Health Care Reform - almost a done deal? DONE!

Topher925

One important thing to note, is that lot of this "government run healthcare" will actually be managed at the state level. So if your state screws it up, just move to another one.

MotoH

That's weird, I didn't know 39% was more than 59%

Nebula815

Not surprising since the bill mandates 300M customers for health insurance with 30M new members and Big Pharma is promised exclusive distribution in the US with a ban on imported pharmaceuticals. The health insurance companies, big pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, etc...all are guaranteed big profits thanks to this bill.

cristo

Do you guys across the pond actually look at statistics, or do you just prefer to conjure things up yourselves? If you would, you'd see this:

Unemployment rates (from wiki, but see sources)

UK 7.8%; Switzerland 3.6%; Denmark 4.2%; Norway 3.3%; Sweden 8%; Finland 8.5%

USA 9.7%.

CRGreathouse

The original quote to which RootX referred was about the unemployment rate in France, and included a link showing its unemployment rate over the last 10 years or so. So your ad hominem attack is baseless.

Now there's an argument for cherry-picking: maybe France is a bad example, or maybe the Scandinavian countries are. You could compare other European countries (Spain, Germany, Portugal, Italy, Poland, Greece, etc.), or perhaps just the overall EU rate. At least this way you'd be discussing the facts rather than attacking each other.

cristo

Even if that was the comment he was replying to, had he looked at statistics comparing the two countries, he would see that a claim such as "It's unemployment is always close to 10% which is worse than US" was incorrect. For example, from table 1 here one can see that the unemployment rate in the USA for much of 2009 was worse than that in France.

CRGreathouse

I did trace the quotes backward (that's what the 'right arrow' buttons do*). That was the quote responded to.

* Not to be condescending -- actually I only noticed this myself a few months ago.

That claim was about long-term rates for both countries (as I mentioned in my post, the source was a long-range plot). That the US rate was at some point worse doesn't seem to weaken the point at all. (That France may not be a good example *does* weaken the point.)

Now if the claim had been "Its unemployment is close to 10% which is always worse than US", the criticism would be valid. But it wasn't.

Nebula815

Europe, on average, has a higher unemployment rate than the U.S. The UK isn't really Europe and Switzerland is more free-market than the U.S., so I wouldn't use them as an example.

Stand by for a VAT tax when it becomes clear how large a hole in the budget this healthcare legislation blows.

Office_Shredder

Switzerland requires everyone to get health insurance, and the UK has universal health care, and a fairly high VAT. Considering that we're supposed to be talking about how the march to socialism brought on by the health care bill will sink us like Europe, I think they're very relevant examples.

Nebula815

Switzerland is a very tiny country and is not an entitlement utopia though. The central government there has very little power. They have a large private sector health insurance system combined with a public aspect.

As for the UK, they are in dire straits economically and fiscally right now and headed towards going over a cliff again. They almost did in the late 1970s, the only thing that saved them was Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative party. After the Conservate party started becoming too corrupt (and also raising some taxes), they lost to Labour party, which had re-branded itself as "New Labour," and thus has gone on to spend money like crazy and raise taxes. I would not hold them as an example for us to copy.

They're universal healthcare system has been a contentious issue ever since it was created, and they have various problems with rationing in it to this day. There were actually fewer hospitals in the UK by the 1970s then there had been in the early twentieth century due to the NHS.

They also have heavy regulations over junk lawsuits, which would mean the equivalent of heavy tort reform in the U.S. I am sure that to pay for health reform here, the Democrats will push for a VAT tax, but mention tort reform and they will never do that.

Also, as I said in an earlier post, even if we decide to copy the Euro systems, assuming they work well, we have a very poor record of creating such systems within our own nation. Again, it may sound like a broken record, but it's the truth:

Medicare - trillions in deficit
Medicaid - trillions in deficit

(these two programs alone are both causes of the increasing costs of American healthcare and also are responsible for a large portion of the future deficit projections our nation faces)

Massachusettes healthcare program - premiums among highest and costs very high (http://www.boston.com/news/health/ar...st_in_country/)

Tennessee - tried an expansion of Medicaid which ballooned out of control in costs (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125046457087135327.html)

So IMO we should work to make sure this stuff works on the small level before trying it on the national level.

Galteeth

I, for one, would like for the government to give me a pizza.

turbo

I'd prefer and oil and filter change.

WhoWee

I commented:

"If anyone pays less, it will be because YOUR taxes subsidized them. Premiums will increae otherwise due to mandated coverage of (high risk) pre-existing conditions and removal of maximum lifetime payouts. The costs to the insurance companies WILL INCREASE - SO WILL PREMIUMS."

As for a reputable study on the subject - I have to laugh (or maybe cry). That is the problem - they didn't do an honest study of the consequences of this legislation.

I posted with regards o how the insurance industry operates. Risk is measured and a premium is quoted ->>> more risk = greater premium.

Galteeth

Theoretically, this might be offset by the massive influx of new customers. Of course, it sort of stifles competition, and this "increased competition" aspect of the bill doesn't take effect till 2014, and by my understanding still does not allow for competition over state lines.

cristo

Really? Because the link I gave above, averaged over the last year or so, says otherwise.

You can't just redefine "Europe" to suit your argument.

Nebula815

Europe, on average, as a continent, has a chronically high unemployment rate and more stagnant economic growth rates during good times. They also have higher levels of national debt to GDP on average. The United States, on average, maintains full employment, with unemployment only going higher during recessions. This current recession was the equivalent of a torpedo (real-estate bust) hitting the ship (economy), which has thus driven unemployment to its highest in approximately three decades (the last time being the Volcker Recession of 1981-1982).

The U.S. also has fairly decent growth during good times and a lower debt-GDP ratio (although it's getting up there).

"Technically" the UK may be considered part of Europe but from my understanding, they have never regarded themselves as "European" in the conventional sense. But regardless, the UK does not have the same degree of mixed economy as other nations in the EU. The UK is able to still put the same amount of money proportionally into its national defense as the United States.

Switzerland is not part of the European Union. Switzerland does not follow the same policies as most EU countries (high taxes, massive social welfare systems), although they have aligned certain policies to match the EU recently. They have a modern market economy with low taxes, low unemployment, decent GDP growth, and one of the highest GDP per capitas in the world.

One thing to also think about is the national defense. A big danger for the United States of becoming a European-style social democracy is the cut required in the defense. In addition to more of the budget going to social expenditures, the probable higher level of debt will increase the interest that must be paid, gutting the defense more.

Remember, if the European nations had had to fend for themselves after WWII, there is no way they would have been able to pour the amount of money into social systems that they do. They were able to do this because the U.S. to a great degree has subsidized their security for many years.

But if the U.S. goes the same route, who will replace us?

The paranoid fear about a New World Order forming, but I think in the future we risk just the opposite, a world with truly no order.

mheslep

Surely you guys have heard of Volunteer Fire Departments? Often the VFD's mix in with the regular pro's, but in some small towns it is all VFD, at least there are in my state. Edit: The first VFD in the US was Franklin's idea, set up in Philadelphia in 1736. They followed with private fire insurance in 1751 which led to rapidly improvement in Philly's fire prevention measures. Maybe that's why Philly never had one of those total city-destroying fires ala Chicago, SF, NYC.
http://www.ushistory.org/tour/tour_contrib.htm