Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (7029)	6/12/2009 4:53:14 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

While the liberal media holds the French system up as the model of perfection, it has problems. According to French professor Alice Tiel, French workers pay in HALF their paychecks for health care, retirement, and unemployment compensation. HALF. The professor has stated the French system is "not sustainable", and could learn from the U.S. model. This year, U.S. spending is expected to near $8,000 per person, while French officials estimate spending there will come in below $5,000. However, some of the hospitals in France are -- converted prisons. That's right. The French visit their doctors TWICE AS OFTEN as Americans. When you have a shortage of physicians, which we know is looming, that's a problem. "Cost-control steps taken over the last 20 years have created a two-tier system where medical care is readily available to the very poor and those who are well off. It's harder to come by for the lower middle class who can't get comprehensive, supplemental health insurance through their employers and can't afford to buy such policies on their own." -- Dallas Morning News article on the French system. French physicans make 60% of what American physicians do (but don't have to deal with malpractice costs). Keep in mind, this is WHO's and Michael Moore's FAVORITE system we're talking about. This is not to say the French system is "BAD", but that it has problems and is not an improvement over our current system. When you take into account that the American system fosters more innovation than the French system, I just don't know how anyone can suggest it as a better alternative than our current system and keep a straight face. The other systems you mentioned have their problems as well. In Germany, costs are increasing and now amount to 11% of GDP, which though less than the US, is high considering the weaker emphasis on research and innovation. Hospital stays average 9 days versus 5-6 days in the US -- which suggests something about the reimbursement method used there. The bottom line is there are holes in all these systems that are at least as bad as ours. While there are 5% (~15M) of our residents we don't "provide" insurance for and can't afford it on their own, those individuals can for the most part receive health care at least as good as what is available in the European countries. And everyone else receives care that is superior in most respects. The simple fact is that you advocate single payer, and nothing else will do for you. But you simply don't understand the issues, as our extensive discussions on the other thread have clearly shown.