Comments on: Can’t Get Much For a Trillion, Nowadays

By: JC

JC — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:37:11 +0000

“It is amazing how easily we forget that NZ has a thriving private health care system where vital elective procedures are not rationed.”

Its equally amazing to recall that prior to WW2 the basic health service, including hospitals, was largely supplied by the private sector, and I haven’t read that NZ was the hell hole of the Pacific as a result. In fact, those were the years when NZ lead the OECD in all the indicators that now see us at No 22, and from whence we get the term “Godzone”.

What we have now is a classic case of diverting national wealth into social services.. rather than allowing private wealth to build the services at its own pace. We have allowed depression (1930s), war (1940s) and a later recession (1970s)to determine the shape our overall and long term social services.

By: Single Payer Insurance | MacDoctor

Single Payer Insurance | MacDoctor — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 10:59:05 +0000

[...] the comments section of my previous post, Charlie offers a link to an American GP’s article on a single-payer insurance scheme. Dr Funke seems [...]

By: Johnnieboy

Johnnieboy — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 03:32:19 +0000

I don’t understand why the Americans aren’t choosing an ACC type system with private health insurance like we have. I read the Price Waterhouse Coopers report on ACC and based on their comparisons with partial ACC type schemes or no ACC, ACC was a world-beater in terms of value for money and getting people back to work as quickly as possible. Would you agree with that and why would americans go this dangerous route in spite of best available evidence?

I would have thought that ACC was a type of socialist intervention that has actually been proved to work for a change (maybe for that time period until recently where it was properly managed…).

Also, why go the route of compulsory insurance- that is insane on so many levels. Insurance companies only want the low risk people to sign up. When too many high risk people sign up, the premiums go too high, low risk people drop their insurance and insurance companies start making losses on the high-riskers. Except now the insurer and the low-riskers can’t drop out and wind up picking up the tab (or the government does)

By: vincent

vincent — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 02:27:54 +0000

Hey, we Americans love our gov’t and we won’t rest until we are all wearing chains around our ankles and our kids are indentured servants, and their kids, and their kids,….
vincent´s last blog ..Go Sarah!

As Obelix would say – “These Americans are crazy!”

By: JC

JC — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:16:40 +0000

Fifty million sounds a lot, till you work out that figure represents just 16% of Americans. And of the other 84% an astonishing 80%+ express themselves as satisfied with their health plans, according to a recent poll.

Now, in a non compulsory system, how many of the uninsured do so voluntarily? As you say the rich don’t need to worry, the young will say only sick people need insurance and the rest will point to the oft unmentioned public and not for profit hospitals etc that provide free services. This last isn’t as good as the private care systems but it creaks along like many another system, like NZ.

The bad thing about the US insurance system is cost.. largely driven by the vast trial lawyer scams (ambulance chasers), but not so costly that nations like NZ can feel smug.. particularly with our long waiting lists.
Certainly the US can do a lot better, but its still a better system than most others.. witness the fact that nearly 40% of NZers have private health insurance to guarantee they get service in our little health utopia.

Wait till the Yanks get to understand what “rationing” means with Obama’s service.. and what happens to the Democrat funding base when the trial lawyers get pissed off about it.

It is amazing how easily we forget that NZ has a thriving private health care system where vital elective procedures are not rationed.