65
   

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:46 am
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Do you really think dental care in the UK is "free"?


According to what I know from (NHS) dentists, you're entitled to any treatment which you need to maintain your dental health.

Do you have different information?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 03:30 pm
George --

Walter has answered most of these points, so I'll just answer the ones that remained.

georgeob1 wrote:
People with high gross incomes may have a high incentive to sign up for the cheapest (and least) coverage due to the high marginal cost and, in effect self-insure for other things. Is private medical care, paid directly by the consumer available?

Our universal health care system is voluntary for those with high incomes. According to a quick Google search for the relevant term Versicherungspflichtgrenze, the threshold at which it becomes voluntary is currently €48.150 -- about $70,000 at the current market exchange rate. This may work as a safety valve (I guess that would be "a Zener Diode" in your language) against the problem you describe. I never thought about it that way, and it is never discussed in these terms, but maybe it still works that way.

Besides, the minimum coverage mandated by law is still very comprehensive by international standards. There isn't much left to self-insure against after you've purchased it. Among the high income people I know, maybe a third opt out into private insurance policies; another third stays in but has private insurance for extras like one-bed rooms in the hospital and guaranteed care by the hospital's chief doctor. The other third just stays in the plain vanilla government plan.

georgeob1 wrote:
(An interesting fact is that a very large fraction of the "uninsured" in this country are employed people in their 20's and 30's who voluntarily forego available medical benefits, merely to escape the 15% - 25% of the cost of coverage that employers deduct from their paychecks.)


I hear this factoid every once in a while myself; but when I try to source it, I always end up with a press release from a conservative pressure group quoting one of this groups own "research". It's the usual suspects: Heritage, Americans for Tax Reform, the less reputable corners at Cato .... Usually this research doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Admittedly, I haven't thoroughly fact-checked this particular claim, so I guess it could be an exception from the rule. But maybe you can help me out here: Can you point me to a reputable source that quantifies this "very large fraction of the 'uninsured' in this country"?

On the broader point that appears to be lurking behind your question: I'm sure you can find something that's bad about the German system. But as far as I can see, nobody in this thread is saying that their favorite healthcare system is perfect. As well they shouldn't: perfection is not the point. The point is which among all the imperfect healthcare systems that countries have tried performs works best at providing health to the countries' citizens.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 03:46 pm
As a German citizen and as a healthy person i wish to say this.
Universal health care is a protection and not a Pup or Toilet that everybody make use of.
I had never been to Doctor for fun.
A country which project high ethical, compassionate values
and send a person to moon
and pass a law( applicable to a single hopless god-forsaken person) is still struggling to give the need based treatment for the loyal citizens.
Most unchristian culture indeed.
I am an athiest
Rama
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 03:54 pm
thomas wrote :

Quote:
On the broader point that appears to be lurking behind your question: I'm sure you can find something that's bad about the German system. But as far as I can see, nobody in this thread is saying that their favorite healthcare system is perfect. As well they shouldn't: perfection is not the point. The point is which among all the imperfect healthcare systems that countries have tried performs works best at providing health to the countries' citizens.


that sums it up very well imo !

i can see no reason why basic universal healthcare should not be available to every citizen at reasonable cost .
hbg
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 04:10 pm
Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
(An interesting fact is that a very large fraction of the "uninsured" in this country are employed people in their 20's and 30's who voluntarily forego available medical benefits, merely to escape the 15% - 25% of the cost of coverage that employers deduct from their paychecks.)


I hear this factoid every once in a while myself; but when I try to source it, I always end up with a press release from a conservative pressure group quoting one of this groups own "research". It's the usual suspects: Heritage, Americans for Tax Reform, the less reputable corners at Cato .... Usually this research doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Admittedly, I haven't thoroughly fact-checked this particular claim, so I guess it could be an exception from the rule. But maybe you can help me out here: Can you point me to a reputable source that quantifies this "very large fraction of the 'uninsured' in this country"?


I too have read assertions that this group includes the "majority" of the uninsured, something I doubt (and deliberately didn't assert). However, I have seen estimates of large numbers of uninsured among employed young people from reliable sources. In addition my own experience tends to confirm this -- we recently took a count of the folks in our company who have declined our health coverage and found that they were all (without exception) in the 23 - 35 year age group. We took the trouble to survey them for their reasons (along with a little propaganda about the value of the benefit they are foregoing) and found that - at least among those who were willing to give us a reason - escaping the minimal out of pocket cost was overwhelmingly the chief reason. We succeeded in inducing only about 20% of the holdouts to sign up. All of these folks (excluding only a few technicians) are graduate scientists, engineers, or geologists.

Thomas wrote:

On the broader point that appears to be lurking behind your question: I'm sure you can find something that's bad about the German system. But as far as I can see, nobody in this thread is saying that their favorite healthcare system is perfect. As well they shouldn't: perfection is not the point. The point is which among all the imperfect healthcare systems that countries have tried performs works best at providing health to the countries' citizens.
You are prejudging my intent, and ignoring a central theme of this thread - namely that the United States is certainly wrong, wrongheaded, and remiss in not having a government operated or mandated universal health care or insurance system.

My opinion is that all such "systems" (including our own, such as it is) are indeed imperfect, and that many of the remedies (including the German system) so earnestly recommended to us have imperfections that are not voluntarily cited by those who so vociferously condemn what we have. Some go so far as to deny the defects of government budgeting and rationing of services and the fact that government run programs of all sorts tend to bog down and decay with the accumulating entropy of bureaucracy, unionism, and the adverse effects of monopoly. I have yet to read of a flaw of any kind in the German system from you or Walter or old europe - I have the same impression of posters from the UK and Canada as well. Despite this I read of hotly debated political issues in both of the latter countries surrounding the performance of the respective national health care systems. Forgive my skepticism, but my bullshitt detector is in full alarm.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 04:10 pm
Whenever the humor question comes up,
I refer to one of my most beloved fallen heroes;
singer-songwriter Warren Zevon.
Faced with a diagnosis of three months to live, he was asked if his illness gave him any new insights.
Zevon shrugged and said he didn't think so, "Not unless I know how much you're supposed to enjoy every sandwich."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12269
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 06:09 pm
Quote:
My opinion is that all such "systems" (including our own, such as it is) are indeed imperfect, and that many of the remedies (including the German system) so earnestly recommended to us have imperfections that are not voluntarily cited by those who so vociferously condemn what we have. Some go so far as to deny the defects of government budgeting and rationing of services and the fact that government run programs of all sorts tend to bog down and decay with the accumulating entropy of bureaucracy, unionism, and the adverse effects of monopoly. I have yet to read of a flaw of any kind in the German system from you or Walter or old europe - I have the same impression of posters from the UK and Canada as well. Despite this I read of hotly debated political issues in both of the latter countries surrounding the performance of the respective national health care systems. Forgive my skepticism, but my bullshitt detector is in full alarm.


However, we are comparing two entirely different countries - with two entirely different sets of characteristics (socially, politically, economically speaking). I have no doubts the German system works admirably - for Germans.

Compared to Americans, Germans appear to accept much more government control over such things as resources and consumer costs and are more comfortable seeing their government play a greater role, at least in setting policy.

Not only is our much larger population much more diverse, it's that very diversity that promotes our peculiarities (entirely different from Germany's), if you will. As an American, there are features of the German system that strike me as downright socialist. However, I don't think Germans particularly see anything wrong with a mandated retirement age for doctors, or regulated working hours for physicians, or 'hospital' doctors (they're different IIRC from private practice doctors) belonging to a union.

And with all due respect, if it works for Germans and Germany, more power to them. I just don't happen to think that plonking the system of one country into another, much different country is the answer. It would be like transplanting an organ of a totally different blood-type into a patient and crossing your fingers that it takes.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 06:12 pm
Walter Hinteler wrote:
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:

Do you really think dental care in the UK is "free"?


According to what I know from (NHS) dentists, you're entitled to any treatment which you need to maintain your dental health.

Do you have different information?


Although the article I posted says nothing about dental care in the UK being free, you apparently think it is. Otherwise, why the question about whether or not it's free in the US? Why so defensive?
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 09:39 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Some go so far as to deny the defects of government budgeting and rationing of services and the fact that government run programs of all sorts tend to bog down and decay with the accumulating entropy of bureaucracy, unionism, and the adverse effects of monopoly. I have yet to read of a flaw of any kind in the German system from you or Walter or old europe - I have the same impression of posters from the UK and Canada as well. Despite this I read of hotly debated political issues in both of the latter countries surrounding the performance of the respective national health care systems. Forgive my skepticism, but my bullshitt detector is in full alarm.

Oh, I like bullshît detectors and skepticism. I warmly recommend that you move to Germany for a few years, explore the German health care system with an open mind, and report back to us which system works the least bad. Conversely, I intend to do just that with the American system right now. Smile
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 09:45 pm
Thomas, Your offer to georgeob sounds like the best of ideas to get first-hand experience with both systems, but I'm afriad he's not ready to move to Germany - or any other place for that matter. However, it would be great if you could get a few years under your belt under the US system, and give us your opinion between the two health care systems.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 09:49 pm
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
And with all due respect, if it works for Germans and Germany, more power to them. I just don't happen to think that plonking the system of one country into another, much different country is the answer. It would be like transplanting an organ of a totally different blood-type into a patient and crossing your fingers that it takes.

That's what a lot of German intellectuals said before 1945 about American exports such as democracy and human rights. They were proven dead wrong by the success of Western Germany. I am fairly confident that the near future will prove you just as wrong. But you're not getting a fight from me about this -- we'll find out soon enough.#

Welcome to A2K.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 19 Jan, 2008 11:00 pm
Well I won't do it for five years but I'll be spending some time there - my wife's concept of heaven includes a week exploring the Christmas markets in various towns followed by a week in Berlin at the Adlon.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 02:21 am
nappyheadedhohoho wrote:
However, we are comparing two entirely different countries - with two entirely different sets of characteristics (socially, politically, economically speaking). I have no doubts the German system works admirably - for Germans.

Compared to Americans, Germans appear to accept much more government control over such things as resources and consumer costs and are more comfortable seeing their government play a greater role, at least in setting policy.

Not only is our much larger population much more diverse, it's that very diversity that promotes our peculiarities (entirely different from Germany's), if you will. As an American, there are features of the German system that strike me as downright socialist. However, I don't think Germans particularly see anything wrong with a mandated retirement age for doctors, or regulated working hours for physicians, or 'hospital' doctors (they're different IIRC from private practice doctors) belonging to a union.

And with all due respect, if it works for Germans and Germany, more power to them. I just don't happen to think that plonking the system of one country into another, much different country is the answer. It would be like transplanting an organ of a totally different blood-type into a patient and crossing your fingers that it takes.


This 'German system' not only works well for Germany (since more then 120 years now) but for several other countries as well (who, however, changed a bit or a bit more).

Regulating worjing hours for practising physicans are set by ... by themselves. Only for those working in hospitals, we've got the hour restrictions - set by working law and finally regulated by the highest European court.

The doctors could actually work as long as they wish and/or patients go to their practises. They only can't work for the compulsary health insurances anymore beyond the age of 68 (Altersgrenze für Vertragsärzte)
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 11:30 am
A couple of questions for Walter or Thomas (or for that matter anyone from Germany, familiar with their health care system), and they are motivated only by curiosity.

My understanding of the system, mostly derived from comments here by Walter & Thomas is that the government sets certain standards for health insurance and itself funds (or subsidizes) one such scheme that is available to people with no or very limited income, and as well to others who pay a stipulated share of their gross income for the coverage. ("goverment" here may include either the Federal government or the Lander.) Other privately operated insurance coverage is available, however it must also meet certain government-established minimum standards for coverage and these policies also charge premiums based on a percentage of gross income. All residents of the country are required by the government to obtain qualifying health insurance coverage either in the government system or another. Residents can purchase extra health care insurance if they choose and pay directly to their medical providers if they want extra services.

Is my understanding correct so far? Some questions.

How are the premiums paid by individual residents? Does the government collect the premiums and then rebate the payments to the individual insurers, or are they paid directly by residents? Mostly here I'm intrigued by the practice of setting the premium as a stated percentage of gross income - information that presumably the government has, but private insurers don't have. What are the typical percentages required? - for the government system? for the major private ones?

How is gross income for this purpose defined? Presumably it includes all earned income as well as interest on invested cash. What about bonuses? capital gains from the sale of stock or property? Are these somewhat discrete and non-predictable elements of income included in the base from which the premium is determined?

I assume the insurers must accept all applicants who are willing to pay the required premium. True? And that insurers are free to adjust the percentage premium they charge as conditions change - also true?

Does the government restrict or limit the fees that providers of medical services or pharmaceuticals can charge the insurers in any way? How about the insurers - can they limit their fees to providers and/or restrict the residents who pay the premiums to them to certain doctors or hospitals? In short I am trying to get a sense of the degree to which the German system restricts the supply and availability of medical care. (This is an important question in that the UK and Canadian systems involve rather heavy-handed government rationing, and it is evident from the domestic political debates there that these systems produce a good deal of organized mediocrity.)

My motives here are to better understand the system that Walter and Thomas have been touting here so assiduously. It is usually the side effects of such systems (including our own) that dominate the issue as it relates to the universality & quality of coverage; the degrees to which the market for investment in new treatments is either encouraged or suppressed; and the ability of medical & professional services to attract qualified people.

I don't think the present system in the U.S. would score well on all these points -- we already have a large enough set of bad side effects. My concern is to avoid more.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 11:51 am
georgeob1 wrote:
My understanding of the system, mostly derived from comments here by Walter & Thomas is that the government sets certain standards for health insurance and itself funds (or subsidizes) one such scheme that is available to people with no or very limited income, and as well to others who pay a stipulated share of their gross income for the coverage. ("goverment" here may include either the Federal government or the Lander.) Other privately operated insurance coverage is available, however it must also meet certain government-established minimum standards for coverage and these policies also charge premiums based on a percentage of gross income. All residents of the country are required by the government to obtain qualifying health insurance coverage either in the government system or another. Residents can purchase extra health care insurance if they choose and pay directly to their medical providers if they want extra services.

Is my understanding correct so far?


Very close, at least :wink:

Here's a summary in English, which explains it much better than I ever could.
0 Replies
 
nappyheadedhohoho
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 12:03 pm
A few years back, Ezra Klein researched the healthcare systems of several European countries and this is what he reported on Germany's. (If he's made mistakes, the Germans here can correct him):


Da Basics: Germany was the first nation to enact mandatory health insurance, doing so way back in 1883. The system is funded through employer contributions, with half the money coming from your paycheck and half coming from your employer. Participating Germans -- about 90% of the country -- are enrolled in "sickness funds", some of which are organized by geographical region, some of which are organized by trade, and some of which are organized by company. The funds are a mix between private and public entities and are all nonprofit. They can't discriminate, and can't charge customers at different rates corresponding to their health/age/lifestyle. That means no cherry-picking.

Various sickness funds have different contribution levels (so some will deduct 7% of your paycheck, others 8%), but all are required to cover a broad range of benefits (including prescription drugs) and demand only a modest copay. These funds, which are conducted through your employer, remain with you even after you lose or retire from a job. So if you're fired, your employer will still have to make contributions for you, but the government will take up your end of the bargain. Same deal if you retire, though in that case the sickness fund covers a bit less of your expenses and your retirement pension makes up the gap. The funds are administered by a board that's half company representatives and half worker representatives.

Insurance is mandatory for all Germans with incomes under $40,000. Those above can opt out, but few do. All told, about 8% of the country opts out of the sickness funds, and most of them are very wealthy. Private insurers pay doctors at much higher rates, and thus the folks they insure get preferential treatment. This way, the rich can pay for better service, unlike in Canada where the only way to attain kingly treatment is paying out of pocket in America. 2% of the country are covered through the armed forces or policy, and .2% of the country -- mostly the superrich -- have no insurance at all.

The financing method is pretty regressive. The sickness funds can vary the percentage of your paycheck they deduct under the rationale that those with larger earnings need a smaller percentage to cover expenses. So the idea is not to have the rich covering the poor, but for everyone to be covered. Eventually, however, this got out of hand and a slight reform was made: Because various sickness funds draw from differing slices of the population, some were requiring quite small percentages to run the fund, as they had healthier, richer enrollees, while others needed quite a chunk because they covered poorer, sicker demographics. So in 1994, Germany created a program that forced sickness funds with richer, healthier members to contribute a portion of their payroll revenues to a national pool, which then distributes it to the poorer funds. That means the financing is still regressive, but less so.

Germany's not traditionally been a gatekeeper system, but that's changing. Nowadays, 55% of their doctors are generalists, compared with 35% of American physicians. Non-hospital (ambulatory) physicians are required to join their regional associations, which pay them from a global fund. If the physicians bill beyond what they're budgeted for, fees are reduced in proportion to the excess spending the next quarter. This seems to present a problem, in that some physicians could over-prescribe and force others to under-prescribe, as no particular physician would know what his colleagues were doing and thus be able to judge what he could do. Whether the associations have a way of evaluating physicians individually I don't know. Otherwise, the system seems flawed as doctors lack necessary cost information.

Cost Control: The 1977 German Cost Containment Act created a body called "Concerted Action", comprised of representatives from the nation's health providers, sickness funds, employers, unions, and various levels of government. CA meets twice a year to set guidelines for hospital fees, physicians rates and so forth. Since 1986, physician's fees have been capped. As a result, their health spending actually feel a bit between 1986 and 1991. But in 1991, costs resumed their march upwards, so the German government tried to make the Sickness Funds more competitive by allowing greater flexibility in choosing them. This heightened the inequality, forcing the aforementioned law transferring wealth from healthy, rich sickness funds to worse off ones. As of 2001, Germany's health spending was at 10.7% of GDP, third highest in the world. America, for comparison, is #1.

How Do We Stack Up? Due to some concerns over the viability of GDP spending and OECD rankings, I'm going to be changing some of the metrics I use here. Per capita, Germany spends $2,817 on health care for its citizens. America spends $5,267 (which in unbelievably high, by the way -- you should really check out how nuts that is, a point well-made by this Excel file comparison). According to the WHO, Germany's health care system is #6 in fairness of financial burden, #14 in overall goal attainment, and #14 in terms of overall performance. America's system is 54th in fairness(!), 15th in goal attainment, and 37th in overall performance.

http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=04&year=2005&base_name=health_of_nations_germany
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 12:05 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
How are the premiums paid by individual residents? Does the government collect the premiums and then rebate the payments to the individual insurers, or are they paid directly by residents? Mostly here I'm intrigued by the practice of setting the premium as a stated percentage of gross income - information that presumably the government has, but private insurers don't have. What are the typical percentages required? - for the government system? for the major private ones?


The government has nothing to do with the premiums at all - it's all the insurance company's and employer's business.
That means: the insurance company decides, it needs 14% of my salary, they get it from my employer (formerly fifty-fifty, now I must pay 0.9% more than my employer).

The employer pays all premiums for all members of a certain insurance in total: the insurance company doesn't know (exactly) what a certain member contributes (in general, that is).

The reason is quite simple, because our health system is based on the 'solidary principe'.

The percentages varies between about 12% and nearly 16%.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 12:28 pm
Thanks very much Walter.

Very interesting to learn that the 15% premium tops out at a gross income of about $48,000 euros. Overall the coverage looks about the same as that of a good U.S. Health Maintenance Organization, (HMO = group insurance) here, except that in Germany basic dental care is also included and co-payments for doctor visits and pharmaceuticals are a good deal higher than here.

Most employed Americans get equivalent (or better) coverage from their employers at a much lower cost (closer to 1%-3% of salary). This is because employers can treat their share of provided medical premiums as a business cost and thereby escape the 35% Federal corporate tax on it (plus additional state taxes). In addition the employee share of the cost is not included in the employee's taxable income. All taxpayers here can deduct medical/dental expenses of any kind amounting to over 6% of income from their taxable income, thereby cushining the blow of extraordinary costs. Finally this tax provision enables those without employer-paid insurance to purchase it themselves at a considerable savings -in that a major part of the premium will be exempted from the income tax.

The big difference, of course, is for the unemployed or those without an income.

Contrary to most of the political rhetoric, there is government financed medical coverage here for the poor (as defined by government). There is a general Federal Government program and many states supplement it with additional subsidies. The standards of care and the limits of coverage are in fact quite good and comparable to the system described in the reference you provided. However, the experience of using it is marred by the bureaucratic structure that administers it.

The unemployed or those between jobs do indeed face difficulties here. They are entitled by law to keep their previous employer-provided medical insurance for several years after leaving employment, however, they must pay for the coverage (at the employer group rates).

An interesting comparison and one which exposes equally interesting trade-offs in the respective social systems.

It appears to me that the German system avoids most of the stultifying effects of government monopoly as occurs with government operated national health care systems as are found in the UK and Canada. (I wouldn't wish them on anyone).
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 01:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
The big difference, of course, is for the unemployed or those without an income.

And for those whose medical bills are so high their employers' insurance companies won't take them. Have you ever talked with Bipolar Bear about his epileptic son and the treatment he gets from America's healthcare system?
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Jan, 2008 01:10 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Very interesting to learn that the 15% premium tops out at a gross income of about $48,000 euros. Overall the coverage looks about the same as that of a good U.S. Health Maintenance Organization, (HMO = group insurance) here, except that in Germany basic dental care is also included and co-payments for doctor visits and pharmaceuticals are a good deal higher than here.


Well, the highest sum an individual has to pay himself is about 620 Euros/month - but you get not only (basic) dental care but nursing in the home, preventive and rehab measures as well as travel expenses (taxis, emergency cars, fares to rehab institutions).
And it includes the premium for the nursing insurance. (That is mandatory, even if you're privately insured.)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 07/20/2025 at 09:16:55