Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Health Care Omerta in the U.K.
It's fine for Brits to talk trash about the National Health Service, but not to Americans.
A few weeks ago, I sat down with Daniel Hannan, the Milton Friedman-loving member of European Parliament representing South East England, to discuss his infamous showdown with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, his opinion of the British National Health Service (NHS), and what the Republicans could learn from the recent successes of Britain's Conservative Party. When I asked Hannan his opinion of Tory party leader David Cameron—who, I argued, “lurched towards the center” in search of popularity—he demonstrated unswerving party loyalty. Cameron, he admonished, was hardly a Tory wet and is more committed to free-market ideas than his old guard Thatcherite critics were willing to admit.
The following day, Hannan repeated his criticisms of the NHS on the Fox News Channel, warning Americans that his country's health system was a "60-year failure" that he "wouldn't wish on anybody." He delivered a stark verdict:
I find it incredible that a free people living in a country dedicated and founded in the cause of independence and freedom can seriously be thinking about adopting such a system in peacetime and massively expanding the role of the state when there's no need.
Had Hannan muttered dark warnings about the British health service's sustainability on the floor of the European Parliament, the Labour Party would surely have made political hay out of it, arguing as they often do that the Tories, if given power, would speedily dismantle the NHS and replace it with a more American-style system. But this was something else entirely. To go to America, to appear on Fox News, and denounce Nye Bevan's "post-war achievement" was too much for both Labourites and squishy Conservatives.
table border="0" cellpadding="5" width="480"> tbody> tr class="c1"> td> script src="http://www.reason.tv/embed/video.php?id=864" type= "text/javascript"> /script>/td> /tr>
24AheadDotCom|8.25.09 @ 5:21PM|#
Fun fact: I once worked with someone who was an extra in her
movie. He became a meth head. More recently, she tried to save a
farm in So. L.A., but I don't know what happened to her career
after that.
Say, has anyone noticed that Fox and their buddies here have to
continually engage in cheap stunts? I mean, now it's Hannah, before
then it was the little kid in the Reagan suit, before then it was
TedNugent, before then ChuckNorris, and on and on. It's like they
have the Showman Gene, an extra Dress-Up Games chromosome, and an
Inability to Just MakeAnArgument And ShowHowTheOtherSideIs Wrong
Syndrome.
anarch|8.25.09 @ 5:37PM|#
"should be disciplined for his comments"
I think that means something specific in England.
|8.25.09 @ 5:44PM|#
I think that means something specific in England.
I believe it involves a good spanking, and then something about the
oral sex afterwards.
At least that's how it goes down in Castle Anthrax.
dv|8.25.09 @ 5:44PM|#
I'd rather have care rationed on the basis of need rather than
on the basis of "whoever can afford it gets it, everyone else can
fuck off."
The NHS, for its flaws, is still better than the American
system.
|8.25.09 @ 5:47PM|#
Did Hannan support the "free-market" deal that traded the Pan Am
103 bomber for BP/Exxon Libyan oil contracts?
John McCain did - his terrorist pal Qadhafi even hosted the
lobbyist-loving McCain overnight at his ranch in Libya last
week.
Pitiful - McCain is worth millions and is still taking bribes from
terrorists.
Rich|8.25.09 @ 5:50PM|#
FTA: "On Channel 4 (which receives some funding from taxpayers),
writer and television personality Charlie Brooker barked that
Hannan is a 'boggle-eyed, slap-headed, unpleasant, revolting,
heartless, shit-brained, attention-grabbing, foetid excuse for a
prick.'"
Will Brooker be "be disciplined for his comments"?
Watching Hannan in action (e.g., on youtube) is always a
delight.
Nipplemancer|8.25.09 @ 5:53PM|#
NHS care is rationed not on need but on cost and is a model of
inefficiency. The government, all of them not just the U.S., suck
at nearly every aspect of their collective jobs. Giving them more
control is always a bad idea.
Our problems are not catastrophic, nor are they unfixable yet.
Government intervention has caused more of the problems in our
current system, blaming the free market total bullshit.
If the market were truly free, the costs would go down, profit
would go up, and everyone would be happy (except teh poorz).
Barry Stocker|8.25.09 @ 6:06PM|#
I think American viewers of the interview with Daniel Hannan
should realise that his hero, Enoch Powell, was a leading opponent
of non-white immigration into the UK who was sacked from the
Conservative Shadow Cabinet (government in waiting) for a speech in
which he said that immigration would lead to rivers of blood.
I would also like to assure American viewers, and everyone else,
that not all British and European libertarians and classical
liberals are anti-EU. On the continent, excluding the UK, the most
pro-market parties are usually pro-EU. FDP in Germany, Venstre in
Denmark, VVD in the Netherlands, Radical Party in Italy etc.
Some Conservative Party classical liberals/libertarians left the
Conservative Party in protest at Euro-scepticism, and ended up in
the Liberal Democrats. One of them is a prominent member of Liberal
Vision http://www.liberal-vision.org/, which is the Classical
Liberal/Libertarian group in the Lib Dems, the most pro-EU party in
Britain. It's also a party which supported increased rights for
local government in the UK, a long time before anyone heard of
Hannan or David Cameron. It's hardly a purist Classical
Liberal/Libertarian party, but then neither is the Conservative
Party, and neither is Hannan.
Localism is a good thing, but simply imitating everything that can
be found in the US system, on the completely bizarre assumption
that it all used to be found in Britain is historically absurd, and
is wrong for reasons which have nothing to do with
Anti-Americanism.
While there is much to admire in the Founding Fathers, Hannan's
view is bizarrely over idealised. I don't think uncritical praise
for slave holders, decades after Montesquieu and Smith condemned
slavery is very libertarian.
By the way, Adam Smith thought that removing barriers to trade
would naturally lead to Continental 'Empires'. For Smith, an Empire
should be a confederacy under a shared representative assembly, so
he was arguing for something remarkably like the EU.
I suggest to everyone that you can't really trust a man who yadda
yaddas his way past his intellectual influences, as Hannan does.
Remember the episode of Seinfeld which focuses on George's
girlfriend who yadda yaddas her way past anything important.
|8.25.09 @ 6:11PM|#
I'd rather have care rationed on the basis of need rather
than on the basis of "whoever can afford it gets it, everyone else
can fuck off."
I'd rather not have care rationed at all. By your logic all goods
and services are "rationed".
Xeones|8.25.09 @ 6:17PM|#
It's like they have the Showman Gene, an extra Dress-Up
Games chromosome, and an Inability to Just MakeAnArgument And
ShowHowTheOtherSideIs Wrong Syndrome.
Pot/kettle much? Shut the fuck up, LoneWacko.
Tim Cavanaugh|8.25.09 @ 6:29PM|#
Is MEP a post with any actual authority? The UK is still on the pound and as far as I know has not fully "joined" Europe (though I'm not really clear on what that means). So what does a British MEP do?
|8.25.09 @ 6:31PM|#
I'd rather have care rationed on the basis of need rather
than on the basis of "whoever can afford it gets it, everyone else
can fuck off."
Dammit swillfredo. You beat me to it.
Repeat after me: "Just because someone, somewhere, can't afford
something, doesn't mean it is 'rationed'."
|8.25.09 @ 6:32PM|#
The UK is still on the pound and as far as I know has not
fully "joined" Europe (though I'm not really clear on what that
means).
I believe in this context the verb "joined" is best understood by
reference to two dogs engaged in procreation.
|8.25.09 @ 6:35PM|#
The British left have always had an odd mixture of being hyper
venomous and completely vacuous when it comes to facts.
I recall some of the "end of the world" rhetoric when Boris Johnson
was showing well in the polls before he was elected Mayor of
London.
I think he has been mayor for a year now....somehow London is still
not a smoldering hole.
|8.25.09 @ 6:35PM|#
The UK is doing what it's always done: Making sure that no one country on the continent gets too strong.
Barry Stocker|8.25.09 @ 6:36PM|#
The UK is a full member of the European Union, it is not part of the Euro, as is the case for Sweden and Denmark, which like the UK opted out. Membership of the Eurozone is not the same thing as membership of the EU. Some east European members have not completed the criteria to join the EU. At least one non-EU country, Montenegro, has chosen to use the Euro as its legal currency.
|8.25.09 @ 6:42PM|#
I would also like to assure American viewers, and everyone
else, that not all British and European libertarians and classical
liberals are anti-EU. On the continent, excluding the UK, the most
pro-market parties are usually pro-EU. FDP in Germany, Venstre in
Denmark, VVD in the Netherlands, Radical Party in Italy
etc.
What the fuck does this have to do with the price of tea in
china?
Are you trying to say that EU representative Daniel Hannan is
anti-EU?
LOL
More like he is
anti-whatever-the-crazy-shit-you-think-the-EU-should-be
|8.25.09 @ 6:42PM|#
The Euro isn't the problem; decimalisation is. The UK hasn't been the same since it mucked about with the pound, shilling, pence, ha'penny system that we all knew and loved and replaced it with a neat and boring decimal monetary scheme.
ed|8.25.09 @ 6:43PM|#
I'm rather a fan of Mr. Hannan. Would that we had someone with
half his intellect in our own house of common
idiots.
Speaking of idiots, who (if anyone) edited this lede: "To Tory
MEP Daniel Hannan, the British National Health Service is, he warns
Americans, a "60-year failure" that he "wouldn't wish on
anybody."
Jesus H!
qwerty|8.25.09 @ 7:23PM|#
This only goes to show that Britain's "conservative party" is no such thing. I invite Daniel Hannan and the last handful of British believers in freedom and Western civilization to come to America. Your country is doomed.
Fist of Etiquette|8.25.09 @ 7:55PM|#
The "o" face picture is kind of unflattering.
More like an "oh, reeeeeeeeeally?" face.
But that guy does talk real pretty.
Actually, I admit he is pretty amazing at slicing up his target. In
that interview with Glenn Beck (this time wearing a Gestapo
uniform, if memory serves), he had some nicer things to say about
the Constitution than most American politicians. (Of course, "We
the People" ain't standing between Hannan and getting things
done.)
|8.25.09 @ 8:14PM|#
This is like saying that if a US congressman goes overseas and
says something critical about the US in foreign media, that makes
him a traitor.
Oh wait. That fucking happens ALL THE TIME. And NOBODY CARES.
MJ|8.25.09 @ 8:26PM|#
"Hannan was denounced as "unpatriotic" by the Labour Minister of
Health"
Gee, a left-winger attacking someone's patriotism. Who'd a thunk
it?
|8.25.09 @ 8:40PM|#
Malto Dextrin,
I forget nothing! I am fully conversant on pre-decimalisation
currency, due to my great book learning.
Namely, books involving Paddington Bear and Sherlock Holmes.
Tony|8.25.09 @ 9:10PM|#
From Gallup:
On availability of quality local healthcare, the median percentage of satisfied respondents among countries with universal health coverage is 79%, 13 percentage points higher than the median percentage among those without universal coverage (66%). For those that have confidence in their national health system, the difference is again 13 points (73% for those with universal coverage, 60% for those without).
Tony|8.25.09 @ 9:11PM|#
I only lived there four months but it's my impression that
Britons complain about healthcare as one complains about the
weather, because it's there and what are you gonna do run around
skipping with praise for the one system you have and that obviously
could always be improved on an individual basis?
It may even have deep problems. But it's not the outlandishly
horrific system portrayed by the usual propaganda suspects.
As the poll above indicates, satisfaction is higher in countries
with universal systems.
Free marketeers don't know if further deregulation and
privatization will improve the quality of healthcare in the US just
as they don't know it won't lead to further economic drain and
revert to a more medieval system than it is. Why not just face
reality and see if we can't develop a system that gives the country
some of the advantages of other proven systems without some of the
disadvantages.
B|8.25.09 @ 9:21PM|#
"Pitiful - McCain is worth millions and is still taking bribes
from terrorists."
Pitiful that you are such a dick who likes to make statements he
can't back up, at all.
I would love to see you provide some evidence that McCain is taking
bribes from Quadaffi. Yeah, I won't be holding my breath you
pitiful little prick.
B|8.25.09 @ 9:24PM|#
"I think American viewers of the interview with Daniel Hannan
should realise that his hero, Enoch Powell, was a leading opponent
of non-white immigration into the UK who was sacked from the
Conservative Shadow Cabinet (government in waiting) for a speech in
which he said that immigration would lead to rivers of
blood."
And this is relevant to his criticisms of the NHS in what
way?
And isn't it a shame that shrike likes to suck cock down at the
local train station? At least that is what I heard anyway.
Chad|8.25.09 @ 9:37PM|#
Tony | August 25, 2009, 9:11pm | #
I only lived there four months but it's my impression that Britons
complain about healthcare as one complains about the weather,
because it's there and what are you gonna do run around skipping
with praise for the one system you have and that obviously could
always be improved on an individual basis?
It may even have deep problems. But it's not the outlandishly
horrific system portrayed by the usual propaganda suspects.
As the poll above indicates, satisfaction is higher in countries
with universal systems.
Free marketeers don't know if further deregulation and
privatization will improve the quality of healthcare in the US just
as they don't know it won't lead to further economic drain and
revert to a more medieval system than it is. Why not just face
reality and see if we can't develop a system that gives the country
some of the advantages of other proven systems without some of the
disadvantages.
Agreed, Tony. I have lived in both Europe and Japan, and people
seemed quite content overall with their health systems. You are
right, they complain about it like they complain about the
weather.
In the end, they get similar care and less economic risk at a much
lower price. That's all it really boils down to.
Slap Maxwell|8.25.09 @ 10:41PM|#
qwerty sez: "This only goes to show that Britain's "conservative
party" is no such thing. I invite Daniel Hannan and the last
handful of British believers in freedom and Western civilization to
come to America. Your country is doomed."
Uh, wait; so is ours.
ransoms147|8.25.09 @ 11:31PM|#
Tony you really can't wait to be an indentured servant can you? Wouldn't it be great if the state provided everything so you could just pay your tithes and be told how to be happy?
Slap the Enlightened!|8.26.09 @ 12:21AM|#
"I think American viewers of the interview with Daniel
Hannan should realise that his hero, Enoch Powell, was a leading
opponent of non-white immigration into the UK who was sacked from
the Conservative Shadow Cabinet (government in waiting) for a
speech in which he said that immigration would lead to rivers of
blood."
All the more reason to like him!
Tony|8.26.09 @ 12:26AM|#
13 percent. Thirteen percent you fools! You could be thirteen percent happier, the only price is your very soul. Why not just face facts and open your wallets, you know what's coming and you're going to like it!
Amy Ridenour|8.26.09 @ 12:37AM|#
Good article, but you should know that the "postcode lottery" is
not something you enter (except by virtue of living in the UK and
relying on the NHS), but a popular nickname for the fact that the
regional primary care trusts within the NHS have different policies
about what they will or will not do or supply.
Thus, you can live in one town, and a certain cancer drug will be
supplied to you, while your neighbor in the next town will not be
supplied it, even though you both are "covered" by the NHS, and
perhaps all your circumstances except your post (zip) code are the
same.
When it comes to the service you mentioned, IVF, the regional
primary care trusts have very different policies. In some areas,
IVF is unavailable to women aged 23-39. In others it is available
only to women aged 37-39. In half of the trusts, if at least one
prospective parent already has a child, IVF is not available under
the NHS, but in the other half, it is available. And so forth.
That's the "postcode lottery."
Mr. Chartreuse|8.26.09 @ 12:43AM|#
Of course in this
poll: 83% of citizens in the US were satisfied with the health
care they received.
Another poll,
this one from 2006, states that 89% of US citizens were satisfied
with the health care they received
JV|8.26.09 @ 12:49AM|#
Damn whiners. Complaining about the best healthcare system in
the world. Thank god the UK keeps them from talking to Americans!
We don't need malcontents spreading sedition to the Colonies. We
had that once before! And look what a mess that turned out to
be!
We need a serious debate where people can ask important questions
and be assured by their elected representatives that everything
will be OK and that the troublemakers will be dealt with.
Everything will be fine. Just relax and keep walking towards the
bright future. Cover your ears and ignore those people over there.
We are rounding them up for the camps now.
Paul|8.26.09 @ 1:52AM|#
the NHS's famously dense bureaucracy, ever-expanding queues for treatment, and almost non-existent dental care.
Well, shyea.
Chad|8.26.09 @ 6:27AM|#
Mr. Chartreuse | August 26, 2009, 12:43am |
Another poll, this one from 2006, states that 89% of US citizens
were satisfied with the health care they received
In another poll, 11% of Americans were found to have been seriously
ill at some point in their life.
creech|8.26.09 @ 9:38AM|#
Mr. Hannam can be heard in person at the Campaign for Liberty conference in Valley Forge, PA from Sept.17 to 19th.
Mr. Chartreuse|8.26.09 @ 9:52AM|#
In another poll, 11% of Americans were found to have been
seriously ill at some point in their life.
From the second poll
I linked to:
17. (IF SERIOUS ILLNESS, INJURY, OR CHRONIC ILLNESS) How satisfied are you with the medical care that you or your family member received during that time?
Satisfied NET 90%
And, so as not to argue in bad faith, the above was asked to those
who had health insurance.
Sean W. Malone|8.26.09 @ 1:29PM|#
Can we please, PLEASE stop referencing polls on how satisfied or
"happy" people are?
If there's anything that we should have learned from
people like Dan Gilbert and others studying happiness and the like
- people's relative contentment is in general very static and based
on that person's internal baseline way more than it has to do with
external factors. Quadriplegics are as happy or happier, on
average, with their lives than people who can walk... Yet I
wouldn't wish paralysis on everyone else.
Happiness is no more a measurement of a quality system than is
popularity a measurement of the value of Cash for Clunkers.
Add to that the realization that most people simply don't
understand the big picture in most of these cases - and don't
bother to think through the long-term consequences of ever more
restrictive government policy, and using polling data as any kind
of support either way is just silly.
|8.26.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Most of the uninsured in America are probably people like me. I'm only 23 and I go to the doctor about once every 5 years. I am the ideal customer to an insurer, as I would pay constantly but never make use of any services. Why should I pay 200 dollars a month to avoid a 600 dollar cost every 5 years? If I bought insurance, that would lower the cost of premiums for people who made greater use of the system, but I would essentially be subsidizing their healthcare. Insurance by its very nature is socialistic, as people who don't use it much subsidize the care of people who use it too much. The people who use too much healthcare also have no incentive to price shop, screwing people like me over even more. This is why I prefer the Health Savings Account approach. Such an approach would encourage people to shop around for healthcare, and the people like me who never need it could build up quite a savings in the event of a life catastrophe. I suppose that I would need some insurance in the event of a freak accident, but I could get something with a 7500 dollar deductible for a low monthly cost.
Chad|8.26.09 @ 5:22PM|#
Mr. Chartreuse | August 26, 2009, 9:52am | #
And, so as not to argue in bad faith, the above was asked to those
who had health insurance.
If you were at all concerned with good faith, you would realize the
distinction between how you feel about the care you received and
the quality of the system that paid for it.
Chad|8.26.09 @ 5:25PM|#
tkwelge | August 26, 2009, 3:56pm | #
This is why I prefer the Health Savings Account
approach.
Yep, you will prefer it right about until you either have your
first kid or your first serious illness.
Isn't it strange how people "prefer" whatever puts the most money
in their pocket?
Frankly, I would much rather have the cash than an HSA. I actually
have a few grand sitting in one from a former employer, that I
haven't touched in years. It SEEMS to be there, but I would much
rather just have 2/3 of that amount sitting in my checking
account.
|8.26.09 @ 5:49PM|#
@Chad
I don't think that it is strange at all that people prefer whatever
puts most money in their pockets. The people who want obamacare
want it entirely because they believe that it will "put more money
in their pockets." How is my position any different?
The problem with the "cash" approach is that many people already
have the cash, but they use it on other things, then they want
somebody else to pay for their healthcare. The HSA's would show
people "this money is for your healthcare" and it wouldn't just be
extra cash. This "cash" would come as the result of tax breaks and
vouchers meant specifically for healthcare, and individuals using
this money for other purposes would amount to government
subsidization of other, less need based things. I'm not quite sure
what your point is here.
Once I had my first kid, my tax breaks and vouchers would increase
under an HSA system, so I wouldn't really change my opinion.
Lifetime emergencies could be handled by catastrophic event
insurance that would be relatively cheap with a 7500 or 10000 a
year deductible.
Most proposals for overhauling healthcare would force people like
me to buy insurance, even at a time in our lives when we didn't
want it, in order to help subsidize the lives of older, usually
better, off people.
|8.26.09 @ 5:53PM|#
If you really prefer the cash, then we should just cut taxes overall and we could spend our money on what WE value.
|8.26.09 @ 7:10PM|#
tkwelge - $7500 deductible? I guess you think thats a lot,
right? That's 2 nights in hospital under light observation. It
doesn't even cover an MRI scan. That's why these kinds of policies
are not actually available - its not a conspiracy, its just that
your premiums would not be much lower than they are now and the
insurers know that.
To those asking what MEPs do - The answer is nothing. That's why
the job attracts self-aggrandizing blowhards like Hannan. You get
paid (and get to make fraudulent expenses claims, and take money
from lobbyists) for doing nothing, which means you have plenty of
time to abuse your country on foreign TV stations. Its roughly
equivalent to the congressional representative for Washington DC
going on the BBC to announce that social security was a major
mistake. Popular? I think not.
Regarding the NHS versus US healthcare - I've lived under both. I
prefer the patient experience in the US - there's less waiting,
longer appointments and politer staff. But I had more trust in the
NHS to actually administer effective care. The NHS is obsessively
cost effective, but it does ultimately produce decent care. In the
US the won't blink at ordering a $10k MRI that won't show anything
interesting, but a few hundred bucks for a course of anti-fungal
treatments? Apparently that need pre-approval. Wierd.
Its all a question of how you square the circle of ever-rising
level of ever more expensive possible care for conditions that were
once untreatable (or not worth treating). The Brits chose to do it
by providing decent care for everyone and accepting (at least
tacitly) that that means heroic levels of care for the very, very
ill and treatments for restless leg syndrome may have to fall by
the wayside. The Americans chose (if that's the word) to provide
endless, extravagent levels of care (so much its detrimental in
some cases) for those who are lucky enough to have insurance when
they get sick, and nothing (or bankruptcy) for those who aren't.
People complain about the British system until they really get
sick, at which point they're relieved it works. People like the
American system until they really get sick, at which point their
insurer finds an excuse to end their coverage.
|8.26.09 @ 7:41PM|#
simonk
I know that 7500 dollars isn't a lot when you're considering major
medical care (that is the whole reason why you'd still need
CATASTROPHIC insurance). HSA would be used primarily to cover minor
emergencies that don't require hospital stay or MRI's. The only
medical care that I really need on a yearly basis is for check ups
or setting broken bones and buying medication. HSA could easily
cover those every year expenses. The point of the 7500 deductible
is to make it so that the insurance company only has to pay money
for real emergencies. Every day trips to the doctor and the
purchase of medication is something that individuals can be
empowered to do. The 7500 dollar number is just an example. With a
generous enough HSA benefit, you could probably live with a much
higher deductible.
It's not like a hospital is going to charge you 30,000 dollars up
front anyway. They'll usually try to hammer out a payment plan. If
I have 5,000 in my HSA and I need 20000 dollars worth of health
coverage, I can pay the 5000 grand up front, and the insurance
company will only have to pay 12500. I could then make payments
toward the remaing 2500 fairly easily by taking money that
otherwise would have gone to my HSA and diverting towards the
hospital that I still owe. It's not "free" healthcare, but hey, I'm
not going to die, and that system inherently encourages individuals
to price shop for healthcare making it more competitive.
In the example you talked about above, you'd be able to deny the
MRI, as you don't think that it is worth the cost, and you would be
able to utilize the anti fungal treatment, because it's your
money.
|8.26.09 @ 7:43PM|#
Chad
I'll probably wait until i have enough money to have a kid anyway.
Having a child is not a subsidized right.
|8.26.09 @ 7:47PM|#
I would applaud somebody for going on foreign tv to announce that social security is a mistake.
|8.26.09 @ 7:49PM|#
The HSA's that I'm talking about would be government subsidized, btw. Even still, it will be much more cheap than obama care and would actually have a built in incentive to comparison shop. It's about trying to good in the LEAST damaging way.
|8.26.09 @ 7:54PM|#
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081119072419AATONdy
Here nobody quoted a cost higher than 10000 dollars for giving
birth! 7500 dollars would give the insurance company quite a break,
and this is a large, once in a lifetime type expense.
You talk as if everybody is getting hurt everyday and it will
always require a 10000 dollar MRI.
|8.26.09 @ 7:58PM|#
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080610083143AASajOC
Nobody here said that their MRI cost more than 5500 dollars. That
was somebody with insurance and their insurance company probably
wasn't price shopping as effectively as an individual would. The
prices for such treatments vary wildly. Insurance companies and
governments don't comparison shop.
|8.26.09 @ 7:59PM|#
I once heard DR. Drew on loveline say, "The real problem with our healthcare system is the fact that nobody knows how to use it!"
Mr. Chartreuse|8.26.09 @ 8:40PM|#
If you were at all concerned with good faith, you would
realize the distinction between how you feel about the care you
received and the quality of the system that paid for it.
So when Tony quotes from a poll with, with no link, that measures
"satisfaction" with healthcare, you fellate him and say that when
people with universal coverage complain about the health care it is
the same as complaining about the weather. When I do the same, and
post a link, you say I'm not concerned about arguing in good
faith.
|8.26.09 @ 9:18PM|#
tkwelge - I basically agree with you than HSAs are the main
component of a decent solution to the problem of paying for
healthcare. Most of the issues with both the NHS and the private
insurance system in the US come about because the actual consumer
of care has no incentive to even find out how much it costs. Most
people don't even know what their premiums really are. Somehow you
have to expose people to the costs of their care or the cost
problem and the moral hazard inherent in insurance are just going
to get worse, and correspondingly the amount of required care that
gets denied or is unavailable will grow.
But the consequences of really, fully exposing people to the total
cost of their healthcare would doom many middle class people who
fall sick to death, disability or bankruptcy. In my view that's
unconscionable, so there has to be some kind of reliable backup to
ensure no-one is deprived of essential care, by which I don't just
mean emergency room care, which is ineffective and expensive, but
checkups, childhood vaccinations, etc.
High-deductible catastrophic insurance doesn't really work
actuariallu, because the bulk of your insurance premium right now
is paying for the possibility of catastrophic short-term care or
some kind of chronic long term condition - exactly when you'd use
your catastrophic care insurance. Unless you live in a community
rating state or are under a large group policy, in which case some
of it is paying for the possibility of other people needing that
kind of care. Same principle, though. As you've observed, routine
care isn't that expensive if you're reasonably fit.
|8.27.09 @ 1:38AM|#
I'm not suggesting fully exposing people to the cost of
healthcare. Well, as somebody who makes under 20000 dollars a year,
I must say that if you make more than 50000 dollars a year and
can't afford your healthcare, then you have nobody to blame but
yourself, but I believe in the initial subsidization of HSA to get
the ball rolling. I'm not even that reasonably fit, but healthcare
would be cheaper if people at least tried to shop around. Insurance
doesn't encourage that and neither will the government.
Personally, once again, as a young poor person, I don't see how you
can be 40 and need help paying for decent care. I mean, what have
you been doing the last 20 years. I can honestly say, in the 4 job
changes that I have made in my life, my income has never decreased.
At this rate, I expect to at least be able to take care of myself
by the time I'm middle aged.
|8.27.09 @ 1:40AM|#
I'm glad that we can agree on something, though. I just don't think, even from a liberal perspective, that Obama is really bringing the best people and the best minds together to even TRY to hammer out a decent solution. All I see are special interests. Instead of the oil companies under Bush, now we're being ruled by union reps, journalists, and environmental organizations, none of which have my interests in mind.
|8.27.09 @ 3:19PM|#
In the end, they get similar care and less economic risk at
a much lower price. That's all it really boils down to.
No,
they don't
Nowhere else has better outcomes and survival rates across the
board.
This is the lie that just won't float because there is just too
much information out there, and it's why people are standing
up.
The internet is the enemy of the lying collectivist.. because it
exposes the truth.
|8.28.09 @ 3:40PM|#
Having lived in both the US and the UK, I have a pretty good
notion of which has the better system right now- the US. The NHS is
an ideological solution where one is not helpful. The US system,
while better, is hamstrung by some historical anomalies, like the
link between employment and insurance; and no shopping for
insurance across state lines. These anomalies prevent the operation
of the free market.
Insurance has often seemed to me to be the wrong way to finance
healthcare. As everyone knows who has ever had any kind of
insurance, if you use it, the insurer wants you gone. You have
become a cost to them. The Singaporean model, is simple,
cost-effective and humane. Individual have Health Savings accounts
which they pay their normal health costs from. They combine this
with cheap (because little used) catastrophic illness insurance.
For two-thirds of the population, no government bureacracy or
revenue is involved at all. For the poorest, the government simply
pays the bills, utilising all the same systems everyone else uses.
Singapore spends 3.5% of its GDP on health. The UK, 8.4%. And
Singapores health outcomes are better than the UK! The US spends
about 15% of GDP, but gets much better health outcomes for that
extra, especially seniors.
Thats who I'd copy, if anyone. But could America swallow its pride,
copy a tiny city-state in Asia?
The Big Fellow|9.6.09 @ 11:27AM|#
This thread is in dire need of a methods lesson.
1.) Anecdotes are crap. There is nothing to learn from hearing the
tales of people who won out in a rationing system, or who feel they
were cheated in a price system. It's like trying to decide the
speed limit by asked a council made up of accident victims and race
car drivers. You get the loudest opinions going back and forth,
backed by not a hint of reason.
2.) Surveys are also crap. Those are just more anecdotes, pilled
higher than you can count. Asking people if they like their health
care, apart from an extensive background interview and some serious
questions as to why (or why not) is meaningless. Consider the
extreme example: a man who wants to see US hospitals return to Jim
Crow segregation will certainly say that he "isn't satisfied with
the present system", and be counted among the presumptive
supporters "reform".
3.) Anecdotes from people who have lived under both systems are
just a more interesting form of crap. The only difference here is
in the quantity of anecdotes: more than one, less than a survey,
not enough to mean anything.
4.) This is a theoretical issue, and it cannot be settled expect by
reference to theory. Either you understand how a price system
works, or you don't. Either you grasp the implications of what
"cost control" means outside such a price system, and what would be
required to enforce it, or you don't…
Who cares what happened to your college roommate after he went to
grad school in Vancouver and broke his leg snowboarding?
Limey|10.16.09 @ 10:56AM|#
On Channel 4 (which receives some funding from taxpayers),
It receives nothing from the taxpayer - it's funded entirely by advertising, although it's still state-owned.
Andrew Lale is right to mention the Singapore system, which is what Daniel Hannan advocates.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Michael C. Moynihan
- We Don't Do Backlashes, Michael C. Moynihan, November 11, 2009
- Driven Crazy, Michael C. Moynihan, November 3, 2009
- The Cold War Never Ended, Michael C. Moynihan, October 21, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245