5 ms·

This quote is personally why I support health care reform: "There are enough risks associated with choosing to start a business over being an employee, but the

This quote is personally why I support health care reform: "There are enough risks associated with choosing to start a business over being an employee, but the Europeans don't have to worry that they will go bankrupt for lack of health insurance." And this is an interesting quote from a Krugman post a/b the study (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/big-business-america/ http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/04/big-business-ame...): "Another possibility, more favorable to the United States, is that in some European countries (Italy comes to mind) firms stay small to escape onerous regulations."

jon_dahl 17y ago
This quote is personally why I support health care reform: Me too. I generally lean right on economic issues, but as a small business employer, I wish we had a system like Canada or most of Europe.
viggity 17y ago
I support health care reforms, but the only reforms I support involve reducing the government's role, not massively increasing it. Things like policy portability, a greater ability to create risk pools, the ability to buy policies originating in a different state and the simplification of red tape and bureaucracy. The currently proposed health care reforms try to ignore the laws of supply and demand because they don't seem fair. But as we found out in the 70's with gasoline price controls, it is better that 10% of people don't get a service because they can't afford it than 60% of people not getting a service because it isn't available.
- david927 17y ago
  But that doesn't reflect the reality of health care throughout the western world. I'm an American who lives in Europe. The health care is not comparable. The Czech Republic, where I live now, has infinitely better health care and no one is denied "a service because it isn't available." Trust me. This is one of the big problems America faces: it has been so successful for so long, that it thinks it can't learn from anyone else -- that it has all the answers. It's how big firms fail, and countries are no different.
  - thstart 17y ago
    Please tell me how a health care in Easter Europe has a better quality than here in US? I agree healthcare system here in US needs reforms and in my opinion the problem is that it is insurance based, but the quality is the best - I can tell from personal experience - living in Eastern Europe, then Western Europe and now in US.
    - david927 17y ago
      I'm not sure how long you lived in each of these places. The infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000) is a popular metric among those in the industry, and in the Czech Republic it's 3.8; in America, it's 6.3. In the Czech Republic everyone is covered. There's no way to lose a house, a car, or even a chunk of savings over some expensive operation. There's no "qualification"; no one is turned down or turned away. Rich or poor, you're simply covered.
      - medearis 17y ago
        Infant mortality rates are not a fair metric for comparison because the point of viability is significantly earlier in the US that in most other countries in the world. When adjusted, US infant mortality rates are some of the best in the world. The US is also one of the best in terms of experimental treatments, emergency room care, cutting edge surgery techniques and specialty care for diseases such as cancer. The downside is that care is generally more costly in the US, but there is a reason why the wealthy individuals in many other countries come to the US when they need heart surgery etc. The challenge of reform will by to preserve the really innovative and successful aspects of the US health care system, while expanding coverage affordably.
        patio11 17y ago
        Infant mortality rates are not a fair metric for comparison because the point of viability is significantly earlier in the US that in most other countries in the world. People may not know what this means so I'll spell it out for you: a baby born three months premature to a drug-addled mother is very unlikely to survive. In the U.S., that baby will be treated and damn the cost. In most other countries, that baby will be scored as a miscarriage (i.e. not the hospital's fault) if it dies. It receives care accordingly. You know the saying "We only improve what we measure?" Many countries do not measure the healthcare of severely premature infants. This is a good thing to keep in mind the next time you hear about "rationing", because this difference is the rationing that dare not speak its name. After all, if they're not acknowledged to be human quite yet, then if you withhold care to them it isn't rationing.
- ajg1977 17y ago
  I'm confused. You say you support reforming healthcare by reducing the role of government, but what exactly do you mean by this? Reducing medicare? medicaid (although that is more of a state run program)? Perhaps you could enlighten me by specifying what exactly you'd like to reduce, and what you hope to achieve? (Note: statements such as "reduce government involvement" are soundbites, not answers).
  - robak 17y ago
    1. No subsidies to big pharma, insurance companies 2. No Medicaid, Medicare 3. Insurance is an insurance not a gift. Insurance be definition is against risk which probability of occurance is low. It should cover only major, complex surgeries and nothing else. This would keep prices down. Look, wherever insurance isn't involved, like plastic surgeries prices go down in the real terms. Wherever it is, the prices go up because nobody shops around for the best price. For cold, flu, etc. we should pay all out of our pockets / savings. This would keep prices down the same way it does for plastic surgeries.
  - viggity 17y ago
    What are you talking about? I gave 3 very specific examples in my post. Quote: Things like policy portability, a greater ability to create risk pools, the ability to buy policies originating in a different state. The Government restricts all of these things. In addition, the government could drastically reduce the barriers to creating new drugs and treatments. Do these barriers save some lives: yes. But they end up killing many more because the FDA is always going to error on the side of caution, thereby denying the treatments that work to people who desperately need them.

jon_dahl 17y ago

This quote is personally why I support health care reform: Me too. I generally lean right on economic issues, but as a small business employer, I wish we had a system like Canada or most of Europe.

viggity 17y ago

I support health care reforms, but the only reforms I support involve reducing the government's role, not massively increasing it. Things like policy portability, a greater ability to create risk pools, the ability to buy policies originating in a different state and the simplification of red tape and bureaucracy. The currently proposed health care reforms try to ignore the laws of supply and demand because they don't seem fair. But as we found out in the 70's with gasoline price controls, it is better that 10% of people don't get a service because they can't afford it than 60% of people not getting a service because it isn't available.

david927 17y ago
But that doesn't reflect the reality of health care throughout the western world. I'm an American who lives in Europe. The health care is not comparable. The Czech Republic, where I live now, has infinitely better health care and no one is denied "a service because it isn't available." Trust me. This is one of the big problems America faces: it has been so successful for so long, that it thinks it can't learn from anyone else -- that it has all the answers. It's how big firms fail, and countries are no different.
- thstart 17y ago
  Please tell me how a health care in Easter Europe has a better quality than here in US? I agree healthcare system here in US needs reforms and in my opinion the problem is that it is insurance based, but the quality is the best - I can tell from personal experience - living in Eastern Europe, then Western Europe and now in US.
  - david927 17y ago
    I'm not sure how long you lived in each of these places. The infant mortality rate (deaths per 1,000) is a popular metric among those in the industry, and in the Czech Republic it's 3.8; in America, it's 6.3. In the Czech Republic everyone is covered. There's no way to lose a house, a car, or even a chunk of savings over some expensive operation. There's no "qualification"; no one is turned down or turned away. Rich or poor, you're simply covered.
    - medearis 17y ago
      Infant mortality rates are not a fair metric for comparison because the point of viability is significantly earlier in the US that in most other countries in the world. When adjusted, US infant mortality rates are some of the best in the world. The US is also one of the best in terms of experimental treatments, emergency room care, cutting edge surgery techniques and specialty care for diseases such as cancer. The downside is that care is generally more costly in the US, but there is a reason why the wealthy individuals in many other countries come to the US when they need heart surgery etc. The challenge of reform will by to preserve the really innovative and successful aspects of the US health care system, while expanding coverage affordably.
      - patio11 17y ago
        Infant mortality rates are not a fair metric for comparison because the point of viability is significantly earlier in the US that in most other countries in the world. People may not know what this means so I'll spell it out for you: a baby born three months premature to a drug-addled mother is very unlikely to survive. In the U.S., that baby will be treated and damn the cost. In most other countries, that baby will be scored as a miscarriage (i.e. not the hospital's fault) if it dies. It receives care accordingly. You know the saying "We only improve what we measure?" Many countries do not measure the healthcare of severely premature infants. This is a good thing to keep in mind the next time you hear about "rationing", because this difference is the rationing that dare not speak its name. After all, if they're not acknowledged to be human quite yet, then if you withhold care to them it isn't rationing.
ajg1977 17y ago
I'm confused. You say you support reforming healthcare by reducing the role of government, but what exactly do you mean by this? Reducing medicare? medicaid (although that is more of a state run program)? Perhaps you could enlighten me by specifying what exactly you'd like to reduce, and what you hope to achieve? (Note: statements such as "reduce government involvement" are soundbites, not answers).
- robak 17y ago
  1. No subsidies to big pharma, insurance companies 2. No Medicaid, Medicare 3. Insurance is an insurance not a gift. Insurance be definition is against risk which probability of occurance is low. It should cover only major, complex surgeries and nothing else. This would keep prices down. Look, wherever insurance isn't involved, like plastic surgeries prices go down in the real terms. Wherever it is, the prices go up because nobody shops around for the best price. For cold, flu, etc. we should pay all out of our pockets / savings. This would keep prices down the same way it does for plastic surgeries.
- viggity 17y ago
  What are you talking about? I gave 3 very specific examples in my post. Quote: Things like policy portability, a greater ability to create risk pools, the ability to buy policies originating in a different state. The Government restricts all of these things. In addition, the government could drastically reduce the barriers to creating new drugs and treatments. Do these barriers save some lives: yes. But they end up killing many more because the FDA is always going to error on the side of caution, thereby denying the treatments that work to people who desperately need them.