Posted on 12/23/2009 6:21:13 AM PST by fight_truth_decay
Anybody ever consider a Wellness Program to encourage people to stay well (and who don’t, therefore, HAVE to pay for everyone else’s illnesses)?
What is the combined population of these 3 countries?
And here are earlier posts on the same theme.
Europeans Share Their Health Care Experience, Part 1: Scandinavia
To bring some diverse experience into the discussion on health care reform here in the USA, I’ve asked my friends in Europe to share how health care works in their lives. In this four-part series, we’ll start with the most highly taxed and socialistic part of Europe: Scandinavia.
From Hakan in Sweden:
In Sweden, we have free choice in health care. It means that patients can choose a hospital anywhere in the country.
In 2005, the cost of the health and medical care sector amounted to 8.4 percent of GDP (in the US, it was over 15 percent). This amount includes the cost of pharmaceutical products, dental care, eyeglasses, and patient fees paid by households.
We employ a “high-cost protection scheme” that means that no patient ever needs to pay more than a total of 900 SEK (about $125) over a 12-month period. For pharmaceutical costs, no patient has to pay more than SEK 1,800 (about $250) over a 12-month period for prescription drugs. This way, no citizen will be put into poverty because of health problems.
The fee for visiting a doctor or hospital varies from 100-300 SEK (about $14-32), but once you have paid 900 SEK in a 12-month period, the rest of the care is totally free — no matter what kind of treatment you need. Private-care providers are also “clients” of the government. A patient can choose a private doctor or hospital, pay the small fee, and the government pays the difference.
The health and medical services have an obligation to strengthen the situation of the patient, for example, by providing individually tailored information, freedom to choose between treatment options, and the right to a second opinion in cases of life-threatening or other particularly serious diseases or injuries.
Having lived here all my life and raised my family here in Stockholm, I honestly do not see anything bad with our health care system.
From Richard in Demark:
I have lived and worked in Denmark for 24 years and have had numerous encounters with the health care system. In all cases I was satisfied or impressed with the quality of service and the low cost (apart from the tax system — more about that later).
The health care system in Denmark is free to all who live here. Even visiting tourists will be treated free of charge in case of an emergency. A non-Danish friend of mine who sprained her ankle during a recent visit was X-rayed, bandaged, treated by a doctor, and even given a pair of crutches to use — and was not charged anything. She was only asked to return the crutches when she left Denmark.
The quality of Danish health care — which is not run on a profit motive — is very good, though there is a waiting time for some non-life-threatening operations like a hip replacement. But everyone will eventually get the operation they need. Hospitals are free, doctor visits are free, and medicine is highly subsidized so that those who need a lot of medicine get it at a greatly reduced charge. Dentistry is subsidized.
This is paid for through our tax system, which — at 52 percent — is perhaps the highest in the world. None of the 10 political parties in Denmark has ever wanted to change that, because they know that they would not get any votes. The vast majority of Danes are agreeable to pay these high taxes; they know that they get about 50 percent of the money back each year in a vast array of benefits. Seven out of 10 Danes are willing to pay even more taxes, if necessary, to maintain the health care system we expect.
Danes have the mature and realistic understanding that you cannot give everyone a quality health care system, good schools, and the elements that help to make for a good quality of life, without paying for it. Freedom does not mean not paying taxes. For us, freedom is paying taxes. By taking care of each other, and the weaker elements in our society, we all have a better quality of life with very low crime rates, few prisons, and a sense of security that it is not “me against the world.” That is part of what it means to be Danish.
From Hanne and Trond in Norway:
In Norway, everyone has, in principle, equal rights to health care. Norwegian hospitals are “free” for patients (being financed with taxes) and everyone is entitled to treatment, irrespective of income and insurance. However, many things are not always working well here.
When hospitalized, no one asks for insurance coverage. You can stay for as long as it takes without having to worry about costs. At the hospital, every part of the treatment is free, indefinitely. At home, people with chronic illnesses get medicine and necessary medical equipment almost for free, save for a limited, annual base payment.
But some parts of the system don’t function well. Depending on the illness, you could wait a long time for necessary hospital treatment (typically non-emergency surgery). For instance, you have to go through your family doctor in order to be referred to a specialist. When the family doctors have way too many patients and limited opening hours (and limited telephone hours!), this is often an obstacle. Of course, any emergency treatment is exempt from “queuing.”
As for the cost, the hospitals operate with a combined budget of approximately NOK 75 billion ($13 billion). Our health care is not free — we pay for it in our taxes: Our corporations pay a flat tax rate of 28 percent on their profits. Wage income is taxed under a progressive structure, from almost zero (very low, part-time wages) to a maximum marginal tax rate of 54 percent. The average “industrial worker” has a tax rate of 30 to 35 percent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Europeans Share Their Healthcare Experience, Part 2: Great Britain
To bring some diverse experience into the discussion on health care reform here in the USA, I’ve asked my friends in Europe to share how health care works in their lives. In this second of four entries, here are comments from my British friends:
From Martin in Wales:
The National Health Service (NHS) in Wales is essentially the same as the English NHS founded over 60 years ago. Today, the main difference between the services in England and Wales is that in Wales (as in Scotland) we pay nothing for medications. Our Welsh Assembly decided that no matter the cost of the drugs, the duration of the illness, or the wealth of the patient, no charge is made for prescription drugs.
This fulfils of the one of founding principles of the NHS — like justice, health care is “blind.” You are treated no matter who you are or what your financial means are. None would pretend that the NHS is perfect: New and expensive drugs are used to combat diseases in an increasingly aging population, which puts financial strains on our system. However, knowing that the NHS will try always to treat you to the best of its ability is something valued highly by most Welsh people.
Treatment under the NHS is free, but the cost is huge. We pay for it in our taxes. In the US, people pay insurance companies for their health care, whereas in Britain, we pay the government. You may think this makes the two systems the same, that it’s only a matter of who you pay. I don’t think so. Don’t forget that the NHS is “blind” and its blindness is its true virtue. Insurance companies insure the individual for a profit, while the NHS delivers care, free to all.
From Tom in England:
The United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) was 60 years old last year and continues to provide “free” health care from cradle to grave. The NHS is state-funded. It is paid for by employers and employees making a contribution direct from earnings. Care and treatment is free to citizens. Drugs are about $10 per prescription. The NHS system enables completely free access and care for people who can’t pay taxes: the poor, unemployed, and elderly.
When things go wrong with the NHS, it’s given massive prominence by a media looking to sell newspapers and pump up TV ratings. However, for the majority of the English — those not made fools by hysterical media coverage — it is quite popular. We like the NHS because it takes away the worry about what would happen if your health fails, if there’s an accident, or if you just need help as you get older. It’s not perfect. No health care system is. But there are millions of people who would testify that they’d be dead without it.
The creation of our free service came after World War II, when there was a desire to spread health care to all citizens. The demographics have changed since then, however. A population that lives longer requires more costly care. Every society needs to deal honestly with this reality. Life-saving treatments have been developed that cost more. And so, in 2009, the NHS is one of the biggest topics of political debate — it’s called by some a “sacred cow.” The bottom line is that none of the major political parties will try to remove it — and certainly not when they are facing a general election in 2010. I think most of us would call our NHS a 60-year-old success story, regardless of today’s financial challenges.
07,630,605 - 2008 Switzerland
10,703,957 - 2008 Belgium
78,189,412
And all these people have been protected by us for decades. We have paid for their defense for all this time.
09,220,986 - 2008 Sweden
05,497,525 - 2008 Denmark
04,769,274 - 2008 Norway
61,399,118 - 2008 UK
80,896,903
“Now adding population numbers to Post #4
09,220,986 - 2008 Sweden
05,497,525 - 2008 Denmark
04,769,274 - 2008 Norway
19+ million combined. California alone has 36 million(6 million illegals using La Raza numbers)
Now, let us look at UK
61,399,118 - 2008 UK (EPIC FAIL in medical care)
Now picture the care we will get with a population over 300 million here in the USA................
DEATH CARE and trillions of extra debt.
I have a friend, 71 years old, a colon cancer survivor, who is currently on dialysis and is on the transplant list once a suitable donor is found.
My brother-in-law had a full knee replacement at age 49, before he was even in a wheelchair.
How would these people fare under nationalized healthcare?
Government healthcare is fine as long as you don’t get sick.
Non-sequitur much?
This anecdotal stuff is pure garbage. Let’s deal with facts and documented data.
Wellness programs have not only been considered, they are ubiquitous throughout the private healthcare industry. Wellness programs are a key strategic focus of all the large health providers, and even pharmaceutical companies.
I know this, because I do industry research for a living, and I have done lots of projects around healthcare Wellness programs and initiatives.
Yes, real life experience [anecdotal stuff] gathered over an extended timeframe is generally not a reliable feed from which to draw data from. ;)
But then, I have heard, government agencies, politicians & their "scientific" studies have been known to fudge data, or eliminate (documented) data to make the numbers work, in many instances.
What does the "proletariat" know about anything, anyway..just commoners who work to pay the bills of these overspending politicians. What is wrong with the same health care that these politicians/unions (cadillac) enjoy. You pay for their plans why not have the same advantages they have, plus the same health club membership to boot!!
"a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, medicine go down...."
Typical misperception. It's all free. Susanna you never STOP paying.
We’re a small company and I’d like to know how one goes about getting on board a Wellness program. Can you direct me to some resources please?
“Treatment under the NHS is free, but the cost is huge.”
Throughout these anecdotal comments there are some common themes. Perhaps the most alarming non-sequitur that runs through these comments is that health care is free but because of that it costs a fortune (in taxes). That is so ignorant on its face that it helps us understand why so many Europeans have such idiotic views of the US — many Europeans (not all, of course) are not logical and are oblivious to obvious realities. Euro health care systems cost a fortune.
The poor quality of facilities in Italy mean that sanitary conditions are not as good as an average US hospital. The fact that 80% of Euros like their health care should be alarming because that is considered a low level of satisfaction by most standards. A look at the studies of customer satisfaction will reveal that 80% is not especially high. It is also important to understand the psychological nature of illness. You can’t get a sense of how people view a health care system if you survey healthy people—recall is more favorable than attitudes at the time of an event such as treatment at a clinic.
I don’t see mention of the less obvious but serious costs such as loss to employment. Employers are reluctant to hire people because of the tax costs—hence, young Euros at the peak of their youth are unemployed and the productivity is lost to their societies while they cost working people in terms of support and benefits.
The consequences of paying for people who don’t have the means to pay include increasing the proportion of the population that doesn’t have the means to pay. That is a certain consequence of such an incentive system but it is difficult to measure—it is certain, however. Just look at how welfare for single mothers, based on number of children, promotes having more children.
Note how the Italian poster mentions gaming the system. That is how people work complex systems. The US system will get gamed by everyone and that is especially true in the beginning when the system is not yet tuned to reduce the loopholes and gaming. It will drain peoples’ time and energy gaming the system but everyone will have to play games.
Note the comment about long lines and despite that the commenter doesn’t seem to connect those lines to the quality of the health care system.
The commenter who compares her US and Euro health care misses an important point. The US system is hindered by govt regulation; her criticisms of the US system and lack of choice can be traced to govt rules. It is an argument for less, not more, govt interference.
How do we know these stories are true or representative? And what about the “facts” the individuals cite? I guess you could do the same thing here? What relevance does that have in this debate on ObamaCare?
Granted, the only reason this has worked for us is because we have built our connections over many years, and there are enough of us together here (well over 200) that we are fairly self-sufficient.
I have also traveled through Europe, Canada, so am not ignorant on what goes on there in regard to health care issues, but then I would be more biased!! I live in America.
I could tell you stories, but you might think I was lying.
Have a good day. Stay Healthy. The Big Evil Drug/pharmacutical/insurance stocks are up--and lobbyists are happy!!
Everyone's happy, but those same that shoulder the "cost" for those that seem to always get "the free ride".
Merry Christmas!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.