61–70 of 94 posts
If anyone is interested, you can look up what single payer costs[1] are for various procedures in Australia, you can pay more than what is listed if you go private, but it still isn't anywhere near the cost of what procedures cost in the USA. [1] http://www.mbsonline.gov.au/internet/mbsonline/publishing.ns...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of Europe
Monthly rates vary though. In the Netherlands you pay €90 or so a month for (mandatory) health insurance, with a €350 a year deductible. Low income households do get partly subsidized by the government of course.
It is good to live in a country where I only spend 50 euro per month in taxes for all the care I could need! Its great to be in the first world!
What's the country?
It is good to live in a country where I only spend 50 euro per month in taxes for all the care I could need! Its great to be in the first world!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Monthly rates vary though. In the Netherlands you pay €90 or so a month for (mandatory) health insurance, with a €350 a year deductible. Low income households do get partly subsidized by the government of course.
The Netherlands spends ~$5200/pp on healthcare[1]. Where does the rest of the money come from? [1]: http://www.who.int/countries/nld/en/
I came across this last night and stayed up too late reading it. It's a fascinating exposé of where at least a good part of the money is going -- the extra money that we Americans spend on health care that doesn't bring us any better outcomes. I think it's relevant to HN because a lot of us with families and/or in middle age can't risk quitting our jobs to start startups without assurance that we'll be able to buy ad…
Relevant quote from the article re: what an effective solution needs to achieve: >The real issue isn’t whether we have a single payer or multiple payers. It’s whether whoever pays has a fair chance in a fair market. Congress has given Medicare that power when it comes to dealing with hospitals and doctors, and we have seen how that works to drive down the prices Medicare pays, just as we’ve seen what happens when Con…
Also, cap profits to almost zero while moving to a completely not-for-profit system.
I came across this last night and stayed up too late reading it. It's a fascinating exposé of where at least a good part of the money is going -- the extra money that we Americans spend on health care that doesn't bring us any better outcomes. I think it's relevant to HN because a lot of us with families and/or in middle age can't risk quitting our jobs to start startups without assurance that we'll be able to buy ad…
Canada was the only country with single-payer like we talk about in the U.S. The U.K. is single-payer but also single-provider, the doctors work for the government-run healthcare system.
But the best results were in France, Germany, and Japan. They function a lot like Obamacare (multiple insurance companies, though all non-profit, and mandates to buy insurance). However, they add several critical features:
- Government controls on the price of services. Doctors make a lot less money than in the U.S.
- No claim denials allowed for anything on the national price list. If a doctor prescribes it, prompt payment is guaranteed.
- Good digital medical records.
According to Reid, a lot of German doctors don't bother hiring office staff. They swipe your medical card, get all your records, prescribe what they want, and get paid in a week. They can charge less because their costs are lower.
At least one of those countries also has subsidized tuition for medical school, I think Japan. Japan has the lowest costs (only 5% GDP on healthcare, with great outcomes despite an aging population of smokers), and the tightest cost controls; e.g. they make do with simple MRI machines without a lot of bells and whistles, but they do the job, and an MRI costs $100. Japan implements their mandate in an interesting way: you're free to not pay, but if you go to the doctor and you want it covered, you have to pay your back premiums.
Anyway, it's a fascinating book if you're interested in this stuff.
It is good to live in a country where I only spend 50 euro per month in taxes for all the care I could need! Its great to be in the first world!
Speaking as an extremely pro-Capitalist person, this is the kind of area where Government interventions are required. Capitalism and fair markets require a few basic things: - Informed consumers (most consumers of healthcare either don't know enough about it to make any solid judgement) - Competition (most hospitals in any given area are grouped together and rarely compete, if at all) - Choice (if you're in an ambula…
There is plenty of competition among hospitals. You can choose which one to go to (from an ambulance or any other time). Customers are strongly price sensitive and prone to comparison. There are plenty of choices as to where to go.
Assuming I'm well enough to travel, I'll always fly to capitalist India to have my medical work done.
And again as a Capitalist: You take a high value, required product, mix with a group of consumers who don't have a choice whether or not to buy, and a business minded person with no ethical compass whatsoever and you'll have record profits and screwed customers. Simple as that.
So do you believe that Indian doctors/other medical types are just vastly more ethical than the (very often Indian) doctors in the US?