rare on these blogs. Texas passed tort reform a few years ago which Governor Perry pushed for more than anything else he has done on Texas...a week after the reform was passed, the insurance companies raised their rates...literally.

          The article itself was a nice read... and I wish more Americans were willing to look at the rest of the world sometimes to see if there is something to be gained from the various systems... No country is perfect, we are all struggling to be better and stronger.

          I am absolutely convinced that if Universal healthcare happens in the U.S., in 10 years, no one will question it here. It will be a source of pride...even if it is not perfect. Even those most vocal against it will probably move onto something else to rally against, and actually benefit from Universal Healthcare.

          President Obama said he wanted Universal Healthcare for everyone in his election run...He was voted in by the people knowing this was on his agenda. No one should be decrying this being shoved down our throats. We had an election, and the majority voted for Universal Healthcare!

          • 4 votes
          #1.28 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:16 PM EDT
          Bounty

          From the article "Covering everyone will help reduce malpractice costs." I don't understand how covering the 10 million uninsured reduces malpractice costs. I thought those costs were due to doctors leaving their watches in someones chest, or someone taking advantage of their existing insurance? I call BS.

          • 1 vote
          #1.29 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:04 PM EDT
          questforfire

          thoughtful posting, Joannet...what this article, and most of the rest of the "buzz" on the Vine does not address, is that you get what you pay for. What Americans are also paying for is access to technologies denied inother countries, often for their reassurance as well as diagnosis, and the ability of lawyers to sue doctors. They are paying for shorter waiting times to have access to that technology, and to seek multiple opinions. What is also a dishonest tactic on the part of people who use the WHO statistics is using numerical rank, when the real-world difference in life expectancy of #1 vs. #37 is not very significant. This is an advocate of reform writing the article, not a neutral party doing a cost-benefit analysis, and the bias shows through.

          • 1 vote
          #1.30 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:54 PM EDT
          eriq samson

          Joanne - the rabid right fixation on "tort reform" is a red herring - even the CBO estimates this is around 1/2 Billion dollars in savings. Further, you are cavalierly suggesting that people's health or lives damaged or destroyed or eliminated by malpractice are not worth that much (at least to you).

          Assume that you are a mother of 3 under 6 yrs old. Your husband goes to the emergency room for a minor broken bone but they give him some medicine that he is allergic to (which is on his chart - nobody checked it) He dies - what is his contribution to your lives, yours and your children worth?

          But you would rather have a system of so-called tort reform which is nothing more than a limit on awards for malpractice.

          What the French have includes a whole system of support so the tort is less meaningful

          Face it; tort reform is actually "no personal responsibility for medical mistakes" - pseudo-reform

          • 2 votes
          #1.31 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:54 PM EDT
          knight-403465

          Are you sick and tired of the bitter and malicious rhetoric.
          Check out PBS.org for some great articles and interviews that will give you a fairly straight view of Health Care Reform. They are eyeopening.

          They have a mini series called "Sick Around The World" -a frontline series. and
          an interview with a former top executive of CIGNA insurance co. "Profits Before Patients"

          www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/07312009/watch.html - click on the big picture of two men.

          • 2 votes
          #1.32 - Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:25 PM EDT
          bobsr

          What do you anti-healthcare psychos do to be the first responders against anything supporting single-payer or public payer healthcare systems? Do you have your faces glued to your computer screen all day long waiting for something to slam?

          • 2 votes
          #1.33 - Sat Sep 19, 2009 10:36 PM EDT
          knight-403465

          bobsr

          They are lobbyists who are paid to sit and watch just like you said. They have many comments ready to cut and paste. They like short ones that is just name calling and spewing hate or dis-information or long ones even better with lots of links to right wing BS because that way people who really want to discuss health reform will find it harder to get around the board. I would not follow their links due to computer viruses.

          *****beware of lobbyists on this board.

          • 3 votes
          #1.34 - Sun Sep 20, 2009 1:48 AM EDT
          questforfire

          Joanne - the rabid right fixation on "tort reform" is a red herring - even the CBO estimates this is around 1/2 Billion dollars in savings

          #1. ad-hominem jab at conservatives...dishonest debate

          #2. the CBO number is shown to be ridiculously low by a counter study by Price Waterhouse, which puts "defensive medicine" at $210 billion a year; the CBO number most likely just includes malpractice judgments, a simplistic and inadequate approach to and understanding of the problem.

          #3. histrionic inductive reasoning that if there is tort reform, egregious mistakes won't be dealt with and that multimillion dollar settlements are equivalent with smaller ones in accomplishing this goal. This also shows a complete lack of understanding of physicians and the hell they go through personally when a mistake is made...many quit medicine, some commit suicide, and many marriages break up over these instances. The issue isn't if physicians are punished for these episodes; the real issue is that the American public views every bad outcome as a lottery situation to be profited from. That is the mindset of the "gotcha" litigious society we live in, and it creates the paranoia in physicians that leads to exorbitant waste in testing and procedures to protect themselves.

          • 1 vote
          #1.35 - Sun Sep 20, 2009 11:10 AM EDT
          eriq samson

          Q - #1 was not a dishonest jab - that is a conservative claim that has been repeatedly been proven false

          #2 NO the price waterhouse study, commissioned by the AMA / Hospitrals, bundles in unnecessary tests as if they were defensive (unnecessary tests were set at 210Billion by the CBO) - they #1 reason for unnecessary tests is doctors making more money by prescribing tests, #2 was the patient wanted something they saw on TV, #3 was doctors justifying a test machine they had bought; defensive tests were included in the less than 1 Billion number OF COURSE the AMA / Hospitals number is going to agree with their argument - which is why practically no one in the debate usses it's obviously flawed numbers (except the rabid right - reality means nothing to them)

          #3 - Gee, I'm sorry but History / reality does not agree with you. Without torts. people go on doing bad things, there is no feedback mechanism (this is kind of like driving a car with the windows painted over - no way to see whether or where you are going until you crash - then it's too late)

          Tort reform is a red herring - the way to save money is for doctors to use better systems - for example simply using checklists

          read here

          The results were so dramatic that they weren’t sure whether to believe them: the ten-day line-infection rate went from eleven per cent to zero. So they followed patients for fifteen more months. Only two line infections occurred during the entire period. They calculated that, in this one hospital, the checklist had prevented forty-three infections and eight deaths, and saved two million dollars in costs.

          and here

          The results were astounding. In 103 intensive care units in Michigan that adopted the checklist, the rate of catheter related bloodstream infections dropped 66%. (The paper, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, is here.)

          and here

          In one year of use in 8 different hospitals around the world, the rate of complications had dropped one-third; surgicial-site infections by half, and deaths of surgical patients by nearly half. Seven countries and more than two dozen states require the use of surgical checklists.

          All your histrionics about "litigious society" just don't have any real justification; there is no "there" there. There have been many studies and none have shown "tort reform" to be significant in savings; similarly none have shown "defensive medicine" to be anything but anecdotal - it just doesn't show up in the results (and the ultimate answer is a single payer system like France has)

          • 2 votes
          #1.36 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:21 PM EDT
          Reply
          hewhoiscalledj

          It's interesting to see how much less malpractice cases are evident in these other countries. There is no need to say how our own levels reflect upon the society that we currently live in. The other important and missing factor in our healthcare system is the number of available doctors. As the healthcare system is run as a business, it would stand to reason that to decrease the costs, we should encourage more people to enter medical school. Now I learn that France offers free medical school, while students here spend their life in debt to paying off their medical education? What's wrong with this picture? In any other business, more competition drives costs down, but our education system would prefer an elitist approach to medicine which translates to overinflated costs for the rest of the country.

          I've mentioned this in many other posts, but the root cause of nearly all our nation's woes boils down to the current education system. We are importing not only doctors, but engineers and other high payed professionals from the very countries we are so quick to judge and criticize. How can we have a highly industrialized and successful nation if less and less of our young citizens are falling off the grid in terms of professional viability? Many of our new graduataes are now seeking employment in foreign lands. This trend can not be allowed to continue yet I don't see much on the radar for correcting it.

          Today we worry about healthcare, the economy and foreign policy, while bickering about imaginary Nazis, Marxists, Socialists and Communists (words that I feel the public have forgotten the true meanings of...) What will it take for us to see the bigger picture?

          • 12 votes
          Reply#2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:55 AM EDT
          charles turnerExpand Comment Comment collapsed by the community

          you mean exposed socialists, communists and marxists. their agenda is straight out of the communist manifesto. from all according to their ability, to all according to their need.

          • 5 votes
          #2.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:08 AM EDT
          hewhoiscalledj

          No sir, those are your words, not mine. Our country was founded on equality for all, rich and poor. Without certain socialist ideals, we wouldnt have Medicare, Firefighters, and Public Schools to name a few. We wouldnt even have our own Pledge of Allegiance. Please do not confuse good intentions with the misquided attacks hindering our nation's progress. There is no need to fear change because without a doubt in my mind... change is necessary to keep us from falling behind as a world power. If it isnt too late already.

          • 16 votes
          #2.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:39 AM EDT
          Stef1223

          @charles turner - If it gives us good, affordable heath care for everyone I couldn't care less what manifesto or -ism you claim the idea comes from. What difference does it make? I want for everyone to be able to see a doctor when they need one and not go broke from paying the bills. Call me a Commie, I really don't care.

          • 13 votes
          #2.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:40 PM EDT
          Up Uranus

          you mean exposed socialists, communists and marxists. their agenda is straight out of the communist manifesto. from all according to their ability, to all according to their need.

          You say that like it's a bad thing! What is so wrong with society taking care of it's less able citizens? I'm sorry but your world view that it should be every man for himself is very arrogant and self-centered.

          • 10 votes
          #2.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:05 PM EDT
          usmcvet5711

          society taking care of its less able citizens is one thing but expecting the government to provide for those same and requiring all to contribute is the problem. Society should take care of the less able in voluntary contributions, voluntary assistance and general good neighbor good will. This country has lost those values because of the liberal entitlement view. Americans used to be independent peole who relied on their own selves, their family and their community to live a good life. Liberal views that come out and say that we are entitled to someone elses gain has eroded those values.

          Additionally with the breakups of the traditional family structures that liberals again have promoted then it weakens the underlying structure of personal responsibility and liability. When our society has lawyers on every corner telling you that because you spilled coffee in your own lap that the other guy is responsible and you deserve millions of dollars. Or if you want to sit on your ass then you are entitled to government assistance, or if you are illegal well then come over here and squeeze out a kid and then they are entitled to govt assistance. This is the mentality that is destroying America.

          America needs to get back to basic family structures and morals and leave the hollywood life behind. America needs to stand up and get their personal responsibility back and realize that everything that happens to you comes down to your actions.

          If you dont have health care then you need to work harder and get a better job that offers healthcare. If you dont have enough money then you need to get out and find more work to pay for your lifestyle or downgrade your lifestyle to fit your income. You are not entitled to own a house, you are not entitled to education past the 12th grade, you are not even entitled to a good paying job or a good job with good benefits. All of these come out of personal responsibility and unfortunately a good portion of America has forgotten these values.

          So yes, America was great but liberal socialist entitlement ideas destroyed our strong family structure that was the basis of American ideals.

          • 7 votes
          #2.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
          Tammy-311614

          Up Uranus - The problem occurs when we end up supporting generations of people on welfare who won't work when they are able. I know that this makes me leery of any additional big government programs, especially when congress will probably raid any surplusses to pay for pet projects.

          • 3 votes
          #2.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:43 PM EDT
          Wiley Coyote-Super Genius

          I'm with Stef. Call me a socialist if you'd like but if I lose my job I want my family to be covered. Why is that such a scary proposition to people? I'm 43 years old and have never been out of work but I'm not shortsighted enough to think it can't happen. I would much rather have my taxes go to medical care for everyone than to have it go to wall street or another war.

          • 7 votes
          #2.7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:48 PM EDT
          V...

          you mean exposed socialists, communists and marxists. their agenda is straight out of the communist manifesto. from all according to their ability, to all according to their need.

          How far of a stretch is it to this...

          from all according to their ability, to all according to their need.

          From this....

          Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.

          Are you saying that Jesus would've been considered a Socialist, or Communist? Because truth is... he probably WAS.

          • 3 votes
          #2.8 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
          Jerry-352313

          He who is called theis country was created on equal opportunity for all, not equality. You can be anything you like in this country if you want to exert the effort.

          Equality does not mean you have everything every one else has, it means you have the right to try and have it without hindrance.

          The problem here is that we know that as soon as you get this program, you will start on the next program, that "is shameful because we are the only country that doesn't have it".

          We know that and we know that you will keep doing this till the country is out of money and nothing gets paid for.

          Sorry friends there is something disgusting about an adult human, that stands up and says, I want it, I don't want to pay for it and I don't care if my neighbors, friends and family have to pay for it.

          On the other hand with the number of parasites we have in this country today, I'm not sure it needs to be saved.

          • 4 votes
          #2.9 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
          PDub

          Let's talk about that crazy liberal President Reagen. The one who signed off on no fault divorces while the governor of California and granted amnesty to a few million illegals. The media has destroyed this country with it's promotion of conspicuous consumption and putting forth unrealistic depictions of home life that the small minded took as fact.

          • 2 votes
          #2.10 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:06 PM EDT
          Reply
          Don't Trust Bozos

          The problem I have with this article is the entire summary is based on WHO statistics which are questionable at best. I don't trust anything coming from WHO as in my opinion they are just a finger of the larger organization whose agenda is to create a single world wide government intended to subjugate all humans in every aspect of their lives to control by a cadre of elite super powerful radicals.

          You need to keep in mind MS NBC is part of the controlled media elitist group who is very selective about how they phrase subjects of discussion obviously bent toward their views. Responsible unbiased reporting is a thing of the past and we must be vigilant not to fall into traps set by any of these organizations.

          • 4 votes
          Reply#3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:12 AM EDT
          Ralph Toynbee-973713

          Then I would suggest you look at primary source data by going to view W.H.O. or U.N., & AMA statistics which validate the article quite nicely. You may get a more welcome answer from the likes of a Hannity or Beck (if it can be understood in Beck's case as he more fits the profile of patient rather than source) but it won't be any less biased whatsover. And, of course, they don't have to worry about meeting rising health care expenses like normal people.

          • 5 votes
          #3.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:23 PM EDT
          usmcvet5711

          Ralph the quality of care in the US is very good but what the WHO statistics do not take into account are the effects of our lifestyle and the amount of illegals and poverted classes we have. Illegals are counted for our health statistics but do not count towards our population so when the infant death rates are taken into account they count the number of deaths reported versus the number of citizens. We in this country have a large illegal population tha skews the figures because a good portion of the infant deaths come from that group so our infant death rate is off.

          Additionally our lifespan is different from theirs because of our lifestyle in general. America is the most obese nation with the greatest number of fat adults and children. Obesity goes a long way to many health disorders including the main cited one of the diabetic ketoacidosis.

          And the final finisher for the case for the socialized central medicene is that of the costs. No where in the article does it address the issue of costs. If you look at all of those countries that have socialized medicene almost all of them are in serious financial trouble. Britian is considering cutting services because of costs, France post an annual budget deficit from medical costs and Canada is considering raising taxes. Currently we in the US pay about 18 to 22 % for the average middle class in taxes while in Britain and those other socialized countries they pay considerable higher taxes on both their incomes and in sales taxes which help to subsidize their medical. So care might be comparable to the US system but as in Mass. their socialized health care is going broke.

          • 2 votes
          #3.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:40 PM EDT
          Orlando Fabelo

          My friend other countries have just as large immigrant populations. Do you know what the number one boys name is in Britain and several other European countries. Mohammed. The British are also as fat us we are, yet live much longer. Sorry, your facts are just talking points. And as for cost, all service delivery models have to be adjusted occasionally. Just as our Medicare system needs now, after several decades. But Britain has had a national health services since the end of wwII. When you question or poll citizens in these countries they are extremely satisfied with these health care systems. So all the arguments are based on myths or right wing propaganda from Rush and Hannity.

          • 2 votes
          #3.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:51 PM EDT
          robby-778896

          usmcvet5711

          The costs, they are raising taxes in those countries, where do you live? Half of the states are raising taxes, the other half are laying people off, or forcing them to take days off, and that is with no health care cost. Did you not here about that fact the world is in an economic downturn right now.

          • 2 votes
          #3.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:52 PM EDT
          Wiley Coyote-Super Genius

          Hey usmcvet5711! Lucky for us MSN provided the facts. The costs are included. The ones you will want to focus on are GDP and per capita. Let me know if you need an explanation of how to read the chart.

          http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32897230/ns/health-health_care/?ns=health-health_care

            #3.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:00 PM EDT
            usmcvet5711

            Orlando, yes the european countries do have many immigrants but those are not illegal immigrnats that prey on the social entitlement programs and raise costs for the services offered. Yes the most popular name may be Mohammad but that is because they were legal tax paying immigrants. Additionally most of those countries do not allow for illegal immigrants to take advantage of their social programs as America does. Additionally they do not have the extremely large influx of illegal immigrant either which also raise costs.

            As for the gdp expenditure that is for how much people spend not only fo rtheir insurance but for all of the medical procedures they use and yes this would be higher because there are more people who pay for additional services and also elective services in the US than in the other countries. The amount of cosmetic surgeons in the US far outweigh any other country and charge far more. Additionally the price for services are less in the centralized medial countries because of price controls and lower operating costs.

            Mexico is a prime example where the cost per gdp is extremely low because many of them do not go to medical services because it is a pay up front system and if you cant pay then you dont get medical care. Additionally medical care in mexico is cheaper because there are no malpractice suits in mexico so the costs of doing business is far cheaper. America has the highest costs for medical malpractice and therefore also the highest cost of malpractice insurance. The socialized countries do not allow for extravagant awards of mal practice suits and therefore the costs of business are lower. Additionally Americans are generally fater than the rest of the world with far more sedintary lifestyles. We drive our cars everywhere whereas in Europs and England they are encouraged to walk more as public transportation offsets the high cost of gas.

            robby yes they are raising taxes in those countries as they are also raising taxes here and everywhere. But the countries with centralized govt healthcare pay significantly higher in income and sales tax which is not figured into the calculations in the per capita costs. Those costs are figured on what people pay but do not necessarily include the other costs paid through income or sales taxes. So these figures do not take into account all of the costs. Since in centralized medical systems there is very often not copays and such the implied costs are not figured in.

            • 1 vote
            #3.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:38 PM EDT
            Ralph Toynbee-973713

            Um!! France, Spain Germany & Britain ALL have substantial immigrant populations. WE are trillions in debt now. Our priorities are completely upside down. We spend truckloads of money fighting in countries we should have nothing to do with whatsoever. We bend over backwards to pump up big corporations who will move their jobs overseas at the drop of a hat. We WON'T provide for the health of our own citizens. And, none of these other counties have our degree of obesity either whether it be due to lifestyle or whatever, which in itself says something about us. We can play cheerleader for ourselves all we want. It solves nothing. Recognize there IS a problem and attack it. Or, wave our little flags and it will all go away.....NOT!

            This morning, I received an e-mail from my lunatic brother-in-law advising that nobody should buy the new postage stamp commemorating Muslims. Refuse to accept them, he says. Well, that's fine. I won't either. But, what happens in this country is we'll raise a big stink about a stupid 47 cent stamp when all the 47 cents stays right here, but we'll spend $2.50 on a gallon of gas and 1/2 of it goes straight to the middle east. Were all about symbolism and nothing about substance. We've just got to have the best health care system because, well it's OURS! Yippie! I feel healthier already. Odd, I don't exactly see a flood of folks from the poor backwater places like France, Britain Germany or Spain knocking OUR doors down because we have so much to offer in this area. Frankly, we're a laughing stock among industrialized nations. We once had the gumption to set them up so they could be that way. We don't have it to set ourselves up and that's a real shame. We'll drink another beer, watch a loud mouth on TV stir us all up with their drop-out educations, we'll go to our silly little puny rallies with our misspelled signs. and all yell real loud that by God, we just know best. Someday, we'll wake up and find out that....well, we didn't wake up.

              #3.7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:55 PM EDT
              Reply
              John A.-400474

              The idiots who claim that health care reform is Marxist, Socialist, Leninist or some other kind of "-ist" do not really know what they are talking about. NOTHING in these proposals comes even close. Reforming health care insurance - and if possible, major aspects of delivery system structure - is not a "government takeover," and is not ideologically driven. It is a practical answer to a major problem that now threatens to cripple America in many ways.

              But, as we have all discovered about the right-wing conspiracy theorists and zanies, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

              This article makes a big point in that regard. A well-informed, comprehensive survey of other nations' health care systems upsets the lies and distortions handed out by opponents of health care reform. But those lies and distortions will proceed apace, regardless of truth.

              • 13 votes
              Reply#4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:14 AM EDT
              hewhoiscalledj

              Exactly. My focus in responding to this article is the information being provided and the problems being addressed. I'm not concerned at this point about the ideology behind the solutions; only whether the proposals meet the damands we are facing.

              Party talk and emotions aside, looking at this from a logical and goal oriented perspective is the only way to avoid being railroaded like this issue has been for the last 40+ years. Fear and aversion to change is taking a whopping toll on our counrty.

              • 8 votes
              #4.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:30 AM EDT
              Don't Trust Bozos

              Yup, we be idiots! Did it ever occur to you there are many who don't consider themselves in the same manner as you so judgmentally categorize them? Truth is in the eye of the beholder based on their value system. Quoting excerpts from the Bible taken out of context further exposes your own bias on this and other issues.

              What you consider as "A well-informed, comprehensive survey ..." I consider to be biased beyond belief.

              It is rather uncomfortable is it not when YOU become the subject of criticism instead them?!

              • 2 votes
              #4.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:35 AM EDT
              radagast

              This country has been resting on its laurels for far too long, everybody chanting "USA, USA!!! We're #1, We're #1!!!" While we have been busy trying to prove to ourselves how great we are and thereby resisting all change as un American, the rest of the world has passed us silently and completely by on this issue.

              This is not an ideoligical debate except for those who oppose it. Framing this debate in that way does a tremendous disservice to every citizen in this country. It also drives wedges into our society through fear, threatening to divide us just so one small group can protect their ideology. Health care reform is a necessary step to digging America out of the hole it has dug for itself...period. Let's get on with this business already.

              • 6 votes
              #4.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:21 PM EDT
              usmcvet5711

              yes health care insurance reform and dheath care delivery reform is necessary but it is not necessary to add a completely new system. The govt needs to reform the one in place and to reform the medical compensation programs as well to include pricing, supplies and malpractice compensation. Most of America agree that we can have the system reformed for cost saving but they disagree on how many new programs and how much new govt needs to be put in place while also increasing the debt burden on the taxpayer. This is very much an ideoligical debate on how much govt involvement and government intrusion will be allowed into our private lives and how much people are going to be forced to pay for those who cannot or will not work for themselves and live off of the system.

                #4.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:55 PM EDT
                Pat-297145

                Yea, but we here in the U.S. have and do one thing better than anybody...BRIBERY! It's what we do best...

                  #4.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:27 PM EDT
                  GregL-671049

                  John,

                  Point out in the Constitution where it says you get health care at the expense of the tax payers...I will wait for an answer..If anyone else cares to chime in, go ahead and point it out...The Federal government is over stepping it authority...

                  Business's big and small are pushing this.Why you might ask. They want to shed their health care plans..I worked for the GE for 39 years..They are self insured..They spend 2 billion on health care per year...You can bet your last dollar when this bill is passed,they will do one of 2 things..They will either drop the plan all together and pay the fine or they will raise the insurance premiums which are quite low and force their employees in to the Government plan....I paid less than $20.00 per week for my wife and myself...

                  The tax payers will be subsidizing GE,Target,Wal-mart,GM_UAW,etc... I see it now..Don't be fooled....

                  • 1 vote
                  #4.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:13 PM EDT
                  J.Heron

                  Nobody's is talking about the constitution. Stop making it seem like it is against the constitution. Is public education in the constitution?

                  I am glad for you that GE was able to take care of you and your family. GE is one of the most successful companies in the U.S. How many other people have had the luxery you have had to work 39 years at the same company that is able to give such inexpensive healthcare to it employees.? It sounds like GE sees providing its employees with affordable Healthcare as a benefit to the company.

                  If the costs are passed onto tax payers...and if the overall costs are lower per person..( which is likely)...and if this lightens company's costs ( actually more small businesses are dropping Healthcare for their employees anyways because it is too expensive), wouldn't this give companies a more competitive advantage globally? Wouldn't it help keep jobs in America? and enable companies to hire more people? If the average cost to a company and individual is $15000/yr for a family for healthcare annually, most employers could afford to hire 1 more employees for every two or three employees they have now.

                  So I am sure you are right that my taxes will go up...but I think the benefit to myself and others will outway that increase. Unlike you, most Americans will never work at the same private sector company for 39 years...that is almost like winning the lottery. Most will be unemployed at some period in their lives through no fault of there own...and depending on the length of that unemployment, may not be able to afford it at some point. With everything else people in this situation have to worry about, I think it would be hugely beneficial if those people would not have to worry about healthcare..and that medical help is available for them especially in such a stressful period to help them stay healthy until they can get back into the workforce.

                  There are lot of proud, hardworking people out there who become unemployed Greg. They aren't lazy, they aren't stupid...they are just unfortunate and are looking for another job to survive.

                    #4.7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:00 PM EDT
                    Dan Webster

                    This country has been resting on its laurels for far too long, everybody chanting "USA, USA!!! We're #1, We're #1!!!" While we have been busy trying to prove to ourselves how great we are and thereby resisting all change as un American, the rest of the world has passed us silently and completely by on this issue. - radagast

                    Absolutely correct! We've become like the NY Yankees in the late 1960s who kept telling themselves they were still the invincible team that once hosted Ruth and DiMaggio, even though they were living in the cellar. The far right rants on about social issues and chants "no new taxes", but seems blind to the what our failure to keep up is costing us.

                    To look at health care alone, I've seen any number of estimates that we're paying a "hidden tax" of over $1000 for every person in the country, just to cover the cost of providing care to the uninsured. A lot of that comes from overuse of emergency rooms for primary care, but it also results from untreated conditions that are allowed to worsen in the absence of preventive care. Hospitals and pharmacies are often not fully compensated for these services (several members of my family are or were employed in health care, and they've seen this first-hand) so much of the time the extra expenditures are rolled into across-the-board increases for those who do pay.

                    Beyond the unisured there are "fuzzy" costs, harder to quantify but still very real. How many people don't do their best work because they're staying in jobs they don't care for, simply because switching might endanger their benefits? How many children are lagging in school due to health issues? (Yes, I know there are plenty of other reasons too but that's a separate issue.) How many potential entrepreneurs are discouraged from going out on their own because doing so would involve giving up their coverage? I don't understand why questions like these aren't at the core of conservatives' focus, because they touch basic American values such as self-improvement and individual initiative. Is it because the far right is now too wrapped up in social agendas, supporting corporate profits, and maintaining a permanent underclass? Just speculating ...

                    At the risk of starting a totally different thread, health care is hardly the only area in which our resistance to modernization is hurting us. Whether it's education, fixing highways and railroads*, even how we measure things**, instead of putting money and effort into regaining our lead we're busy thumping our chests. I once hoped that we'd wake up in time, but given how the far right has managed to short-circuit any meaningful debate I'm afraid we're plunging headlong towards second-world status.

                    (*) In 2007, commuters "[paid] an average of $750 per person each year in the form of lost time and fuel wasted while inching their way through traffic." - The Wall Street Journal.

                    Maximum train speeds in the U.S. outside of the N.E. corridor: 79 mph. Maximum train speeds in the EU: approximately 200 mph.

                    (**) The U.S. incurs as much as $50 billion a year in economic losses due to the use of feet and pounds vs. counting by tens like the rest of the world - The American Association for the Advancement of Science

                    • 1 vote
                    #4.8 - Sat Sep 19, 2009 9:31 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    Prof1940

                    Gee, did he leave somwthing out, how about in the UK where the death rate fior cancer is 16% higher for females and 10% higher for males? Or in Canada where the average wait to see a specialist is 3 months? or that in both France and Germany they are returning to private healthcare do to dissatisfaction with their government plans? How about in the 5 richest countries of the world the US leads the others in providing new treatments for illness. What about the healthcare in the US having to treat those who are the fattest in the world due to diet, no excercise and smoking? Why are so many unhealthy? It is the lifestyle they have chosen to live. Why are US babies so unhealthy? Try crack moms and drug addicts that are pregnant with kids? It is easy to pick out selected targets and aim at them, try being fair in the article, yes at least try. Finally, why do people from all those countries come to the USA for treatment? Because it is so good in those countries?

                    • 5 votes
                    Reply#5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:19 AM EDT
                    hewhoiscalledj

                    Undoubtedly, the US needs a personal health reform as we are collectively obese due to the nation's obsession with excess. While no other country's system is perfect, what I get out of that article are the various approaches to solving the problems we face ourselves. I don't think there is any question about the quality of care in our system; the underlying failures are a combination of poor lifestyle choices, for-profit insurance (or healthcare financing,) poorly educated people who can not understand the abstract and complicated language behind insurance plans/principles, a serious lack of doctors and nurses (again compounded by a failing educational system and expensive medical school tuitions,) and of course, an overall failure of the general population to actually see and agree on these issues as being the root cause.

                    In other words, we have entered into a circular argument of semantics and there are too many people complaining about things they dont completely understand. I work for an insurance broker which means I represnt my client's best interest, not the insurance companies. I see on a daily basis, exactly what is wrong with the current sytem; both the healthcare providers (there arent enough and their billing practices are inefficient) and the insurance companies (who are hell bent on making a large profit and who can blame them? they are for profit corporations with duties to their shareholders, not the insured.) Much can be improved without any reform, but it would take a powerful force to ensure that everyone follows through. So the question now is, who has that power? The people or the government?

                    • 5 votes
                    #5.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:00 PM EDT
                    Dena Sigman

                    Gee, only three months wait for a specialist? Incredible! I made an appointment today to see a specialist referred to me by my primary care MD. Today is 9/18/09. My appointment will be on 1/6/2010. According to the scheduler, that was the earliest they could see me. She recommended that if my condition worsens before then to go to the ER.

                    • 4 votes
                    #5.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:44 PM EDT
                    Chris-537131

                    Prof1,

                    Those are garbage numbers. Make them up all by yourself?

                    I have a modest suggestion for anyone who is interested in finding out what is really going on in health systems in other countries in the world:

                    There are a number of penpal sites that will hook you up with an e-mail penpal in the country of your choice. Most let you specify age, sex and such things as "professional" or "student". Virtually all of these people speak English, but write it much better. I would suggest that you ask them directly about their health care system. My only caveat is that you should be aware that a lot of people in other countries are very sensitive about false statements currently circulating in American about their own health care systems. Some of these countries, especially Britain, Canada, and France, have a lot of PO'ed people that you might not want to aggravate too much.

                    • 1 vote
                    #5.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:59 PM EDT
                    GregL-671049

                    Dena Sigman,

                    I can make up whoppers to bolster my view..Want to hear it....Unless it's something like an allergist or dermatologist i have had to wait, no more than a few days for a specialist...

                    So nice try..

                      #5.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:17 PM EDT
                      pebbles-1006103

                      Prof1

                      I am a Brit (living in the US for five years and going hame shortly) I feel I can comment on both the US and UK healthcare systems as I have experienced both first hand. Until recently I was not able to  afford health insurance and hadn't visited the doctor since I've been here, some dental work carried out two years ago cost me 5 thousand dollars which I am paying off monthly. Two years ago I fell and broke my hip, the total cost was forty thousand dollars. I didn't qualify for assistance and I'm not an illegal  (it would have been free if I was) so I'm paying that off as well.

                      If this had happened in the UK it would have cost me nothing. Both my sisters have had breast cancer in recent years , they were treated immediately, and have both thankfully recovered, and their recovery wasn't hampered by the worry of horrendous medical bills. My mother is 82 years old and can have the doctor visit, she isn't scared to death of not being able to afford medical care . I could go on..

                      Yes our system is abused ( anyone who enters the country is able to use our health care ) and it certainly is not perfect, but I would rather a system that cares for everyone  than have people forced into bancruptcy or even worse die because they can't afford the 'luxury'of health care. Insurance companies have no business running a country's health care  system as they are only interested in profit, not people. 

                      I saw a plackard held by a man who was at the rally in DC on September  12th which read "compassion is not compulsory" dont know about you but I find that really scary, kind of facist even ??.......

                      • 2 votes
                      #5.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:08 PM EDT
                      Reply
                      Prof1940

                      What is the matter MSNBC, did you not like the response to the article, so you pulled it off?

                      • 2 votes
                      Reply#6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:23 AM EDT
                      Don't Trust Bozos

                      Prof!,

                      Have you published any articles? I ask, because apparently we have to pass some kind of MSNBC test before they allow us to post in this vine. What are they affraid of such that they have to make sure we qualify to post in this liberal leaning rag?

                      • 1 vote
                      #6.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:48 AM EDT
                      Jerry-352313

                      PROF , I really don't have anything to say, just noticed all of the parasites quit posting when you give them facts, That's okay

                        #6.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:51 PM EDT
                        J.Heron

                        What facts Jerry? Why do you always assume "liberals" are afraid of you and the one or two lines you throw out there?Do you have any intelligent retorts to all the numbers being put out there by "liberals"? And they have much more compelling numbers and facts on their side.

                        Actually no one is afraid of you..and you don't have to be liberal to disagree with the hogwash you tend to spout. Mind you, you are sooooo far right, that I guess almost everyone else would have to be left of your views ( and therefore liberal).

                        So some Canadians may have to wait longer to see a specialist... even if it is 3 months..it is for non life threatening procedures. If there is something substantially wrong with an individual's tests, they will get into a specialist immediately.

                        Also, I wonder how long an uninsured person in the U.S. has to wait to see a specialist? Any numbers of that Jerry...Prof? Hello? what's that sound? Is that the patter of your feet running back into the backwoods Jerry?

                        Jerry, you are the weak one...the one who is afraid.

                          #6.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:24 PM EDT
                          Reply
                          clarke ong

                          We are no. 37!

                          Whoopieeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!! And we only have to pay twice as much to be it.

                          Whoopieeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!

                          • 6 votes
                          Reply#7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:50 AM EDT
                          usmcvet5711

                          while still paying less than half in taxes to the govt that the social countries pay.

                          yep totally agree Whoopieeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                          • 1 vote
                          #7.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:59 PM EDT
                          V...

                          I find it excrutiatingly hard to believe your assertion that England, France, Canada, etc pay twice as much taxes as we do.

                          Since you made the statement I think you should provide some numbers, statistics, or at the very least links to them.

                          • 1 vote
                          #7.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:17 PM EDT
                          usmcvet5711

                          For my salary which is definately middle class I paid total taxes including SS, Medicare Medicaid, FICA and State I paid 18%.

                          In England - Medical Tax of 11% on first 770 pounds per week and an additional 1% for any income above plus 20% basic taxes equaling 31% taxes only 5% below twice the amount.

                          France - Flat Tax of 40% more than twice my income tax. Plus a 19.6% value added tax on all goods unless you purchase services at the same time when it is only 5.5%

                          Germany - 14% income plus 14% to 19% municipality tax plus vat tax on all goods and services of 19% plus solidarity tax of 5.5 % so 14% + 14% + 5.5% = 33.5% just under twice as much.

                          Spain - 28% plus Vat taxes but still only about 10% higher the lowest yet.

                          So overall yes the taxes paid for individual income are considerably higher all you have to do is check it out on the internet.

                          Comparison of taxes paid by a household earning the country's average wage (as of 2005)

                          CountrySingle
                          no childrenMarried
                          2 childrenCountrySingle
                          no childrenMarried
                          2 children

                          Australia28.3%16.0%Korea17.3%16.2%

                          Austria47.4%35.5%Luxembourg35.3%12.2%

                          Belgium55.4%40.3%Mexico18.2%18.2%

                          Canada31.6%21.5%Netherlands38.6%29.1%

                          Czech Republic43.8%27.1%New Zealand20.5%14.5%

                          Denmark41.4%29.6%Norway37.3%29.6%

                          Finland44.6%38.4%Poland43.6%42.1%

                          France50.1%41.7%Portugal36.2%26.6%

                          Germany51.8%35.7%Slovakia38.3%23.2%

                          Greece38.8%39.2%Spain39.0%33.4%

                          Hungary50.5%39.9%Sweden47.9%42.4%

                          Iceland29.0%11.0%Switzerland29.5%18.6%

                          Ireland25.7%8.1%Turkey42.7%42.7%

                          Italy45.4%35.2%United Kingdom33.5%27.1%

                          Japan27.7%24.9%United States29.1%11.9%

                          Source: OECD, 2005 data [2]

                            #7.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:11 PM EDT
                            robby-778896

                            Canada,s highest tax rate is 29%, so how can the US have lower taxes with a higher tax rate?

                              #7.4 - Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:06 AM EDT
                              eriq samson

                              I wonder your source for this - especially as , for example, you are quoting VAT for France but not sales or property tax for US, nor do your figures for France make any kind of sense without the VAT

                              In other words you are comparing appples to oranges to bananas to green beans to tomatoes to squash

                              • 1 vote
                              #7.5 - Tue Sep 22, 2009 3:36 PM EDT
                              usmcvet5711

                              actually Eric I listed two different tax values for France and neither one of them included the VAT tax. The VAT tax is on top of other municiple taxes and is a sales tax that was included just for compairson. Currently in AZ we have city and county sales taxes that add up to about 9.5% or so which is still about 10% under the VAT tax. However the tax listing I included in both the independent figures which I researched by going to each countries website and looked at their tax rates and also a chart that I found that had all of them listed. So either way they still France still came in at the lowest of 40% still way above the 18% that I paid. So in the issues of France I compared stricly income taxes straight across for my income and number of children. I paid 18% and according to the France website I would have paid 40% over there. So yes apples to apples. I went to each countries site and looked at their tax tables individually.

                                #7.6 - Wed Sep 23, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
                                eriq samson

                                for the same income? with the same deductions?

                                You are not using Sun City's sales tax rate?

                                You have included the property tax?

                                See - it's really hard to compare apples to apples when you don't understand there are different kinds of Apples

                                (for those who don't know Arizona is grateful for Alabama and Mississippi - the only two states lower in achievement than Arizona, without who Arizona would often be #50 instead of #48)

                                • 1 vote
                                #7.7 - Wed Sep 23, 2009 8:45 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                peggy-957040

                                I heartily agree there needs to be significant tort reform. I've worked in the medical field for 30 years, and seen the waste created by defensive medicine, as well as the worthless, time consuming paperwork created "just in case." (I won't even go into some of the bizarre requirements from Medicare and JCAHO). The practice of "lawsuit lottery" needs to be eliminated.

                                No one has addressed the fact that we have a far larger population of illegal immigrants than most countries, and a HUGE underground economy. (think deadbeat dads working for cash, drug dealers etc) None of these people pay taxes, and I somehow don't think that they'll be sending anyone checks for their coverage. Nothing will really change. The hospitals will be stuck covering the costs of the uninsured-- and increasing the costs to the rest of us.

                                No one has addressed the importation of elderly and disabled people from other countries by family members here, to recieve SSI (income) and full medical coverage on their arrival.

                                What about all the people who arrive in our country from other areas of the world without free health care (or with conditions that are not treated in their own country)? the one's who show up in our emergency rooms with major medical issues that we are obligated to treat, free for the individual & the hospitals have to care for them, eat the cost then pass on the bills to the rest of us in the form of higher costs.

                                • 3 votes
                                Reply#8 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:52 AM EDT
                                Eric-1088207

                                What we need is to get health insurance pigs out of the health care business. Here you see that we don't have to reinvent he wheel. Look at Israel. Look at any of these countries. No need for tort reform because there is no one to sue. The problem with health care reform as presently proposed is a joke. We should scrap all private health insurance. Get rid of it. It's evil. We need to stop catering to the Republican village idiots and just move down the road without even paying attention to their idiocies. And we shoud create a doctor run health care system funded by our tax dollars. Period.

                                • 4 votes
                                Reply#9 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:28 PM EDT
                                Joannet-1148959

                                Eric,

                                Take a look at my previous post and see how much France pays in taxes to cover Health Care. Also take a look at the VA system which is own and operated by the US Government. Then come back and tell me thats the kind of Health Care you want. I think you will change your mind in a hurry.

                                • 3 votes
                                #9.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:46 PM EDT
                                Tim-507825

                                You obviously have no clue what healthcare costs in the USA. I work for a small company (like many Americans) and we get charged immoral amounts of money for premiums by our insurance company. I pay far more for healthcare coverage for my wife and I, then I pay for income taxes. We have a policy with fairly high deductables. My god, you could increase my income taxes by 50% to pay for healthcare and I'd be so incredibly far ahead.

                                One more thing. I am over 50, so all of you repubs that have under age 50 cheap policies: Hope you're saving your pennies, because you've got some shocking premium increases coming if you live that long.

                                • 4 votes
                                #9.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:06 PM EDT
                                Eric-1088207

                                Joannet, I pay $500 a month for health insurance with a $10,000 deductible. It's really catastrophic coverage and asset protection coverage. It's not health care. Now, imagine clinics run by doctors without any health insurance company involvement. Don't you think healthcare delivery would be superior? Especially if the doctors are on salary and don't have to worry about overhead, having to pad 'sales,' etc.? Also, what exactly is wrong with the VA system? Many of my clients would never leave the VA. None of my clients would ever give up their Medicare coverage. Isn"t my premium not a from of taxation only levied by a private corporation that has as its only objective profits? I think your argument is short sighted if not bogus.

                                • 3 votes
                                #9.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:12 PM EDT
                                usmcvet5711

                                Eric,

                                I pay $265.00 a month for health insurance for my whole family with an individual deductible of $2,500.00 per person. Of which When we go to see a doctor we pay a co-pay and then 10% of any peocedures until the deductible and then it is 100% covered. We have never had a procedure turned down that our doctor wanted to do on us and my wife has Lupus. which was a pre-existing condition before we got the insurance.

                                Yes a doctor run clinic for medical care would be great with no insurance and when I had no insurance I used a doctors office that knocked 40% off of my bill if I paid right then and there. Went in one day got 3 x-rays, a doctors visit, and consultation on my x-rays for $80.00 after the discount.

                                Paying your premium is not taxation because you can chose to participate or not but he choice is still up to you the individual not the govt.

                                • 2 votes
                                #9.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:15 PM EDT
                                Clotho

                                We need to follow Japan's example, and not allow insurance companies to advertise. I would also LOVE to see an end to those awful prescription drug company TV commercials. How long have those been legal? About 10 years? We cut out those costs, and the cost of insurance and drugs can go down.

                                • 3 votes
                                #9.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:45 PM EDT
                                selfemployed-1277002

                                usmcvet,

                                Is this a company sponsored plan? Because if it is, your employer is likely paying for most of your premiums. The average company sponsored family insurance plan is over $13,000 a year for premiums.

                                Either you are getting a REALLY good deal, or you (like MOST Americans) are sheltered from the REAL cost of health insurance in this country.

                                Not only are premiums like taxes, but they are hidden from us in the form of salary reductions AND 30% of these taxes are stuffed into the pockets of insurance CEOs and shareholders as billion dollar profits.

                                • 1 vote
                                #9.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:56 PM EDT
                                usmcvet5711

                                selfemployed,

                                yes this is a company plan and yes my employer does probably pay for most of the premium. But the business in the US gets to reap this costs off as a tax write off so they in the end do recoup their costs. My business that I ran prior to working where I do now wrote off all of the costs of my medical reimbursement plan that I had so they business recouped all of their money in tax write offs. This is a benefit to corporattions here in the US in that these medical expenditures are a write off because of operating costs.

                                As for the 30% figure please provide the reference for this because most of the figures that I have seen are much lower from 3% to 10% in profit margin because of going for the costs of paying for govt insurance and those that do not pay medical bills.

                                If you are self employed as your name claims and you do not reap 100% of your medical costs back on your taxes then you need a different accountant.

                                • 1 vote
                                #9.7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:19 PM EDT
                                selfemployed-1277002

                                You may be right, the 30% figure may be inflated. It is just the number that I have seen floating around as the percentage of premiums that is not going back to the people for medical care. Whether it goes to salaries or processing claims or paperwork or whatever, it is health care dollars that are not going to directly to health care.

                                Yes, my medical costs have been set up as a business expense. But just because I get a write off doesn't mean I should spend frivolously. I bought a high deductible family plan for $500 a month. To have a comprehensive plan like a company plan, it would have been an EXTRA (EXTRA!) $1200 a month!! Are they insane? Who spends that much on basic health care? Whether it is a tax deduction or not it is still a SCAM.

                                I went to the doctor today, in fact. I am lucky that the doctor I saw today allows me to pay the "negotiated rate". I had a chat with the person in charge of billing because the whole thing baffles me. Every single health care bill I get the negotiated rate is about 1/5th the total bill. What is THAT about? Anyway, my bill today was $21. I can let you know in 6 weeks what they "billed" insurance but I bet it was about $100. My insurance pays ABSOLUTELY nothing until I reach my deductible.

                                My point is that if my doctor is surviving on $21 payments from the insurance companies (where he gets most of his business) I don't understand why he can't allow people without any insurance pay him, say, $25 for the same service...not to mention he then wouldn't have to deal with the expense and hassle of billing.

                                I have learned so much in the last five years of buying my own insurance and paying cash for most of my medical care. I keep saying to myself "How do they get away with this scam?" But the truth is most American are so sheltered with their fancy company plans and co-pay they see none of what is really going on.

                                The majority of health CARE is not unaffordable, but health INSURANCE is through the roof!

                                • 1 vote
                                #9.8 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:19 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Tim-507825

                                I've got an idea: Since Republicans HATE government paid for services of any kind, they should gladly turn down police and fire protection. Republicans have made it very clear that they don't want socialistic tax paid services, so let's do them a big favor and take away their police and fire departments. Republicans can then go hire their own.

                                I'm sure that the private sector would gladly charge them huge amounts of money to offer these services. Of course, once you had a fire or a police emergency, you wouldn't be able to get coverage again, just like healthcare. PRE-EXISTING condition clauses would keep their private police and fire services economical, just like our current "economical" healthcare. Since Republicans think we have a great healthcare system now, they should love their new private fire and police services.

                                Now, let's take all of the money that we have been wasting on helping out these Republicans and use it to fund part of our "government" healthcare.

                                So the result will be the following: All Republicans will only use private insurance companies for fire protection, police protection, and healthcare. Democrats will share in the government managed systems (health, police, and fire). We'll all be happy.

                                (I'm obviously being facitious, but my point is that Republicans currently LOVE socialistic services as long as it benefits them.)

                                • 2 votes
                                Reply#10 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 12:50 PM EDT
                                Joannet-1148959

                                Tim,

                                My community has a volunteer Fire department. We donate funds every year and have fund raisers to fund the volunteer Fire Department. We also apply for Private grants etc. to purchase equipment. The taxes we pay for fire and police are no where near what it would cost for Health care. Again look at the post below to see what the number one Health care system in the world (France ) pays for their system. There is got to be a better way.

                                http://www.understandfrance.org/Paris/Working2.html

                                • 2 votes
                                #10.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:17 PM EDT
                                Eric-1088207

                                Joannet, I don't want a volunteer health care system. Nor do I want an insurance profit driven health care system. I want a health care system where doctors can focus on doing what is best for the individual. Where they don't have to call out for tests to cover their behinds or justify a test to an insurance company. I simply cannot understand why you have such a hard time with this? Do you work for an insurance company? Why would you think tort reform would do anything to fix health care? The problems are inherent in the present system. We need to get insurance companies out of the health care business. Period.

                                • 3 votes
                                #10.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:35 PM EDT
                                Joannet-1148959

                                Eric,

                                That's why I want tort reform so they don't have to practice defensive medicine. And no I do not work for an insurance company.

                                I do not want the government running my health insurance because the current government programs, Medicare, Medicaid, Va system, The US Postal Service and Social Security are all going broke. The government track record is horrible. They taken money from all of these systems and spend it to fund other general fund programs. Now they want another Government program to take money from to balance their budget. Government Health care will be no better than what we have as far as taking care of the people.

                                • 3 votes
                                #10.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:00 PM EDT
                                Tammy-311614

                                Police and fire departments are run by local governments. They are not federal. Comparing a government run health care program to them is like comparing apples to oranges - they cannot be compared. If you want to compare thie proposed health care program to anything compare it to the Post Office or the VA or Medicare or any other federal program to get a valid comparison. Comparing it to local government is logically flawed.

                                • 1 vote
                                #10.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:56 PM EDT
                                usmcvet5711

                                Tim,

                                My HOA where I live combines our money paid into our association fees and pays for Private Fire department (Rural Metro), pays for contracted police department (sherriffs department), pays for private water company and pays for private sewer company for $142.00 per month. I also pay for my own private insurance so go ahead please let us Republicans and other sensible people pay for our own services as we do now, (Oh thats right police, fire sewer and others are all paid for through community taxes and managed by local officials not the fed govt!

                                So please do let those who want to opt out of the govt programs to do so and you altruistic ones can support them. I would gladly opt out of SS/medicare and medicaid if they pay me back what I paid in. I would also gladly opt out of many of the things my taxes go for such as overpriced salaries for govt officials, Senators and Presidents who dont meet my standards. In fact please let me decide where my tax money goes that would be the ideal for me and only mandate what the govt is constitutionally approved to provide for like national defense and not socialist entitlement programs.

                                • 2 votes
                                #10.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:29 PM EDT
                                Clotho

                                Most of the med mal lawsuits are to recover the costs of the medical procedure, very few involve punitive damages. As the article points out, there will be far less need for patients to sue, if they are not paying the costs of the medical procedure.

                                • 1 vote
                                #10.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:48 PM EDT
                                Reply
                                Tim-507825

                                Americans pay MORE now for healthcare than anyone else in the world. Why is that a good system?

                                • 1 vote
                                Reply#11 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:25 PM EDT
                                Joannet-1148959

                                Tim, Just because I'm against government run helath care dose not mean I'm a republican. I pay for my family health insurance and I just turned 60 so I've have been around a few years. I have been paying into Medicare for over 44 years, Social Security for over 47 years in a few years i will be eligible for both programs. I just hope the government hasn't spent all the money I put in to these programs.

                                • 3 votes
                                #11.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:21 PM EDT
                                Tim-507825

                                You do know that Republicans fought Social Security and medicare when they were first introduced. Democrats are why we have both systems.

                                Social security would be solvent if it's funds weren't robbed by other programs, and we had all income levels pay into it. We only pay into it on our first $100,000 of income. I don't mind paying my fair share for my over $100,000 of income. It's called Social Security INSURANCE. it's not a retirement plan, it's insurance for those not fortunate enough to have made enough money to actually retire. There are a lot of jobs (most jobs) that don't pay enough to retire on. Shall we just let those people die when they get older? Not me. But I actually have moral values. and don't mind paying my fair share.

                                • 3 votes
                                #11.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:28 PM EDT
                                Ms Deeds

                                Joannet

                                I am a little curious about your numbers, Medicare was passed in 1965. You would have been 16. Could have been on your paycheck? You paid into Social security when you were 13, I find that questionable. Lastly, did you know that Medicare is administered by private insurance companies. They are all federal contractors - they are not going to go out of business. Their profits will be lower.

                                  #11.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:31 PM EDT
                                  usmcvet5711

                                  Tim great concept of paying the fair share but the problem is that alot of the people do not pay their fair share in and expect to reap the full benefit of those that have paid. That is the problem most people are having is that the govt is requiring that those who have done better must support those who have not done better. I do not mind helping along those who are truly less fortunate but unfortunately those that merely suck off of the system far outnumber those that truly need the assistance.

                                  additionally do not ever equate those that do not want to support others who chose to explolit the system rather than do an honest days work. If people would get their moral values back then when our seniors get older we would be more willing to take them into our homes and support them in their old age like they supported us in our childhood. I have moral values, I donate my time to the unfortunate, I donate my money and I donate my resources, additionally my parents and my family are welcome into my home if they need a place when they fall upon hard times. I nor my family expect anyone else to support us we can do it ourselves and with the help of our family like it used to be.

                                  • 1 vote
                                  #11.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
                                  GregL-671049

                                  The head line from The Tax Foundation in 2006...

                                  Number of Americans Paying Zero Federal Income Tax Grows to 43.4 Million

                                  Everyone should be paying some tax...

                                    #11.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:43 PM EDT
                                    Reply
                                    Joannet-1148959

                                    Tim,

                                    I don't recall saying it was a "Good System". The system needs reform. We just don't need a new system. Lets fix the one we have. My previous post suggests some solutions to fix the what we have now.

                                    The fact is i can not afford any more taxes for anything. I'm barely making it now. And I'm to old to work two or three jobs to afford anything more than what I have. I would just like to keep what i have with out the government taking any more of it. All I see is tax increases at the local, state and federal level. I don't want a hand out, food stamps Relief or any other handout from the government. I think the government should learn how to spend within their means until the country gets back on our feet and can afford to give more.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    Reply#12 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:39 PM EDT
                                    Eric-1088207

                                    Joannet, I certainly can understand your point/s. But here is what I would argue. Our health care system stinks. Not only that, it's going to keep going up and up and up. You mentioned that every year you are looking for the lowest plan out there. That means every year you are looking at new doctor networks, new hospital networks, new deductibles and co-pays, new premiums, etc. How about if we take the same premiums to fund a Doctor run health care system? In other words, we cut out the health insurance companies, pay doctors directly and watch our medical costs drop by at least 35%. I think this makes a lot of sense. Especially for hard working people like yourself.

                                    • 1 vote
                                    #12.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:49 PM EDT
                                    Joannet-1148959

                                    Thanks Eric but that is my employer that keeps changing. My doctors, hospitals and providers are the same every time so that has not been a problem.

                                    This issue becomes if we pay the doctors directly do you think that would really reduce the cost 35%. I had an simple operation last year, out patient, the bill was over $4,500. dollars. I'm not sure I would want to pay out of pocket for any major surgery issue which could run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars.

                                    As i said in my previous post the government can control costs many states have an insurance commission which insurance companies like Blue Cross go too to increase their rates on their products. The commission needs to reject some of these rate increases or at least reduce the amount granted to hold the line on costs.

                                    I don't have all the answers, but one thing I'm sure of is the governments track record on running government programs just waste more tax payers dollars. They even admit there is over 500 billion dollars to be saved in Medicare fraud and abuse over the next ten years. There has got to be a better way than to have the government run any program.

                                    • 3 votes
                                    #12.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:20 PM EDT
                                    Tim-507825

                                    Why fix a system that has been intentially denying people healthcare. That's like forgiving a someone that commits murder and then letting them back into society. Insurance companies aren't made up of stupid people. They KNOW that their actions cause thousands and thousands of deaths per year. I will never trust them again.

                                    • 2 votes
                                    #12.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:21 PM EDT
                                    W. A. MARSH

                                    The reason you buy INSURANCE is to protect you financially from catastrophic events. Like waking up one Sunday morning with chest pains and two days later having a Triple Bypass. Thank God I had Insurance to pay the $150,000.00 bill for my care!

                                    Additonaly there are several main reasons for high health cost:

                                    1. High cost of frivoulus law suits. Tort reform would fix this!

                                    2. we already cover the cost of the under insured/ uninsured just take a look in any ER in this country and you will see them lined up for free care( that why it can take up to 12 hrs to be seen in some ER's).

                                    3. Mandated coverages.(Thats coverage for health conditions which the Federal and State Governments impose on all who have health insurance.)

                                    Finally I would like to say one thing about Doctors High Earnings. If you invest over a $200,000.00 over aperiod of 8 to 12 years with out any return on that investment untill the end of that period wohat would you say would be a fair return? Under current tax law The Medical Student cannot deduct the cost of becoming a Doctor and he will have to pay taxes on his earnings which means he pays both sides of the Social Security and Medicare Tax as well as High Income Taxes. Don't you expect to net at least 10% per year on your investments?

                                      #12.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
                                      random thought #13

                                      Fixing a faulty system, next is...

                                      Freeing murders, next is...

                                      Oh, I know, bail out money to the people who caused the most damage in the first place...wait...

                                      Yeah, we're run by idiots.

                                        #12.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:42 PM EDT
                                        Reply
                                        david-1352334

                                        I currently can drive a short distance into the next state. In my state the health care insurance is twice as good and half the cost of the state next to me that does not medically underwrite their policies. I am not a fan of pre-ex and medically underwritten policies, but it is interesting to note that that state that does not medically underwrite cannot come up with a plan nearly as comprehensive and inexpensive and the state next to it.

                                          Reply#13 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:20 PM EDT
                                          jasperark-1270934

                                          Canada, Israel, Switzerland and Britain have smaller, more homogeneous populations than the US. Flood those countries with about 20 million illegals and 30 million habitual government dependent cheaters and see how long their health care system lasts. (Canada's system is in trouble, by the way).

                                          • 3 votes
                                          Reply#14 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:07 PM EDT
                                          robby-778896

                                          Canada's system is not in trouble, they are doing just fine. True Canada has a much smaller population than the US, and that costs a lot of money, because the country is larger than the US. Take just the state of Texas, it is 268,000 square miles, with a population of just over 24 million people, the whole of Canada has only 33 million people and is larger than the US, that cost money when you have allow density like that. Nanavut in the north of Canada is over 800,000 square miles, with a population of just 31,000 people.

                                          How long do think the US system would last, if everyone except those in California were to leave, and the folks in CA moved to occupy the rest of the country?

                                            #14.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:29 PM EDT
                                            countyourblessings-309588

                                            We didn't have 20 million illegals back in 1945. What was their excuse then? We're now the "future generation". They tried again for some kind of health care when Jimmy Carter was president. Guess what happened? The Republicans killed it again. They tried when Bill Clinton was president. Guess what happened. The Republicans killed it again. Now my generation of Republicans is attempting to kill it again and leave the burden to my children and grandchildren. Does anyone see a pattern here. I've told my parents thanks for doing nothing and letting thousands of American citizens die or lose their entire life savings. And I'm refusing to let my grandchild have to go through this again. If she manages to live long enough with no insurance to keep her alive.

                                              #14.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:37 PM EDT
                                              frenchandproudDeleted
                                              Reply
                                              countyourblessings-309588

                                              What all those other countries don't have is a government that spends all it's time trying "NOT" to let the other side win. Even if it means killing a bill that is so very vital to our nation's strength or our ability to compete worldwide. They say..."Slow down. Why the rush." Well folks, we've been waiting since 1945 for them to do something. And that applies to both parties. I don't know about anybody else, but I've had enough of waiting. If they don't do something this time, I say we form a class action lawsuit against them for not performing their job and potentially costing us our health and some of us our lives.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              Reply#15 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:09 PM EDT
                                              mikef2

                                              Bottom line?

                                              I don't see how the conclusion was reached that covering everyone will help reduce malpractice costs. There were strategies employed by other countries, but this wasn't one of them. More covered lives in our system is just more potential plaintiffs and frivolous lawsuits.

                                              As for WHO rankings, when broken down by certain diseases, the U.S. is much better. Also, the U.S spends millions of dollars trying to save extreme premature births, usually unsuccessfully. Other countries don't even try and it is not recorded as a neonatal death, but is considered a miscarriage. The WHO doesn't always compare aples to apples.

                                              As far as life spans, this is affected by deaths from motor vehicle accidents, other accidents, homocide, suicide, etc. It is also affected by lifestyle, obesity, smoking etc. We drive alot, we eat alot, we shoot each other alot. If adjusted for those things the health system doesn't directly impact (would be worse without good healthcare), the US does quite well.

                                              • 2 votes
                                              Reply#16 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:16 PM EDT
                                              peterb77

                                              I'm tired of the opposition to reform not offering up any solutions. They bash "Obamacare", etc...bash every other countries plan that seem to be working much better than ours, but offer very little ideas of their own. Other than tort reform and no public option - what's the great idea of the status-quo group. Obama said it would cost $900b/10 years...what is the Republicans plan going to cost?

                                              • 2 votes
                                              Reply#17 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:17 PM EDT
                                              usmcvet5711

                                              the last Republican plan that was issued and promptly shot down by the democrats would only have cost 225 billion and consisted of medicare/medicaid reform, insurance subsidies, the ability to compete across state line, tort reform, health costs savings plans among others. The republicans have consistantly offered proposals and compromises only to be shot down time and again by democrats who state that they won and republicans should rubber stamp the new socialist agenda.

                                              Not looking for status quo as the democrat lies state looking for true reform that doesnt take money away from the public.

                                              • 1 vote
                                              #17.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:48 PM EDT
                                              random thought #13

                                              Cost = life and time

                                              I've heard the Democrat's plan.

                                              I've heard the Republican's plan.

                                              What's the "American Plan"?

                                              This whole thing has turned into an equivalant of a five year old's shouting match...

                                              • 2 votes
                                              #17.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:53 PM EDT
                                              GolfnNut

                                              Conservatives have offered significant solutions. Tort Reform, Allow greater competition by taking the barriers off insurance companies from competing across state lines. Let individuals purchase insurance with pre-tax dollars. Expand the concept of medical savings accounts. These proposals would reduce costs and reduce government interference in our healthcare.

                                                #17.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:00 PM EDT
                                                V...

                                                Nice post Random thought #13...

                                                I like that one...

                                                  #17.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:32 PM EDT
                                                  aspyne

                                                  Exactly random!!!!

                                                    #17.5 - Sat Sep 19, 2009 4:01 PM EDT
                                                    Reply
                                                    Jain

                                                    This is what the rest of the world has figured out, that we are still incapable (or simply unwilling) to accept:

                                                    -Care will allways be rationed. The "best" care is never enough.

                                                    -Medicine is not a perfect science and doctors are human therefore mistakes will happen. We should not be suing doctors and hospitals for mistakes. Negligence if proven should result in compensation to the victim with disciplinary action of the physician involved (revocation of license to practice etc).

                                                    -Insurance will never work as a means of funding healthcare. Here are the reasons why:

                                                    1. Nobody thinks they will get sick when they are young and healthy.(so why pay premiums)
                                                    2. Everyone will get sick and most people will not die suddenly in their sleep, but only after a prolonged period of sickness. This is almost gauranteed to happen. And I dont see how you can "insure" against somthing that's gauranteed to happpen.
                                                    3. Insurance introduces pervese incentives to providers and patients to run up costs. Providers can practice defensive medicine without worrying about costs. And patients feel entitled to their opinion of "best" care, because they have insurance and they should make "use" of it. With insurance it feels like "nobodys" actually paying, when actually we are all paying for it through ever increasing premiums and co-pays.
                                                    4. Getting paid by billing insurance is a gigantic pain in the butt, but since providers have to do it, they start thinking in terms of what is the most income generating thing to do, and not necessarily what is most medically appropriate.

                                                    -The wealthy and influential will allways get "better "care. Whether that it is medically "better" or not is debatable ( ex: Michael Jackson and his personal physician). wealthy Brits and Canadians travel to the US because they can afford it. The final outcome is often the same, but when you can afford to get it done sooner and with all the perks, why wait?

                                                    At first glance all of this may sound terribly "un-american". Also most Americans beleive we're all entitled to unlimited medical care, regardless of our ability to pay. Supporting this notion is the surest way to get reelected, have happy patients and win big in lawsuits.

                                                    Rationing of care, in the form of longer waiting periods for non-emergency visits is somthing most Americans would not tolerate. Any politician that supports such a measure will not be in politics long.

                                                    We are just beginning to reap the rewards of a for-profit healthcare culture, and I have a feeling things need to get much worse before they get better. Let's hope we survive that long.

                                                    • 4 votes
                                                    Reply#18 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:19 PM EDT
                                                    Phil986

                                                    "The best care is never enough." Profound thought. We all must die. One way or another. But none of them is pretty. So we use all the medical technology to hang on in spite of the obvious inevitable end that's right around the corner.

                                                    There has been a lot of BS and funny language like "death panels" and so on. I work in the medical field, with people often given the benefit of what is called "heroic measures," critical care.

                                                     It does not matter to some family members that grandma is demented, catechtic, with metastases from the liver to the brain. Docs call these kinds of measures on these kinds of patients "death prolonging treatments." I've seen how it's like and I know I don't want anyone to do this to me, ever. One thing that would make sense would be to accept death and stop using critical measures at $3k/day on terminally ill people.

                                                      #18.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:37 PM EDT
                                                      lk in la

                                                      The point of insurance is not to try to feel like not really paying. The point of insurance is to make $reasonable as in AFFORDABLE. (Thousands for a copay is not reasonable. The word copay does not mean something is affordable.)

                                                        #18.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:58 PM EDT
                                                        Jain

                                                        Phil986,

                                                        One thing that would make sense would be to accept death and stop using critical measures at $3k/day on terminally ill people.

                                                        Unfortunatley we live in a death denying culture. Death is unamerican. An affront to the American Dream.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #18.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:50 PM EDT
                                                        Jain

                                                        lk in la,

                                                        I agree the point of insurance is to make care affordable. However it should make care that is medically deemed necessary affordable. Not care that the patient thinks they require, not what the pharmaceutical company tells them they require, not what physicians out to make a profit tell them is required. Insurance creates the impression that they would not have to spend as much for care, because insurance is paying for it. It is normal human nature to want more of what they think they are getting for less than normal. It is somthing like having Costco membership, dont you feel like since you have already paid for membership you might as well go and buy some stuff from Costco? You might not need 3 bottles of Ketchup, but you get it anyway, because you have paid a membership fee to Costco.

                                                        • 1 vote
                                                        #18.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:14 PM EDT
                                                        Reply
                                                        ken from illinoisDeleted
                                                        Patriot1-935417

                                                        Which one, of the 37 countries that have been ranked ahead of the US system, did Senator Kennedy receive his cancer treatment from?

                                                        I'm sure that cost and international travel were not issues for Kennedy and I'm sure that he wanted the best treatment available, so, in which country was Kennedy treated?

                                                        • 3 votes
                                                        Reply#20 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:20 PM EDT
                                                        peterb77

                                                        That's a real brain buster, Patriot. Here's one for you: Which country has 30 million uninsured citizens, spends more money for less care, and has seen health care costs rise so fast that incomes cannot possibly keep pace.

                                                        Plus, I'm sure if Kennedy had gone to France to get treatment, you wouldn't have said a word about him being a traitor or socialist, etc...

                                                        • 5 votes
                                                        #20.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:25 PM EDT
                                                        robby-778896

                                                        Patriot1-935417 OK, here is one for you, when former VP Gores son needed care after an accident, which one of those 37 countries did he take him to? It was also brain surgery that he needed.

                                                          #20.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:35 PM EDT
                                                          jock59801

                                                          Patriot - As the article agrees, our top-line health care in America is the best anywhere. That's not the point. The rest of us pay more and get less. What does Kennedy have to do with that, other than trying to change it?

                                                          • 1 vote
                                                          #20.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:42 PM EDT
                                                          Patriot1-935417

                                                          peterb77 - No, if Kennedy would have gone to France for treatment, I wouldn't have made any claims about him being a traitor or socialist. However, given the life and death nature of his illness, I would have said that he chose poorly.

                                                          The point of my post is that when people have the choice, they choose America for their medical treatment - by popular vote that puts America at the top of the list for best care in the world.

                                                          Changing our system might make it better - there is always room for improvement but, it could make it a whole lot worse. There is a little upside potential and a ton of downside risk. No one, in their right mind makes wholesale changes to systems that are working well. Small changes and tweaks made on a continuous basis have delivered the best performing products and services in the world.

                                                          Obama's strategy is rife with risk to the world's best health care system.

                                                            #20.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:57 PM EDT
                                                            peterb77

                                                            I agree with your perspective, that under the right circumstances, our health care system is the best. Usually those circumstances involve those with lots of money and plenty of insurance. I mean, I have a good job and insurance and I'm not worried too much about myself. But what if I lost my job...Step into the shoes of those who cannot afford insurance, or who have had medical problems that ruined them financially. No one disputes that if Bill Gates has the need for a serious medical procedure, he'll do it in America. But in other countries, when John Doe making $24,000/year gets sick, he gets treatment. In America, that's not necessarily the case.

                                                            • 2 votes
                                                            #20.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:05 PM EDT
                                                            Jain

                                                            Patriot,

                                                            The point of my post is that when people have the choice, they choose America for their medical treatment - by popular vote that puts America at the top of the list for best care in the world.

                                                            I wonder which planet you live on. Seriously Patriot, your logic is so messed up, I dont know where to begin. People who are rich, well connected and have plenty of disposable income do have a choice. They can pick any country in the world for healthcare. Nobody is doubting the standard of our hospitals and medical professionals. We do have some of the most enterprising, talented and innovative doctors in the world. That is not the friggin point of this discussion. by your logic, any goat herder in Afghanistan, if he had the choice would be coming to America for treatment.

                                                            • 1 vote
                                                            #20.6 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:23 PM EDT
                                                            Patriot1-935417

                                                            Jain - You have drawn a difference between the care a rich person would receive as opposed to what a goat herder would get. That differentiation is going to exist regardless of whether we maintain the existing system or something else.

                                                            Reference the public education system - wealthy children get sent to private schools for the best education that money can buy while inner city children are robbed of the opportunity for an education by a system that is inept and govenment run.

                                                            When Horace Mann kicked off the public education initiative, he wanted to help the poor to get a quality education - just like those today who want the underpriviledged to get quality health care - what an irony!!!

                                                              #20.7 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:35 PM EDT
                                                              Nan-377725

                                                              Peterb--In other countries, John Doe gets sick and is put on a waiting list to see the oncologist or surgeon in 6 months. If he can live long enough to get treatment, I guess you could consider his health care a success.

                                                              • 1 vote
                                                              #20.8 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:35 PM EDT
                                                              peterb77

                                                              First, these claims of 6 month waiting periods for every imaginable procedure are vastly exaggerated. Second, in the U.S., John Doe would eventually end up in the emergency room, and cost exponentially more to treat than if he was treated earlier. And who pays for his emergency room visit? He can't...so I guess that means every who can has to pay even more.

                                                                #20.9 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:04 PM EDT
                                                                lk in la

                                                                No, we do not have the best health care system in the world. That was more than 25 years ago. No, a substantial number of the doctors are not that great now. (Also procedures and treatments are watered down now.) So my point is why should the individual American continue to pay the $? Just nationalize health care, who cares if the government knows how to run it or not? The H.M.O.'s do not know how to run their own systems for the good of everyone. But bring $ DOWN.

                                                                  #20.10 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:27 PM EDT
                                                                  Reply
                                                                  ISpeakTruthDeleted
                                                                  Aldebaran1967

                                                                  Congratulations to many of you who have scrambled to come up with some ridiculous reasons that it is a good thing that the U.S. is 37th in world with regard to healthcare. Predictions for those of you who continue to oppose healthcare reform, including coverage for all of your fellow citizens: (1) You will all die eventually; (2) You will die earlier than your counterparts in other developed countries (3 years earlier on average than those in France); (3) Many of you will die broke or in debt due to lack of or insufficient healthcare coverage. But, have a nice day!

                                                                  • 5 votes
                                                                  Reply#22 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:34 PM EDT
                                                                  lk in la

                                                                  Denial is bliss.

                                                                    #22.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:20 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    lem894

                                                                    If this information came from a reputed source I might agree. Here are some questions I have for MSNBC. It would be nice if they would answer them truthfully instead of trying to sell health care for President Obama.Here are my questions which many should ask:

                                                                    1. Why do many outside this country come here for heath care?
                                                                    2. What is the cost in taxes or out of pocket expenses?
                                                                    3. Who controls what procedures are allowed and what are not covered?
                                                                    4. What are their national debts?

                                                                    It is fine to make statement without numbers and facts. If NBC and all the other so called news agencies which wish to sell this for the president then they need to start giving out numbers and data instead of vague examples without any substance behind them.

                                                                    • 2 votes
                                                                    Reply#23 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:42 PM EDT
                                                                    jock59801

                                                                    1. Yes, wealthy people can buy excellent health care in America.

                                                                    2. The OVERALL cost (taxes plus private) per person is twice as much in America than any other developed country. Is this what you really prefer?

                                                                    3. Somebody always decides what will be covered. In America it is corporations with incentive to cut cost and NO incentive to keep people healthy. Is this what you really prefer?

                                                                    4. Obviously no other country can touch us when it comes to national debt. Part of that is because WE PAY MORE FOR HEALTH CARE. Is this what you really prefer?

                                                                    • 5 votes
                                                                    #23.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:49 PM EDT
                                                                    usmcvet5711

                                                                    sorry jock but what we pay for health care does not add to the national debt because health care insurance is privatized except for the entitlement programs. Additionally overall cost is not twice as much because again our taxes do not pay for our own insurance. Yes we do pay taxes for others but it is a swap system that will be available to us when we get older or lose our incomes. In countries where taxes help to pay for medical both income taxes and increased sales taxes mean that the relative cost of healthcare is higher is countries with centralized govt medical.

                                                                    As for our national debt just consider how much more it will be if they push this monstrosity through right now with projected costs of over 82 billion a year.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #23.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:01 PM EDT
                                                                    tom474e

                                                                    Having to provide health insurance is a burden and disadvantage to American companies, because in the rest of the world the Govt provides health care and companies doent have to.

                                                                    • 1 vote
                                                                    #23.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:33 PM EDT
                                                                    Reply
                                                                    WEEKEND AT BERNIES

                                                                    The problem is not only do Americans subsidize all uninsured American citizens AND illegal aliens, but we also subsidize the rest of the worlds prescription drugs. That is why you can buy American drugs cheaper in Canada. If we could eliminate all the corruption in our government and businesses we would still be a world leader. But alas the lawyers/crooks have taken over. Maybe some stricter laws for white collar criminals would be a deterrent.

                                                                    Bernie Madoff should have been hanged on the floor of the stock exchange.

                                                                    • 4 votes
                                                                    Reply#24 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:46 PM EDT
                                                                    frenchandproudDeleted
                                                                    hope51

                                                                    Yeah, America has a lot to learn from the other countries health care systems.....

                                                                    But America has one thing that's working against any sane, beneficial, fair and comprehensive reform that would give all it's citizens equal health care, as the rest of the civilized world has, without burdening the average taxpayer and working class with more load on them, to pick up the cost of the presently uninsured people, and those who can't afford it. And this cancerous, monster among us is the Ins/Med/ Pharma industry's maffia which has become so big and powerful, and will not let go of their profits. So, no mater what happens, it will be the working class that's going to take up the load. People, this country is not fit to live in it any longer! It's becoming a nightmare, and don't kid yourself, it wil not go away!

                                                                      Reply#26 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:47 PM EDT
                                                                      BushHatersAreIdiots

                                                                      Well then, go the f*ck somewhere else and live! As for your claim, who do think is fuding the campaign coffers of your Democrat friends in our federal government. Geez! Get a clue!

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #26.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:56 PM EDT
                                                                      Xarturo

                                                                      bushhatersaregods

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #26.2 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
                                                                      clarke ong

                                                                      godsarebushhaters

                                                                      • 1 vote
                                                                      #26.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:37 PM EDT
                                                                      Xarturo

                                                                      you got the little 'g' right

                                                                        #26.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:40 PM EDT
                                                                        hope51

                                                                        Re: 26.1

                                                                        You see, that's also the reason the real reform will never happen, because of ignorant people like you... The fat cats who love to hold on to their powers have brainwashed you, and you can't even reason with your own head...... O, but you can slur insults, because that's what makes you feel powerful and macho, right!!!!? What a pity!

                                                                        And even here you're wrong, because this is not a liberal, nor conservative here speaking.... They all are bunch of spineless leaders which can not stand up for right principles and get things done, because they're intimidated by greedy, corrupted entities which also have enough money and power to bribe for themselves any one of them, so that they'd pass laws in their favor...

                                                                        But you would not understand here what I'm saying anyway, since you can not see further from your own nose, and the only thing you know is to boast yourself in your pride as an American. .....Oh,my, we know what pride does, it swells one's head!.... But America is not God's pet, neither is the evil and injustice that's done to the people of this country being unnoticed by Him.... But to someone like you , there is no need to explain those things... you can't see it because, friend , your head is in the barrel, and you can't discern from which direction the voices are coming from.....

                                                                        And there are many like you, who , even if something good may be on the way to happen, they will oppose it. Because to them, anything new and anything that is not the continuation of old, no matter how stale, mildewed and rotten it may have become, they will cling on to it, and proudly claim it as being the expression of their American Patriotism!!!

                                                                        That's about the sum of it, and that's why people in this country are and will keep being used, abused, and loaded down with unbearable burdens while the fat cats lick their chops and make fools out of you, and servants out of us.

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #26.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:50 PM EDT
                                                                        Reply
                                                                        Wilfred of Ivanhoe

                                                                        America doesn't have the universal health care that many other, less wealthy countries have for one reason. The greedy, private, for-profit health care industry has paid those in Congress millions in campaign contributions to keep the private companies in power. If there was an issue where Congress has screwed the American people royally, it's health care. We should have had universal, affordable health care decades ago. The rest of the world is laughing their collective butt off at us. Can't blame them, because when it comes to health care, America looks like a floating ship of fools.

                                                                        • 3 votes
                                                                        Reply#27 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:49 PM EDT
                                                                        BushHatersAreIdiots

                                                                        Is that why people come here for treatment from around the world? You Libs are idiots! To actually think a politician can be trusted to manage your healthcare is completely stupid and Niave!

                                                                        • 1 vote
                                                                        #27.1 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:59 PM EDT
                                                                        frenchandproudDeleted
                                                                        BushHatersAreIdiots

                                                                        They may be going there for alternative treatments which the FDA (Federal Government) won't allow here. We have the best Healthcare system in the world and no stupid article (perfect timing of course) can prove otherwise. You idiot Libs keep trying to support outragous plans with outragous made up studies and stories about the horrors of what you want to change. This is all nothing new. But I have to ask you, why are you doing this? What do you possibly have to gain by empowering the crooks on capital hill with even more power over your lives? Do yo hate America that much? Or did your teachers and professors teach you that capitalism is bad and Utopia can be acheived? Marxism has failed wherever it is tried, and it will fail here too.

                                                                          #27.3 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:13 PM EDT
                                                                          clarke ong

                                                                          Bushhater

                                                                          Can you quantify that with some statistics please?

                                                                            #27.4 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 4:38 PM EDT
                                                                            V...

                                                                            No he can't.... and by the way..

                                                                            We have the best Healthcare system in the world and no stupid article (perfect timing of course) can prove otherwise. You idiot Libs keep trying to support outragous plans with outragous made up studies

                                                                            The US is ranked 37th in the world by the World Health Organization. They have nothing to do with Democrats, Liberals, Socialists, Marxists, or the Easter Bunny... They have no agenda, and nothing to gain within or via American politics.

                                                                              #27.5 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:19 PM EDT
                                                                              Reply
                                                                              ColliDeleted
                                                                              ColliDeleted
                                                                              billfjr

                                                                              I think we should let that insane murderer who escaped from the county fair in Washington lay out the plan to reform healthcare.

                                                                              After all he has firsthand experience in the machinations of the current system and it's important to know where you are in order know what to change.

                                                                              Plus, he seems very crafty and conniving in his ability to dodge and escape from the inevitable, just like our politicians. Vetting would be easy and he should certainly pass through all current scrutiny.

                                                                              I think he would be a shoo-in.

                                                                                Reply#30 - Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:58 PM EDT
                                                                                frenchandproudDeleted
                                                                                Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 5
                                                                                Leave a Comment:
                                                                                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                                                                                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                                                                                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                                                                                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                                                                                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                                                                                FUN STUFF:
                                                                                • Leaderboard |
                                                                                • E-Mail Alerts |
                                                                                • Top of the Vine |
                                                                                • Newsvine Live |
                                                                                • Newsvine Archives |
                                                                                • The Greenhouse
                                                                                COMPANY STUFF:
                                                                                • Code of Honor |
                                                                                • Company Info |
                                                                                • Contact Us |
                                                                                • Jobs |
                                                                                • User Agreement |
                                                                                • Privacy Policy |
                                                                                • About our ads
                                                                                LEGAL STUFF:
                                                                                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                                                                                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com