Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005
Healthcare reforms warnings from France and Canada...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 … nd-canada/

Are these guys lying Cam or is their warning legit?

Brian Lee Crowley is the founding president of Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a public policy think tank in Canada (pictured left) and Valentin Petkantchin is director of research at the Paris-and Brussels-based Institut économique Molinari. The views expressed are their own. –

President Barack Obama’s package of heathcare reforms – mandatory health insurance, public health option and increased federal government financing – is being sold as preserving independent high quality care and choice for patients while keeping down costs. Taxpayers and patients in both Canada and France know better.

Unfortunately, our experience is that once the government gets its nose in the healthcare tent, not only is spending not contained, but health care professionals lose their freedom to practice. Left with few choices, patients face shortages and waiting lists.

Washington’s proposed new public health insurance option, while not imposing Canadian-style single-payer monopolistic public health insurance immediately, will almost certainly lead to that result in the end.

One of two things will happen. If doctors prove reluctant to accept patients covered by the public option and it is thus unable to compete successfully with private insurers, the politicians will not stand idly by.

Physicians’ freedom to practice outside the public option will become increasingly hedged with restrictions, perhaps ultimately ending up, as in Canada, with doctors in the public system being prohibited from taking private patients.

Or, more plausibly, in the short term at least, private insurers will gradually withdraw from the business, incapable of winning against a government-subsidized “competitor.”

In both cases, competition in the health insurance sector will progressively vanish and the U.S. will wake up with a monopolistic-style health insurance system, à la France or Canada.

Consider yourself warned.

French officials are scrambling to take more control of the system to bring these costs down, but Canada, where government controls all “medically necessary care,” shows that this is no solution at all. A growing share of Canadian provincial budgets is also swallowed by the health care system, going in 20 years (1983-2003) from 32% to 41% and on the way to 50% in a few short years. As a portion of GDP, and adjusting for population age, Canadian health care spending even ranked ahead of France’s in 2005.

Independent private medicine – once one of the main pillars guaranteeing quality and timely care in the French system – is being slowly strangled. At the end of 2008, nurses lost their freedom to practice where they please, while a new law will do the same for physicians by imposing an annual financial penalty if they refuse to practice where the government tells them to. Specialists’ fees are increasingly regulated. The last pillars of competition among providers, and choice for French patients, are thus undermined.

Last edited by [TUF]Catbox (2009-07-24 07:31:50)

Love is the answer
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6870|SE London

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Healthcare reforms warnings from France and Canada...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 … nd-canada/

Are these guys lying Cam or is their warning legit?

Brian Lee Crowley is the founding president of Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS), a public policy think tank in Canada (pictured left) and Valentin Petkantchin is director of research at the Paris-and Brussels-based Institut économique Molinari. The views expressed are their own. –

President Barack Obama’s package of heathcare reforms – mandatory health insurance, public health option and increased federal government financing – is being sold as preserving independent high quality care and choice for patients while keeping down costs. Taxpayers and patients in both Canada and France know better.

Unfortunately, our experience is that once the government gets its nose in the healthcare tent, not only is spending not contained, but health care professionals lose their freedom to practice. Left with few choices, patients face shortages and waiting lists.

Washington’s proposed new public health insurance option, while not imposing Canadian-style single-payer monopolistic public health insurance immediately, will almost certainly lead to that result in the end.

One of two things will happen. If doctors prove reluctant to accept patients covered by the public option and it is thus unable to compete successfully with private insurers, the politicians will not stand idly by.

Physicians’ freedom to practice outside the public option will become increasingly hedged with restrictions, perhaps ultimately ending up, as in Canada, with doctors in the public system being prohibited from taking private patients.

Or, more plausibly, in the short term at least, private insurers will gradually withdraw from the business, incapable of winning against a government-subsidized “competitor.”

In both cases, competition in the health insurance sector will progressively vanish and the U.S. will wake up with a monopolistic-style health insurance system, à la France or Canada.

Consider yourself warned.

French officials are scrambling to take more control of the system to bring these costs down, but Canada, where government controls all “medically necessary care,” shows that this is no solution at all. A growing share of Canadian provincial budgets is also swallowed by the health care system, going in 20 years (1983-2003) from 32% to 41% and on the way to 50% in a few short years. As a portion of GDP, and adjusting for population age, Canadian health care spending even ranked ahead of France’s in 2005.

Independent private medicine – once one of the main pillars guaranteeing quality and timely care in the French system – is being slowly strangled. At the end of 2008, nurses lost their freedom to practice where they please, while a new law will do the same for physicians by imposing an annual financial penalty if they refuse to practice where the government tells them to. Specialists’ fees are increasingly regulated. The last pillars of competition among providers, and choice for French patients, are thus undermined.
There are a number of accurate points there. I don't know much about the healthcare system in Canada but I do know that France have had a number of deficits over healthcare. But even with those deficits taken into account, government spending on healthcare is massively higher in the US (15% of GDP and rising). France have the top ranked healthcare system in the world. They have also been criticised for overspending on healthcare (10% of GDP), when a number of other countries (like Japan and Sweden) provide the same level of service for less money (7-8% GDP).

Better rated care for cheaper. Nothing in the article denies any of that, in fact it supports that conclusion. The issue of choice being more restricted in a government run system is a valid point, but is also a matter of common sense which leads to reduced costs. If you want greater choice, get private healthcare - unless you live in Canada, where you can't (which seems a bit dodgy to me and is an obviously fundamental flaw with that system).
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6940|USA

Bertster7 wrote:

lowing wrote:

Yes then why are you denying his comparison that does not fit, the peasants of France had no CHOICE, they were peasants and would ALWAYS remain so regardless as to their effort. Thati s not the case in the states.
What comparison? There was an example of there being historical precedents for greed leading to governmental collapse - which is perfectly true. There is also the implication that the US system is selfish and greedy. There is no comparison between the US and aristocracy, it just isn't there.

It is the case in the US and the rest of the world. Fiscal mobility is limited, less so though it has been in the past, but still limited. In terms of overall fiscal mobility the US doesn't do very well.

lowing wrote:

Then who was it that sailed passed the statue of liberty, the Japanese?
What are you on about?
What relevance does that have to anything?

lowing wrote:

Do you live here? I am telling you we are a fat and lazy society. The liberal entitlement attitude has taken over. We want and expect and demand EVERYTHING, yet refuse to work for ANYTHING, we think we should just take it form the rich, hence the election of Obama.
As is the rest of the Western world. These things are constants across all the countries being looked at here. There is no tangible evidence that supports your statement. In fact all the figures point to the opposite being the case, since the average number of hours worked in the US is way higher than in Europe. If anything that points towards Europeans being even lazier.
If it is not a comparison then it is not relevant and no need to mention it. It was a comparison, he was suggesting that LIKE ARISTOCRACY, we are doomed to fail in our own greed. A COMPARISON. I argued it is not like that for the reasons stated.

immigration? EUROPEAN immigration, kinda sorta what I was talking about.

Wrong wrong wrong, Europeans work to live, (a trait I admire), Americans live to work, and not because we love it, but because we see our neighbors have something we don't so we gotta have it. A significant reason for our personal debt issues. We are a nation of wealth envy, and entitlement. We deserve it, not because we earn it, but because we are AMERICANS, and are entitle ed to it, and now a days we are more than willing to let someone else work for us to have it. It is called liberalism.

Last edited by lowing (2009-07-24 11:29:59)

Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

Perfect..



They stacked the room with supporters (mostly union peeps) before they even opened the door.



Xbone Stormsurgezz
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005
2010.... and you're out!
Love is the answer
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6694|North Carolina

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Healthcare reforms warnings from France and Canada...
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2 … nd-canada/

Are these guys lying Cam or is their warning legit?

Brian Lee Crowley is the founding president of Atlantic Institute for Market Studies (AIMS),
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?ti … et_Studies

The Institute promotes free-market ideology, and is at the forefront of the battle against public health care in Canada. Among its sponsors or "patrons" it lists the pharmaceutical giants, Pfizer and Merck Frosst.

Vested interests, eh?
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6700|'Murka

Bertster7 wrote:

There are a number of accurate points there. I don't know much about the healthcare system in Canada but I do know that France have had a number of deficits over healthcare. But even with those deficits taken into account, government spending on healthcare is massively higher in the US (15% of GDP and rising).
That's for all US spending on healthcare, not just governmental spending.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/2009/ … ms-at.html

It Has Begun... Dem Congressman Screams at Dem Constituent For Asking About Obamacare at Open Meeting
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6694|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

There are a number of accurate points there. I don't know much about the healthcare system in Canada but I do know that France have had a number of deficits over healthcare. But even with those deficits taken into account, government spending on healthcare is massively higher in the US (15% of GDP and rising).
That's for all US spending on healthcare, not just governmental spending.
But considering that private healthcare spending is far more here per capita than it is in France or anywhere else, the point remains.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
Good summary from a guy who read all 1000+ pages of the Heatlcare bill:
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/ … r_320.html
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6890|132 and Bush

Harmor wrote:

Good summary from a guy who read all 1000+ pages of the Heatlcare bill:
http://www.theodoresworld.net/archives/ … r_320.html
Dewd
https://i25.tinypic.com/svl4c1.jpg

Put just a little effort in find someone with an open mind. I personally don't support the current proposed bill's. But I try to at least listen to the entire debate.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6700|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

There are a number of accurate points there. I don't know much about the healthcare system in Canada but I do know that France have had a number of deficits over healthcare. But even with those deficits taken into account, government spending on healthcare is massively higher in the US (15% of GDP and rising).
That's for all US spending on healthcare, not just governmental spending.
But considering that private healthcare spending is far more here per capita than it is in France or anywhere else, the point remains.
No, it doesn't. When the private sector spends it, it doesn't contribute to the government's deficit.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6694|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:


That's for all US spending on healthcare, not just governmental spending.
But considering that private healthcare spending is far more here per capita than it is in France or anywhere else, the point remains.
No, it doesn't. When the private sector spends it, it doesn't contribute to the government's deficit.
Uh...  Ok...  The original point being made was that we spend more than anyone else per capita in both public and private funds combined.  I mentioned that we spend more than anyone else per capita in private funds alone as well.  Now, we may not spend the most in public funds per capita, but the budget deficit you're mentioning is irrelevant when considering overall healthcare expenses.

Consider how much we spend on the military.  Consider how much we spend on SS.  If we cut the military budget in half and phased out SS, a budget deficit wouldn't be an issue.

Now, obviously, neither of those things are going to happen anytime soon, but....  even in the short run, socialization controls medical costs better than the market does.  That's clearly shown when comparing how much we pay versus everyone else.

So, even if we socialize and this adds a huge spending chunk to our government budget, in the long run, it's a better move than continuing our current route, because right now...  costs are skyrocketing.

Socialized medicine is a stopgap measure for medical inflation, for the most part.  We'll figure out how to deal with the deficit part after setting the program in place -- just like every other government program.

At some point, we're going to have to cut spending on everything else.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6700|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:


But considering that private healthcare spending is far more here per capita than it is in France or anywhere else, the point remains.
No, it doesn't. When the private sector spends it, it doesn't contribute to the government's deficit.
Uh...  Ok...  The original point being made was that we spend more than anyone else per capita in both public and private funds combined.  I mentioned that we spend more than anyone else per capita in private funds alone as well.  Now, we may not spend the most in public funds per capita, but the budget deficit you're mentioning is irrelevant when considering overall healthcare expenses.
We spend more per capita than a lot of other places in a lot of categories...particularly in the private sector. What's the point?

Turquoise wrote:

Consider how much we spend on the military.  Consider how much we spend on SS.  If we cut the military budget in half and phased out SS, a budget deficit wouldn't be an issue.
Not sure you could just cut it in half, but it could certainly be reduced dramatically without significantly jeopardizing our security.

As for entitlement programs (like SS and Medicare)....you're right. They are the single biggest expense in our budget.

Turquoise wrote:

Now, obviously, neither of those things are going to happen anytime soon, but....  even in the short run, socialization controls medical costs better than the market does.  That's clearly shown when comparing how much we pay versus everyone else.
Socialization of any industry artificially controls costs...that's why they don't work well. Don't forget the impact to existing industries that rely on or support the medical care industry here. There are cascading effects beyond individual medical expenses.

Turquoise wrote:

So, even if we socialize and this adds a huge spending chunk to our government budget, in the long run, it's a better move than continuing our current route, because right now...  costs are skyrocketing.
Look at how much Medicare actually pays in comparison to other payment methods. Medicare's costs aren't skyrocketing...they are staying basically steady on a per-treatment basis--because it limits how much will be paid for services rendered, regardless of the actual expense of those services. Thus, charges go up for non-Medicare patients to make up the difference, which only exacerbates the difference between charged cost and the amount Medicare will pay.

Turquoise wrote:

Socialized medicine is a stopgap measure for medical inflation, for the most part.  We'll figure out how to deal with the deficit part after setting the program in place -- just like every other government program.
Again, that ignores the cascading effects of socializing 1/6th of the GDP. There are reductions in tax receipts associated with that...which only amplifies the deficit-creating aspect of this.

Turquoise wrote:

At some point, we're going to have to cut spending on everything else.
And why do you think other programs are less worthy of spending? Why not cut spending on Medicare/Medicaid? It's just another government entitlement program like Social Security...which you don't seem to have any problems getting rid of.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Pierre
I hunt criminals down for a living
+68|6964|Belgium
Can anyone provide some details of this plan, preferrably not supported or paid for by the health (insurance) companies? A few impartial links would be appreciated.

Last edited by Pierre (2009-08-12 13:11:21)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6694|North Carolina

FEOS wrote:

We spend more per capita than a lot of other places in a lot of categories...particularly in the private sector. What's the point?
In the case of healthcare, our standard of living is not sufficiently high enough to justify paying so much more for it.  If our overall wages matched the overall higher expense of healthcare in America, then it wouldn't be an issue.  It clearly is though.

FEOS wrote:

Socialization of any industry artificially controls costs...that's why they don't work well. Don't forget the impact to existing industries that rely on or support the medical care industry here. There are cascading effects beyond individual medical expenses.
Again, they seem to work well for France and Norway.  By the way, Norway's markets in general are more competitive than ours.

FEOS wrote:

Look at how much Medicare actually pays in comparison to other payment methods. Medicare's costs aren't skyrocketing...they are staying basically steady on a per-treatment basis--because it limits how much will be paid for services rendered, regardless of the actual expense of those services. Thus, charges go up for non-Medicare patients to make up the difference, which only exacerbates the difference between charged cost and the amount Medicare will pay.
And a socialized system to the same extent as France's would handle that much better than a relatively small program like Medicare.

FEOS wrote:

Again, that ignores the cascading effects of socializing 1/6th of the GDP. There are reductions in tax receipts associated with that...which only amplifies the deficit-creating aspect of this.
And again, if we cut government spending in other areas, this isn't an issue.

FEOS wrote:

And why do you think other programs are less worthy of spending? Why not cut spending on Medicare/Medicaid? It's just another government entitlement program like Social Security...which you don't seem to have any problems getting rid of.
I believe healthcare is a public responsibility.  Retirement isn't, in my opinion.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6694|North Carolina

Pierre wrote:

Can anyone provide some details of this plan, preferrably not supported or paid for by the health (insurance) companies? A few impartial links would be appreciated.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/08/10/wh … ll-anyway/

I wouldn't say this one is unbiased, but it does go into some details that most others haven't.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
Norway doesn't have the immigration problem like we have (heck - who would want to live in a country that far north anyway).
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6694|North Carolina

Harmor wrote:

Norway doesn't have the immigration problem like we have (heck - who would want to live in a country that far north anyway).
True, Norway doesn't have a border issue.

Still, you can't tell me we don't have the military power needed to enforce border security.
Harmor
Error_Name_Not_Found
+605|6837|San Diego, CA, USA
Our military can't be deployed domestically...that's why we have the National Guard and Border Patrol.

Healthcare is not a public responsibility just as much as making sure we have a roof over our heads.  The government is only required to from this John Locke quote, "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."

Before we had Medicare/Medicaid we cared for our elderly.  Its just now we want the government to care for them.  Just like how we transferred what we used to do privately for the poor, we transferred it to the government and they tax us and tax us and tax us with all their inefficiency, waste, and corruption.
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6700|'Murka

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

We spend more per capita than a lot of other places in a lot of categories...particularly in the private sector. What's the point?
In the case of healthcare, our standard of living is not sufficiently high enough to justify paying so much more for it.  If our overall wages matched the overall higher expense of healthcare in America, then it wouldn't be an issue.  It clearly is though.
Who are you (or anyone else) to decide that? You would assume that the benefits of health care are linear to the amount expended. That is a flawed assumption.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Socialization of any industry artificially controls costs...that's why they don't work well. Don't forget the impact to existing industries that rely on or support the medical care industry here. There are cascading effects beyond individual medical expenses.
Again, they seem to work well for France and Norway.  By the way, Norway's markets in general are more competitive than ours.
By what measure?

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Look at how much Medicare actually pays in comparison to other payment methods. Medicare's costs aren't skyrocketing...they are staying basically steady on a per-treatment basis--because it limits how much will be paid for services rendered, regardless of the actual expense of those services. Thus, charges go up for non-Medicare patients to make up the difference, which only exacerbates the difference between charged cost and the amount Medicare will pay.
And a socialized system to the same extent as France's would handle that much better than a relatively small program like Medicare.
At more than 20% of annual federal expenditures, Medicare is hardly a "relatively small program".

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Again, that ignores the cascading effects of socializing 1/6th of the GDP. There are reductions in tax receipts associated with that...which only amplifies the deficit-creating aspect of this.
And again, if we cut government spending in other areas, this isn't an issue.
It absolutely IS an issue. What areas are you going to cut? How are you going to deal with the ramifications of said cuts? That is an overly simplistic approach that ignores the scope of the issue at hand.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And why do you think other programs are less worthy of spending? Why not cut spending on Medicare/Medicaid? It's just another government entitlement program like Social Security...which you don't seem to have any problems getting rid of.
I believe healthcare is a public responsibility.  Retirement isn't, in my opinion.
Many believe individual health care is an individual responsibility as well.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6789|so randum
Socialised Healthcare is the Devil

https://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc58/jpward1/WHOChart.jpg

Rightclick the pic> View image (and even then it's a bit small)

cooked this up using WHO stats.
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
Catbox
forgiveness
+505|7005

FatherTed wrote:

Socialised Healthcare is the Devil

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc58 … OChart.jpg

Rightclick the pic> View image (and even then it's a bit small)

cooked this up using WHO stats.
Yes it is... i agree.
Luckily a majority of the US is waking up and realizing the same.(dropping polls and upset citizens at town hall meetings)
If govt health care even passes in the fall...it will be a watered down version.
The govt needs to fix the insurance we have... not double down on more of the same.
Love is the answer
FatherTed
xD
+3,936|6789|so randum
you didn't catch the sarcasm there
Small hourglass island
Always raining and foggy
Use an umbrella
PureFodder
Member
+225|6574

FEOS wrote:

Again, that ignores the cascading effects of socializing 1/6th of the GDP. There are reductions in tax receipts associated with that...which only amplifies the deficit-creating aspect of this.
Currently the rest of the US economy is paying for the healthcare industry, if healthcare spending drops, it means that other businesses are paying less to cover the healthcare costs of their employees. The cascading effect will include most of the economy increasing profits, increasing exports/reducing imports as they become more efficient and therefore more competative, and as a result of that expanding and hiring more people. This will both even out the lost tax income AND reduce the trade deficit. At the moment the healthcare industry is wasting hundreds of billions of dollars each year.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard