Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39
  1.    #1  
    PBS' the NewsHour is doing a running report on health care in other countries.

    The below link is a report on the Netherlands move from a gov't socialized program to a regulated private insurance health care delivery method.

    Please watch and share any comments:

    In Netherlands, Insurers Compete Over Quality of Care


    Thanks!
  2. #2  
    Wow..."entitlement" programs (forcing one person to pay for a freebie for someone else) by their very design are hard to get rid of, no matter how much money they hemorrhage.

    It's rare to see government control of something decrease once the politicians get their hands on it. Should be interesting to see how things go there.
  3. #3  
    Any type of regulation put on a private industry in the US is considered Socialism.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  4. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Any type of regulation put on a private industry in the US is considered Socialism.
    Not by me!
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  5. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    Please watch and share any comments:

    Thanks!
    I think it's interesting that they are moving in the exact opposite direction that we seem to be considering, in order to accomplish the same goals... of those, the primary was reduction in costs.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    And your plan to defuse the ticking timebomb of annual 20% premium increases which are driving the middle-class onto Welfare, Medicaid, and bankruptcy is . . . ?? Without nipping at the edges, I'm sure everyone would enjoy reading your solution that gets down to the bottom-line of controlling costs while insuring all have equal access.
    Rather than having a knee-jerk reaction of "let politicians 'fix' it," we should examine WHY costs are going up so drastically. Government getting out of the way will do more to allow the market to make the necessary adjustments. And tort reform would be a quick and easy way to drastically lower costs without installing a bloated and expensive bureaucracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    To all: I'm just curious about one thing among all the anti-Obama/anti-Democratic "do nothing/do virtually nothing" types. In the big picture of American politics, do you equate proposed reforms of healthcare coverage with the bailout of the auto and banking industries? There seems to be alot of lumping them together to form a blanket anti-Obama stance which is why I ask.
    They're related because they all involve giving bureaucrats more control over the private industry and personal choice...and they have a horrible track record. Price controls, restrictive tariffs, punitive taxation...all may make good press to get votes, but they always end up causing harm. And they always, ALWAYS end up costing FAR more than they claim. Just recently, we've seen fine examples: Hawaii's foray into price controls on gasoline, steel tariffs meant to "protect" domestic workers, the short-lived Luxury Tax from the 90's...they all were knee-jerk reactions meant to protect the little guy and punish the big-wig but only the little guy got hurt.

    It's not that we want to "do nothing," it's that we don't want bureaucrats to run businesses. Give customers the freedom to decide what they want. When businesses are forced to compete, we'll win. Allow more competition. Remove restrictions on what types of policies companies can sell and where they can sell them; allow premiums paid by the self-insured to be pre-tax; encourage people to be self-insured; tort reform to lower costs to health care providers. All of the current ideas being promoted by the administration involve bureaucrats controlling how the system works when what they should "do" is remove the obstacles that increase cost and limit choices.
  7.    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I think it's interesting that they are moving in the exact opposite direction that we seem to be considering, in order to accomplish the same goals... of those, the primary was reduction in costs.
    It's actually the same direction. Mandatory coverage.
  8. #8  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    Any type of regulation put on a private industry in the US is considered Socialism.
    the problem is that the healthcare industry has two components, public health and individual health. Resolving and defining them is difficult and includes general welfare things like sewage and water treatment on one end to non-restorative brest augmentation.

    in between it becomes gray for lots of people. Granted some would feel opposed or in favor of either end of the spectrum.

    stopping cherry picking and using risk adjustment is interesting as a strategy. Assuming it extends risk adjustment to the provider level it really could effect quality, and potentially control cost. On the other hand it could be a red tape filled treatment blocking crapfest. Only reality will tell.
  9. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    It's actually the same direction. Mandatory coverage.
    You know I have reservations about that. The libertarian in me cries out! If we can reach an agreement that will allow for insurance companies to compete, that may be a compromise we'll have to make.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  10.    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    You know I have reservations about that. The libertarian in me cries out! If we can reach an agreement that will allow for insurance companies to compete, that may be a compromise we'll have to make.
    You should realize that with the demand for competitive pricing between the insurance companies by the Netherlands, they also heavily regulate them which would be necessary for mandatory coverage (which is necessary for reasons which have been discussed ad nauseam).
  11.    #11  
    Quote Originally Posted by jaguar717 View Post
    Wow..."entitlement" programs (forcing one person to pay for a freebie for someone else) by their very design are hard to get rid of, no matter how much money they hemorrhage.
    You do realize you're currently paying for the uninsured's health care?
  12. #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    You should realize that with the demand for competitive pricing between the insurance companies by the Netherlands, they also heavily regulate them which would be necessary for mandatory coverage (which is necessary for reasons which have been discussed ad nauseam).
    From watching the video, since they have moved from government controlled to private control of health insurance, I would think other parts that interconnect with healthcare are also regulated, like drug pricing.

    It sounded to me like the competition wasn't so much in pricing, but rather the service they provide, i.e., how they treat their customers, but I could be wrong.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  13. #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    After 50 years of ruling healthcare, the insurance lobby hasn't had proper opportunity to address its cannibalistic treatment of those it insures? At today's rate of premium increases, simply maintaining the status quo of trusting the market to reform itself is not an option. After all, the market has offered no counterproposals of its own which address the root causes of its own excess.
    You focus on the insurance industry but completely omit the effect of government regulations on how the industry performs. Say you own a business, and the local government starts mandating how long you have to stay open, or how many toilets you must have in the office...all those increase your cost of doing business, and is passed on to the customer, who can then decide whether or not your costs are too high.

    Insurance companies are heavily regulated at the state level, dictated what must be covered and what types of plans can be offered. A study was done in 2006 that showed that, in states with heavier regulation, customers saw higher premiums. In the 90s, Kentucky passed a Guarantee Issue regulation and 30 insurance companies quit offering policies in the state, leaving less than 5 options. (Guaranteed Issue means that people can't be turned down based upon health, but it also means that they can't have coverage discontinued if they commit fraud or don't pay the premiums. Imagine a local government telling you that your restaurant MUST feed people even if they refuse to pay.)

    Quote Originally Posted by 1thing2add View Post
    Your informed opinion on this suggests how much of a reduction to healthcare costs will tort reform eat from the edges? Please supply non-partisan studied sources. Thanks!
    "It will be tough to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they're looking over their shoulders for fear of lawsuits... some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable." (President Obama, American Medical Association June 2009).

    "Anyone who denies there is a crisis in medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer."
    (Barack Obama 1996 Illinois State Senate race).

    Not exactly "non-partisan" but I believe you might consider him credible.

    This is from the man who managed Walter Mondale's presidential campaign and favors government-managed health care. He's in favor of tort reform. RealClearPolitics - Dems' Ace in the Hole on Health Care: Tort Reform

    between 1997 and 2007 medical tort costs (including insurance premiums) have risen from $15 billion to $30 billion a year. That fact alone should insure that yearly savings in the billions from medical tort reform would pass the credibility test.
    Many talk of the huge increases in insurance premiums, but a $15 billion/year increase over 10 years isn't chump change. The thing to keep in mind is that those malpractice costs are in place before a doctor sees a single patient. They must recoup those costs just to stay in business and treat patients.

    Another quote from him:

    Then there is the restriction to accessible healthcare resulting from malpractice lawsuits. A GAO report in August 2003 concluded, "Actions taken by healthcare providers in response to malpractice pressure have contributed to localized healthcare access problems....pregnant women in rural central Mississippi (for example) travel 65 miles to locate obstetric wards to deliver because family practitioners at local hospitals faced with rising malpractice insurance premiums stopped providing obstetric services."
    Regulations increase cost and that cost is passed along to somebody. In the end, it all comes back to the individual.
    Last edited by semprini; 10/07/2009 at 02:28 PM.
  14.    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by palandri View Post
    From watching the video, since they have moved from government controlled to private control of health insurance, I would think other parts that interconnect with healthcare are also regulated, like drug pricing.

    It sounded to me like the competition wasn't so much in pricing, but rather the service they provide, i.e., how they treat their customers, but I could be wrong.
    I believe the key to the competition presented in the story was how well the insurance companies negotiated contracts with their providers and hospitals.
  15. #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by daThomas View Post
    I believe the key to the competition presented in the story was how well the insurance companies negotiated contracts with their providers and hospitals.
    That makes sense.
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  16. #16  
    Hye guys, i was just reading your debate and while you guys are discussing what obama is proposing , I would like to add my tidbit.

    1) the dollar is failing so of course the prices are going to go up
    2) The food we eat, the air we breath and other factors are contributing to an alarming rate of disease for EVERYONE
    3) If people were taught what causes their condition and given help to FIX the problem instead of just giving a wonder pill that causes more problems we might be able to get some positive results
    4) having lived on the border for several years, medicine is cheaper in Mexico, why are profit margins so high
    5) stop making everything a "condition" or a "disease"


    Anyway, hope that helps take this into a more psoitive direction where the root of the problem is focused on instead of which bandaid to apply (no pun intended).

    Anyway, you guys seem more educated on this stuff than I. Keep up the interesting read.

    Thanks
  17. #17  
    I have zero interest in hearing the rants against Democrat-lites (the Republicans). My interest is the Individual, and protection from government intrusion.

    I'm interested in getting government out of our lives, and taking power back from the command-and-control types who want nothing but to lord over the unwashed peons.

    Every suggestion to reform tort or open up insurance to nationwide competition (or even to have bills available for 3 days before a vote), whether proposed by a Republican or Democrat, has been unanimously rejected by The Party Elite. The only thing being pushed is government takeover, and making everyone who works for a living pay for other people's healthcare.

    Nevermind that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other program based on robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote with a handout is bankrupt. Nevermind that the healthcare takeover managed to bankrupt Massachusetts in a few short years. We still run full speed toward the stagnation of Old Europe, even as they show signs of rejecting omnipotent government.

    No matter how many school children are taught to sing songs to Dear Leader, those of us trying to earn a living are tired of the nonstop burdens piled onto us to reward those who feel "entitled" (and keep them forever dependent on the demagogues).
  18.    #18  
    Quote Originally Posted by jaguar717 View Post
    I have zero interest in hearing the rants against Democrat-lites (the Republicans). My interest is the Individual, and protection from government intrusion.

    I'm interested in getting government out of our lives, and taking power back from the command-and-control types who want nothing but to lord over the unwashed peons.

    Every suggestion to reform tort or open up insurance to nationwide competition (or even to have bills available for 3 days before a vote), whether proposed by a Republican or Democrat, has been unanimously rejected by The Party Elite. The only thing being pushed is government takeover, and making everyone who works for a living pay for other people's healthcare.

    Nevermind that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and every other program based on robbing Peter to buy Paul's vote with a handout is bankrupt. Nevermind that the healthcare takeover managed to bankrupt Massachusetts in a few short years. We still run full speed toward the stagnation of Old Europe, even as they show signs of rejecting omnipotent government.

    No matter how many school children are taught to sing songs to Dear Leader, those of us trying to earn a living are tired of the nonstop burdens piled onto us to reward those who feel "entitled" (and keep them forever dependent on the demagogues).
    Currently you are paying for the health care of the uninsred "unwashed masses". Are you saying you are prepared to lock the emergency room doors to those with acute illness and no insurance?
  19. #19  
    I'm saying it's a joke to pretend this is anything like "reform". It's a power grab by those who fancy themselves enlightened rulers here to issue dictates to we peons. The "unwashed masses" is how the Party Elite seem to view any dissenters.

    As I said before, true reform would involve things that would actually reduce costs, like reining in tort and opening up insurance to interstate competition. Somehow that hasn't been brought into consideration once by The Party (heavily trial-lawyer supported).

    The only things they favor are ones which give them more decision making powers over our lives, and which let let them make more people more dependent on government (and in turn trade handouts for perpetual votes every time the bankrupt plan needs another trillion).

    At the end of the day, what's being proposed is further burdening those of us who work for a living and forcing me to buy someone else's Tylenol. The fact that government is doing it doesn't make it any less theft--in fact it's worse because I have no defense against government force. At least with a common street thug I'd have a fighting chance.
  20.    #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by jaguar717 View Post
    I'm saying it's a joke to pretend this is anything like "reform". It's a power grab by those who fancy themselves enlightened rulers here to issue dictates to we peons. The "unwashed masses" is how the Party Elite seem to view any dissenters.

    As I said before, true reform would involve things that would actually reduce costs, like reining in tort and opening up insurance to interstate competition. Somehow that hasn't been brought into consideration once by The Party (heavily trial-lawyer supported).

    The only things they favor are ones which give them more decision making powers over our lives, and which let let them make more people more dependent on government (and in turn trade handouts for perpetual votes every time the bankrupt plan needs another trillion).

    At the end of the day, what's being proposed is further burdening those of us who work for a living and forcing me to buy someone else's Tylenol. The fact that government is doing it doesn't make it any less theft--in fact it's worse because I have no defense against government force. At least with a common street thug I'd have a fighting chance.
    Your theatrics aside. I'll repeat, you are paying for "other people's tylenol" now. Only, currently there are middle-men scraping off profits. Honestly, from what I can perceive of your political/economic philosophy, the only model that would fit is a fully private one in which the poor and uninsured are locked out of care. Is that a fair assumption?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions