Why Obama was disbarred.

[Skipjack]

The whole "death panels"- hysteria is of course complete nonsense.
If the government does not pay for a certain treatment then you can always pay for it out of your own pocket, as you would most likely do in the US as well. Private insurance companies do not pay for every and all treatments either. They too have limits. One could argue that they have their own "death panels" deciding that. Now you could argue who would make the worse cuts...
Anyway, Austrians are rather healthy, our healthcare is comparably cheap despite all the abuse and people are not dying in masses due to decisions by some "death panels".
In fact they pay for way to much crap that really is not necessary at all. At least they are not paying for some "alternative medicine" bogus, which has never saved anyone.

Also, the canadian health care system is among the worst public healthcare systems along with the one in the UK. I would probably not want that either...

[mdeminico]

Private insurance companies do not pay for every and all treatments either. They too have limits. One could argue that they have their own "death panels" deciding that.

Yeah, except with private insurance, you're choosing which company you want to deal with (or not deal with).

With Obamacare, private insurance WILL go out of business, period. Nobody can compete with an unlimited budget and an unlimited ability for an "insurance company" (Obamacare) to subsidize itself by *stealing* money from the successful in this nation in the form of taxes, and giving it to others.

[Skipjack]

With Obamacare, private insurance WILL go out of business, period.

Again, experience in other countries does not match your version of reality.
In Germany and for a few professions also in Austria there is the option for people to "opt out" of the government healthcare and go with the private insurers. The option by the private insurers is, sometimes cheaper, or offers a few more treatments and so on.
They DO NOT HAVE TO offer this as a service, but if they do, they have to take everyone. They can not say e.g. not insure someone on the basis of pre- existing conditions.
Yet, they still make enough of a profit for them that it makes sense to offer the opting out. My mother works at an insurance company here and they sell a lot of opting out packages to lawyers and certain other professions.
In addition to this private insurance companies can also offer a package that offers additional services to the public option. People that buy that will get better hospital beds, free beds in private clinics (instead of only in government hospitals) additional treatments, longer rehabs, free transport back from foreign countries, etc, etc. Lots of options there depending on the package and the insurance company.

Of course your insurance lobbyists will say anything to make sure they keep making maximum profit on the backs of the US people.
From all that I have seen here, the notion that "private insurance will go out of business because of Obamacare" is a blatant lie. It is put into place by those benefiting from the status quo.
It is easy to make people affraid of change. The unknown is scary to many and they exploit that. It is the same reason why congress gets away with sending pork to ATK for a few more years on bloatware space programmes that will never take off.

The truth is that the private insurers might loose a few customers here and there (probably the ones that cant really afford their current offerings anyway) and they may have to make some more competitive offers, but that is already the worst case scenario. I think most people that will actaully use the government option are those that cant get private health insurance right now because of preexisting conditions, cost, job switches, etc.
Especially with the scare of "death panels" and other nonsense, people will mostly stay with the insurance they have.

[Diogenes]

Skipjack, does it not occur to you that you can't predict how something is going to work in our country based on how it works in your country?

Look at Healthcare in England and Canada. You keep telling us how horrible it is, and how it's nothing like that in Austria.

What makes you think the US would get the Austrian version of government run Health care as opposed to the British or Canadian version? (which in my mind is far more likely.)


By the way, does anyone know anything about private health insurance in either of these two countries? Does it exist? Are the Rates and Benefits comparable with what is in the US? Anyone with knowledge enlighten me.

[Diogenes]

Here a couple of news links that illustrate my point.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healt ... -warn.html


http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/10/n ... obamacare/

[Skipjack]

What makes you think the US would get the Austrian version of government run Health care as opposed to the British or Canadian version? (which in my mind is far more likely.)

Because our system here and the systems in Canada and the UK are grown systems. They have already made all the mistakes. It would be silly to believe that the US would repeat the same mistakes that they (and also Austria, which is NOT perfect) made.
In fact being so late to doing this is a huge opportunity as it allows you to make sure you dont make the same mistakes.
Also, why do you think that it is so likely to turn out as bad as the British and Canadian systems? They are only two of many. The two worst of many that do on average function much better. It is a ridiculous assumption.

[rjaypeters]

Skipjack,
There is very little US federal activity which gives much hope for effective or efficient implementation of any new program. It is almost axiomatic the US federal government will repeat the mistakes of every government health-care system seen on the planet.

Ridiculous assumption? I beg to differ. Experience shows otherwise.

[chrismb]

They have already made all the mistakes.

That may or may not be the case, but they don't seem to know which actions were the mistakes and which weren't! They don't seem to have a bloody clue here in UK how to get it right, and now it is just getting worse!

Lessons? What lessons? I bet most people actually responsible for the NHS will claim that they did all the right things at the right time.

The problem is [generally speaking, and IMHO] size, centralisation of control [=a sense that no-one in particular is responsible for any cock-ups], and the fact that UK public service sector workers never get the sack for being crap at their job, they are just shifted into another position that they then wreak havoc on as they did in the last position.

I seem to recall the statistics are that the NHS is now around GBP100 billion per year, and GBP10 billion alone gets spent in settlements of malpractice. Can you imagine any private sector organisation surviving if it had to pay out 10% of its gross turnover in liability claims!?

I don't think I have any point of principle to choose between paying privately for health care, or into a big public pot. The only question is; how efficiently is that money managed? The reality is that the NHS does not appear to have been very good at this at all. This is the problem with the people running the organisation and not necessarily with the principle of publically funded health care, though you may take the view that privately funded organisations show themselves to be better managers of cash than public ones (though I am not altogether sure that this is always the case, it just appears to be so wrt the current NHS).



PS.[UK has a thriving private health care insurance market, and it does quite well and appears to provide a reasonable value service. I have a company policy which is a taxable benefit and used to be free at point of delivery, though now there is a GBP100 surcharge the first time in each year it is used. I think it counts as a taxable benefit of a few hundred pounds, so all in all it is very much cheaper than US insurance. It is also amusing to note that much of the private work, consultations and operations and the like, are actually done in NHS hospitals with NHS doctors. The doctors can do a bit of NHS work and a bit of private work, and then they and private care providers can hire NHS facilities to do that work. Go figure.....]

[Skipjack]

They don't seem to have a bloody clue here in UK how to get it right, and now it is just getting worse!

Of course it is much harder to change an existing system and to fix problems AFTER they have already had decades to manifest themselves.

Chris, of course the government is inefficient and government workers are mostly idiots that do crappy work. This is probably the same anywhere in the world. So we agree on that. It is the same in Austria, btw and there are people here trying to get a change on that. This is one of the mistakes that we made. We built a complex system with multiple providers that are all in government hand. The whole thing is inefficient and not always completely fair. Yes lots of problems here too. But... but it is still cheaper than in the US and people do get very good treatments here with an emphasis on long term improvements and survival (e.g. prolonged periods of rehab after big events like heart attacks).

But, you yourself admit that despite the problems and the "competition from the government" you can still get private health insurance in the UK and that cheaper than in the US. So it cant be quite so bad after all, can it?

[chrismb]

But, you yourself admit that despite the problems and the "competition from the government" you can still get private health insurance in the UK and that cheaper than in the US. So it cant be quite so bad after all, can it?

I can't say what the exact comparison is. I must be paying an order of magnitude, on top of that private element, into the public pot which may actually set me above the US level of medical insurance. I can't see how there can be no improvements to a system that hands out 10% of total turn over in liabilities and kills about 1 in 300 people who are admitted to hospitals. (That's the number I have been told that die in UK hospitals for reasons not related to the reasons they went into the hospital with.)

How long do you think an airline would be in business if it said 'one person in each and every 747 flight is going to die during the flight due to our negligence, but it is OK because their families will get paid some compensation (out of tax payers money)'? Why can the medical 'profession' get away with that?

[mdeminico]

They DO NOT HAVE TO offer this as a service, but if they do, they have to take everyone. They can not say e.g. not insure someone on the basis of pre- existing conditions.

This requirement is the most asinine thing I've ever heard of in my life. Here, I have an idea, I'll smoke 3 packs of unfiltered Lucky Strikes a day for 40 years, THEN I'll switch my insurance to some company that covers what I want to cover when I get Lung Cancer.

What's next? Life insurance companies not being allowed to deny someone coverage based on pre-existing conditions?

[mdeminico]

What makes you think the US would get the Austrian version of government run Health care as opposed to the British or Canadian version? (which in my mind is far more likely.)

Because our system here and the systems in Canada and the UK are grown systems. They have already made all the mistakes. It would be silly to believe that the US would repeat the same mistakes that they (and also Austria, which is NOT perfect) made.
In fact being so late to doing this is a huge opportunity as it allows you to make sure you dont make the same mistakes.
Also, why do you think that it is so likely to turn out as bad as the British and Canadian systems? They are only two of many. The two worst of many that do on average function much better. It is a ridiculous assumption.

Here, I got an idea... Government can run their own health care company. They are not allowed to take a SINGLE DIME out of taxpayer funds, but must receive every single dime from premiums people VOLUNTARILY pay.

If they cannot do that and compete, then their program is a farce and amounts to literally STEALING money from people to pay for someone else's product. Revolutions start in such ways.

Skipjack,
There is very little US federal activity which gives much hope for effective or efficient implementation of any new program. It is almost axiomatic the US federal government will repeat the mistakes of every government health-care system seen on the planet.

Ridiculous assumption? I beg to differ. Experience shows otherwise.

*cough* Medicare *cough* Medicaid *cough* Welfare *cough* Socialist Security *cough* Food Stamps *cough* Section 8 Housing *cough* *hack* *wheeeeeeeeeze* *choke* *thud*

[Diogenes]

What makes you think the US would get the Austrian version of government run Health care as opposed to the British or Canadian version? (which in my mind is far more likely.)

Because our system here and the systems in Canada and the UK are grown systems. They have already made all the mistakes. It would be silly to believe that the US would repeat the same mistakes that they (and also Austria, which is NOT perfect) made.

That is the funniest thing i've heard all day! Thanks!

In fact being so late to doing this is a huge opportunity as it allows you to make sure you dont make the same mistakes.

I daresay we cannot possibly avoid making the same mistakes, and I expect we will add new ones that you Europeans hadn't even thought of before!

Also, why do you think that it is so likely to turn out as bad as the British and Canadian systems? They are only two of many. The two worst of many that do on average function much better. It is a ridiculous assumption.

It is based on the fact that our government is a miracle worker at screwing things up beyond what anyone could believe is possible. We have a long history of using taxpayer money in such a way that throwing it into a furnace would be a better idea.

The "Great Society" comes to mind. An unmitigated disaster and failure of gargantuan proportions.

Government run medical care will fare no better.

[Skipjack]

I must be paying an order of magnitude, on top of that private element, into the public pot which may actually set me above the US level of medical insurance.

Austrias system is among the most expensive in Europe, but still waaaay cheaper than in the US. So you cant really be paying more than in the US.

Life insurance companies not being allowed to deny someone coverage based on pre-existing conditions?

No, that is something very different and you know that. It is a very bad comparison.

As I said, the insurance companies do not have to offer an "opting out" programme, but they still do because- believe it or not- they are still making a good profit from it!
So if the requirements were so horrible, they would not that, would they?

I can't see how there can be no improvements to a system that hands out 10% of total turn over in liabilities and kills about 1 in 300 people who are admitted to hospitals. (That's the number I have been told that die in UK hospitals for reasons not related to the reasons they went into the hospital with.)

Well, the question is how many would have died if they had not been to the hospital?
Also, the quality of your doctors and equipment is not necessarily completely depending on the quality of your health insurance system, but also the education of your doctors, the amount of doctors you have, the cost of the education versus the income the doctors make, etc.
In Austria there is a limit the amount you can get from any liability claim.
IMHO, this is something the US needs to have as well.

[chrismb]

I must be paying an order of magnitude, on top of that private element, into the public pot which may actually set me above the US level of medical insurance.

Austrias system is among the most expensive in Europe, but still waaaay cheaper than in the US. So you cant really be paying more than in the US.

Really? A round a quater of my taxes go into the NHS, so that''d be around one eighth of my total gross income. What's it like in the US??