France is getting universal healthcare right...
Posted By: kam on 2007-10-25
In Reply to: I would like to clear up perhaps some confusion..... - piglet
Great post piglet. I so agree with what you all had to say in support of changing our current system. Canada probably has the worst universal healthcare system, and yet the average Canadian lives 3 years longer than the average American. People always point to the flaws in their system and just assume that we will make all the same mistakes. Of course their system has flaws, just as our system has many fatal flaws. England and France actually have great universal healthcare systems. Here is an article I found about France's successful program:
"France's model healthcare system
By Paul V. Dutton | August 11, 2007
MANY advocates of a universal healthcare system in the United States look to Canada for their model. While the Canadian healthcare system has much to recommend it, there's another model that has been too long neglected. That is the healthcare system in France.
Although the French system faces many challenges, the World Health Organization rated it the best in the world in 2001 because of its universal coverage, responsive healthcare providers, patient and provider freedoms, and the health and longevity of the country's population. The United States ranked 37.
The French system is also not inexpensive. At $3,500 per capita it is one of the most costly in Europe, yet that is still far less than the $6,100 per person in the United States.
An understanding of how France came to its healthcare system would be instructive in any renewed debate in the United States.
That's because the French share Americans' distaste for restrictions on patient choice and they insist on autonomous private practitioners rather than a British-style national health service, which the French dismiss as "socialized medicine." Virtually all physicians in France participate in the nation's public health insurance, Sécurité Sociale.
Their freedoms of diagnosis and therapy are protected in ways that would make their managed-care-controlled US counterparts envious. However, the average American physician earns more than five times the average US wage while the average French physician makes only about two times the average earnings of his or her compatriots. But the lower income of French physicians is allayed by two factors. Practice liability is greatly diminished by a tort-averse legal system, and medical schools, although extremely competitive to enter, are tuition-free. Thus, French physicians enter their careers with little if any debt and pay much lower malpractice insurance premiums.
Nor do France's doctors face the high nonmedical personnel payroll expenses that burden American physicians. Sécurité Sociale has created a standardized and speedy system for physician billing and patient reimbursement using electronic funds.
It's not uncommon to visit a French medical office and see no nonmedical personnel. What a concept. No back office army of billing specialists who do daily battle with insurers' arcane and constantly changing rules of payment.
Moreover, in contrast to Canada and Britain, there are no waiting lists for elective procedures and patients need not seek pre-authorizations. In other words, like in the United States, "rationing" is not a word that leaves the lips of hopeful politicians. How might the French case inform the US debate over healthcare reform?
National health insurance in France stands upon two grand historical bargains -- the first with doctors and a second with insurers.
Doctors only agreed to participate in compulsory health insurance if the law protected a patient's choice of practitioner and guaranteed physicians' control over medical decision-making. Given their current frustrations, America's doctors might finally be convinced to throw their support behind universal health insurance if it protected their professional judgment and created a sane system of billing and reimbursement.
French legislators also overcame insurance industry resistance by permitting the nation's already existing insurers to administer its new healthcare funds. Private health insurers are also central to the system as supplemental insurers who cover patient expenses that are not paid for by Sécurité Sociale. Indeed, nearly 90 percent of the French population possesses such coverage, making France home to a booming private health insurance market.
The French system strongly discourages the kind of experience rating that occurs in the United States, making it more difficult for insurers to deny coverage for preexisting conditions or to those who are not in good health. In fact, in France, the sicker you are, the more coverage, care, and treatment you get. Would American insurance companies cut a comparable deal?
Like all healthcare systems, the French confront ongoing problems. Today French reformers' number one priority is to move health insurance financing away from payroll and wage levies because they hamper employers' willingness to hire. Instead, France is turning toward broad taxes on earned and unearned income alike to pay for healthcare.
American advocates of mandates on employers to provide health insurance should take note. The link between employment and health security is a historical artifact whose disadvantages now far outweigh its advantages. Economists estimate that between 25 and 45 percent of the US labor force is now job-locked. That is, employees make career decisions based on their need to maintain affordable health coverage or avoid exclusion based on a preexisting condition.
Perhaps it's time for us to take a closer look at French ideas about healthcare reform. They could become an import far less "foreign" and "unfriendly" than many here might initially imagine."
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial...lthcare_system/
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Have you studied the healthcare system in France?
I have not seen you remark on it once. It seems you are avoiding it. The young person who opts out is not an issue.
universal healthcare
Where are you getting that information about Obama and universal healthcare? The last time I heard him speak about it he wanted universal healthcare for people who couldn't get healthcare but leave the option open to people who could get their own healthcare (as they are doing now) to do so. He also spoke about companies being held more responsible to providing affordable healthcare for employees. I don't remember him ever saying to knock out the entire healthcare system and make everyone have universal healthcare.
As for McCain... I guess you like the economy and the war. He's not going to change anything if he's elected.
Universal healthcare NOT the answer!!
- There isn't a single government agency or division that runs efficiently; do we really want an organization that developed the U.S. Tax Code handling something as complex as health care?
- "Free" health care isn't really free since we must pay for it with taxes; expenses for health care would have to be paid for with higher taxes or spending cuts in other areas such as defense, education, etc.
- Profit motives, competition, and individual ingenuity have always led to greater cost control and effectiveness.
- Government-controlled health care would lead to a decrease in patient flexibility.
- Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if health care is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.
- Just because Americans are uninsured doesn't mean they can't receive health care; nonprofits and government-run hospitals provide services to those who don't have insurance, and it is illegal to refuse emergency medical service because of a lack of insurance.
- Government-mandated procedures will likely reduce doctor flexibility and lead to poor patient care.
- Healthy people who take care of themselves will have to pay for the burden of those who smoke, are obese, etc.
- A long, painful transition will have to take place involving lost insurance industry jobs, business closures, and new patient record creation.
- Loss of private practice options and possible reduced pay may dissuade many would-be doctors from pursuing the profession.
- Malpractice lawsuit costs, which are already sky-high, could further explode since universal care may expose the government to legal liability, and the possibility to sue someone with deep pockets usually invites more lawsuits.
- Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.
- Like social security, any government benefit eventually is taken as a "right" by the public, meaning that it's politically near impossible to remove or curtail it later on when costs get out of control.
NOT VOTING FOR OBAMA! His plans will fail and they will up the cost of everything. Stop the government spending! Don't vote for someone wanting to add more programs that will INCREASE government spending. That is why our economy is in deep crap right now.
When did socialism and universal healthcare
nm
Obama's universal healthcare will be SO much
nm
Does not mean Universal Healthcare is answer.
nm
maybe they could give it to construct universal healthcare
The economy would thrive!!! Employers would have more $$$, individuals would have more $$$. I know I spend close to $300 a month just on individual coverage. If not manditory universal coverage just allow anyone to be accepted into the Medicade program that wishes to do so.
Obama's plan is just to ensure insurance availability for all - not universal healthcare - you na
x
France is burning.
Radical fundamentalist Muslims are rotting Europe from the inside out. They know it and they are actually starting to admit it. But their country had to burn before they took their cowardly unappreciative heads out of their hairy armpits. France especially should be ashamed of their actions. If ever a country should show some appreciation for the tens of thousands who died to liberate them...but then, they are French. The only country in the world where every citizen can say *I surrender* in ten different languages. Phooey on them.
Protests going on all over France like this.
http://www.nj.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/international-2/124092166956780.xml&storylist=health
More on that note....France, that non...
judgmental open-minded country....their Prez says France cannot accept Burqas...this is just part of it....PARIS — President Nicolas Sarkozy said the Muslim burqa would not be welcome in France, calling the full-body religious gown a sign of the "debasement" of women.
In the first presidential address to parliament in 136 years, Sarkozy faced critics who fear the burqa issue could stigmatize France's Muslims and said he supported banning the garment from being worn in public.
"In our country, we cannot accept that women be prisoners behind a screen, cut off from all social life, deprived of all identity," Sarkozy said to extended applause at the Chateau of Versailles, southwest of Paris.
"The burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement — I want to say it solemnly," he said. "It will not be welcome on the territory of the French Republic."
Hmmmm. Oh my. Muslims world wide (not to mention the 5 million that live in France) are going to LOVE that.
And people say WE aren't open-minded? LOL. Where is the French version of the ACLU?? Hey...they can borrow ours. HEY, Sarkozy...take THEM ALL. :-) lol
I thought it was working in France? nm
.
Why should I comment on France - or avoid doing so?
We're not France. It's not like you can take a system from one culture and parachute it into another culture. This isn't Leggos, or buying off-the-rack clothes.
There are many, many factors to take into account when a society fashions something like government-paid healthcare because it will impact, and be impacted by, that society in many ways. We don't have the same culture that France has, we don't have the same tax rates, we have a different healthcare delivery system in place, and on it goes.
No, I won't be commenting about France, except to say that I watched an extensive documentary about government health systems around the world and neither England, Canada, France or Sweden were rated very highly in terms of efficiency or patient satisfaction. Japan's system was considered the best on most metrics, so if anything I would comment on that system - which I won't do either for the reasons mentioned above.
I agree. If not for the US, France would be speaking German. nm
nm
Yep...and today he is holding a town hall in France...
yukking it up with Europe as his own country circles the drain....pittiiiffullll.
No. Latest news is that costs for France rising too
nm
Let me try this again. You're demanding that I comment about France for some reason.
Have it your way, though. I certainly have better things to do. Our side of this conversation is over. I'll continue to discuss this with others who don't have a "French fixation" though.
U.S., France join in cease-fire call in Lebanon war..sm
So we are back bumping elbows with France. If only we would have taken their advice on Iraq too.
This is your opinion, not a universal truth
Many historians would differ with you on that. Remember, truth is often the result of interpretation of fact. It's a slippery slope, that's for sure. But please don't proclaim your version of the truth as absolute fact. It comes across as ignorance mixed with narrow-mindedness just a wee bit, and I have been guilty of the same at times.
Someone has to pay for universal health care....
she knows that. Her plan will cost billions. The only way to pay for it is to force those who can afford it to buy it (as many choose not to so they can use that money for other things...and I don't mean eating...she knows that too). That is the one thing people who want socialized medicine, government-run health care don't realize. It is not FREE. If they don't get you in premiums they will get you in taxes...because who supplies the government with the money it spends...why that would be us, the taxpayers. What a concept. I don't know why Hillary saying she would not be opposed to garnishment should surprise anyone. That way when she hits us with higher taxes, they won't have to be quite as high. And don't think the "rich" can pick up the tab...they already pay way over 50% of the total tax money into the tills as it is, and there isn't enough money to go around. And while we are at it...show me a place in the Constitution where it says the government should provide health care, welfare, or anything like that? You won't find it. The founders were about less government, not more government. I don't understand why people would want to let themselves become tied to the government for their every need. Where does that place all the control? With the government, not with the people. Hello socialism, good-bye freedom. SIGH.
universal health care
Sorry, but I don't need that help. Having done my own research, I know that the health care system in Canada (your example) has major flaws, like ridiculous waits for even the most simple testing, not to mention the lack of choices for one's care, and that other countries have substandard care because of their universal systems. All this does is invite "country club medicine." Canadian citizens come to the US and pay out of their own pockets because their system does not work for them. If you think govt control is the answer to health care, you only need to look at what they have done to Medicare and Medicaid. Obama's health plan is one more component in his overall plan toward the socialization of this country. Hope you like it when your hard work and your paycheck does nothing BUT support others. Where is the incentive to work? Don't get me wrong; I do believe every individual should have access to health care. I also think every individual who is capable of contributing (working) should have to do so in order to reap that benefit, and I do not think government intervention is the answer. And your whole statement about the CEOs being rich makes me so nervous. What is your solution there? spread the wealth? She/he is not entitled to have more money than you? Yup, another step toward the socialization of this country. See how well that has worked worldwide.
Universal Music Publishing is calling
xx
I think there's a big misunderstanding about universal health care
And anyone that has had the cheapest medical insurance you can get knows this - just because you have insurance doesn't mean you're covered. It might cover doctor visits for sinus infections and such, along with certain prescription medications, but like the poster above said, God forbid you need something serious because the government can turn you down just as easily as an insurance company.
A friend of mine moved to the US from Canada because she found a lump in her breast. Her doctor in Canada told her to keep an eye on it and come back in six months. She waited and went back and the doctor told her he wanted to do a biopsy and to come back in four months for that. She came to the US for a second opinion, got a biopsy, was diagnosed with breast cancer, had surgery and recieved chemotherapy all in the four months it would have taken her to just have the biopsy in Canada. She has since become a citizen of the US and gave up her citizenship of Canada just for that reason. She is now a 6 year cancer survivor.
I don't want to see that kind of thing happen in this country and that's what we would get with universal health care. Agreed that something has to be done about the prices of medical treatment, but to put the government in charge of it is not the right way to go.
some universal health care info from
Oh my goodness, regarding universal health care, unfortunately these things are just not so. How are things worse off - everyone is covered, for everything, no matter how rich or poor, or sick. Will you have to wait longer, possibly, I don't know (do you have a reference for comparison) but you will be treated - absolutely no one is turned down who can derive benefit from treatment.
Losing your best doctors? Where are they going?
The government will pay for elective things like knee replacements, do pay for them every day.
If you have cancer and the treatment is experimental, there are drug trials (for free), provincial assistance programs (for free) and compassionate release programs via drug companies (for free). No "death certificates are signed" If you are not happy with your treatment, you can see another doctor, any doctor you choose, and no one will say you cannot have a treatment or see a physican because of money!
Mexico has universal health...how many have died
from the swine flu?
I did not think Obama was for universal health coverage... see message
I thought he was just for a coverage to be available to all people - but not mandatory to take it. Am I wrong?
Obama's universal plan failed miserably in other
nm
Universal health care is a frightening prospect.. sm
Ask anyone from Canada what they think of their health-care system and you're likely to be shocked. A friend's father has been waiting over a year on a list for a knee replacement, and another friend waited 42 hours on a gurney in the ER while having a heart attack. Nurses and doctors don't want to work there because the salaries are substandard and set by the government. Do you not think this is the direction we're headed in if Obama becomes president?
Universal health care and President Obama's real plan -
I see again that everyone is talking about President Obama's plan for universal health care and I once again feel the need to distinguish between universal health care and what the plan is that President Obama has campaigned for. I have copied and pasted part of the web page, but also included the link at the bottom of this for you to see the whole plan.
President Obama does not ask for universal health care where the government is in charge - he just wants the government to ensure that everyone has access to medical care and health insurance. Why is it so difficult to understand that this is not socialized medicine, government run healthcare, or universal coverage plans?
Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan
On health care reform, the American people are too often offered two extremes - government-run health care with higher taxes or letting the insurance companies operate without rules. Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe both of these extremes are wrong, and that’s why they’ve proposed a plan that strengthens employer coverage, makes insurance companies accountable and ensures patient choice of doctor and care without government interference.
The Obama-Biden plan provides affordable, accessible health care for all Americans, builds on the existing health care system, and uses existing providers, doctors and plans to implement the plan. Under the Obama-Biden plan, patients will be able to make health care decisions with their doctors, instead of being blocked by insurance company bureaucrats.
Under the plan, if you like your current health insurance, nothing changes, except your costs will go down by as much as $2,500 per year.
If you don’t have health insurance, you will have a choice of new, affordable health insurance options.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
He would also have (and likely already has) best healthcare in USA.
I don't consider this a concern. Major factor in cancer is awareness and monitoring, and I'm quite sure he's getting the best monitoring and follow-up care available.
healthcare
Healthcare is already rationed in the US: If you can't afford insurance, you can't get it. If you're sick, you can't get insurance. If your employer enticed you with promises of insurance, but then didn't pay you enough to cover premiums, you can't get it. If you can't afford a procedure, then your long wait just became a lot longer.
Incidentally, what Obama is offering is *not* anything like what those countries you mention have. He's not nationalizing the healthcare system (like the UK) *or* nationalizing the insurance system (like Canada). Read his plan; it's a mixture of public and private plans, with more strict requirements on the insurance companies to cover everyone affordably, rather than gaming the system and cutting out sick people.
Personally, I'd love a nationalized system. Insurance companies are unnecessary middlemen driving up costs. That said, they're not the entire problem with healthcare costs--you can look to pharmaceutical companies for a big part of *that* problem.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor. That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc. Check out France's healthcare system. I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control. At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
What happens to healthcare...(sm)
Yes, more people probably will go to the doctor. That means there will be a lot of health maintenance involved, and as we both know only too well, health maintenance is a key issue in preventing major medical issues, hence less surgeries, etc. Check out France's healthcare system. I think main issue we will have is going to be dealing with the drug companies to get costs under control. At this point a lot of people don't go to the doc because they can't afford it, like you said; however, even more don't go because they can't afford the drugs.
BTW, regardless of Fox's ratings, they are undeniably a right-wing station. That is a fact that is widely known and recognized. Just because you agree with what they say doesn't mean they don't lean to the right. And yes, the same holds true for MSNBC (to the left), but at least they admit it. You also might want to look into exactly how ratings for cable news come about. You might be surprised and what you could learn.
Healthcare
I'm not sure this is a good idea either. Ireland has gov't run medical and those women were waiting years, yes years to get their Pap smears read. They had to be shipped to the US because of a lab closure. Can you imagine wondering if you have cervical cancer for years? No thanks.
European healthcare
Its not all cracked up as it sounds. I use healthcare right now in Sweden and its horrendously bad. I had to fly home to the US to get my breasts examined for lumps that were found because they have the "if it isn't broken, bleeding or obviously damaged, then go home and take an aspirin" mentality. They found the lumps and we were still waiting for a mammogram over a month later because they don't want to do testing and because they have a don't care attitude when it comes to everything here. Don't rush them. its amazing. Its at least 6 months waiting list (if your lucky) to see the dentist unless you are under a certain age as a youth. You can get private healthcare here but the cost of labor is such that its hugely expensive. I don't know about other places because I have only lived here and in the US. We have great healthcare in the US and we have never chosen jobs where we weren't going to have some kind of coverage, but I would never give up my doctors and my insurance in the US for this garbage social junk.
McCain's healthcare tax.
I posted this further down but there are apparently a lot of people who are still confused about how McCain's tax on health insurance works.
So, here you go:
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.
And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.
The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.
McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.
$5,000 less the $1,400 -
YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.
:)
Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.
$250 x 12 = $3,000.
$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.
I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.
WIN/WIN 
On the healthcare front........sm
Nearly half the respondents in a survey of U.S. primary care physicians said that they would seriously consider getting out of the medical business within the next three years if they had an alternative.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/11/17/primary.care.doctors.study/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
This comes from top healthcare facilities
nm
I'm pretty sure you don't get your healthcare from
nm
I found something interesting about US healthcare.
Because I am infinitely quizzical about most things and the rising cost of healthcare was on my mind, I did a little browsing and came across this document:
http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/chcm010307oth.cfm
Now keep in mind this is information compiled is from a think tank funded by some of the biggest corporations, including insurance corps for the betterment and furtherance of the regressive conservative ideal, so I was rather surprised to see these numbers so beautifully printed in black and white.
It shows exactly how much we are paying for healthcare in the United States and it is rather astounding. Far more of our GDP, about 15.5% (the highest in the world) goes to healthcare. Almost double that other industrialized nations that have socialized healthcare.
I think this is a pretty good argument against a free market healthcare system being the most efficient and the best, it is just the most expensive and at the rate it has been exploding, it is going to increase the number of uninsured.
Why is it so expensive? Because the insurance companies are pacing the market. Some things should just NOT be included in the free market enterprise, and healthcare is one of them. We get sicker and the insurance companies get fatter.
personally i have used the healthcare in Europe
and in France and England (several times in France) and I have to say that national healthcare over there works wonderfully well.....costs are minimal (though taxes are high) and all rxs in England cost the same and I was treated fabulously (married French) at American Hospital in Paris and Gap Hospital in France in 1980.....I did England in 71-72 and again, got treated well and for less than $40. I believe national healthcare can work but the govt and medical professions here in the states don't want it - because they, the MDS, will make less. But know this, that I saw the life of a doctor in France and his family in Michael Moore's movie SiCKO and they are living like kings, well not kings, but living VERY VERY WELL.
So, based on my own experiences in Europe - and the experiences to date of my in-laws over in France - I have to say the healthcare over there is FAR better and FAR LESS EXPENSIVE than over here but again, their taxes are somewhat higher.
Hillary screwed it up once before, I don't want to give her a second chance regarding healthcare.
healthcare a problem prior to THIS war and they did
x
It can end with affordable healthcare for kids.
I would like to see more affordable healthcare for all Americans, but really if kids got free or very affordable healthcare I would be happy. We spend outrageous amounts of money on the space program, the war, gourmet food for Congress, etc. I don't agree with the hoards of money going to those things, but I would think we could ALL AGREE on money being redirected to provide healthcare to all American children, because that is obviously a good and just cause.
I have used the British and French healthcare
I have visited and used both the British and French national healthcare system and I must say I was treated very_well in both countries.....and I think it is a great idea for THIS country now, having had first-hand experiences in Europe..
JMHO, of course. 
Members of Congress get the best healthcare that...sm
money can buy by the U.S. government and Obama wants us to have it too.
Here's a breakdown of McCain's healthcare tax.
Say you pay 14% income tax based on your income.
And you receive $10,000 worth of health insurance from your employer.
The $10,000 is taxed separately at the 14% (your tax bracket). That comes out to $1,400.
McCain gives you a $5,000 tax credit.
$5,000 less the $1,400 -
YOU'RE AHEAD $3,600.
:)
Alternatively, you can take the $5,000 tax credit and purchase your own insurance (like I do). I pay $250 a month.
$250 x 12 = $3,000.
$5,000 - $3,000 - $2,000.
I'M STILL AHEAD $2,000.
WIN/WIN :)
From what I understand Canada's healthcare...sm
is not run by private insurance companies as is Obama's plan, but rather by the government itself. His aim is for all people to have availablity to health insurance with a premium based on what they can afford, the ability to keep your insurance when you change jobs, keep your own doctor, and have your doctor ultimately decide what treatment is best for you not the insurance company.
A ? for those in favor of national healthcare
What is your rationale for wanting government in charge of your healthcare? You have to know that if this happens, healthcare in this country IS going to be rationed, the same as it's been rationed in Great Britain, Sweden, and Canada. There will be long waits for procedures that we now take for granted being done in a very short time. I know Obama promised the same healthcare as he now has in the senate...do you believe him?
You need to talk with a few liberal healthcare
nm
what are liberal healthcare facilities?
b
A lot of "liberal" healthcare administrators
who once believed all the democrat garbage until they got Obama into office. Now, after reviewing from some of Obama's top sources the info on what Medicare will stop letting elderly have at their own discretion, they are becoming livid. Well, they wanted him, they got him. So many to thank for all their free lunch for everyone thinking.............
|
