This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Aetna Pulls Out Of California Individual Insurance Market In Response To Obamacare

Tyler Durden's picture





 

If Obamacare's stated goal was to broaden the health insurance market, give more options to consumers, and generally lower the cost of health insurance, courtesy of the IRS' flawless execution of yet another unprecedented government expansion, it may be in for a tough time. Because while on paper every statist plan of centrally-planned ambitions looks good, in reality things usually don't work out quite as expected. Case in point the news that Aetna will stop selling health insurance to individual consumers in California at the end of 2013, in advance of Obamacare's complete transformation of the insurance market: a transformation which just incidentally may see most private health insurance firms follow in Aetna's steps and the emergence of a single-payer system along the lines of the British National Health Service. A government-mandated and funded system which, needless to say, crushes private enterprise, and ends up costing far more for all involved than an efficient market based on individual wants, needs and capabilities constantly in flux.

But that's ok - there is an administration which is smarter than the entire market, and a Federal Reserve which will monetize any deficit funding, and the only trade off is making the already ridiculous US federal debt ridiculouser.

For more irony we go to the WSJ which informs us that that "pullout is likely to draw attention as California has become a focus of national debate over the law's impact. Supporters, including President Barack Obama, who highlighted the state in a recent speech, argue that it has shown the success of the health overhaul in encouraging competition and pushing down prices."

If in some parallel socialist universe, the exit of competitors ends up boosting competition, than yes, we agree. In this one, however, things are a little... different.

For now, Aetna is just the start. A relatively small start:

Aetna said it currently has about 49,000 individual policyholders in California. In 2011, when it had substantially bigger membership, it was the fourth-biggest player in the state's consumer market, with about 5.2% of the plans sold that year, according to a report from Citigroup Inc.

 

Aetna isn't one of the 13 insurers participating in the state's new consumer insurance marketplace set to launch this fall under the federal law. Like several other major national carriers, it has said it would join only a limited number of these exchanges. A carrier can still offer consumer plans without being in the exchange.

 

Aetna said it will continue selling health insurance in California to employers and Medicare beneficiaries, as well as dental and life-insurance products. The insurer said it is "fully committed to serving the needs of our 1.5 million members in the state." A company spokeswoman declined to comment about the reasons for Aetna's individual-business withdrawal.

As long as those members aren't on individual insurance: those members will have to find a different provider of insurance.

People who currently have Aetna individual health coverage will have to find plans with other carriers by year-end. That might be easier because of the federal health law's requirements that insurers no longer decline coverage or set premiums based on people's health history, but still, "it's going to be confusing" for Aetna policyholders, said Ken Fasola, chief executive of HealthMarkets Inc., parent of insurance agency Insphere Insurance Solutions. His firm plans to send written notice to affected clients, then follow up with calls and, if wanted, visits.

Aetna is just the first to crunch the numbers and realize that one indeed has to pass a law first to find out how much money will be lost - by private companies - as a result.

The health law is expected to expand the individual insurance business, but the new coverage rules will also mean major changes. Also, in the new exchanges, consumers are expected to focus closely on costs, particularly monthly premiums. Insurers may find it tough to compete if they don't have scale in a particular market, partly because they can't match the prices that competitors win from health-care providers.

As for the "model" assumptions behind Obamacare, it is likely too late to clarify that one does not get strong competition in an artificial marketplace in which the service providers are dropping out one by one.

The Obama administration has highlighted its expectation that the new health-insurance marketplaces will generally boast strong competition, with around 90% of consumers buying their own plans living in states where there would be products from at least five insurers.

 

But in at least some places, the offerings will be limited. In Washington state, for instance, nine insurers bid to sell plans in the individual market but only one carrier, Kaiser Permanente, bid to sell a small-business plan through the exchange in some counties, forcing Washington officials to cancel plans to run a full small-business exchange for the first year.

So instead of "strong competition" the end results was a government-enforced... monopoly. And guess who has all the pricing power in a monopoly.

Oh well, such is life under "central-planning" - the end result is always complete disaster, but at least the intentions to promote "fairness" were quite noble.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:36 | Link to Comment Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

Barry Choomboi Care was designed to implode the health care system and usher in single payer, total government control over your pathetic, worthless ass. 

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:56 | Link to Comment DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

As long as Cali was easy, Aetna was along for the action, now things have gone the way of the easy girl who got religion and poof...no more leg for you.

DaddyO

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:58 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

The Obama Shit Show marches onward.

All aboard.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:08 | Link to Comment Spider
Spider's picture

Most ZH stories are good but this is a little overdramatic - 49,000 policies?  Thats nothing...

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:12 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

What is this guy smoking?

American private and public healthcare costs are the highest in the world... 18% of GDP.

The Brits public system covers everyone at roughly half the cost...

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthcare-spending-...

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:16 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"The Brits public system covers everyone at roughly half the cost..."

But everyone is dying over there!!!!  Look out!  Everyone is dead from lack of private health insurance!!!!!!!!

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:38 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

You're right... They must all be dead because of the underfunding which is what brings down their costs so much...

$8,362 per person or 17.9% GDP in the U.S. where everyone is healthy and fit...

$3,480 per person or 9.6% GDP in the U.K. where they let them die like flies...

 

And to add insult to injury the Brits have 27.43 doctors per 10K citizens while the U.S. has 10% less at 24.22 per 10K, and longevity is a year greater in Britain.

Of course the American socialist/fascist system is a lot more fun cuz they hand out way more pills...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

 

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:43 | Link to Comment piliage
piliage's picture

The current US system is the worst of both worlds, it guarantees public subsidy with no or limited cost controls. However, what has been lost in the debate is the structure of the European systems and how they differ from what was passed in America. Obama care centralises all programs in Washington. Can you imagine how screwed up EU healthcare would be if it was ran by the mental dwarves in Brussels? The states should have been left to find their own solutions to health care and Obamacare will be a mess as it will be yet another example of a bloated federal cluster-fuck.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:18 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Socialized healthcare is very efficient because it kills off the sick leaving fewer people who need treatment.  UK’s socialist healthcare system kills 130,000 patients a year and is denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying. Babies too.

http://www.infowars.com/will-sick-babies-be-starved-to-death-under-obama...

Look forward to death panels America.  Their socialized system is worse than ours. Before the govt got involved America had a great health care system.  Ron Paul says no one went without health care and he lived it.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:49 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

The left hates the elderly (except for their votes) because they're generally done being tax donkeys.

The cost of health care in the US rose along with inflation until the government got heavily involved in the 1960s. Like everything else the criminal government touches, the system then started to go to shit.

A sane system would outlaw comprehensive insurance and make only catastrophic insurance legal. People with money would have to shop for best service/prices, and the poor would have to be given money for medical savings accounts, but even they would then have an incentive to keep prices down and be healthy, since they'd be able to keep for themselves whatever they don't spend.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:06 | Link to Comment Supernova Born
Supernova Born's picture

Once the need for the theatrics (you know, like privacy) of voting are done, the expensive and less energetic geezers will be the first thrown under the bus.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 06:40 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

Welcome to the death panel green room.....please take a number.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 07:16 | Link to Comment Supernova Born
Supernova Born's picture

Somehow the fairness of geezer Obama voters being thrown under the death bus just the same makes it somehow less horrific.

All the self-centered geezers have to die regardless of who they vote for...Obama voters will be offered a mail in ballot in addition to their big morphine death pill. (you were alive when you voted/signed and dead people can't go to jail)

Sorry, geezers, you are obsolete and Obama has 2 new illiterate immigrants to replace you at the ballot box.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 07:48 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

I'm all for accelerating the extinction process of a group of people that elected a governor with the nickname of Moonbeam.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:47 | Link to Comment economics9698
economics9698's picture

The reason the US system is so costly is the federal, state, and local governments give the health care industry $1.1 trillion (2012) in additional money through various programs.

If you gave Americans $1.1 trillion to spend on cars and told them they had to pay 12 cents on the dollar when they bought a car what the fuck do you think would happen?

Duhhh.

As for the British system its death panels and pretend heath care.  It’s a failure anyway you look at it.  Corruption, inefficiency, and a lot of pretend care.  Maybe the children get good care but everyone else doesn’t.  I pray the children get some decent care over there.

As for the US system the politicians want that 18% of the GDP to skim off the top like Social Security.  They could care less about the service to the public, and it will get much worse if the system wasn’t about to implode from the debt we already have.

What would happen is there would be less care for the 18% of the GDP, and more profit and corruption for the elite politicians and their owners.  Government is a criminal organization and the sooner people realize it the sooner we can get back to 100% private care.

Peter Schiff points out health insurance before Medicare was about $2 to $5 a month.  About $40 today.

 

The British/American argument is idiotic, only a 100% free market will deliver quality health care at a fair price, all other systems will fail.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:00 | Link to Comment mess nonster
mess nonster's picture

Take care of your own fucking health. Don't smoke, don't drink to excess, don't eat meat, fast food or junk food, excercise, drink lots of water, get some sleep...

Why in the fuck should I pay for your bad habits? Under insurance, that's what I do. Under Obamacare, that's what I do.

If we really believed in competition, we'd OUTLAW medical insurance. Maybe then prices would decline to an affordable level based on real market forces. Insurance is the single biggest market distorter in medical costs.

That's why I pay a 50% or more DISCOUNT for medical care using CASH. Because Insurance jacks up the fucking price.

Fuck insurance, and Fuck Obamacare.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:10 | Link to Comment onewayticket2
onewayticket2's picture

Spider,

You're missing the point.  AETNA is a player in the market.  obamacare's objective was to INCREASE competition.  it stands to reason that the implementation of obamacare would foster a player like AETNA's ability to compete in the biggest market in the USA.  the result should be them investing in California, not divesting. 

 

but it did the opposite.....just like so many other liberal policies, it accomplishs the opposite (intentionally?) of the name. 

 

The STATED goal by obama (10 yrs ago) was single payer.   this is all going according to plan.

 

love,

the 'Fairness' Doctrine and the "affordable" care act

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:27 | Link to Comment jbvtme
jbvtme's picture

"healthcare" is the biggest scam to curse this planet.  from vaccinations and circumcision to vitamins and chemotherapy. all of it is fake. the body is the most ingenious healing machine ever created. it is a divine masterpiece.  take control and nurture it.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 13:09 | Link to Comment johnQpublic
johnQpublic's picture

i got to see a doctor who spoke english at the hospital this morning

 

of course i would not have been at the hospital if my indian primary care doctor hadnt prescribed me medication that i am allergic to....says so right in the file...a generic name doesnt change the content

 

so i have been poisoned by medication now twice in ten days

gotta love the american healthcare system

cant wait to get the bill now that our healthcare plan does not actually cover anything including prescription drugs any more

its just like my pre healthcare having days, except the costs for care are higher now and we get money deducted from our checks for a plan that does nothing

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 13:23 | Link to Comment Mandalini
Mandalini's picture

You are making an incorrect assumption that Aetna was a competitive plan.  Obamcare is increasing competition by shutting down the Aetna scam.  It was actually not insurance but rather a pre-paid plan.  In other words Aetna took no risk in writing coverage, as they were guarenteed to never pay out more than they collected. $5k in premiums would get you $5K in coverage. Obamacare outlaws these scams by outlawing Annual Caps.  

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 08:36 | Link to Comment onewayticket2
onewayticket2's picture

obama himself said the objective was single payer.  that's the opposite of competition.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:58 | Link to Comment yabyum
yabyum's picture

And wear a helmet and use sunsceen...Damnit.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 11:01 | Link to Comment BeetleBailey
BeetleBailey's picture

...and FUCK every shit-eating politician that voted for it. A special kick in the cunt to Nancy Pelousy for her part.

 

and FUCK the bastards and bitches that wrote the piece of garbage "affordable care" act in the first place.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 19:28 | Link to Comment astroloungers
astroloungers's picture

I greened you, I agree with you.....I do everything you rant about in excess.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 04:51 | Link to Comment Nexus789
Nexus789's picture

You have no idea. There no such thing as a 'free market'. All markets are regulated and controlled in some form or other.

You might try actually reading something about health economics. Try reading 'Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care' - Kenneth J Arrow (1963). It is impossible to have a free market heath system without supporting 'structures' as Arrow concludes.

As for the so called socialised systems I've lived in a number of countries that have them. One of the main reasons for bankruptcy in the US is health costs - no one I know in our miserable socialised system has lost a home or a business through health costs. A massive cost to a community on top of the inefficient health care system in the US. I'm also able to tap into private health care providers. However, the health insurance providers have to work hard to get my money

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 04:52 | Link to Comment Nexus789
Nexus789's picture

You have no idea. There no such thing as a 'free market'. All markets are regulated and controlled in some form or other.

You might try actually reading something about health economics. Try reading 'Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care' - Kenneth J Arrow (1963). It is impossible to have a free market heath system without supporting 'structures' as Arrow concludes.

As for the so called socialised systems I've lived in a number of countries that have them. One of the main reasons for bankruptcy in the US is health costs - no one I know in our miserable socialised system has lost a home or a business through health costs. A massive cost to a community on top of the inefficient health care system in the US. I'm also able to tap into private health care providers. However, the health insurance providers have to work hard to get my money

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 07:25 | Link to Comment disabledvet
disabledvet's picture

"we already have death panels we might as well have the healthcare to go with it." obviously this isn't a serious work of journalism. 47,000 in California? with a population of 40 million? my question revolves around whether or not this is Federal or State controlled. If the IRS is running the program obviously its Federal controlled...but so far the whole thing looks like total chaos. be interesting to see what the result is.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:47 | Link to Comment GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

 

With no new supply of doctors and thousands of new patients....the only way you'll get any free heath care is if you kill the people ahead of you in line.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:21 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

"Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of others."

-Ayn Rand

 

 "I will cut taxes -cut taxes- for 95% of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."

-Barack Obama


What we have here is a liar, cheat and a thief!

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:31 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

"What we have here is a liar, cheat and a thief!"

 

Agreed, Ayn Rand is all those things and also cheated on her husband.  Not sure why "fanatiques" want her as their leader.  Anyone can write dimestore books

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:42 | Link to Comment BoNeSxxx
BoNeSxxx's picture

I don't know that Rand's well known personal hypocrisies detract from her philosophy so much... And cheating isn't contrary to her writing - most of her characters did it.  Her taking Social Security benefits in her latter life however is anathema to everything she wrote.

That said, you can't compare her protagonists to today's kleptocrats and oligarchs.  In her view, high moral character was somewhat assumed - an assumption that hardly applies to today's captains of industry.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:26 | Link to Comment jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

I don't buy that particular arguement;  If I am FORCED to pay in to the system all my life, I will fill out the paperwork when I can to get whatever benefit there might be.    I still think it is an idiotic system.  I would back out now if I could, and let them keep all the money they took at this point(I am 46).   I can't back out, however.  In twenty years(hypothetically- I know it wont be there) I will fill out the form to collect.   Until then, and after; I will still openly declare I believe it to be a stupid, criminal govt scam. 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 13:16 | Link to Comment TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

RaceToTheBottom you're an imbecile. This is not an insult, it's a scientific term for someone like you, based on your comment.

@BoNeSxxx watch this video for an explanation of why (according to Rand) it's morally justified to take social security even if one disagrees with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4miIsTgs1E

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 16:03 | Link to Comment G-R-U-N-T
G-R-U-N-T's picture

Nice RTTB. Rand had a way of pulling covers like no other. Brilliant observationlist and the clergy, republicans and democrats suffered her objective realism to a point of embarassment. So I would suggest you get your head out of your ass and accept reality or perhaps you live in an alternate reality not knowing you inflict pain on yourself while believing in an image of self destruction, bitch!

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 21:38 | Link to Comment hivekiller
hivekiller's picture

Rand's books were her personal fantasies much like Woody Allen's films. Every heroine was Rand - although much better looking. She was a thug and totalitarian in real life. However she did affirm the right of the individual to retain the product of their own labor rather than have it taken from the state using a combination of force and guilt.

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:35 | Link to Comment merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

"The left hates the elderly"

If you're going to make sweeping, meaningless generalizations, why stop there?  The youth hate the elderly (because, of course, the elderly hate the youth); foreigners hate the elderly (because, of course, the elderly hate foreigners); and of course, the elderly hate each other because they're of all different ethnicities.  There are many more reasons to hate the elderly, too: they comprise most of the government; they have elected the most politicians; they fought in and paid for, with their taxes, the most wars; they seek to impose their obsolete thinking and traditions on freer-thinking, less-bigoted younger people; and now they are all societal parasites with the endless entitlements they've voted for themselves.  So, yeah, if we're going to accept your original premise, then there's no stopping there.  Your vision of a 'sane system' sounds like just another psychotic statist nightmare.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:41 | Link to Comment Oldrepublic
Oldrepublic's picture

too few GP's in US due to tight control by AMA, lots of easy solutions to get more medical aid to US consumers., i.e., easing of laws on use of nurses, bringing in more trained foreign doctors, use of medicine by telephone etc.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:55 | Link to Comment augustusgloop
augustusgloop's picture

Nice free market in the US vs UK

UK has +2 years of life expectancy  (81 vs. 79 in US) for 1/2 the cost (as percentage of GDP). But all the comments on ZH are  death panel socialism blah blah blah blah. Like crony capitalism is going to do any better. And how is keeping the underclass from having any healthcare different from a income level based death panel.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:30 | Link to Comment Marco
Marco's picture

Ideological purity is more important than outcomes ...

I wish the social darwinists here could be a little more honest to others and themselves about what they are. Charity never created a healthcare utopia in the past and in the modern day when the percentage of GDP it consumes is so much higher (regardless of what happens to waste, eating habits etc it's still going to have costs far in excess of what it was a century ago) it will result in even more unsociable results.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 16:00 | Link to Comment fuckitall
fuckitall's picture

"Socialized healthcare is very efficient because it kills off the sick leaving fewer people who need treatment. "

Matched by death of rights and liberty here in USSA, reducing people's deisre to keep living.

I see darkness ahead.  Less incentive to keep going. Somebody said "give me liberty or give me death".  I suspect more Americans will start feeling that way next few years watching last fragments of rights and liberty disappear.  

I suspect some Germans felt that way in 1939 - 41, just not worth it anymore, and Hitler was nationalist, concerned about Germans' well being, rebuilding Germany, making things better, not marxist/communist coming here, against the people, tearing down the nation. 

Yep, we'll have more reasons to say just not worth it anymore, and those "death panels" might get less resistance from senior citizens than they think.  

"Go ahead pull the plug, America I knew is gone, nothing left to live another few years for."

I suspect that's how I'd feel in that situation.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:42 | Link to Comment jeff montanye
jeff montanye's picture

and the brits are hardly alone.  nearly all of the advanced world pays about half of u.s. health care costs for arguably better average outcomes.  obamacare may well be shit (obama certainly is), but the u.s. healthcare system, except for the very rich and (retired) congressional staffers, could be way better.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:48 | Link to Comment underman
underman's picture

Most of Europe lives 2-3 years longer than Americans.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 01:21 | Link to Comment knukles
knukles's picture

Another triumph of socialist expansion.
Forward!
You need not make any more decisions, peasant!

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 01:54 | Link to Comment tankster
tankster's picture

Yeah, our current system works great, unless your middle class, and not in a union...

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:21 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

"Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying."

http://www.infowars.com/elderly-woman-left-to-die-under-britains-death-c...

The untold story.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:26 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

UK’s socialist healthcare system kills 130,000 patients a year

If Britain’s socialist healthcare system is a benchmark for what we can expect from Obamacare, hundreds of thousands of elderly patients face being euthanized through “assisted death” techniques designed to cut costs.

http://www.infowars.com/elderly-to-be-euthanized-under-obamacare

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:32 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Sheep.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:39 | Link to Comment Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

Using Infowars as a "serious" referemce source?? Credibility problems???????

If you and the rest of the cretins who now seem to populate ZH want to compare "Like with Like" - just have a quick check on the post-op infection rates in the UK's PRIVATE Health "Industry" - and compare these "Private is best" rates with the good old "Socialist is BAD" NHS.

You'll be in for a little surprise. And you can rest assured that the "disclosed" Private sector infection rates are (and always have been) under-reported.

But, hey, it's YOUR money, so go ahead and spend it exactly as you wish. Just DON'T expect the "Inferior State System" to pick up the pieces when your "Private" provider decides enough's enough (as happens DAILY in the "even more crappy" Australian "Public in the pockets of the Private" Health System).

 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:29 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Infowars is a wonderful source. They not only write their own richly referenced pieces, unlike you - not that I would trust your sources - they carry and link to others.  But if it would make you feel better:

Killing the Elderly Is Old News for Britain's NHS

http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/11880-killing-the-elder...

We don't really have a private system with the govt involved in such a large part of our lives and driving up costs.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:22 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

Infowars is a pre-packaged perspective, useful when you don't really want to do the real work of developing your own ideas based on your own research of "all sides"

 

works for some I guess.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:46 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Alex Jones....

Stop feeding the madness

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 02:01 | Link to Comment HulkHogan
HulkHogan's picture

Alex Jones is entertainment not news.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 02:11 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

network news has been classified "entertainment" since the 1980s (at least).

'spose "news" prior might be labeled "propaganda" - educating the loyal in what opinions to hold. . .

real news requires an open mind, and some time spent sifting through all the noise.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:53 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

Europe is still largelly white and muslim (desert whites). Our average life expectancy looks a lot better if you take blacks and latinos out of the equation. Europe also isn't quite as much in the thrall of Monsatan and other elements that are killing us off.

If you think that (all other factors being equal) the government can provide goods and services less expensively and better than a free market (which we DON'T have) you're nucking futs.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:02 | Link to Comment augustusgloop
augustusgloop's picture

Blacks and Latinos are also largely poorer than whites w/o access to quality healthcare or high quality calories. 

And by the way, using Monsanto as an example kills your point...Any country with balls would not allow these corporate douche bags to spread their plague across its most valuable resource---millions of acres of the best arable land on earth. 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:38 | Link to Comment Gamma735
Gamma735's picture

Sure they will approve your cancer treatment under a single payer system. It won't be until you are stage four looking death in the face then you will get your stage 1 cancer treatment approval.   That's how they do it in Japan.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:54 | Link to Comment underman
underman's picture

All the more reason to live truly healthy.  Americans are fixated on yoyo dieting and quick fix prescription drugs.  

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 01:53 | Link to Comment Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

It's not quite like that.  More like this:  no stage 4 treatment actually works.  The pharma companies just charge $10,000 per month for a treatment that extends life maybe 3-5 months (of misery and side effects mostly spent in hospital appointments).  That is all it takes to get a drug approved.

The Euros and Japanese call the drug company bluff and refuse to pay the high prices for so little benefit.

Stage 4 cancer is not curable, no matter how much money you waste trying.

In the USA, by the way, your insurance company must approve expensive stage 4 treatments.  If you have gold-plated insurance, often they do.  If you have Medicare and Medicaid, usually they do and your neighbors pay.  But if you have no insurance, or like many patients have already reached your lifetime limit by the time your cancer is stage 4, your treatment is rejected by your own personal bankruptcy, and no one gives a sheet.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:29 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

He said "It won't be until you are stage four looking death in the face then you will get your stage 1 cancer treatment approval."

 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:06 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

There ain't no good in an evil hearted woman.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:23 | Link to Comment piliage
piliage's picture

Infowars as a source? Her2 cancer treatment was invested in Switzerland and was the first stratified therapy rolled out internationally and is best practice in the UK. Cancer treatment in France has superior results to the USA by a long shot. You may want to try reading a bit more than infowars as your source.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:54 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Infowars is a wonderful source. They not only write their own pieces, always providing referneces, they carry and link to others

Killing the Elderly Is Old News for Britain's NHS

http://thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/11880-killing-the-elder...

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:58 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

Anyone who reflexively puts down Infowars as a source is busy gobbling Satan's cock. They back up EVERYTHING they write with 'establishment' media sources which somehow made a mistake by reporting the truth through the blackout.

As for the UK being a dream system, ask a Brit or two. They currently lose 30,000 or so brits each year to 'fuel poverty' - literally freezing to death. These are folks who relied on the government to subsidize their fuel consumption, people who generally worked their entire lives as tax donkeys. That's as many people who die from gunshot wounds each year in the US, a country with 4X the population. The left can suck it.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:53 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

"They back up EVERYTHING they write with 'establishment' media sources which somehow made a mistake by reporting the truth through the blackout."

huh?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 01:28 | Link to Comment Curiously_Crazy
Curiously_Crazy's picture

Yeah. The yanks, even with the highest cost health care on the planet, also have one of the highest infant death and preventable death rates in the Western world (most of which have systems that cover everyone for half than the US 'efficient private system'). But hey, they are told they are #1 so it must be true right? (ZH readers being some of the few exceptions)

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:01 | Link to Comment Tulpa
Tulpa's picture

Dishonest claptrap.  Most US infant mortalities would have been counted as stillbirths in Europe due to differing statistical practices; most "preventable deaths" are due to accidents and lifestyle choices like obesity and smoking.  None of which have jack to do with "health care".

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:38 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

Yes, it is dishonest.

Its all in how the different countries data is recorded...then their apple is compared to our orange by useful idiots. If a baby leaves the mothers body in the US its counted as an infant. Its counted differently around the world, some countries count it as a "miscarriage" if the baby doesn't survive 24hrs., some record a "live birth" by length...that is, if the infant doesn't measure up, it was never born apparently.

"Demographer Nicholas Eberstadt notes that in Switzerland "an infant must be at least 30 centimeters long at birth to be counted as living."17 This excludes many of the most vulnerable infants from Switzerland's infant mortality measure."

http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.martial-arts/2009-07/msg00571.html

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:36 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

some nationstate-farms have differing rules 'n' laws as to what constitutes a "human" - from cradle to grave, there are many, many labels to choose from,

zygote

foetus

baby

child

adult

trrrrst

elder(ly)

and then, of course, there are the numerous sub-categories based on which FatherGod the individual subscribes to, which "race" the nationstate-farm harbours, which flag is required waving, what uni-form is offered up for wearing, etc.

it's a rich palette of choice. . . for those who define the colours.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:02 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

We don't have an efficient market system here. Private health care heavily subsidizes public health care - private companies pay out more for the same issues than do medicare and medicaid. The system is also rife with cronyism. lf we had a true free market system, it would connect price and quality with choice. No one currently cares what their health care costs, because a third party is paying all the bills. As long as that's the case we'll see no real cost controls.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:09 | Link to Comment Bangin7GramRocks
Bangin7GramRocks's picture

USA USA USA! It amazes me that Americans are so jingoistic that they brag about the superiority of a system that is clearly inferior and more expensive than the rest of the world. The only thing our system excels at is providing million dollar salaries to thousands of precious executives of all the "free market" healthcare companies.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:48 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

The Brit's system is very efficient at killing off the sick:

http://www.infowars.com/will-sick-babies-be-starved-to-death-under-obama...

http://www.infowars.com/elderly-to-be-euthanized-under-obamacare

Get ready for the death panels America so we can emulate those Brits.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:28 | Link to Comment NoDebt
NoDebt's picture

This is all by design.  Build an unworkable system and when it fails, go single-payer.  Was this not clear from the start?

You think you hate health insurance companies, but just wait.  You're going to LOVE when it's the IRS and the Secretary of Health and Human Services running your health insurance.  People with no accountability for their actions and obviously corruptible to the whim of political influence.

Health care is going to make the DMV look efficient, humane and easily navigated.  

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:43 | Link to Comment XitSam
XitSam's picture

Time for Directive 10-289

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 01:56 | Link to Comment tankster
tankster's picture

Please explain how the irs will be running the health care system...

 

 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:28 | Link to Comment Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

It won't.  That is just the latest Fox News Repubican lime (lie + meme = lime).

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:30 | Link to Comment Powder
Powder's picture

This is more of a question, but doesn't the IRS have a directive to garnish if you don't have insurance?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 13:19 | Link to Comment TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

"The Brits public system covers everyone at roughly half the cost..."

 

But everyone is dying over there!!!!  Look out!  Everyone is dead from lack of private health insurance!!!!!!!!

 

No, we just have even more debt than you, relative to our GDP. Soon you will be like us.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:46 | Link to Comment jekyll island
jekyll island's picture

The Brits have a two tiered system.  The docs work for the gubmint Mon-Fri, then do the elective cases for cash only patients on Saturday.  

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:06 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

The US proves that a free market will reduce the cost of health care. Most plans dont cover electives like Lasik and cosmetic surgery, and the price of both have plummetted. When consumers have to spend their own money on health care in something resembling a free market prices drop. When governent runs everything people wait for months for care and if they don't like it they can fuck right off.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 03:59 | Link to Comment Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

exactly right. When LASIK first came out, it was $10,000. Competition and free market pricing has driven the price below $1,000.

Now if you could get open-heart surgery along with some fake tits, we'd be getting somewhere.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 04:00 | Link to Comment Kobe Beef
Kobe Beef's picture

dup, apologies

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:50 | Link to Comment Oldrepublic
Oldrepublic's picture

Many Polish immigrants to the UK do not use the  public system but use their own private Polish doctors and pay from their own pockets

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:52 | Link to Comment decon
decon's picture

Is dental coverage extra?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 23:18 | Link to Comment Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

Do they have dentists in England?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:07 | Link to Comment Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

You are right, this guy is a plutocrat idiot.  Cue the violins:

"crushes private enterprise, and ends up costing far more for all involved than an efficient market"

How is this stupid?  Let us count the ways:

-- Efficient markets !!! The US health care system is only efficient at bankrupting people who get sick, literally sucking out every dollar they have; and sucking out vast sums from the taxpayers and employers.  At actually delivering health care, it is the most inefficient system ever devised.  That is not a mere coincidence.  The goal of the system is sucking money, not delivering health care.

That vast sucking sound of pharma, insurance, and health care "enterprise" is a primary contributor to the hopelessly uncompetitive status of the USA, which (along with useless foreign wars) forces resort to fake GDP based on financialization tricks to create the temporary appearance of prosperity.

-- Costing more?  Single payer systems in every other country cost less, not sometimes but always, and deliver better results besides.

-- Private enterprise?  More like private collusion to rig prices, and private corruption of legislators to produce a totally abusive, non-competitive system with no consumer protection that financially rapes anyone who falls in its clutches.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:03 | Link to Comment Tulpa
Tulpa's picture

That would explain Buffalo hospitals being full of Canadian patients?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:40 | Link to Comment Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

Can I get the prices they charge Canadians?  When a cash-paying American goes to the hospital, they charge 6x what they charge an insured patient, and a single episode puts the family on the street.  But Canadians have an alternative, so the Buffalo hospitals cant rape them financially and must offer a decent price.  Free market capitalism is such a beautiful thing, it makes my knees wobble just to think about it.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:07 | Link to Comment One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

With all the regulations out of D.C. we haven't had anything close to free market capitalism in ages.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:22 | Link to Comment Tulpa
Tulpa's picture

Perhaps I was not clear.  Canadians who can afford it purchase US health insurance policies so they can cross the border rather than having to wait months for treatment.  A Canadian who wants an MRI in less than 6 months doesn't have any alternative to using the allegedly backwards health care system south of the border.

Given that they're getting individual plans, they're probably paying more than you do. 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 06:06 | Link to Comment BernankeHasHemo...
BernankeHasHemorrhoids's picture

What nonsense. At least get your facts straight. You might want to read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/01/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-canadian-health-care-in-one-post/ BTW, I am a Canadian living in the US and regardless of the shortcomings of the Canadian system, it doesn't totally suck balls like the US system! The US pays the most and gets the least. 17.4% of GDP! And for what? Mexico spends 1/10 as much as the US and the life expectancy is 2 years less. So for that 90% of extra spending you're getting the last 2 years of life hooked up to machines getting endless tests making some corporation rich. Yeah that's a good system........

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:49 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

The U.S. system, which is massively interfered with by the bribe takers in state and federal government, isn't the model for anything, but doing a comparison between countries on the basis of percent of GDP spent vs. life expectancy, or infant mortality is just ridiculous. THere are way too many variables to make the comparison valid. What is counted in spending on "health care?" All the boob jobs for half the female population between 16 and 61 in the US (hyperbole I know)? All the orthodontia that apparently is forbidden in the UK? Lasik treatments for everyone? Tummy tucks and facelifts? As has been pointed out in the U.S. all infant deaths are included in the statistics whereas many countries simply don't count them until they have survived passed the usual period of danger. Comparing the relatively homogenous nordic countries and Japan with the U.S. which recruits mutts from all over the world and has an entire urban culture of feral warfare provides zero enlightenment.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:17 | Link to Comment BurningFuld
BurningFuld's picture

Tulpa you are spewing complete and utter bullshit. Being a Canadian and living on the Border I know of no one going to the US for medical treatment. My wife is American and we have watched people die slowly in both countries.....you do NOT want to die slowly in the USA. Not only is the care much worse as an added bonus they will take all of your money and your family's money while giving you expensive treatments with absolutely ZERO PROOF THEY WORK AT ALL. YOUR SYSTEM IS SICK AND CORRUPT TO THE BONE.

Let me ask you this: When you go to the hospital in the USA are you going to be given the treatment that is the most effective OR are you going to be given the treatment the hospital makes the most money on? Or the one the doctor gets the biggest kick back on perhaps? Hey maybe that's why public hospitals have BETTER outcomes than private ones. Look it up.

You do have to wait six months for an MRI in Canada though...If there is nothing wrong with you. If you are actually sick you usually get them THE SAME DAY. All of these stories of people going to the US are based on hypochondriacs abusing the system in Canada.

Like my wife says: Boy were we ever brainwashed.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 11:33 | Link to Comment Jena
Jena's picture

Except it isn't bullshit.  I live near a resort area of Caifornia where many (many!) Canadians spend the winter and I used to work in a medium-sized hospital there.  I know that plenty of them use the U.S. medical system for all sorts of things they either don't want to or feel they can't afford to wait for in Canada.  Plenty of patients talked about the wait length for various tests and surgical treatments for urgent and even emergent problems.

But hey, thanks for rescuing the housing market in this region.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:13 | Link to Comment Crtrvlt
Crtrvlt's picture

A McKinsey and Co. report from 2008 found that between 60,000 to 85,000 medical tourists were traveling to the United States for the purpose of receiving in-patient medical care. The same McKinsey study estimated that 750,000 American medical tourists traveled from the United States to other countries in 2007 (up from 500,000 in 2006). The availability of advanced medical technology and sophisticated training of physicians are cited as driving motivators for growth in foreigners traveling to the U.S. for medical care,whereas the low costs for hospital stays and major/complex procedures at Western-accredited medical facilities abroad are cited as major motivators for American travelers.

Canada has entered the medical tourism field. In comparison to US health costs, medical tourism patients can save 30 to 60 percent on health costs in Canada

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

the relatively more wealthy in each nationstate-farm have been sampling other lands health care as long as easy travel has been in existence - they are always the exceptions to the majority, as the more money one has available makes for more options.

some places offer treatments illegal in other places, some have more innovative, less invasive treatments - with wealth comes the ability to make choices, as always.

if "Canadians" are flying to amrkn hospitals while wintering in their second (or more) homes in amrka, they have the monies to afford doing so, end of.  they've been sold the idea that shopping around is good for them, and their choices reflect this.

but that's in no way a majority of people, and is always dependent on available funds.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:55 | Link to Comment RaceToTheBottom
RaceToTheBottom's picture

Grouping elective procedures together with procedures a consumer cannot make a choice about does not seem resonable.  I can pick the best Lazik doctor, because it is elective and the choice can be made resonably.  Getting a broken leg fixed or getting treatment for cancer does not seem to allow me the same ability to make an informed decision.  There should be a difference.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 20:20 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Then you and the zillions who believe the same solid things you know to be true should start a series of hospitals, clinics and pharma companies that do it right and can survive under the current rules. Stop bankrupting people, make a small but fair profit and let people pay what they want. Really, you should do this to save us all. We will appreciate it.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 02:05 | Link to Comment SilverSavant
SilverSavant's picture

you forgot your sarc. tag.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 18:30 | Link to Comment painlord-2k
painlord-2k's picture

Then, why half of the working people have private healthcare insurances?

because they do not want wait six months or one year to see the dentist or to obtain a hearth by-pass?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 18:29 | Link to Comment painlord-2k
painlord-2k's picture

Then, why half of the working people have private healthcare insurances?

because they do not want wait six months or one year to see the dentist or to obtain a hearth by-pass?

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:16 | Link to Comment erg
erg's picture

Aetna, I'm glad I didn't met ya.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:09 | Link to Comment sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Spider:  "Most ZH stories are good but this is a little overdramatic - 49,000 policies? Thats nothing.."

 

Comment:

I find it funny when a poster makes a comment to illustrate that the posteer, such as Spider, missed the point.

 

Of course 49k is nothing. Aetna is pulling out because they do not have the size (members) to to compete in Obamacare (even less free market society). Thus smaller players are leaving the market and giving consumers less choice.

 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 07:54 | Link to Comment KickIce
KickIce's picture

This is just another segment where the government is firmly entrenched complete with all the inefficiencies and corruption that our system has to offer.  Bottom line, it's just another example of why we need a complete reset.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:13 | Link to Comment ZerOhead
ZerOhead's picture

.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:17 | Link to Comment de3de8
de3de8's picture

Someday the California weather won't outweigh the burden.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:01 | Link to Comment greyghost
greyghost's picture

lets me see. 33 million californians and they are writing 49,000 individual policyholders. sounds like they're not even trying. cherry picking would be more like it. neither my wife's work nor mine has offer an aetna plan in twenty years...way off the chart too expensive. went to their website and checked out their plans....high premiums and huge deductables.....LOL. brother inlaw just showed up and said his employer trw had aetna and finally dropped them because none of the employees would pick their plan. employees told them they had to many complaints with not paying for healthcare provided. typical insurance is what they did after katrina...no pay or extremely slow payout....went on for years. i haven't heard much about sandy payouts...anyone know. do i know how all this is going to play out...hell no. neither does anyone else. remember the nonsense from ohio about the huge increase in premiums in ohio. i went to the state of ohio website and could find nothing about any insurance exchange or prices for policies. just some jackass ohio state employee blowing chunks out their ass. hell is there anyone in america that hasn't seen the cost of insurance double or triple in the last few years? i will just wait and see how much the volume on this meter continues to go up until jan. 1st next year. i thinking we will be getting daily horror stories.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 10:40 | Link to Comment ISEEIT
ISEEIT's picture

Very clever Daddy-:)

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 12:51 | Link to Comment Mandalini
Mandalini's picture

Anyone who sees this as bad for Obamacare obviously never had Aetna.  Obamcare is doing exactly what we should want here by shutting down the Aetna scam.  I wouldn't even call it insurance, it was like the pre-paid phone for healthcare.  It was marketed to low income workers as a low cost health plan.   Employers would deduct about $150 per paycheck or around $3500 per year.  The employee would get a card to carry in their wallets, but claims were often denied, and there was an annual cap of $5000.  That's not health insurance that's a scam and Obamcare shuts it's down.  Good riddance Aetna and all the other crooks that were using Annual Caps to steal from the working poor.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment CvlDobd
CvlDobd's picture

Banana Republics are built on competition!

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment aphlaque_duck
aphlaque_duck's picture

I pulled out of California altogether. Had a good ride though.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 04:20 | Link to Comment piliage
piliage's picture

Ex-OC myself. Turned down two jobs from head hunters there last year and will avoid it for the rest of my life. All politicians in the world should be forced to change planes at lax one every six month to see first hand the results of their insipid policies.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:50 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

Really? This "crushes private enterprise" - like insurance companies? Really? Well then, Obamacare should be repealed and we should go back to the bargaining table, this time considering the interests of insurance companies.

Will no one think of the insurance companies?!

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:38 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

In a free country and economy you do not have to elevate anyone's concerns over your own. You look at a service and decide what it is worth to you. You can tell anyone in a cooperative system to go to hell if you like, albeit with consequences. It is the wonder of freedom. Everything will automatically begin adjusting to your preferences and those of your fellow man.

However, once you look at the "system" and decide that your personal genius or your teams' can improve the system then you become responsible for every part and every consequence...all of them. It is because you are going to use force as the government.

We know from the Left that government invented doctors, medicines, hospitals, training standards, equipment and even insurance. Without government nothing is invented or improved. Therefore, we should have total faith in the medical expertise of 16000 IRS agents that will run Obamacare and whatever follows.

Might want to get that spastica looked at, Rex.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:52 | Link to Comment Spastica Rex
Spastica Rex's picture

You make me so mad. You're just misrepresenting my concern for those paragons of free-market-servicery, the Most Blessed and Holy Insurance Companies. I know you saw the sad puppy.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 01:05 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

To be honest, Rex, I am not really addressing your concerns or comments much at all. I am using it as the launch point to give the two main alternatives or directions one can choose. The choice has been made for us already. We are going government. I would just like to occasionally remind everyone there once was another way and there is another direction if government seems to fail.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:21 | Link to Comment piliage
piliage's picture

The European systems work better at a substantially lower cost than the systems in the USA. To argue this is to deny reality. There is one simple reason for this, in each of the eu systems, as long as you improve efficiencies somewhere along the value chain the tax payer wins. In the american system, each link in the chain adds a margin. In fact, there was a terrific research study last month that proved that if a hospital improves treatment it negatively impacts profit. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/health/hospitals-profit-from-surgical-.... The current system in the USA sucks.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:52 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

Want to know how we can tell you have an agenda and would lie to support it? You said we would be denying reality if we disagreed or argued with you.

 

That tells me that you'rea government stooge and want to force what you think is correct down our throats whether or not we agree.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:30 | Link to Comment piliage
piliage's picture

They are called facts. The US system is twice as expensive and does not get as good of results. Higher infant mortality rates, poorer general health, and far too much prescription. I showed you a peer review study and sighted the link, care to provide some contrary evidence to how the is system is better and cheaper?

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:52 | Link to Comment Parrotile
Parrotile's picture

They won't because they can't.  The World's BEST system is the French - entirely "Socialist" medicine, and excellent outcomes, as you'd expect. Interesting that the French system charges "customers" a basic "hotel rate" - which covers food costs. So, the catering is excellent (as you'd expect), and the outcomes (especially post-operative) are excellent. "Well-fed Patients heal quicker" - something the UK and Australian systems (including the Aussie PRIVATE system!) could well do to note well.

Because the American system relies on "Health Management Organisations" or HMOs to act as a funding source, there's immediately an "extra set of (financial) mouths to feed" - and if you want to know how much these intermediaries are skimming - just look at the opulent office space they seem to be able to "afford" with your insurance fees - THEY are  not paying for this - YOU are, in the shape of YOUR Health Insurance fees being diverted into the pockets of the Insurance hierarchy.

If you're happy with this aspect of "private" healthcare - you are welcome to it. But never think that the HMOs are looking out for "you and yours' " best interests, because with their multi-million dollar annual profits, they are certainly NOT "Non-Profit" organisations in any normal sense of the words.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:13 | Link to Comment buyingsterling
buyingsterling's picture

No one here is arguing that the current US system is superior. We're arguing that a free market system is superior. If your argument is that a free market system is now impossible, that's another discussion. But if you're arguing that government provision of goods and services leads to better outcomes than a free market system, you've swallowed the kool aid.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:32 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You fucking moron. The US hasn't had anything even remotely resembling a free market in healthcare since the 1960s-- and in some ways, since the end of WW2. You're just comparing two socialist systems. I don't give a flying fuck how well France does socialism, I'm too busy trying to get rid of socialism in the US first.

I am so sick of having this debate.

Mon, 06/17/2013 - 02:15 | Link to Comment SilverSavant
SilverSavant's picture

Dang it all BB.   Your first words are always my temtation when talking to mericans about health.  The only good thing I can see about our current system is that it is in mid-suicide.   Every fucking aspect of the sickcare system is bass-acwards.   Those who don't have insurance these days should count themselves luckier than those who do.   If you do, then when you get sick you get sucked into the horror of merican medicine.   Death, drugs and no bank roll. 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:16 | Link to Comment sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

Dear God,

 

Using the NY Times is pathetic - a leftist publication that has lost credibility.

I would cite  articles and statistics on how European systems are environments that people get less quality of medical care, but then I would only  see YOU deny reality.

Otherwise a fruitless debate.

 

 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 05:30 | Link to Comment piliage
piliage's picture

The New York Times is quoting a peer review study from the journal of American medicine that requires a subscription you dolt. It's not a New York Times research piece. Damn, It's like watching Life of Brian around here today...

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:33 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You fucking tool. The Journal of American Medicine can go fuck itself.

Take your fucking socialist medicine, and shove it up your ass sideways.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:02 | Link to Comment Abaco
Abaco's picture

"The European systems work better at a substantially lower cost than the systems in the USA. To argue this is to deny reality. There is one simple reason for this, in each of the eu systems, as long as you improve efficiencies somewhere along the value chain the tax payer wins. In the american system, each link in the chain adds a margin."

The unengaged mind is entertaining. What is your criteria for determining which "works better?" Are you includinging every factor by which each individual will measure their satisfaction with a system? Clearly you are not because that would be an impossible task.  Are you considering every cost?  How do you value the cost incurred when one suffers delays in receiving treatment or is denied the choice to spend more to get a different treatment or an earlier treatment? How do you measure the cost of early death because, due to a top down controlled industry innovation is lessened? Have you done a comparison of the advances in medical treatment that come out of europe vs those that come out of the U.S. or Thailand? Why would you waste time arguing the merits of one shitty system vs. another shitty system instead of seeking the one system that would lead to the most satisfaction for the most people?

 

Your peer reviewed study was idiotic.  It showed that if you are able to charge for more procedures you make more money.  No shit and no value n that revelation.  What it didn't do was even look why such a scenario is possible.  No study is needed to find the answer.  It happens because there is no price discovery at the point of consumption because the state has interferred in the market and made it cheaper for the employer to provide health care payment plans rather than the individual.  The employer sees the cost and the emplyee makes the consumption decision.

Now get your diaper changed.

 


 

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:26 | Link to Comment Kprime
Kprime's picture

lmao.  Do you know much about their system?  Read much news from the UK?  This is just one of hundreds of articles detailing the failing for young and old alike.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10122702/Maternity-wards-closure-crisis.html

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:30 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Pillage, you don't know half of what you think and most the "facts" you think you read are highly subjective. In healthcare and longevity several things get lumped together. For example, Europeans have healthier lifestyles on average for lots of reasons. You can give us both the exact same healthcare system and they will still do better and spend less.

I work in healthcare. There has been no truly free system in healthcare since about the 1950's. every single aspect is regulated, including what can be highlighted on a page. We have a system that responds to the rules the government makes and the demands the public follows with. Obamacare will probably break it and you lefty lemmings will say it was a free market failure.

I am wearing out on debating this issue with virtual morons. Just be honest and say you want free or cheap care and you don't give a crap about anyone else's freedom...like the people who work in it.

For those on the borderline and undecided ask yourself who actually invented the modern doctors, standards, insurance, your meds, your MRI, hospitals, nursing homes, nurses, and freaking Band Aids, government? Then look at he defense market and see what the government pays in a fully closed and controlled market. Put 'em together and convince any rational person government control by the IRS, Sociopathis Congressmen and morons like Obama is the bright future to medical care!

For those of us who actually value liberty, and like our fellow man, lets start our own friggin' country and do free market healthcare.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:25 | Link to Comment Lost My Shorts
Lost My Shorts's picture

Shuddup you commie marxtard.  Insurance companies are paragons of capitalist freedom, freely buying Congressmen on the free market to freely guarantee massive consistent free profits.  Insurance company profits are what great nations are built on !!  Health insurance is the paragon of Capitalist Freedom.  I dare say that even as the rest of sorry America sinks beneath the waves, health insurance companies will still be making profits.  See how great they are ??

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 08:38 | Link to Comment Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

You moron. Health care is not an insurable risk, therefore, even though it is called "health insurance," in reality it is just a form of socializing costs. There is nothing even remotely "free market" or "capitalist" about the current US system, and there won't be until health insurance is abolished, with the possible exception of accident insurance.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:34 | Link to Comment FreedomGuy
FreedomGuy's picture

Banzai, you rock, but we are outnumbered.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 09:21 | Link to Comment Kprime
Kprime's picture

Yepper.  That's what happen to the Romans and Russia.  No Health Insurance.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:37 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

What do you expect when you cross a goat rope with a cluster fuck.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:57 | Link to Comment DaddyO
DaddyO's picture

Now in my neck of the woods, that's funny!

DaddyO

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:59 | Link to Comment Jam Akin
Jam Akin's picture

You get what was called in my Army days a goat screw.  Obamacare is a goat screw.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:38 | Link to Comment 10mm
10mm's picture

oh God GODDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:38 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

ROTFLMAO!!!

Fucking Forward.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 23:15 | Link to Comment surf0766
surf0766's picture

Will all communist please more to Kalifornia

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:39 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

This is the ultimate false flag.  The insurance companies wrote fucking Obamacare. 

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:45 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

So you're saying when he said everyone has a right to health insurance in his first campaign, no one should have believed him, that actually...

NO ONE REALLY HAS A RIGHT TO ANOTHERS LABOR?

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:50 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

He's a fucking idiot.  The idea that we as a People can't afford to give dignity, comfort and life-saving care to our elderly and infirm is just as fucked.  

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:53 | Link to Comment nmewn
nmewn's picture

What I'm saying is, HE implanted a notion in the American psyche that there is some sort of "right" to health insurance.

That a doctor can be forced, by the state, to engage in a trade in which he thinks he is not justly compensated for.

It ain't gonna work...it never has.

Sat, 06/15/2013 - 22:55 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Did he implant the same idea in all of humanity, that we could benefit from advances in medicine and not die horribly when it is easily prevented?  Forgive me if I don't trust your fucking charity.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 00:08 | Link to Comment Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

Why don't you voluntarily pay for the healthcare costs of some of the massive amoebas tooling around in their hoverounds.

Nobody is stopping you and you think that someone else paying their medical costs is the solution, have at it.

Open up your wallet like you open up your mouth.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:02 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

"Nobody is stopping you and you think that someone else paying their medical costs is the solution, have at it."

It's called shared risk.   Some live to 67, some live to 97.    Or we can all just save millions for ourselves in your unicorn world of self-fucking.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 02:58 | Link to Comment NidStyles
NidStyles's picture

You can not dispurse or share risk from one individual to another. money and doctors do not mitigate risk, they just make it so you are less likely to be denied service due to the wealth effect of the industry when that risk turns south on your ass.

 

Insurance is a scam, what will it take for you to understand this? Paying money into something to "share risk" doesn't mitigate it.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:09 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

Fucking douche never had a loved one in need.  Fuck you and fuck you again.  And.  Fuck You you fuck.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:37 | Link to Comment Tulpa
Tulpa's picture

"Fuck you and fuck you again.  And.  Fuck You you fuck."

This is how Europeans argue?  No wonder we had to save your asses from yourselves twice last century.  Next time I say we let you finish what you started.

Sun, 06/16/2013 - 03:56 | Link to Comment LetThemEatRand
LetThemEatRand's picture

And fuck you again for making it a team sport  You fucking sheep.  

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!