T.R. Reid has an article on the Washington Post in which he actually went around the world and looked at the systems employed by other countries for health care insurance and delivery of care. Not surprisingly, he found out that the rest of the world enjoys high quality, universal coverage at a fraction of the cost of the US system. He also explodes several myths ...
... about the care given in other countries.
Such as,
1> Other countries use a socialized model (Some do, some don't)
2> Overseas, care is rationed through limited choices or long lines (It's not)
3> Foreign health-care systems are inefficient, bloated bureaucracies (Nope, more efficient)
4> Cost controls stifle innovation (Not true)
5> Health insurance has to be cruel (In fact, coverage is guaranteed abroad)
How come Rush Limbaugh never mentions this stuff?
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
T.R. Reid actually reports on health care abroad
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Simple, he is a left wing liberal nut.
as opposed to a right wing one loons...ie Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin
when people can not make legitimate arguments against a statement ...name calling is the best thing you can do...way to go...oh the bell rang recess is over, go back to kindergarten
Watch his entire report at this link, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/. I think it may challenge some of your preconceptions about other systems. For instance, he reports One Thursday morning in Tokyo, I called the prestigious orthopedic clinic at Keio University Hospital to schedule a consultation about my aching shoulder. "Why don't you just drop by?" the receptionist said. That same afternoon, I was in the surgeon's office. Dr. Nakamichi recommended an operation. "When could we do it?" I asked. The doctor checked his computer and said, "Tomorrow would be pretty difficult. Perhaps some day next week?”
Nice try Bill. Healthcare reform is not going to pass. It's time to go onto the next socialism program.
In his most recent weekly radio address, President Barack Obama denounced "willful misrepresentations and outright distortions" in the debate over health care reform. He then went on to repeat one of the most outright distortions in the entire debate: "If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep your plan. Period."
No, Mr. President. No you can't.
To go straight to the chapter and verse: under Section 59(B)(a) of HR3200, the bill making its way through the House, and Section 151 of the bill that passed out of a Senate committee, every American would be required to buy health insurance.
It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular 'willful misrepresentation and outright distortion.'
And not just any insurance: to qualify, a plan would have to meet certain government-defined standards. For example, under Section 122(b) of the House bill, all plans must cover hospitalization; outpatient hospital and clinic services; services by physicians and other health professionals, as well as supplies and equipment incidental to their services; prescription drugs, rehabilitation services, mental health and substance-abuse treatment; preventive services (to be determined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the United States Preventive Services Task Force); and maternity, well-baby, and well-child care, as well as dental, vision, and hearing services for children under age 21.
But that's not all. Section 1239(b) of the bill also establishes a federal Health Benefits Advisory Committee, headed by the U.S. surgeon general, which will have the power to develop additional minimum benefit requirements. There is no limit to how extensive those future required benefits may be.
If your current health insurance doesn't meet all those requirements, you won't be immediately forced to drop your current insurance for a government-specified plan. But you would be required to switch if you lose your current insurance or "if significant changes are made to the existing health insurance plan."
More critically, for the 70 percent of us who get our insurance through work, those plans would all have to satisfy the government's benefit requirements within five years.
More likely, your employer will simply find that the increased cost and administrative burden is not worth it, and will dump you into the government-run "public option."
The Lewin Group, an independent actuarial firm, estimates that under the House version of the bill, as many as 89.5 million workers will simply lose their current employer-provided plan and be forced into government-run insurance.
Seniors, too, could lose their current coverage, at least the 10.2 million seniors currently participating in the Medicare advantage program. That program offers many seniors benefits not included in traditional Medicare, including preventive-care services, coordinated care for chronic conditions, routine physical examinations, additional hospitalization, skilled nursing facility stays, routine eye and hearing examinations, and glasses and hearing aids But the House bill cuts payments to the Medicare Advantage program by roughly $156.3 billion over 10 years.
Michael D. Tanner is a Cato Institute senior fellow and co-author of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It.
More by Michael D. Tanner
In response, many insurers are expected to stop participating in the program, while others increase the premiums they charge seniors. Millions of seniors will likely be forced off their current plan and back into traditional Medicare.
Finally, the bills would all but eliminate Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), currently used by nearly 10 million Americans. Section 122 of the House bill and 311 of the Senate bill set minimum payout levels for any insurance policy. Insurance payouts must cover 70 percent of claims under the House bill and 76 percent under the Senate bill. And the bills also prohibit any deductibles or co-payments for preventive care.
But virtually none of the high-deductible insurance plans in existence today, and required to accompany an HSA, can meet such a standard. They are simply not designed to work that way. The result will be that a plan designed to those specifications would offer few if any advantages over traditional insurance and would not be competitive in today's markets.
As a result, insurers warn they would stop offering high-deductible policies.
Any way you look at it, under the bills currently before Congress, millions of Americans will be forced out of their current health insurance plan, even if they are happy with it. Period.
It is time for the president to stop spreading this particular "willful misrepresentation and outright distortion."
I'm not really sure where I stand on the health care issue. Having said that, I do know one thing for sure. There is information being circulated from both sides and both sides claim to be right. Well logic dictates that this is not possible. Information is brought forth either supporting or opposing and someone brings forth more information to dispute it. Both sides cite cases of individuals from other countries either emphasizing that government health care is great or is failing miserably.
If there is to be government health care, I fear like everything else we do, it will make some people a lot of money, create more government and not really help the middle class at all but place more of a burden on it than already exists. I would like to see health care reform in the way of tort reform and changes in insurance company policies. Insurance and pharmaceutical companies are now in charge of our health care. They dictate how a patient is treated. This is unacceptable. A government run program may not change any of these problems and may in fact create more.
I believe everyone should have health care available to them but how do you go about making that happen without including some of the worst case scenarios that are possible? I don't feel I have heard any answers to put my mind at rest. Nor do I feel doing nothing and keeping the status quo is the answer.
Those who now have health insurance from a private provider claim to be happy with it and do not want anyone to change it. However, consider this. How many of them could afford a serious illness? Most people are not covered 100%. There would be costs involved. Maybe it would only be a few thousand dollars, maybe more. My mother-in-law had BCBS master medical and she also had cancer. My father-in-law received a bill for $30k and that was just the beginning. I think even the die hard opponents would agree that the system needs fixing but I'm not sure how to do that. Are you?
Yes, our health care system needs reform. We have to start somewhere! Doing nothing is not the answer. We can not afford to do nothing! Please, go back and read Reid's report, it is interesting. Easy enough to check on the facts. I'm sure you can find people everywhere who love or hate their health care. Look at the Reid's report or go back and stick your head in the sand.
Post a Comment