9 ms·

As a French, I must say that we are so much used to this system that it seems obvious. And, French being French, we like to complain about the flaws (well, ther

• k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I'm in the UK and we also have these same free public services. No matter how many ways an American explains it to me I cannot understand how their system can ever work better. In fact it seems barbaric to me. I think that in theory, in a perfect world, a completely free market or a libertarian society could work - but in reality it's never going to. The societies with the best standard of living in the world are ones like France that have social services that every one pays for through tax. I guess we have the added benefit in Europe that if we truly don't like our tax system and want a more private system based country we are free to move and work in any other EU country that meets our needs.
  • robbiep 13y ago
    For completeness I must chime in and declare the Australian system shares more similarities with the French, UK, Canadian, German, New Zealand... The list goes on- countries than we do with the US system
    • twelvechairs 13y ago
      This is true but its worth noting that the Australian system has been moving towards the US version consistently for the past couple of decades. Private healthcare is common and seen in some circles as something not to be done without. Public services have been sold off and new infrastructure is privatised (telecommunications particularly). etc.
      • girvo 13y ago
        Yep, and as an Aussie I find it extremely worrying. I'm fine, I have private insurance, and my family and myself are not struggling financially. But that's not the case for some of my best friends and their families... And those are the people that are going to suffer. Also, screw Translink. I still can't fathom why a 15% increase in price for a worse service makes sense. Sigh
      • cturner 13y ago
        No. The US system is distinguished by healthcare insurance being tied to employment, and the absence of free options. Australia has not been moving towards that model. Private health care options have always been a significant part of the Australian healthcare system. In the current Australian settlement: (1) there is a catch-all system that's available to everyone; (2) if citizens want to chose a chosen private option, the government subsidises this. There's a similar dynamic in school funding. The result is that people can choose to funnel money towards the education and health system that's in addition to what they pay in their taxes. Their choice also reduces load on the free options. People spend money on health and education that would otherwise be spent on new cars or more ludicrous mortgages, and have done this through an exercise of freedom, rather than having had the government tell them what to do. Australia is one of only a handful of countries with both solid education and health systems, yet a contained federal government debt situation.
        • twelvechairs 13y ago
          I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying that Australia is exactly like the USA in this (yes, health care very sesnibly isn't provided by employers). But the 'dual' system you describe in both schooling and healthcare is definitely a step towards the american (privatised) way of doing things from a 'socialist' model (as exemplified in Australia by the Whitlam era approach). The simple test of the socialist model is if the poor don't get the same healthcare or educational opportunities as the rich. Australia has moved towards this and leans more in this direction than most other first-world countries. Whether this is a good thing or not is not my point (obviously you believe it is - I think there are arguments either way). Privatisation of infrastructure (and a general lack of building new national infrastructure) is also a key sign that the system is not very 'socialist'
  • mchusma 13y ago
    I think you hit the nail on the head in 2 ways. First, s completely free market might work in healthcare, but what we have in America is so far from that, that most people don't even know what they are fighting for. Second, you do have much more freedom to move for tax purposes. The US demands its citizens everywhere to pay income tax, globally, even for 2 years after renouncing citizenship. A potential downside to the world (maybe good for Americans) would be if changes in American healthcare reduces funding overall for drug research and development. I've always heard we fund most of R&D.
    • marvin 13y ago
      A completely free market in healthcare will absolutely not work. Insurance companies will drop everyone who has shown any form of uncommon illness - this is their natural incentive in the absence of regulation. Many serious and expensive illnesses are so rare that most insurance companies would severely curtail support towards these illnesses, with cheaper premiums and more customers as a result. Libertarians are suffering from the same delusion that the communists did: In a world where humans are perfectly ethical towards each other and always put the public good ahead of their own interests, it will work perfectly. In the real world, it won't.
      • codehotter 13y ago
        Would it be possible for charities to fund the medical costs of people with uncommon illnesses?
        • marvin 13y ago
          Of course, but then you're right back at where you started: Taxation. Charities are much more common in the US than in Europe, because they cover services and treatments which are provided by the public sector in European countries. In the US, many of these services are based on voluntary donations and volunteering. Of course, if the state is as corrupt as it is in the US, I understand the reluctance to pay more taxes. But in effect, charities do the same thing, except veiled by the fact that contributions are voluntary.
  • ulfw 13y ago
    It works better for the corporations who benefit from the system with billions of revenues and who can afford to bribe (sorry, 'lobby') US politicians to perform as they please.
  • galactus 13y ago
    it is not enough to have a free public service, tho. I have no idea about the Uk, but Canada also has free public healthcare yet it is so quite worse than the french system that it feels like they are not in the same league, imho.
    • k-mcgrady 13y ago
      The UK system certainly has problems (long wait times, overcrowding etc.) but I think when it comes down to where I'd rather be if I had a life threatening illness, it would be here, not the US. The fact that I can receive a good level of health care without paying a penny (even for prescriptions) is worth the drawbacks that come with this kind of system. Also, I still have the option of paying to go private if I wish.
  • james1071 13y ago
    One difference between France and the UK is that doctors' salaries are much lower there. The French get more value for their healthcare spending than does the UK.
  • Blahah 13y ago
    You're half right - the countries with the best standards of living in the world are the ones that have social services that are paid for by publicly owned oil profits, then other resource extraction profits, then taxes. Scandinavia and Canada are routinely the best. Another important feature of these countries is not a nationalised health service like the UK, but a guaranteed minimum standard insurance with a competitive market for provision. See http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/ http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/.
    • mercurial 13y ago
      Denmark doesn't live from oil profits.
    • Carioca 13y ago
      Sorry, but you're mostly wrong on both counts. Only Norway has a substantial amount of natural reserves in the Scandinavian countries, with Denmark a distant second. Also, the healthcare system you talk about is the Swiss, the Scandinavian and Canadian systems do NOT have anything close to an insurer (except the State itself).
      • Blahah 13y ago
        Perhaps I'm wrong about the oil-wealth thesis. Re healthcare: I was talking about Scandinavian and Canadian systems. Government pays the cost but private companies provide the service. Contrasted to the UK where government provides the service.
        • kwhitefoot 13y ago
          I wish people would stop saying Scandinavia as though it were a country. It is not and the differences between the countries in Scandinavia are substantial. For instance: Oil and gas: Norway has lots, Denmark a little, Sweden none. Mineral resources: Sweden has lots, Norway has some, Denmark almost none. Forestry: Sweden has lots, Norway has some but it's uneconomic because of the terrain, Denmark very little (except Christmas trees). Hydropower: Norway has lots (98% of electricity), Sweden has some, Denmark almost none. Land area:Sweden twice the size of the UK, Norway 60% bigger than UK, Denmark half the size of the UK. I can't speak for Sweden and Denmark but here in Norway whilst private institutions provide services (X-rays, MRI, etc.) under contract to the state, the hospitals are nonetheless public institutions (barring a few, and as far as I can tell not very successful, private hospitals). What does seem to unite the three Scandinavian countries is a general belief that we really are in it all together. When a rich owner of a chain of supermarkets started making a noise about moving to Switzerland because he was fed up of paying high taxes he was immediately told to " off then" not just by us poor peasants (of course there aren't many genuinely poor here) but also by other seriously rich people. It wasn't long before he was back here.
  • petercooper 13y ago
    Yet the ironic thing is that everyone in the US is paying for a healthcare system via taxes and they pay far more per capita than, say, the UK or Denmark (yes, US public health spending expenditures are higher despite not resulting in universal care). On top of that, they then pay a second (private) time to get any actual coverage unless they're disabled, old or young. Update: The data for my claim above - http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-world-country http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc... - the US had the 4th highest per capita government spending on health in 2010 behind only Luxembourg, Monaco and Norway.
    • danmaz74 13y ago
      Wow, I never realized that... and it's crazy!
  • bsenftner 13y ago
    I believe the "problem" with the US system is the very idea that the private sector can manage and provide such essential services better than the government could. And at the same time run the services for profit, profitably. It's a capitalist fantasy. Its a successful power play by our deluded wealth. We have a sad state, this US of A, with our population completely brainwashed into accepting this absurd situation.
    • gordaco 13y ago
      IANA economist, but as I see it, the problem is that healthcare is mostly a captive market, i.e. not having it when you need it is not an option. With such an inelastic demand and relatively high entry barriers for providers (making competition scarce), it's expected that prices skyrocket. So socialized healthcare is a big win for the people and a big loss for the moneymakers. Living in another country with socialized helathcare, each time the situation in the USA is described, I'm really glad I don't live there.
      • k-mcgrady 13y ago
        Another issue is the lack of information. Most consumers in the healthcare industry rely on others (doctors, hospitals, pharmacists) to tell them what they need and the people giving advice having conflicting motives (helping the patient, making money).
      • visarga 13y ago
        Simply put, you don't make a business from treating sickness. When people are sick, they are least able to pay. Also, when one is sick, there is no incentive to insure him/her because it doesn't generate profit.
  • ekianjo 13y ago
    > I'm in the UK and we also have these same free public services. You forgot the word "crappy" services. It's widely known that for life threatening conditions in the UK, the NHS has a wait list and you have to wait for your turn no matter what and that be months or sometimes more than a year. Sorry, but I want to have a system that allows me to pay more to get priority (or better treatments).
• jessedhillon 13y ago
  I'm no flag-waver, but I think it's important to point out that for 40+ years after WW2, it was an extensive (and expensive) US military budget which countered Soviet aggression. So when you talk about all these great social services, you have them in part because of a very expensive investment we made in the defense of western Europe, which freed you to spend money on these things.
  • jacquesm 13y ago
    I don't think you get to guilt trip the French in this respect. 'Force de Frappe'
    • dctoedt 13y ago
      This is getting a bit off-topic, but go back in time 50 or 60 years: Ask the citizens of West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy, (neutral) Austria, etc., whether Force de Frappe kept them from Soviet domination. (Also ask whether the French would actually have used nuclear weapons to stop a Soviet non-nuclear attack on France. That's relevant because in a conventional war without U.S. forces, the Warsaw Pact forces could have rolled to the Channel in weeks if not days.) No, it was NATO that served as the real deterrent to the Soviets. NATO was largely (and expensively) underwritten by the U.S. Le Grand Charles [de Gaulle] withdrew France from the NATO military alliance in the early 1960s. That freed up who knows how much in the way of French resources, with France still effectively still living under the protection provided by NATO. Personal note: When I was a kid, my dad, a U.S. Air Force officer, was stationed in France; we lived "on the economy" in a little farm village, where my sisters and I went to the local schools and as a result were bilingual. We were upset when we thought we were going to have to move back to the U.S., and leave our friends, sooner than scheduled because of de Gaulle's announced intention to kick out U.S. forces. (As it turned out, that didn't happen until after our scheduled move back to the U.S.)
      • michaelt 13y ago
        Also ask whether the French would actually have used nuclear weapons to stop a Soviet non-nuclear attack on France. From what I've read, during the cold war many countries developed short-range, small yield nuclear weapons. American examples are some of the most famous, like the Davy Crockett missile. The thinking was, for the same reason France might not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear attack, the Soviets might not use large nuclear weapons against a small nuclear weapon attack.
• 001sky 13y ago
  "in the States, you have to pay for your health like for any groceries." In the US there is no functioning price mechanism. So, it it is quite unlike a trip to the super-marche. Your money disappears down a rabbit hole (insurance) for which there is very little practical choice; and the rest of it is like a giant "dark pattern" puzzle where all kinds games are played to milk out the most money. That is not to say introducing "market pricing" is the correct answer, in a naive sense, this is not correct. Because markets don't function with opportunistic negotions under duress and asymmetric information (ie, typical medical situations). So, the problems with healthcare are precisely this: money changes hands but it is part of a system that is neither here nor there. As such, its just a corrupt opaque and insider-exploited bit of social engineering. Of courese, that likely describes many of the alternatives. (Hence, tough choices and an unwillingness to do anything other than something well thought out and pragmatice.) At least EU countries have evolved a unique ecosystem over time that has developed it own internal logic. The US is a frakenstein system, and the more money we spend trying to "rationalize it" (buzzword of the 1990's?), the worse it gets...MBA type's and the hippocratic oath don't really mix.
• baby 13y ago
  And what's even funnier is all the facebook and twitter post à la "That's it, I'm leaving France, going to live in the US" every time there is a new president elected or a new controversial law that is passed.
• ekianjo 13y ago
  > we don't think we are specially socialists (well, the French social party seldom wins the presidential elections). Being French living abroad, your comment makes me smile.There's nothing but socialists in France, you just have right wing and left wing socialists but their economic and social policies are all very much converging except for some minor social issues about homosexuals and stuff like that. Liberals or should I rather say Libertarians do not exist at all in France so you have basically a single mindset in power. That's why France is known abroad as "La Petite Russie" (the small Russia). > be nearly impossible for them to try an privatize a critical public service and thats exactly why you end with shitty companies like SNCF and the former France Telecom who did not care about their users at all. Having competition does not solve all issues, but God, it can't be worse than State monopoly services.
  • yoha 13y ago
    About the political orientation, I do know that we are considered as a socialist country abroad, and even more in the States. I am just sharing what I have witnessed from inside. For instance, in the mind of most people, the left wing (PS, the "Socialist Party") is even considered to be right-wing-oriented. I think that French do no realize that they tend to think in a "leftier" way that the States (well, you could say that the US tend to think in a "rightier" way due to the Cold War). > and thats exactly why you end with shitty companies like SNCF and the former France Telecom who did not care about their users at all. Having competition does not solve all issues, but God, it can't be worse than State monopoly services. Some context for non-French: SNCF is the Société Nationale des Chemin de Fer (litteraly national railway company), that now manages most train traffic in France (but not the railways themselves, ironically); France Télécom (sometimes abbreviated FT) is the company which set up the infrastructure for land-line phones and started using it. Both SNCF and FT are public companies. The statuses of SNCF and FT were logical at the time of their creation as it was an initiative of the state to build the infrastructure so that most people could benefit from it. However, this also meant that the companies had the monopole and, even when it was finally broken (legally speaking), they were considered as the "by-default" company so they still detain most of the market in their respective domains. Because of this, they were never really threatened by competition and evolve very slowly, leading to a degradation of the services they provide. Additionally, it is difficult to privatize those company because of social protests that raise whenever the topic is discussed.
• aestra 13y ago
  >The amusing part is that having this critical services being managed by the state seems so obvious to us that we don't think we are specially socialists Neither does most Americans with many of their socialized services. Very few people are protesting for disbanding of police fire or public education or highway infrastructure. Then we get people protesting like this http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/04/05/sublime-tea-baggery-dont-steal-from-medicare-to-support-socialized-medicine/ http://www.pensitoreview.com/2010/04/05/sublime-tea-baggery-... (Medicare is socialized medicine. It is only available for the elderly and disabled though.)
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
• afterburner 13y ago
  Interestingly, the case about firemen not helping someone who didn't pay the out-of-county fire coverage fee also relates directly to health care. The reason they didn't help is because if someone was hurt fighting a fire they weren't supposed to be fighting, their health insurance wouldn't have covered it. If there had been universal health care, this would not have been an issue. Many screwed up incentives in the US result from lack of proper health coverage.