Total Posts:13|Showing Posts:1-13
Jump to topic:

Israel Health Care

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 3:11:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Okay, a bunch of people were making a big deal about the fact that Mitt Romney said some nice things about the Israeli Health Care system. For some reason, people seem to think that this means Romney likes socialized medicine.

First, all Romney said was that they had a cheaper system and were pretty healthy. At no point did he endorse the system or anything like that. He was just stating facts.

But, since we're on the topic, I did some research on the Israeli health care system. First, it is not "socialized" or "single payer". In fact, it is much more like Switzerland than it is like the UK or Canada.

Want support for this?

Okay, the US system is 50% privately financed and 50% publicly financed (approx).

In Canada, it is 30% to 70% (70 being publicly financed). In France, it is about 20% to 80%... and in Germany, it is 25% to 75%. For the UK (with real socialized medicine), it is 15% to 85%.

For Israel, the system is only 60% publicly financed. Which is a lot, but closer to the US than systems with real socialized medicine. BTW, it is the same as Switzerland.

Perhaps even more importantly, Israel actually uses a market mechanism, partially, to control costs. You see, in the US, individuals only pay about 10% of their health costs directly... that is similiar to France, Germany, Canada, and the UK. Instead, the government and private insurance companies cover most costs. This means that individuals don't actually pay for their own hc.

In Israel, about 30%... yes, 30%... of costs are paid directly by the individual. This means they have much more cost sharing in Israel.

So, even though Romney didn't actually praise the Israeli system, I wouldn't really blame him if he did. I am a conservative, and I find the system pretty attractive. I wouldn't want to replicate it in the US. But, in many respects, it is more market driven.

http://www.who.int...
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 3:18:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There are some facts that are wrong in here, (the U.S. gov't pays for 60% of health care), but I am waiting to debate you on this subject instead of using the forums to get this point across.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 3:20:06 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 3:18:41 PM, Contra wrote:
There are some facts that are wrong in here, (the U.S. gov't pays for 60% of health care), but I am waiting to debate you on this subject instead of using the forums to get this point across.

Actually, I said the US government pays for 50% of HC costs. Which is directly from the WHO and also supported by the OECD (although, it is actually more like 48 or 49%... I just rounded).

But, I am ready for a debate as soon as you are.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 4:41:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Meh, people are stupid.

The cost of healthcare doesn't primarily come from whether or not it is a private or public system. Changes to our healthcare system administration won't do anything to affect the cost of pharmaceutical research, doctor salaries(caused by education costs and malpractice costs), the cost of hospitals and new equipment, etc...

Changing our healthcare administration won't change the fact that we are the most obese people in the world, or that we have high rates of diabetes and cancer. Everyone is missing the mark on healthcare costs.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/31/2012 11:28:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Other countries use private I durance for universal care.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 12:40:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/31/2012 11:28:04 PM, 16kadams wrote:
Other countries use private I durance for universal care.

Yes, I like the model of a market driven universal health care system like that of Switzerland or Singapore... or even Israel to a lesser degree.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:26:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'd rather see the government pull out of health care entirely; with a transitional period and grandfather clause for seniors of course. Or at the very least Medicaid, Medicare, and social security should all be voluntary programs. I want to see a system where people pay out of pocket to see doctors and receive basic care, so that the individual can take responsibility for his own health.

I want to see a system where insurance companies are free to compete with each other nationally and not just on a state level, and I want to see a system where health insurance is only designed to cover major health care costs.

The only way you will drive down prices is to put responsibility into the hands of the individual. If someone wants to be a fat lazy slob, then that is their choice and they'll have to live with the fact that they are going to have more health problems. Furthermore, throwing doctors and primary care into a free market system will only drive prices down and create more competition, which benefits the consumer and creates more jobs for health care professionals.
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:33:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:26:02 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
I'd rather see the government pull out of health care entirely; with a transitional period and grandfather clause for seniors of course. Or at the very least Medicaid, Medicare, and social security should all be voluntary programs. I want to see a system where people pay out of pocket to see doctors and receive basic care, so that the individual can take responsibility for his own health.

I want to see a system where insurance companies are free to compete with each other nationally and not just on a state level, and I want to see a system where health insurance is only designed to cover major health care costs.

The only way you will drive down prices is to put responsibility into the hands of the individual. If someone wants to be a fat lazy slob, then that is their choice and they'll have to live with the fact that they are going to have more health problems. Furthermore, throwing doctors and primary care into a free market system will only drive prices down and create more competition, which benefits the consumer and creates more jobs for health care professionals.

The use of health savings accounts?
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
Contra
Posts: 3,941
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:49:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:34:12 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
The use of health savings accounts?

Elaborate.

Would all general health care costs be covered and payed for by personal health savings accounts, the poor get federal subsidies, and only catastrophic surgery be covered by insurance?

Because health care cannot work in a private insurance market. We have proof of that. And I have not seen any studies that show that the large scale use of health savings accounts actually does lower costs, beyond the theory.
"The solution [for Republicans] is to admit that Bush was a bad president, stop this racist homophobic stuff, stop trying to give most of the tax cuts to the rich, propose a real alternative to Obamacare that actually works, and propose smart free market solutions to our economic problems." - Distraff

"Americans are better off in a dynamic, free-enterprise-based economy that fosters economic growth, opportunity and upward mobility." - Paul Ryan
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 10:59:01 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Would all general health care costs be covered and payed for by personal health savings accounts, the poor get federal subsidies, and only catastrophic surgery be covered by insurance?

Because health care cannot work in a private insurance market. We have proof of that. And I have not seen any studies that show that the large scale use of health savings accounts actually does lower costs, beyond the theory.

Private health savings accounts or public saving accounts? In a free market system, the option that offered the lowest costs and best value would triumph over the inferior option. I'm advocating that general health care be covered by the patient, because doctor visits would get cheaper and medicine would also get cheaper.

The problem with the current system is that the government basically subsidises health care, and companies raise prices to soak up those subsidises and then in turn the government has to put more money into the system. If you remove government subsidies from the equation then the medicine and services will be worth whatever the consumer is willing to pay for them.

The problem with the insurance industry is a whole different story though. Insurance companies often aren't able to compete over state lines and they are heavily regulated in what they can and cannot do. Regulations aren't bad, and the free market often imposes regulations on itself. The difference is that the regulations the free market imposes are natural and often benefit the consumer and producer, while government regulations are not natural and hurt either the consumer or producer or both.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 4:09:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/1/2012 10:49:41 AM, Contra wrote:
At 8/1/2012 10:34:12 AM, MrBrooks wrote:
The use of health savings accounts?

Elaborate.

Would all general health care costs be covered and payed for by personal health savings accounts, the poor get federal subsidies, and only catastrophic surgery be covered by insurance?

Because health care cannot work in a private insurance market. We have proof of that. And I have not seen any studies that show that the large scale use of health savings accounts actually does lower costs, beyond the theory.

I'll save my response for the debate, lol.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/1/2012 5:08:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's just have the government take over healthcare. They will only charge $1/year for everyone in the US to have access to complete healthcare, no limits.

Seriously, just think how much that would reduce the costs of healthcare!

Comparing countries is idiotic. Did anybody adjust for the cost of education, cost of land, cost of equipment, cost of salaries, cost of pharmaceuticals, inherent health issues, cost of lawsuits...

Did anybody adjust for ANY costs?

Dumb politicians are dumb. They'll tell you they can fix the problem, and they don't know what the problem is.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13