Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Incredible: Single Payer way more popular than ObamaRomneyCare. [View all]ProSense
(116,464 posts)61. Krugman:
<...>
Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. Weve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.
The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. Thats how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. Its also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.
Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers cant discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some Swiss aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Every wealthy country other than the United States guarantees essential care to all its citizens. There are, however, wide variations in the specifics, with three main approaches taken.
In Britain, the government itself runs the hospitals and employs the doctors. Weve all heard scare stories about how that works in practice; these stories are false. Like every system, the National Health Service has problems, but over all it appears to provide quite good care while spending only about 40 percent as much per person as we do. By the way, our own Veterans Health Administration, which is run somewhat like the British health service, also manages to combine quality care with low costs.
The second route to universal coverage leaves the actual delivery of health care in private hands, but the government pays most of the bills. Thats how Canada and, in a more complex fashion, France do it. Its also a system familiar to most Americans, since even those of us not yet on Medicare have parents and relatives who are.
Again, you hear a lot of horror stories about such systems, most of them false. French health care is excellent. Canadians with chronic conditions are more satisfied with their system than their U.S. counterparts. And Medicare is highly popular, as evidenced by the tendency of town-hall protesters to demand that the government keep its hands off the program.
Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers cant discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some Swiss aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/17/opinion/17krugman.html
Healthcare in Switzerland is universal[1] and is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994 (Krankenversicherungsgesetz - KVG). Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). International civil servants, members of permanent missions and their family members are exempted from compulsory health insurance. They can, however, apply to join the Swiss health insurance system, within six months of taking up residence in the country.
Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done (a) by means of an annual excess (or deductible, called the franchise), which ranges from CHF 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly) and (b) by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess up to a stop-loss amount of CHF 700.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment and hospitalisation of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the cost of treatment. This is done (a) by means of an annual excess (or deductible, called the franchise), which ranges from CHF 300 to a maximum of CHF 2,500 as chosen by the insured person (premiums are adjusted accordingly) and (b) by a charge of 10% of the costs over and above the excess up to a stop-loss amount of CHF 700.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
146 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Incredible: Single Payer way more popular than ObamaRomneyCare. [View all]
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2012
OP
Because that is how Blue Dogs think. And that is why Blue Dogs need to be run out of the party. (nt)
w4rma
Mar 2012
#8
That is one opinion. We don't have the backing of a few Billionaire and a full time propaganda
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#55
The De Facto third party corporate supremacists would stand the most to gain.
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#10
I think both Single Payer and the Public Option were out of the picture
Jackpine Radical
Mar 2012
#33
That is his tragic flaw. He gives a lot before he gets anything. If it is not deliberate it is sad
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#56
The Republicans are already making themselves unelectable, so if you're right, and
Jackpine Radical
Mar 2012
#116
I agree, the corporate media don't believe in bringing up the issue of how for profit insurance
Uncle Joe
Mar 2012
#7
The millionaires and billionaires who are profiting by denying care oppose Medicare for all
Vincardog
Mar 2012
#58
The depressing aspect of the poll is that Progressives want to see the law fail.
bluestate10
Mar 2012
#81
But I thought that Obama Care limited Insurance Company profits on health care coverage to 15%
Walk away
Mar 2012
#104
Actually, I believe it limits non-medical uses of premiums to 15%, including profit
MannyGoldstein
Mar 2012
#106
Wonderful. Too bad Medicaid bux are being slashed right and left at state and federal levels n/t
eridani
Mar 2012
#92
Uh, we already had control of the house and senate and they decided that ACA was the way to go.
progressoid
Mar 2012
#29
and how would he do that? If the HCR is ruled unconstitutional, Obama loses the election /nt
still_one
Mar 2012
#18
Because that is what he hung his first two years on, and if it was ruled unconstitutional, the
still_one
Mar 2012
#63
Here is the reality, single payer would NOT have passed in 2008. The blue dogs and repugs would
still_one
Mar 2012
#17
I agree mostly, however, by virtue of covering 40 million uninsured, it should save emergency room
still_one
Mar 2012
#62
It most assuredly did NOT federalize regulation, which is specifically left to the states n/t
eridani
Mar 2012
#93
I'm extra glad the Dems compromised away the best solution, that 2/3 of the public supported
phantom power
Mar 2012
#20
^^^^^^ Yes, the Dems had control and they silenced discussion of a universal, not for profit system
slipslidingaway
Mar 2012
#90
Dems set the agenda for the HC reform discussions long before the vote took place ...
slipslidingaway
Mar 2012
#129
The GOP really had the upper hand, as they control the Blue Dogs in the Dem Party.
NorthCarolina
Mar 2012
#97
Actually it's HeritageNewtRomneyObamaCare if one were to do it chronologically from
Dragonfli
Mar 2012
#60
You're Right!!! I can't believe I went and denied him credit due, thanks for reminding me
Dragonfli
Mar 2012
#69
Can't blame them for taking a bow, they spent over 20 years buying this law. /nt
Dragonfli
Mar 2012
#78
Then why go way back over 20 years to a Heritage Foundation law that makes it even worse?
Dragonfli
Mar 2012
#79
If our taxes can pay for illegal invasions, why can they not be used for Universal HC?
WinkyDink
Mar 2012
#82