Does nationalised healthcare really not work?

[This Charming Manc]

Interesting article..

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/an-american-uses-britain-nhs-2015-1

wonder what folks make of this?

 

[PureX]

The NHS achieves this through the application of "socialist" principals. Not the least of which is capping prices (and thereby limiting profits) on every service, procedure, and item involved in health care.

The mere hint of price caps in the US immediately drives the lobbyists into a frenzy of bribery that causes lawmakers to suddenly become invisible, and laws to be passed or reached in the wee hours of the morning, on holidays, with the lights turned off.

When Obama wanted to set up a much more moderate version of nationalized health care (most modern countries are less 'socialist' that Britain is in their national health care systems) even his supermajority of democrats suddenly went all silent and discombobulated and decided that a 15 year old republican solution was the better way to go. Because it didn't involve any sort of price/profit limits.

The point is that we can't have a reasonable, less expensive national health care system in the united States because the greed of our corporate masters won't allow it.

 

[rexlunae]

I think there will be very little acknowledgement of the fact, because we can spend $600 billion from taxes on a fighter jet that doesn't work, but don't you dare suggest we use tax revenue to make people healthy and happy.

I really need to get dual citizenship...somewhere...so that I can get real health care. Even when you have insurance in the US, the cost of care is high and unpredictable.

 

[HisServant]

I think that all Governments/Government programs are plagued by the excessive wastes of bureaucracy and eventually implode under their own administrative weight.

We are starting to see it in Canada and the UK these days...

Personally, I think the writers of the constitution made one big mistake when they drafted it... they ignored or were unaware of the principle that any organization that exists more than 2 generations loses its focus and becomes self-serving... therefore things should be periodically dissolved and reformed via brand new legislation that corrects the excesses of the old.

 

[This Charming Manc]

If we are discussing round the subject rather than shouting our party line out, I think its fair to suggest that large part of thew differences in cost are due to the much higher litigation/insurance costs in the states.

I'm sure if they could be taken out we would see a different picture, not sure it would be , but that fact does distort headline figures.

As a note the UK is not socialists, just we have a healthcare system that applies socialist principles.

The NHS achieves this through the application of "socialist" principals. Not the least of which is capping prices (and thereby limiting profits) on every service, procedure, and item involved in health care.

The mere hint of price caps in the US immediately drives the lobbyists into a frenzy of bribery that causes lawmakers to suddenly become invisible, and laws to be passed or reached in the wee hours of the morning, on holidays, with the lights turned off.

When Obama wanted to set up a much more moderate version of nationalized health care (most modern countries are less 'socialist' that Britain is in their national health care systems) even his supermajority of democrats suddenly went all silent and discombobulated and decided that a 15 year old republican solution was the better way to go. Because it didn't involve any sort of price/profit limits.

The point is that we can't have a reasonable, less expensive national health care system in the united States because the greed of our corporate masters won't allow it.

 

[Word based mystic]

All I know is I used to be able to have an option for emergency and hospitalization plans. No longer.

My health insurance has doubled or more since obacare.
It is more expensive than monthly Mortgage.
The deductibles are outrageous. the time you satisfy deductibles you are broke.
choice of doctors has been limited and cant see my old doctors.

 

[TomO]

As a note the UK is not socialists, just we have a healthcare system that applies socialist principles.

 

[This Charming Manc]

I think that all Governments/Government programs are plagued by the excessive wastes of bureaucracy and eventually implode under their own administrative weight.

Though I admit insurance costs distort the picture, your healthcare costs are significantly higher than ours per head and we cover everyone.

Its also seems that your insurance system is one of the few systems more bureaucratic than our NHS.

The NHS is an unwieldy beast, but for an organization its size it does OK.

We are starting to see it in Canada and the UK these days...

The issue we have is an older population, more expensive procedures and drugs. This is creating issues where some procedures won't be available on the NHS

 

[HisServant]

All I know is I used to be able to have an option for emergency and hospitalization plans. No longer.

My health insurance has doubled or more since obacare.
It is more expensive than monthly Mortgage.
The deductibles are outrageous. the time you satisfy deductibles you are broke.
choice of doctors has been limited and cant see my old doctors.

Yeah, if you are not on a subsidized plan the deductibles and coinsurance are rising at ridiculous rates. The ACA was designed around the idea of injecting as much cash into the healthcare system as possible and ease the load on insurers. I've been saying for a while now that since the ACA caps total health insurance costs by your income that insurances companies and the health industry now have a goal to obtain to increase their cash flow.

So expect premiums to go up (albeit a bit slower, they can do this because they are passing off more costs to the consumers) along with max out of pocket increasing at an even higher rate till people start hitting the caps.

 

[rexlunae]

I think that all Governments/Government programs are plagued by the excessive wastes of bureaucracy and eventually implode under their own administrative weight.

Because conservatives are required to think that. Unless it's military spending, and then there seems to be no end to what we can afford to spend.

How much worse than the private US health care system could it be?

We are starting to see it in Canada and the UK these days...

Conservatives have been promising us that collapse for decades. It never seems to materialize, though.

Personally, I think the writers of the constitution made one big mistake when they drafted it... they ignored or were unaware of the principle that any organization that exists more than 2 generations loses its focus and becomes self-serving... therefore things should be periodically dissolved and reformed via brand new legislation that corrects the excesses of the old.

That's silly. A brand new organization can become corrupt and broken immediately. An ancient one can be efficient and agile. It all depends on who runs it and what kinds of decisions are made. It strikes me as futile to assign ideological outcomes to an institution based upon age alone.

 

[HisServant]

Though I admit insurance costs distort the picture, your healthcare costs are significantly higher than ours per head and we cover everyone.

Its also seems that your insurance system is one of the few systems more bureaucratic than our NHS.

The NHS is an unwieldy beast, but for an organization its size it does OK.



The issue we have is an older population, more expensive procedures and drugs. This is creating issues where some procedures won't be available on the NHS

Our costs are significantly higher due to behind the scenes cost sharing for the uninsured and medicare/medicaid... they skew pretty much everything.

Is far as the NHS, yes the issue is an older population which require a significant increase in health care costs... but those people are also paying less taxes into the system because they are on fixed incomes (pensioners) which pay less taxes. The end result is the NHS will enter an unrecoverable tailspin and crash.

 

[This Charming Manc]

lol..........

hmm you dont know what real socialism is do you ?

 

[rexlunae]

Yeah, if you are not on a subsidized plan the deductibles and coinsurance are rising at ridiculous rates. The ACA was designed around the idea of injecting as much cash into the healthcare system as possible and ease the load on insurers.

I suppose that's why it caps the profits insurers can take? And why it forces plans to cover anyone regardless of health?

I've been saying for a while now that since the ACA caps total health insurance costs by your income that insurances companies and the health industry now have a goal to obtain to increase their cash flow.

So expect premiums to go up (albeit a bit slower, they can do this because they are passing off more costs to the consumers) along with max out of pocket increasing at an even higher rate till people start hitting the caps.

We need to get private insurers out of the process entirely, and we need to align the profit motives of the caregivers with the health interests of the patient. Then we'll see costs come down.

 

[HisServant]

Because conservatives are required to think that. Unless it's military spending, and then there seems to be no end to what we can afford to spend.

Who said I am a conservative... actually, I am independent and if I had to actually align myself with a party, it would be the New Whig Party.

How much worse than the private US health care system could it be?

It's bad because of overbearing government regulation and the costs of uninsured and medicare/medicaid patients are more than the reimbursement rates so the deficiencies are passed onto private citizens and companies.

Conservatives have been promising us that collapse for decades. It never seems to materialize, though.

We are already seeing rationing and people leaving the UK and Canada to come to the US for treatment. In order for their systems remain solvent, there will have to be continued and deeper rationing.. its inevitable.

That's silly. A brand new organization can become corrupt and broken immediately. An ancient one can be efficient and agile. It all depends on who runs it and what kinds of decisions are made. It strikes me as futile to assign ideological outcomes to an institution based upon age alone.

It's not silly at all, its understanding human nature and its propensity to become lazy and bend any system to provide for their own comfort. By sun-setting all legislation and requiring voter participation, this trend can be better controlled.

 

[HisServant]

I suppose that's why it caps the profits insurers can take? And why it forces plans to cover anyone regardless of health?

It might cap the percentage, but that cap has been offset by the shear numbers of new enrollees.... Health insurance companies are making more money now than ever before.. and the government legislated it that way.

We need to get private insurers out of the process entirely, and we need to align the profit motives of the caregivers with the health interests of the patient. Then we'll see costs come down.

No, we need a two tiered system... a safety net system of government run hospitals and clinics that provide a base level of service to everyone regardless of income... and a second set of private providers that people can purchase insurance for to cover elective and other procedures that the base government system cannot economically provide.

Anything not medically necessary should not be covered by the base government healthcare system.

 

[Jose Fly]

In the US, about 25% of health care costs go exclusively to administration. In countries with a national system, admin costs are about 10-15%. Also, in the US at each level of care (research, pharmacies, doctors, hospitals, insurance co's) a profit is added to the cost. This is greatly reduced in countries with a national system. Finally, the US gov't does not use its bargaining power to negotiate things like drug costs. Countries with national systems do.

Add all that up and it leads to what should have been an obvious fact from the beginning, i.e., a for-profit health care system is much more expensive than one run for the public good.

 

[TomO]

lol..........

hmm you dont know what real socialism is do you ?

I do...I just find insipid whiny little pleas like that one annoying. No, your entire system is not socialist...You just socialized a large segment of your economy.

I'm sure you won't socialize any more of it.

:yawn:

 

[HisServant]

In the US, about 25% of health care costs go exclusively to administration. In countries with a national system, admin costs are about 10-15%. Also, in the US at each level of care (research, pharmacies, doctors, hospitals, insurance co's) a profit is added to the cost. This is greatly reduced in countries with a national system. Finally, the US gov't does not use its bargaining power to negotiate things like drug costs. Countries with national systems do.

Add all that up and it leads to what should have been an obvious fact from the beginning, i.e., a for-profit health care system is much more expensive than one run for the public good.

What does the government not using its bargaining power to reduce costs have to do with for-profit system?... its no one's fault but the government... the same government that you are trusting to run a national system.

 

[Jose Fly]

What does the government not using its bargaining power to reduce costs have to do with for-profit system?

Because in the for-profit system, you and I buy drugs, not the gov't. In the national system the gov't buys the drugs and uses its leverage to negotiate prices with the drug companies.

its no one's fault but the government... the same government that you are trusting to run a national system.

The data is extremely clear. Nationalized systems are superior to for-profit systems in terms of cost, services, and outcomes.

 

[Jose Fly]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/02/us-usa-budget-medicare-idUSKBN0L61OW20150202

(Reuters) - The Obama administration said on Monday it would seek authority to negotiate prices for high-cost drugs under the government's Medicare Part D program, which offers private drug coverage for senior citizens and the disabled.

President Barack Obama's new $3.99 trillion budget for fiscal-year 2016 proposes allowing the U.S. secretary for health and human services to negotiate prices for biotechnology treatments and other high-cost drugs in Part D "to ensure access to and affordability of these treatments."

But the plan would require the administration to get a green light from Congress, where Republicans who control the House of Representatives and Senate have openly favored market forces over government intervention as a vehicle for containing healthcare costs.

Congress prohibited Medicare from negotiating directly with drug companies in 2003 when it created Part D under then-President George W. Bush.

There ya' go....the GOP specifically went out of their way to prohibit the US gov't from negotiating drug prices with pharmaceutical companies.

So it's not exactly a mystery why drug prices are so much higher in the US.