As a group who think themselves so intelligent, why can't progressives understand the economy? (programs, state)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your knowledge of your own country's health care system is on a par with Americans' knowledge of their health care system, and your Health Care IQ is "0" like 90% of Americans. Your average American is so ignorant and ill-informed they believe that their glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing program is actually health insurance.
I never say anything that isn't backed-up in writing.
It's just not my style.
The following European States have these exclusions in their insurance plans....
Austria: Individual: pre-existing conditions usually excluded (but not from group policies);
insurers cannot reject applications but may charge higher premiums and/or introduce
cost-sharing arrangements for people with chronic illnesses
Belgium: Mutual: psychiatric and long-term care (lump sum)
Mutual: psychiatric care (co-payment)
Commercial: pre-existing conditions, infertility treatment, sporting injuries
Denmark: Pre-existing conditions
Finland: Pregnancy and childbirth, infertility treatment, alcoholism, herbal remedies, treatment
covered by statutory health insurance
France: Excluding any disease is forbidden by law, although it can be authorized in individual
policies under certain conditions: the disease has to be clearly stated and the insurer
has to prove that the patient had the disease before purchasing the policy
Germany: Pre-existing conditions are excluded if they were known at the time of underwriting and were not disclosed by the insured; declared pre-existing conditions are covered but generally result in higher premiums
Greece: Pre-existing conditions
Ireland: Open enrollment
Italy: Individual: pre-existing conditions, chronic and recurrent diseases, mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction, cosmetic surgery, war risks, injuries arising from insurrection,
natural disasters etc; also often excludes dental care not caused by accident/illness
Group: pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, drug and alcohol addiction, HIV/AIDS,
severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia, voluntary termination of
pregnancy and war risks
Luxembourg:Mutual: open enrollment
Commercial: pre-existing conditions
Netherlands: Some dental plans may require people to have their teeth restored before acceptance
Portugal: Individual: pre-existing conditions, long-term chronic illnesses (such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma), HIV/AIDS, haemodialysis, self-inflicted injuries, psychiatric treatments, check-ups, dental care, outpatient drugs, alternative medicine and non-evidence based treatment; dental care, delivery costs and outpatient drugs are only covered by the most expensive policies Spain HIV/AIDS, alcoholism and drug addiction, dental care (often available for a supplementary premium), prosthesis, infertility treatment, orthopaedics etc; some insurers do not
have general restrictions but may reject certain conditions; most insurers offer extra benefits for a supplementary premium eg organ transplants, second opinion, family planning, assistance during trips, treatment abroad, certain prosthesis; only one insurer offers homeopathy or spa treatment
Sweden: Emergency care, long-term care, HIV/AIDS, some other communicable diseases,
diseases and injuries as a result of the use of alcohol or other intoxicating substances,
pre-natal care, child birth (normal or with complications), termination of pregnancy,
infertility treatment, vaccinations
UK: Pre-existing conditions, GP services, accident and emergency admission, long-term
chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma, drug abuse, self-inflicted
injuries, outpatient drugs and dressings, HIV/AIDS, infertility, normal pregnancy and child birth, cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment, preventive treatment, kidney dialysis, mobility aids, experimental treatment and drugs, organ transplants, war risks and injuries arising from hazardous pursuits
Mossialos and Thomson (2004)
You can find that in the Euro Observer, which is published by the European Observatory On Health.
If people are offended by Realityâ„¢, they should gouge out their eye-balls.
Both of you hung your hat on Pukipedia.
Big mistake.
The Netherlands has 3 levels of insurance, plus a 4th supplemental insurance.
In all discussions and comparison of US heath care to other countries, it is absolutely important to understand that the US does not have health insurance -- but nearly all other countries do.
What you have in the US is a glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing plan.....which is not insurance.
That fact alone proves the OPs assertion that "progressives" (whatever that is) do not understand economics.
Because Americans willfully choose to reject or ban health insurance, and prefer this glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing plan, the only option regarding pre-existing conditions (often referred to in European literature as "previous conditions") is to flat out deny people health plan coverage in its entirety.
If Americans would insist upon having health insurance, then health plan providers would have the option of offering at least a basic health care package -- excluding coverage of the pre-existing condition(s) -- which is how it works for nearly all European countries.
About the basisverzekering. --- I'll show you where the Pukipedia article is wrong...
There is a deductible -- the verplicht eigen risico --- which is currently 220 Euros per year.
Contrary to what Pukipedia says, every person will not pay the same price. You can shop around here to compare costs here:
Also in addition to the verplicht eigen risico, every person over 18 years has a Euro 150 deductible, and you can get a discount if you want an higher deductible (the maximum deductible is Euro 650).
You can get a discount up to 10% if you are the member of a "group." Under the Dutch scheme, the definition of group is very liberally construed: a group can be be people who communicate on the internet (provided they are all Dutch and reside in the Netherlands).
In addition to the basic, additional and exceptional insurance, you can buy supplementary insurance to cover [adult] dental care, chiropractic (called "physiotherapy" in European literature), optometry, alternative medicine, and cosmetic surgery --- and those are risk-rated and you can be denied if your risk is too high, or if you have a pre-existing condition (if you are deemed "legally blind" then you are covered under the exceptional insurance).
In addition to paying for your basic insurance, everyone pays 7.2% of the first Euro 31,000 in wages/income to the Risk Equalization Fund, which is about $2,230 per year (or more -- it appears the rate is scaled for income at higher levels).
The purpose of the Risk Equalization Fund is to subsidize lower income groups.
Plus, you pay an additional tax for the exceptional insurance (AWZG). The cost of the exceptional insurance used to be 12.55% of your income up to the first Euro 16,500 but it has increased now to 13.45% --- which would be $2,270 (or so).
Uh, so where are we? Um $4,500 and you still haven't paid for your basic insurance, or your additional insurance or your supplemental insurance.
How about that?
In the Netherlands, you purchase additional insurance to cover treatments, drugs, diseases and other things the basic plan does not cover. The additional insurance also lets you avoid waiting lists, get faster treatment and preferred care --- meaning you can get a private or semi-private room, instead of being in an ward --- anyone here remember hospital wards?
I doubt it. You all are used to extreme luxury and private/semi-private rooms. In Euro hospitals and clinics, a ward might have 6 to 24 beds. That's also related to Culture: Europeans do not go berserk over space --- especially personal space --- and privacy issues like Americans do.
Also, I note that all of you view these Euro-systems in a vacuum, instead of in the context of the applicable laws for each country. In other words, you falsely assume that health care is never denied, delayed or diluted, and some of are under the misguided belief that have a universal health care system will resolve your present problems related to your health plan provider's reluctance or refusal to pay.
Legal considerations --- especially the definitions --- are very, very important when making comparisons as well....
Austria: Medically necessary, sufficient, appropriate (see General Social Insurance Act (ASVG), §133[2])
Belgium: Medical necessity, activity, cost effectiveness, safety (by Royal Decree)
France: Inscription of new medical and surgical procedures after advice of ANAES on efficacy and safety
Germany: Medically necessary, effective, cost effective (see Social Code Book (SGB) V, §135[1])
Luxembourg:
Sufficient, appropriate (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 17,1)
or
Medically necessary, effective, efficient (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 23,1)
Netherlands: Medically necessary (see Sickness Fund Act (ZFW), preamble)
Switzerland: Effective, appropriate, cost-efficient (see Swiss Insurance Law (KVG), §32)
The UK also has similar criteria....
"Appropriateness criteria govern when and for whom a treatment or service included in the benefits package is funded. Appropriateness criteria may entail clinical criteria that a patient has to meet before a given treatment is deemed appropriate and therefore funded."
In my case, not having surgeries would not cause my death, nor would it cause other medical complications, so I would be denied, or my treatment would be delayed until some year where there was extra money left over in [the local clinic's] budget to do it.
You all should read the studies in the UK on carpal tunnel and cubital syndromes.
A few other things about the German system. Over a certain income level, you can opt out of the public program and get private insurance. Germany is one of the few countries that does not have waiting lists -- so the time factor is not an issue --- but if you want treatment for diseases/illnesses the government program does not cover, or the government refuses pay or treat, or you will need private insurance. If you opt out of government insurance for private insurance, then want to go back to government insurance, you are only allowed to return to the public system under "very exceptional circumstances" and the German government has suspended the right of those 55 years of age or older to rejoin the social insurance scheme (Ministry of Health, Germany, 2008).
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
So the government collects Euro 500 Billion and that's all it spends -- but what if the people need Euro 650 Billion in medical services? Too bad...so sad....those people don't get treated, or their treatment is delayed/diluted until next year, or the year after, or the year after that when there is enough money.
"By law, our health insurers cannot reimburse for services that are deemed unnecessary. Thus, a doctor who provides such services will not be paid for them. If IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) decides that a given treatment does not provide value, the treatment can be excluded from the benefits package". -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"In addition 16 per cent of Germans hold supplementary insurance (OECD, 2008) for services not fully covered by core insurance such as co-payments for dental care and better amenities including single/double rooms, and treatment by senior medical practitioners" (Busse, 2008).
Getting back to the OPs issue of why progressives don't understand the economy, especially where issues of social welfare programs are concerned, progressives fail to grasp the basic core concept of Economics, like Opportunity Costs.
The value produced by health care exceeds its Opportunity Cost, and because it does, growth in health spending is economically sustainable. Why? Because it is a basic Economic Principle that the value in excess of cost can be seen as a measure of economic sustainability. When the Opportunity
Cost of health spending is too high, health spending becomes economically unsustainable.
I discussed that on another thread and specifically why that was true.
It's the nature of health care. When marginal costs exceed marginal benefits, you're throwing away money and in health care it has been repeatedly proven (just like education) that money does not alter outcome (you can read the studies at Dartmouth University).
That is especially true in health care where age is concerned. We already know we spend more on the elderly, but no one ever knew why until researchers discovered that it is the proximity to death that causes higher levels of spending and not age (and the most recent study is Zweifel, Felder & Werblow 2004).
That's why Medicare costs keep rising, and since technology is the driving factor in health care costs, more technology means more spending closer to death.
Uh, I'm gonna guess that you didn't read the report by the Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport which is the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
"In contrast with positive findings like these, there is also evidence that Dutch health care is not living up to the high ambitions and expectations in every way. Accessibility is unsatisfactory in some areas, as evidenced by persistent waiting lists in certain sectors and the difficulty of reaching GP practices by telephone during office hours. Wide variations exist amongst health care providers in terms of both price and quality. The cooperation and coordination between different providers are not as good as they should be. Although quality improvement goes hand in hand with cost savings in some instances, this cannot be firmly concluded for the system as a whole. In fact, the total costs of care continue to grow at a fast rate, while the quality of care improves slowly."
And you can find that in the Executive Summary atgezondheidszorgbalans.
I'm not sure who rated the Dutch system as #1 in the world, but it wasn't the Dutch government.
I never understood the Liberal faith in Liberalism. It has failed in the past and is failing now. Nothing else matters to Liberals more than supporting Liberalism.
Whenever you stumble upon Americans discussing economics you must settle down with a shot of whiskey and rest your chin in hand. Try not to smirk, mask one's mental anguish as the developed world's premier economic society goes on exhibiting their famously educated innocence when it comes down to what it is that has provided most with such an easy affluence, as they further express dreamy aspirations they have adopted thru inculcated self-interests to enable a utopia unlike any other.
...ugh...
There are too many idealists who cannot stop believing that poverty is something that can be annihilated by giving a good-feel sentiment reign. These are the same types who think that productive individuality can be legislated into existence by enough social spending & regulations. These types demand protections by authority: always have, always will and never will they change. Anyone who is not rightful authority, like those who are prosperous (?), must be made to suffer thru a financial bleeding so as to create a more 'fair' equality. These folks have little sense when it comes to what makes for real-world economies but pet theories expounded during time served in diploma mills that sound righteous enough are what they support. Keynes was a born noble and who cares if he may have had orgies with Virgina Woolf? Hipness is nothing if only to promote envy in those unable to do.
There are those too with the typically popularized mentality expressed by Catherine Zeta-Jones' husband's character in that famous movie that solidified what so many now know they must fear: The "greed is good!" troop, manipulating their ways thru a finagled Chess game seemingly devoted to a conveniently popularized & spoofish Ayn Randian arch-type. Like vampires & werewolves of lore, they exist to scare children who couldn't protect themselves nonetheless anyone else in the village they notice requires teary-eyed commiseration. But tribal minds work like that and so there are your villains and you can implore Deputy R. Hood to rob them since the Sheriff has been so lustily seduced by Nottingham, Inc. But greed is good to many, which is why it is so cherished by so many. Hint: expecting so much in services for simply existing and not earning the right to them is greed. Don't like it? Move to Somalia or visit inner-city Detroit, America's own little existential Mogadishu.
Being born entitles no one to anything no matter what situation one is borne into regardless of what has been opined. Fairness was just a dream a masochistic sufferer came up with some hazy day after the dawn of humanity, and is usually reserved for those who can't comprehend that individuality naturally negates herd desires in this rolling event called existence. Bawling while pointing at common misery is just another dishonest tactic used to deny others what they have earned or acquired. One would think that a basic psychology class at the diploma mill would have taught this lesson, but professional inculcators find acceptable base equivocations easier than delivering simple un-biased educating, makes one more palatable, thus ensuring tenure never becomes threatened by hungry, star-struck obligatory attendees there but to earn future incomes.
...
The problem here is that too many want too much, passively pursuing a life'style' they pine after because it is so advertised, looks so romantic & true. Not just those who want things like HC because Europe has it, but those who want resources & power beyond their means as well. The over-developed world has this pathological desire to sate a guilt they have concerning their place in the world that they refuse to investigate logically. That is the prime issue when discussing honest economics theory in America and the fact that Americans (like all other humans despite nationality) have this fascination with construing the ability to practice individual liberty by attaining wealth. Imagine that! How to motivate those less prone to providing for themselves would be a more genuine tact for the wealth redistribution cliques, but much, much harder to do. So, government entitlements it is!
All the world's people are never going to perform on a universally uniform level. It is madness to believe that compensating everyone as if they do won't undermine what humanity is, how we live & thrive- or willfully do not. Just wait and see how this American attempt at moralizing into existence a just HC system flops about in need of more revenue to accomplish what it was never supposed to do: provide quality personal service without bureaucratic incompetence. Practiced economic theories (e.g., working economies) work like that.
Last edited by TheEternalSanctuaryMan; 12-03-2012 at 05:06 PM..
I never understood the Liberal faith in Liberalism. It has failed in the past and is failing now. Nothing else matters to Liberals more than supporting Liberalism.
Modern liberals are not classic liberals, though most of them today know no better. Corporatism has adopted this approach as it suits their needs for a complacent citizenry. Supposed communists get tingly feelings up their legs since they like that tingle associated with thoughts of uppity proles being outraged, demanding resources be spent on them. Corporatists know what this means: they're in business!
Classical liberalism asks that liberty be granted by providing it to oneself with an atmosphere secured by a limited government. People were expected to be self-interested and self-promoting-> self-responsibility and self-awareness sustaining a culture.
Modern liberal 'progressives' want security thru government regulation and spending, civic authority dictating contorted directives and providing life-long entitlements to create an atmosphere that proclaims everyone deserves everything no matter what they produce or do. Greed and paternalism-> irresponsibility and coddling in lieu of self-sustainablility.
Culture has been warped and this allows for a largish group of people to feel that they must be cared for perpetually while never questioning why this mentality has been given so much sod to fester. Well, duh? Control (and guaranteed profits)!
Your knowledge of your own country's health care system is on a par with Americans' knowledge of their health care system, and your Health Care IQ is "0" like 90% of Americans. Your average American is so ignorant and ill-informed they believe that their glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing program is actually health insurance.
I never say anything that isn't backed-up in writing.
It's just not my style.
The following European States have these exclusions in their insurance plans....
Austria: Individual: pre-existing conditions usually excluded (but not from group policies);
insurers cannot reject applications but may charge higher premiums and/or introduce
cost-sharing arrangements for people with chronic illnesses
Belgium: Mutual: psychiatric and long-term care (lump sum)
Mutual: psychiatric care (co-payment)
Commercial: pre-existing conditions, infertility treatment, sporting injuries
Denmark: Pre-existing conditions
Finland: Pregnancy and childbirth, infertility treatment, alcoholism, herbal remedies, treatment
covered by statutory health insurance
France: Excluding any disease is forbidden by law, although it can be authorized in individual
policies under certain conditions: the disease has to be clearly stated and the insurer
has to prove that the patient had the disease before purchasing the policy
Germany: Pre-existing conditions are excluded if they were known at the time of underwriting and were not disclosed by the insured; declared pre-existing conditions are covered but generally result in higher premiums
Greece: Pre-existing conditions
Ireland: Open enrollment
Italy: Individual: pre-existing conditions, chronic and recurrent diseases, mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction, cosmetic surgery, war risks, injuries arising from insurrection,
natural disasters etc; also often excludes dental care not caused by accident/illness
Group: pre-existing conditions such as diabetes, drug and alcohol addiction, HIV/AIDS,
severe mental health problems such as schizophrenia, voluntary termination of
pregnancy and war risks
Luxembourg:Mutual: open enrollment
Commercial: pre-existing conditions
Netherlands: Some dental plans may require people to have their teeth restored before acceptance
Portugal: Individual: pre-existing conditions, long-term chronic illnesses (such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma), HIV/AIDS, haemodialysis, self-inflicted injuries, psychiatric treatments, check-ups, dental care, outpatient drugs, alternative medicine and non-evidence based treatment; dental care, delivery costs and outpatient drugs are only covered by the most expensive policies Spain HIV/AIDS, alcoholism and drug addiction, dental care (often available for a supplementary premium), prosthesis, infertility treatment, orthopaedics etc; some insurers do not
have general restrictions but may reject certain conditions; most insurers offer extra benefits for a supplementary premium eg organ transplants, second opinion, family planning, assistance during trips, treatment abroad, certain prosthesis; only one insurer offers homeopathy or spa treatment
Sweden: Emergency care, long-term care, HIV/AIDS, some other communicable diseases,
diseases and injuries as a result of the use of alcohol or other intoxicating substances,
pre-natal care, child birth (normal or with complications), termination of pregnancy,
infertility treatment, vaccinations
UK: Pre-existing conditions, GP services, accident and emergency admission, long-term
chronic illnesses such as diabetes, multiple sclerosis and asthma, drug abuse, self-inflicted
injuries, outpatient drugs and dressings, HIV/AIDS, infertility, normal pregnancy and child birth, cosmetic surgery, gender reassignment, preventive treatment, kidney dialysis, mobility aids, experimental treatment and drugs, organ transplants, war risks and injuries arising from hazardous pursuits
Mossialos and Thomson (2004)
You can find that in the Euro Observer, which is published by the European Observatory On Health.
If people are offended by Realityâ„¢, they should gouge out their eye-balls.
Both of you hung your hat on Pukipedia.
Big mistake.
The Netherlands has 3 levels of insurance, plus a 4th supplemental insurance.
In all discussions and comparison of US heath care to other countries, it is absolutely important to understand that the US does not have health insurance -- but nearly all other countries do.
What you have in the US is a glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing plan.....which is not insurance.
That fact alone proves the OPs assertion that "progressives" (whatever that is) do not understand economics.
Because Americans willfully choose to reject or ban health insurance, and prefer this glorified pre-paid medical-services cost-sharing plan, the only option regarding pre-existing conditions (often referred to in European literature as "previous conditions") is to flat out deny people health plan coverage in its entirety.
If Americans would insist upon having health insurance, then health plan providers would have the option of offering at least a basic health care package -- excluding coverage of the pre-existing condition(s) -- which is how it works for nearly all European countries.
About the basisverzekering. --- I'll show you where the Pukipedia article is wrong...
There is a deductible -- the verplicht eigen risico --- which is currently 220 Euros per year.
Contrary to what Pukipedia says, every person will not pay the same price. You can shop around here to compare costs here:
Also in addition to the verplicht eigen risico, every person over 18 years has a Euro 150 deductible, and you can get a discount if you want an higher deductible (the maximum deductible is Euro 650).
You can get a discount up to 10% if you are the member of a "group." Under the Dutch scheme, the definition of group is very liberally construed: a group can be be people who communicate on the internet (provided they are all Dutch and reside in the Netherlands).
In addition to the basic, additional and exceptional insurance, you can buy supplementary insurance to cover [adult] dental care, chiropractic (called "physiotherapy" in European literature), optometry, alternative medicine, and cosmetic surgery --- and those are risk-rated and you can be denied if your risk is too high, or if you have a pre-existing condition (if you are deemed "legally blind" then you are covered under the exceptional insurance).
In addition to paying for your basic insurance, everyone pays 7.2% of the first Euro 31,000 in wages/income to the Risk Equalization Fund, which is about $2,230 per year (or more -- it appears the rate is scaled for income at higher levels).
The purpose of the Risk Equalization Fund is to subsidize lower income groups.
Plus, you pay an additional tax for the exceptional insurance (AWZG). The cost of the exceptional insurance used to be 12.55% of your income up to the first Euro 16,500 but it has increased now to 13.45% --- which would be $2,270 (or so).
Uh, so where are we? Um $4,500 and you still haven't paid for your basic insurance, or your additional insurance or your supplemental insurance.
How about that?
In the Netherlands, you purchase additional insurance to cover treatments, drugs, diseases and other things the basic plan does not cover. The additional insurance also lets you avoid waiting lists, get faster treatment and preferred care --- meaning you can get a private or semi-private room, instead of being in an ward --- anyone here remember hospital wards?
I doubt it. You all are used to extreme luxury and private/semi-private rooms. In Euro hospitals and clinics, a ward might have 6 to 24 beds. That's also related to Culture: Europeans do not go berserk over space --- especially personal space --- and privacy issues like Americans do.
Also, I note that all of you view these Euro-systems in a vacuum, instead of in the context of the applicable laws for each country. In other words, you falsely assume that health care is never denied, delayed or diluted, and some of are under the misguided belief that have a universal health care system will resolve your present problems related to your health plan provider's reluctance or refusal to pay.
Legal considerations --- especially the definitions --- are very, very important when making comparisons as well....
Austria: Medically necessary, sufficient, appropriate (see General Social Insurance Act (ASVG), §133[2])
Belgium: Medical necessity, activity, cost effectiveness, safety (by Royal Decree)
France: Inscription of new medical and surgical procedures after advice of ANAES on efficacy and safety
Germany: Medically necessary, effective, cost effective (see Social Code Book (SGB) V, §135[1])
Luxembourg:
Sufficient, appropriate (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 17,1)
or
Medically necessary, effective, efficient (see Code des assurances sociales, art. 23,1)
Netherlands: Medically necessary (see Sickness Fund Act (ZFW), preamble)
Switzerland: Effective, appropriate, cost-efficient (see Swiss Insurance Law (KVG), §32)
The UK also has similar criteria....
"Appropriateness criteria govern when and for whom a treatment or service included in the benefits package is funded. Appropriateness criteria may entail clinical criteria that a patient has to meet before a given treatment is deemed appropriate and therefore funded."
In my case, not having surgeries would not cause my death, nor would it cause other medical complications, so I would be denied, or my treatment would be delayed until some year where there was extra money left over in [the local clinic's] budget to do it.
You all should read the studies in the UK on carpal tunnel and cubital syndromes.
A few other things about the German system. Over a certain income level, you can opt out of the public program and get private insurance. Germany is one of the few countries that does not have waiting lists -- so the time factor is not an issue --- but if you want treatment for diseases/illnesses the government program does not cover, or the government refuses pay or treat, or you will need private insurance. If you opt out of government insurance for private insurance, then want to go back to government insurance, you are only allowed to return to the public system under "very exceptional circumstances" and the German government has suspended the right of those 55 years of age or older to rejoin the social insurance scheme (Ministry of Health, Germany, 2008).
"In the past 20 years, our overriding philosophy has been that the health system cannot spend more than its income." -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
So the government collects Euro 500 Billion and that's all it spends -- but what if the people need Euro 650 Billion in medical services? Too bad...so sad....those people don't get treated, or their treatment is delayed/diluted until next year, or the year after, or the year after that when there is enough money.
"By law, our health insurers cannot reimburse for services that are deemed unnecessary. Thus, a doctor who provides such services will not be paid for them. If IQWiG (Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen) decides that a given treatment does not provide value, the treatment can be excluded from the benefits package". -- Franz Knieps German Minister of Health (2009)
"In addition 16 per cent of Germans hold supplementary insurance (OECD, 2008) for services not fully covered by core insurance such as co-payments for dental care and better amenities including single/double rooms, and treatment by senior medical practitioners" (Busse, 2008).
Getting back to the OPs issue of why progressives don't understand the economy, especially where issues of social welfare programs are concerned, progressives fail to grasp the basic core concept of Economics, like Opportunity Costs.
The value produced by health care exceeds its Opportunity Cost, and because it does, growth in health spending is economically sustainable. Why? Because it is a basic Economic Principle that the value in excess of cost can be seen as a measure of economic sustainability. When the Opportunity
Cost of health spending is too high, health spending becomes economically unsustainable.
I discussed that on another thread and specifically why that was true.
It's the nature of health care. When marginal costs exceed marginal benefits, you're throwing away money and in health care it has been repeatedly proven (just like education) that money does not alter outcome (you can read the studies at Dartmouth University).
That is especially true in health care where age is concerned. We already know we spend more on the elderly, but no one ever knew why until researchers discovered that it is the proximity to death that causes higher levels of spending and not age (and the most recent study is Zweifel, Felder & Werblow 2004).
That's why Medicare costs keep rising, and since technology is the driving factor in health care costs, more technology means more spending closer to death.
Uh, I'm gonna guess that you didn't read the report by the Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Sport which is the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport.
"In contrast with positive findings like these, there is also evidence that Dutch health care is not living up to the high ambitions and expectations in every way. Accessibility is unsatisfactory in some areas, as evidenced by persistent waiting lists in certain sectors and the difficulty of reaching GP practices by telephone during office hours. Wide variations exist amongst health care providers in terms of both price and quality. The cooperation and coordination between different providers are not as good as they should be. Although quality improvement goes hand in hand with cost savings in some instances, this cannot be firmly concluded for the system as a whole. In fact, the total costs of care continue to grow at a fast rate, while the quality of care improves slowly."
And you can find that in the Executive Summary atgezondheidszorgbalans.
I'm not sure who rated the Dutch system as #1 in the world, but it wasn't the Dutch government.
Gosh how did americans survive previous to all those state run programs?
In a lot of cases they didn't.
I'd suggest you watch the Ken Burn's series "Dust Bowl" sometimes. There are people that gave testimony to the fact if there were not WPA work programs they probably would have starved to death.
The assertion that progressives don't understand the economy is undercut by the fact that they do. What you assume is that if someone disagrees with your narrow viewpoint they "don't understand."
They, in fact, understand better than you.
What you suffer from is mirror thinking. If you believe in capitalism, progressives must not believe in it. Progressives just believe the government has a legitimate role in setting the rules of the road so business doesn't sell dangerous products, ruin the environment or exploit labor.
setting the rule yes, but not over burdening the businesses so much it stagnates the business or closes it down. like goverment does now.
I never understood the Liberal faith in Liberalism. It has failed in the past and is failing now. Nothing else matters to Liberals more than supporting Liberalism.
Saying so doesn't make it true.
Those so called "Liberal" policies got this country through the Great Depression.
Those so called "Liberal" policies were responsible for a significant decline in poverty in the 1960s. In fact overall since the 1960 Democratic presidents have historically. done a much better job of reducing poverty than Republican presidents.
Bush 43
Americans Below The Poverty Level
2001 - 32.907 million 2008 - 39.829 million - increase 21.04%
Overall Population Growth
2001 - 281.475 million 2008 - 301.041 million - increase 6.95%
During the Bush 43 Administration poverty INCREASED three times faster than rate of population growth.
Clinton
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1993 - 39.265 million 2000 - 31.581 million - decrease 19.57%
Overall Population Growth
1993 - 259.278 million 2000 - 278.944 million - increase 7.58%
During the Clinton Administration poverty DECREASED 2.5 faster than the population grew.
Reagan
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1981 - 31.822 million 1988 - 31.745 million - decrease 0.24%
Overall Population Growth
1981 - 227.157 million 1988 - 243.53 million - increase 7.21%
During the Reagan Administration poverty was relatively flat compared to population growth.
Nixon-Ford
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1969 - 24.147 million 1976 - 24.975 million - increase 3.43%
Overall Population Growth
1969 - 199.517 million 1976 - 212.303 million - increase 6.41%
During the Nixon - Ford Administrations poverty INCREASED about half as fast as the population grew.
Kennedy-Johnson
Americans Below The Poverty Level
1961 - 39.628 million 1968 - 25.389 million decrease 35.93%
Overall Population Growth
1961 - 181.277 million 1968 - 197.628 million increase 9.02%
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
