Welcome to PatsFans.com

This is what happens when you privatize healthcare. China, a case study.

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Phokus, Sep 30, 2009.

  1. Phokus

    Phokus Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Article: Analysis: Chinese healthcare gap widens. | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy

    Going from 90% coverage to 4.8% coverage for the rural poor and bankrupting them in the process, absolutely ridiculous.

    Because of the failures of the market based system, China is looking forward to going back to a universal healthcare model that they used to have.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  2. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  3. Phokus

    Phokus Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    630
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Yeah but the US has never had universal healthcare. I think China is a great example because they went from universal healthcare to private healthcare and now they're looking to get back to a universal heatlhcare model.

    I think the contrast in how effective each model when they transitioned is a great way to hammer in the heads of idiot republicans what a bad idea privatized healthcare is.
  4. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    God, you're stupid. China has extremes of wealth that are Brobdingnagian. Their private health care is surprisingly good if one has the money. One actually pays out of pocket and can have access to technology like MRIs.

    If one is a serf at the fields--with little or no disposable income and living like your ancestors 800 years ago--it sucks being you.

    Health care is not a right, it's a commodity like food, clothing, and shelter.
  5. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Taiwan didn't have universal care....so they looked to other models and used what worked best. Thats really how we need to look at this problem.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Does Healthcare fall under the category of the nation's general welfare, like defense?

    Is the electricity thats cabled into your home a 'right'? is the water? or are those things part of the 'commons'?

    Is capitalism a right?

    If so....Is that right MORE or less important that the general welfare of americans, or the defense there of?


    You DO understand that the general welfare of all americans is in the constitution....RIGHT?



    shhhhhhhhh......


    The Constitution of the United States of America
    We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2009
  7. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I'll ignore some of the inflammatory remarks you made and focus on the meat. So what you're saying is that the private plan is the best option for those that can afford it, while a safety net is needed for those living in poverty? This sounds familiar, no? I think what Phokus is missing is that private health insurance works extremely well for things like access to care and quality of care. Seems to me like the best plans, and the ones that have been some of the most successful worldwide, are those in which private companies provide health insurance with the government acting as a regulator to ensure fairness in coverage etc, provide a watchful eye to keep private companies in check. Seems like countries that have gone to a purely universal, government run system experience problems with access and quality of care, or they operate on a scale so different from what is needed in the US it becomes untenable. That doesn't fit with his view of the "idiot republicans" that point out these problems.
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Why are so many Americans AGAINST Obamacare......:confused:
  9. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    so many = 30% ?

    last time I checked, 70% is a greater percentage than 30%

    I might have to check with my old Logic professor on that....I'll get back to you Harry...
  10. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    ok............
  11. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    Interesting article. While it's difficult to draw precise parallels given that China has many differences from us, the fact is that universal health care seems to work is less costly and more efficient that a strictly market driven system. If we implemented single payer, which are not about to do, it would probably save each and every American a few thousand dollars a year. Our sytem is grossly inefficent, terribly expensive, and leaves many people with coverage. Thanks for posting that article.
  12. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    I think probably the best answer lies somewhere between single payer and 100% private. On one hand you have excessive cost and unfair treatment of the insured with a private plan, but on the other you have problems with access to care and the possibility of both overuse of care and rationing with a single payer system.
  13. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Yeah, healthcare in China, provided by the gubmit. Anyone want to guess what that's like? I suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure hope we do that here sometime soon.

    What everyone seems to ignore in this debate, is the actual cost of care. People are too focused on insurance prices, gubmit subsidized policies, or outright gubmit run HC. None of that does anything to thwart, or control, the rising cost of the actual care itself. It doesn't matter who pays for it, if the costs are going to go up, and up, and up again.
  14. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    If cost is going up so much, how come healthcare providers have enjoyed a profit percentage at over 400%???

    so the cost goes up....

    The care goes down...

    the middle man is making a 400% profit?



    R-dubbs, I know you can see whats wrong here.

    come on.
  15. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    The only places it has gone down is lazik(sp) surgery and plastic surgery, neither of which are covered by insurance.. interesting this insurance business.
  16. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    Darryl,

    Maybe if we gather up some donations to these healthcare insurers, it will assist in bringing these profits up. Hopefully it will create a 500% profit margin for these people. It just seems to me that at the end of the day, if I have a spare buck or two, it should be my duty to assist in paying up this profit for the insurers.

    If we each gave something like a dollar a day (The price of a cup of coffeee) we can help save the membership to a 3rd country club for these executives.

    think about that....the price of a cup of coffe, to change the life FOREVER for one of these executives.

    Each month we will send you a picture of YOUR executive to show you his progress and how your donations are making his G4 more comfortable by adding gold fixtures to the bathroom, or funneling his inflated salary to an offshore account.

    Please...

    Help these executives reach their goal of over a 500% profit margin before this decade is out...

    http://ifawebnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/Ed-Hanway.jpg

    he needs you...
  17. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    Where can I contribute, and can they take it out of my checking account.. in case I forget..
  18. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,422
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    This may point to the idea that competition drives prices down, and that in the healthcare industry the most effective way to increase competition would be to have consumers make their own medical decisions rather than their insurer or the government. You could get there by making health insurance mandatory but only for catastrophic events, with regular care covered by tax free accounts, or by gov't checks for those below an income threshold. Spend what you need, pay tax on the leftovers and keep the rest, and use your catastrophic policy to pay for anything over the limit (with gov't regulations on conditions that need to be covered by any policy). Then you'd have people seeking out the doctor that gives them the best care at the best price rather than just going to whoever is on the insurer's list regardless of cost.

    The risk here is obvious, just as with going to a single payer plan: it would represent a major shift in how the industry is run, and have the potential to backfire. I don't like the idea of capping profits for insurers, it just seems unamerican to me, but maybe you achieve the same effect through regulation of what a policy has to include, stopping the withdrawal of benefits from the sick for bogus reasons, refusal to insure, etc.
  19. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0


    I love it....I want wings and a bionic exoskelliton.
  20. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    I wouldn't raise Taiwan's system as any sort of model. That island has the highest rate of lawsuits per doctor, in the entire world.
  21. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    Yes, let's talk about the costs of care.

    The US spends 15% of its entire GDP on health care, and most of Europe spends about 8%. Europeans live longer as well.

    So... what are you trying to argue, again?
  22. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Hmm. Is that true? I'm not sure about your numbers, esp. the eight percent Europe spends. I've seen higher percentages for England, for example.

    If one looks at white Americans--blacks depress the numbers--I think life expectancy is roughly comparable, esp. when one realizes that Americans don't bicycle to work nearly as much as Danes who, for example, see fully a third or more of its workforce biking to work.

    That's a much healthier lifestyle many Europeans have. Shorter work weeks. More vacation.

    And there's also the free loader problem, where high tech gadgets and new, expensive drugs are disproportionately done over here. Then other countries buy in bulk, at cost, which doesn't cover the R & D costs.

    We pay for that.

    Just like we subsidize many of these countries' military expenses--Canada, Germany, England.
  23. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    40,315
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +19 / 0 / -0

    You forgot the example...

    the easy answer is stop subsidizing other countries military expenses.. oh wait a minute, what would the lobbyists do then.. oh the horrors..

    It is quite simple spend money on guns or on other country's health care...
  24. State

    State Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,507
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

  25. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Likes Received:
    13
    Ratings:
    +17 / 0 / -1

    So wait - we're ok as long as we're white, that's what your saying?

    Last time I looked blacks were citizens, too, and thus you cannot count them out simply because they depress you or your numbers.

    And where did you get the idea that Europeans have longer work weeks or more vacation?

    Virtually all European countries have adopted a 35 hour work week. Virtually all European countries give a minimum of 4 weeks of PAID vacation right off the bat. Part-time employees included.

    Work Week and Vacation Variances: Interesting Thing of the Day

    The United States is the only rich country that does not mandate paid vacations and paid sick days, and Americans who are afforded such benefits enjoy far less time off than workers in other wealthy nations.

    Americans now work more every year, on average, than workers in any other industrialized country (except for a virtual tie with New Zealand).


    What Vacation Days? -- In These Times
  26. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    I certainly wouldn't argue about the insignificance of your post.

    So MMav, life expectency is a direct result of HC. :rolleyes:

    By cost of care, I'm talking about how much the actual treatment costs. Why is it that you're charged $x for a broken arm, or $y dollars for for something else. If you want to pass gimmick "reform", or want a gubmit takeover, you're doing one of two things. You're either doing NOTHING to slow the rapidly rising cost of care (see Massachusetts for an example of gimmick reform), or you're going to have to ration & reduce care.

    I pay $6k a year for my insurance, which is ridiculous. I've also seen family members die from European, gubmit run care. I absolutely do not want to see the gubmit take over HC, nor do I want to see it pass some gimmick reform where they pay for everyone else, while not doing a thing to control costs.
  27. Rossmci90

    Rossmci90 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Since 1979, expenditure on healthcare has been increased significantly to bring it closer to the European Union average.[5] The UK spends around 8.4 per cent of its gross domestic product on healthcare, which is 0.5% below the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average and about one per cent below the average of the European Union.[6]

    Healthcare in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  28. maverick4

    maverick4 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    7,669
    Likes Received:
    16
    Ratings:
    +16 / 0 / -0


    The crazy right wing can ignore the stats all they want.

    BUT if they want to talk about costs... the numbers are there.

    The average spent in the EU is 9% of GDP, compared to 15% in the US. Europeans live longer too, which means they're getting a much bigger bang for their buck.

    No need to bring in military spending and subsidies as an excuse for the US... the EU system is simply better at keeping their people healthy and living longer.
  29. Real World

    Real World Rookie

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,287
    Likes Received:
    23
    Ratings:
    +25 / 0 / -1

    Dude, I can't believe you think that their HC system, or ours, is what determines life expectency! LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL........
  30. Rossmci90

    Rossmci90 Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    933
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    And i can't believe that you don't acknowledge that Health Care is one of the MAIN factors that go into determining life expectancy.

    "During the 20th century, the health and life expectancy of persons residing in the United States improved dramatically. Since 1900, the average lifespan of persons in the United States has lengthened by greater than 30 years; 25 years of this gain are attributable to advances in public health (1)."

    http://cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00056796.htm
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009

Share This Page