If there’s, as some claim, a “media love fest" going on with Senator Obama, then the Man from Illinois’ healthcare rhetoric isn’t part of it.
Consider today’s story in The New York Times, “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate.”
Except that after you read the article, you realize that the headline should have more appropriately been, “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Derision.”
According to the Times:
“While there is consensus that the American health care system is bloated with waste, eliminating enough to save $2,500 per family would require simultaneous and synergistic solutions to a host of problems that have proved intractable for decades.”
And:
“Mr. Obama … is offering a precise “chicken in every pot” guarantee based on numbers that are largely unknowable. Furthermore, it is not completely clear what he is promising.”
And:
“But the health policy advisers who formulated the figure say it actually represents the average family’s share of savings not only in premiums paid by individuals, but also in premiums paid by employers and in tax-supported health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
And, according to Harvard’s David Cutler (an unpaid advisor to the Obama campaign and a certified smart guy), “Our attempt to lay out one plausible scenario for the savings had created more problems than it had solved.”
And:
“But whether employers and governments respond that way cannot be guaranteed, particularly in a difficult economy. And a number of health policy experts have questioned whether the $2,500 projection is either fiscally or politically realistic. Reducing health care costs, they emphasized, means taking money from someone’s pocket and rationing care that Americans have come to expect, a recipe for stiff resistance.”
Here is a link to the complete NY Times story:
New York Times story
Well gosh, you mean that healthcare reform is going to be hard? Stop the presses. (Or, perhaps, start them.)
Another regularly bandied about “solution” is for the United States to adopt “free” healthcare, “like in Europe.”
Let’s address that shibboleth.
People in other healthcare systems often pay more than Americans do, sometimes in the form of taxes. And they may also incur high costs if they need a drug that is not covered by their health system or want to see a specialist.
In the US, a family of four with an employer-based PPO will have around $15,609 total this year in healthcare costs. Of this amount, the employer will pay $9,442 and the employee will contribute $3,492 in premiums and $2,675 on co-pays, etc. That’s about 6 percent of average family income.
In Canada, while the percentage of taxes used to provide healthcare varies, it is estimated that 22 percent of taxes collected went to the health system in 2004. Several provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, also charge additional premiums. Canadians also may spend money to receive private treatment for procedures or drugs that are not covered by the government system.
Citizens of the UK pay 11 percent of each pound they make in weekly income between £100 - £670 for the NHS, plus an addition 1 percent of income over £670 a week. Though the co-pay for drugs is low, many drugs are not covered, often because they not considered cost efficient. And anyone who uses their own money to buy powerful but expensive drugs not paid for by the NHS finds him or herself shut out of the NHS for having gone outside the system.
In Germany, coverage from a public sickness fund currently can range significantly in cost, from around 12.2 to 16.7 percent of income, with the employee paying a bit under half. As of fall 2008, premiums are to be standardized from the federal level and healthcare experts anticipate that they will be set around 15.5 percent. Private patients can generally expect to pay more than they would in the public system.
In France, employees contribute only to 0.75 percent of their salaries towards medical care, but also pay a 7.5 percent General Social Contribution, the majority of which is earmarked for the health system. This base coverage reimburses people for the majority of costs for doctor visits and for a portion of the costs of medications. On top of the government coverage, almost all French residents have supplementary coverage from a mutuelle, costing approximately 2.5 percent of salary.
For a more complete look at “myths vs. facts” of “free” European-style health care, have a look at this new article in the Journal of Life Sciences:
Journal of Life Sciences article
And if you’re ready for a barrage of reality about how patients fare under various European systems (Canada too), click here:
www.biggovhealth.org
And let the debate over real reform begin.
Consider today’s story in The New York Times, “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Debate.”
Except that after you read the article, you realize that the headline should have more appropriately been, “Health Plan from Obama Spurs Derision.”
According to the Times:
“While there is consensus that the American health care system is bloated with waste, eliminating enough to save $2,500 per family would require simultaneous and synergistic solutions to a host of problems that have proved intractable for decades.”
And:
“Mr. Obama … is offering a precise “chicken in every pot” guarantee based on numbers that are largely unknowable. Furthermore, it is not completely clear what he is promising.”
And:
“But the health policy advisers who formulated the figure say it actually represents the average family’s share of savings not only in premiums paid by individuals, but also in premiums paid by employers and in tax-supported health programs like Medicare and Medicaid.
And, according to Harvard’s David Cutler (an unpaid advisor to the Obama campaign and a certified smart guy), “Our attempt to lay out one plausible scenario for the savings had created more problems than it had solved.”
And:
“But whether employers and governments respond that way cannot be guaranteed, particularly in a difficult economy. And a number of health policy experts have questioned whether the $2,500 projection is either fiscally or politically realistic. Reducing health care costs, they emphasized, means taking money from someone’s pocket and rationing care that Americans have come to expect, a recipe for stiff resistance.”
Here is a link to the complete NY Times story:
New York Times story
Well gosh, you mean that healthcare reform is going to be hard? Stop the presses. (Or, perhaps, start them.)
Another regularly bandied about “solution” is for the United States to adopt “free” healthcare, “like in Europe.”
Let’s address that shibboleth.
People in other healthcare systems often pay more than Americans do, sometimes in the form of taxes. And they may also incur high costs if they need a drug that is not covered by their health system or want to see a specialist.
In the US, a family of four with an employer-based PPO will have around $15,609 total this year in healthcare costs. Of this amount, the employer will pay $9,442 and the employee will contribute $3,492 in premiums and $2,675 on co-pays, etc. That’s about 6 percent of average family income.
In Canada, while the percentage of taxes used to provide healthcare varies, it is estimated that 22 percent of taxes collected went to the health system in 2004. Several provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, also charge additional premiums. Canadians also may spend money to receive private treatment for procedures or drugs that are not covered by the government system.
Citizens of the UK pay 11 percent of each pound they make in weekly income between £100 - £670 for the NHS, plus an addition 1 percent of income over £670 a week. Though the co-pay for drugs is low, many drugs are not covered, often because they not considered cost efficient. And anyone who uses their own money to buy powerful but expensive drugs not paid for by the NHS finds him or herself shut out of the NHS for having gone outside the system.
In Germany, coverage from a public sickness fund currently can range significantly in cost, from around 12.2 to 16.7 percent of income, with the employee paying a bit under half. As of fall 2008, premiums are to be standardized from the federal level and healthcare experts anticipate that they will be set around 15.5 percent. Private patients can generally expect to pay more than they would in the public system.
In France, employees contribute only to 0.75 percent of their salaries towards medical care, but also pay a 7.5 percent General Social Contribution, the majority of which is earmarked for the health system. This base coverage reimburses people for the majority of costs for doctor visits and for a portion of the costs of medications. On top of the government coverage, almost all French residents have supplementary coverage from a mutuelle, costing approximately 2.5 percent of salary.
For a more complete look at “myths vs. facts” of “free” European-style health care, have a look at this new article in the Journal of Life Sciences:
Journal of Life Sciences article
And if you’re ready for a barrage of reality about how patients fare under various European systems (Canada too), click here:
www.biggovhealth.org
And let the debate over real reform begin.
