Privatise the NHS

[Renton 21393]

This today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8156432.stm

 

Increasingly we won't be able to afford a truely universal health care system.

 

Haven't they been saying that since the 80's??

 

Something has to give sooner or later. We're getting too old and sick and there's too many new expensive treatments.

 

Which is what this thread is about iirc.

[Fop 1]

This today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8156432.stm

 

Increasingly we won't be able to afford a truely universal health care system.

 

Haven't they been saying that since the 80's??

 

Something has to give sooner or later. We're getting too old and sick and there's too many new expensive treatments.

 

Which is what this thread is about iirc.

 

Rubbish.

[Happy Face 29]

This today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8156432.stm

 

Increasingly we won't be able to afford a truely universal health care system.

 

 

Reduce the UK population to its optimum 30 million people

 

 

 

Fop's thought it through.

[Park Life 71]

This today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8156432.stm

 

Increasingly we won't be able to afford a truely universal health care system.

 

 

Reduce the UK population to its optimum 30 million people

 

 

 

Fop's thought it through.

[The Fish 10779]

Probably has a three page summarised report on the best way to attain those figures too

[Guest alex]

Plop.

[Fop 1]

This today.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8156432.stm

 

Increasingly we won't be able to afford a truely universal health care system.

 

 

Reduce the UK population to its optimum 30 million people

 

 

 

Fop's thought it through.

 

 

Actually quite a few people have (quite seriously), and that works out at the optimum standard of living.

 

 

Of course it'll take people with your sort of belief system to actually carry it out.

[Fop 1]

Probably has a three page summarised report on the best way to attain those figures too

Plop.

The daft and ignorant can go first.

[ChezGiven 0]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

 

Yeah but the Secretary of State for Health and Joseph Stiglitz are on mine.

 

 

February 25, 2009:

 

AMY GOODMAN: And healthcare? [Obama has] called for universal healthcare, but he does not call for single-payer healthcare.

 

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that there are some fundamental problems in the efficiency of our healthcare system. And what we’ve seen is that the private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Do you support single-payer healthcare?

 

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think I’ve reluctantly come to the view that it’s the only alternative. You know, we’ve tried a lot of other things. And we’ve been—you know, I was in the Clinton administration, and we debated a lot of alternatives, and I’ve watched things as they’ve emerged and, you know, evolved over the last twelve, sixteen years, and I think there’s a growing consensus that the private market exclusion is not going to work.

 

 

Source

 

To paraphrase Alfred Marshall, one healthcare system's use of market forces shades imperceptibly into the next. Meaning that the degree to which you employ market forces is a highly variable factor with many shades of grey between a planned top-down NHS and a free market.

 

However, "single payer" does not mean a system like the NHS. France is a single payer (if you ignore the smallish private market), Germany is a single payer, Spain is regionalised into 15 authorities but again is ultimately a single payer.

 

So, what is Stiglitz saying by supporting a single-payer? More like the UK? More like France? You will have to look at how he believes healthcare finance should be raised. The UK raises it through general taxation, most of the rest of Europe raises it through hypothecated tax rates direct from income and encourages profit-based 'mutuelles' who fund top-up care for those in middle income jobs.

 

This is what i proposed in this thread, the move away from funding through taxation to a form of social insurance with the ability to top-up your cover with profit and non-profit 'mutuelles'. This is virtually a single payer model with market forces used to

 

a. Link funding to income more directly

b. Introduce competitive forces through the providers of social insurance

 

The deals on the table in the Senate at the moment wont be far away from this model and reflect that the US was far too far to the other side of Marshall's spetrum.

 

From this weeks The Economist.

America's House of Representatives turns its back on common sense over health care

 

BARACK OBAMA has been pushing leaders in both chambers of Congress to produce health-care bills before the August recess, with an eye to enacting reform before the end of the year. After weeks of wrangling among the three different House committees with partial jurisdiction over the matter, the House has pipped the Senate to the post. On Tuesday July 14th Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, unveiled a grand strategy for health reform that is so far to the left of American political discourse that even moderate Democrats in the Senate (never mind the incensed and irrelevant House Republicans) held their noses.

 

Put simply, the House bill hopes to achieve near-universal health coverage by soaking the rich. Unlike some earlier Senate drafts, which either did not cover most of the nearly 50m uninsured or whose costs were reckoned to be a whopping $1.5 trillion or so, this new effort is a serious runner. According to a preliminary judgment by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which “scores” such plans, the House bill is likely to cost about $1 trillion and cover some two-thirds of the uninsured. That is a good proportion, as many of the remainder are illegal immigrants who have no chance of getting subsidised coverage under any reform.

 

And the plan does this in apparently “budget neutral” fashion, a requirement that everyone in Washington agrees on. The snag? Rather than finance this large expansion of coverage through savings found within the health system, as Mr Obama had prudently requested, the Democratic party’s leadership plans to pay for it by imposing an ill-advised tax on business and a steep “surcharge” on the wealthy. Companies with payrolls bigger than $250,000 per year must provide health cover for employees or face a hefty fine. The bill also plans to raise over $500 billion by increasing taxes on those making over $350,000 a year by up to 5.4%.

 

By embracing these two taxes, the House rejected the financing method recommended by most economists. The tax preference given to health insurance provided by employers (over, say, the coverage bought by the self-employed) is a market distortion that costs the exchequer some $250 billion a year. Abolishing or even merely restricting that policy could pay for much or all of the cost of universal coverage, as well as boosting labour mobility and making the cost of coverage more transparent to consumers. This virtuous policy never had a chance in the House, because union members get some of the best insurance packages.

 

It may yet surface in the Senate, however, where two committees are working on reform, each with its own bill. The health committee has produced its version, but the finance committee, which has its own plan, has got bogged down on the crucial question of how to pay for reform. The Senate may curtail or cancel its August recess to complete this work.

 

What would a final Senate bill look like? Senate Democrats are unlikely to favour the House plan for tax increases. That would leave a hole, so the sensible, if unsexy, proposal for modifying the tax exclusion on employer-provided care could live to fight another day. Fat cats—and economists—can perhaps rest easy.

Edited July 20, 2009 by ChezGiven

[The Fish 10779]

Probably has a three page summarised report on the best way to attain those figures too

Plop.

The daft and ignorant can go first.

 

 

Shouldn't we just rid of who we don't like? Parky's irrational hatred thread would be a fine place to start.

[Park Life 71]

Probably has a three page summarised report on the best way to attain those figures too

Plop.

The daft and ignorant can go first.

 

 

Shouldn't we just rid of who we don't like? Parky's irrational hatred thread would be a fine place to start.

 

 

Excellent observation.

[Renton 21393]

It's rare that HF/Parky/Fop are on the same side...So we must be right.

 

Yeah but the Secretary of State for Health and Joseph Stiglitz are on mine.

 

 

February 25, 2009:

 

AMY GOODMAN: And healthcare? [Obama has] called for universal healthcare, but he does not call for single-payer healthcare.

 

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think that there are some fundamental problems in the efficiency of our healthcare system. And what we’ve seen is that the private healthcare insurers do not know how to deliver an efficient way.

 

AMY GOODMAN: Do you support single-payer healthcare?

 

JOSEPH STIGLITZ: I think I’ve reluctantly come to the view that it’s the only alternative. You know, we’ve tried a lot of other things. And we’ve been—you know, I was in the Clinton administration, and we debated a lot of alternatives, and I’ve watched things as they’ve emerged and, you know, evolved over the last twelve, sixteen years, and I think there’s a growing consensus that the private market exclusion is not going to work.

 

 

Source

 

To paraphrase Alfred Marshall, one healthcare system's use of market forces shades imperceptibly into the next. Meaning that the degree to which you employ market forces is a highly variable factor with many shades of grey between a planned top-down NHS and a free market.

 

However, "single payer" does not mean a system like the NHS. France is a single payer (if you ignore the smallish private market), Germany is a single payer, Spain is regionalised into 15 authorities but again is ultimately a single payer.

 

So, what is Stiglitz saying by supporting a single-payer? More like the UK? More like France? You will have to look at how he believes healthcare finance should be raised. The UK raises it through general taxation, most of the rest of Europe raises it through hypothecated tax rates direct from income and encourages profit-based 'mutuelles' who fund top-up care for those in middle income jobs.

 

This is what i proposed in this thread, the move away from funding through taxation to a form of social insurance with the ability to top-up your cover with profit and non-profit 'mutuelles'. This is virtually a single payer model with market forces used to

 

a. Link funding to income more directly

b. Introduce competitive forces through the providers of social insurance

 

The deals on the table in the Senate at the moment wont be far away from this model and reflect that the US was far too far to the other side of Marshall's spetrum.

 

From this weeks The Economist.

America's House of Representatives turns its back on common sense over health care

 

BARACK OBAMA has been pushing leaders in both chambers of Congress to produce health-care bills before the August recess, with an eye to enacting reform before the end of the year. After weeks of wrangling among the three different House committees with partial jurisdiction over the matter, the House has pipped the Senate to the post. On Tuesday July 14th Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, unveiled a grand strategy for health reform that is so far to the left of American political discourse that even moderate Democrats in the Senate (never mind the incensed and irrelevant House Republicans) held their noses.

 

Put simply, the House bill hopes to achieve near-universal health coverage by soaking the rich. Unlike some earlier Senate drafts, which either did not cover most of the nearly 50m uninsured or whose costs were reckoned to be a whopping $1.5 trillion or so, this new effort is a serious runner. According to a preliminary judgment by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which “scores” such plans, the House bill is likely to cost about $1 trillion and cover some two-thirds of the uninsured. That is a good proportion, as many of the remainder are illegal immigrants who have no chance of getting subsidised coverage under any reform.

 

And the plan does this in apparently “budget neutral” fashion, a requirement that everyone in Washington agrees on. The snag? Rather than finance this large expansion of coverage through savings found within the health system, as Mr Obama had prudently requested, the Democratic party’s leadership plans to pay for it by imposing an ill-advised tax on business and a steep “surcharge” on the wealthy. Companies with payrolls bigger than $250,000 per year must provide health cover for employees or face a hefty fine. The bill also plans to raise over $500 billion by increasing taxes on those making over $350,000 a year by up to 5.4%.

 

By embracing these two taxes, the House rejected the financing method recommended by most economists. The tax preference given to health insurance provided by employers (over, say, the coverage bought by the self-employed) is a market distortion that costs the exchequer some $250 billion a year. Abolishing or even merely restricting that policy could pay for much or all of the cost of universal coverage, as well as boosting labour mobility and making the cost of coverage more transparent to consumers. This virtuous policy never had a chance in the House, because union members get some of the best insurance packages.

 

It may yet surface in the Senate, however, where two committees are working on reform, each with its own bill. The health committee has produced its version, but the finance committee, which has its own plan, has got bogged down on the crucial question of how to pay for reform. The Senate may curtail or cancel its August recess to complete this work.

 

What would a final Senate bill look like? Senate Democrats are unlikely to favour the House plan for tax increases. That would leave a hole, so the sensible, if unsexy, proposal for modifying the tax exclusion on employer-provided care could live to fight another day. Fat cats—and economists—can perhaps rest easy.

 

A well thought out erudite post, looks slightly out of place on Toontastic.

 

I'm starting a post graduate certificate in health economics in September, perhaps in a years time I may understand this post.

[Park Life 71]

Couldn't they just cut defence spending?

[Renton 21393]

Couldn't they just cut defence spending?

 

Well, with CGI technology travelling to Mars should be a lot cheaper.

[ChezGiven 0]

Nice work Rents, you'll love it.

 

My empire is expanding! Mwahh hahahah.

[Fop 1]

Probably has a three page summarised report on the best way to attain those figures too

Plop.

The daft and ignorant can go first.

 

 

Shouldn't we just rid of who we don't like? Parky's irrational hatred thread would be a fine place to start.

 

 

Excellent observation.

 

Actually it's surprising how quickly we'd get there just by just stopping (or at least balancing with emigration) all immigration and no one in the UK having more than 1 child , of course that would mean the funocide would be lost.

[Happy Face 29]

To paraphrase Alfred Marshall, one healthcare system's use of market forces shades imperceptibly into the next. Meaning that the degree to which you employ market forces is a highly variable factor with many shades of grey between a planned top-down NHS and a free market.

 

However, "single payer" does not mean a system like the NHS. France is a single payer (if you ignore the smallish private market), Germany is a single payer, Spain is regionalised into 15 authorities but again is ultimately a single payer.

 

So, what is Stiglitz saying by supporting a single-payer? More like the UK? More like France? You will have to look at how he believes healthcare finance should be raised. The UK raises it through general taxation, most of the rest of Europe raises it through hypothecated tax rates direct from income and encourages profit-based 'mutuelles' who fund top-up care for those in middle income jobs.

 

This is what i proposed in this thread, the move away from funding through taxation to a form of social insurance with the ability to top-up your cover with profit and non-profit 'mutuelles'. This is virtually a single payer model with market forces used to

 

a. Link funding to income more directly

b. Introduce competitive forces through the providers of social insurance

 

The deals on the table in the Senate at the moment wont be far away from this model and reflect that the US was far too far to the other side of Marshall's spetrum.

 

I didn't think Stiglitz was starting up a bandwagon for state provided healthcare only. As always, the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

[Fop 1]

I'm starting a post graduate certificate in health economics in September, perhaps in a years time I may understand this post.

 

 

Unlikely.

[Park Life 71]

I'm starting a post graduate certificate in health economics in September, perhaps in a years time I may understand this post.

 

 

Unlikely.

 

What he hasn't had the correct vaccinations?

[Happy Face 29]

From this weeks The Economist.

America's House of Representatives turns its back on common sense over health care

 

BARACK OBAMA has been pushing leaders in both chambers of Congress to produce health-care bills before the August recess, with an eye to enacting reform before the end of the year. After weeks of wrangling among the three different House committees with partial jurisdiction over the matter, the House has pipped the Senate to the post. On Tuesday July 14th Nancy Pelosi, the speaker, unveiled a grand strategy for health reform that is so far to the left of American political discourse that even moderate Democrats in the Senate (never mind the incensed and irrelevant House Republicans) held their noses.

 

Put simply, the House bill hopes to achieve near-universal health coverage by soaking the rich. Unlike some earlier Senate drafts, which either did not cover most of the nearly 50m uninsured or whose costs were reckoned to be a whopping $1.5 trillion or so, this new effort is a serious runner. According to a preliminary judgment by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which “scores” such plans, the House bill is likely to cost about $1 trillion and cover some two-thirds of the uninsured. That is a good proportion, as many of the remainder are illegal immigrants who have no chance of getting subsidised coverage under any reform.

 

And the plan does this in apparently “budget neutral” fashion, a requirement that everyone in Washington agrees on. The snag? Rather than finance this large expansion of coverage through savings found within the health system, as Mr Obama had prudently requested, the Democratic party’s leadership plans to pay for it by imposing an ill-advised tax on business and a steep “surcharge” on the wealthy. Companies with payrolls bigger than $250,000 per year must provide health cover for employees or face a hefty fine. The bill also plans to raise over $500 billion by increasing taxes on those making over $350,000 a year by up to 5.4%.

 

By embracing these two taxes, the House rejected the financing method recommended by most economists. The tax preference given to health insurance provided by employers (over, say, the coverage bought by the self-employed) is a market distortion that costs the exchequer some $250 billion a year. Abolishing or even merely restricting that policy could pay for much or all of the cost of universal coverage, as well as boosting labour mobility and making the cost of coverage more transparent to consumers. This virtuous policy never had a chance in the House, because union members get some of the best insurance packages.

 

It may yet surface in the Senate, however, where two committees are working on reform, each with its own bill. The health committee has produced its version, but the finance committee, which has its own plan, has got bogged down on the crucial question of how to pay for reform. The Senate may curtail or cancel its August recess to complete this work.

 

What would a final Senate bill look like? Senate Democrats are unlikely to favour the House plan for tax increases. That would leave a hole, so the sensible, if unsexy, proposal for modifying the tax exclusion on employer-provided care could live to fight another day. Fat cats—and economists—can perhaps rest easy.

 

 

The Economist practices advocacy journalism in taking an editorial stance based on free trade and globalisation. It targets highly educated readers and claims an audience containing many influential executives and policy-makers.

The publication belongs to The Economist Group, half of which is owned by the Financial Times, a subsidiary of Pearson PLC. A group of independent shareholders, including many members of the staff and the Rothschild banking family of England, owns the rest.

 

It's no surprise they come out with the opinions in bold when they cater to the very richest people that would fall victim to the fully justified tax increases proposed to cover the plan.

 

The conclusion of the article is that if one social program is to be financed others should be cut to finance it....while Bush's tax cuts continue to reward the wealthy twice as much as middle income families who also do well out of them, while the poorest families are supposed to keep eating up their welfare cuts.

 

Families in the middle fifth of annual earnings, who had average incomes of $56,200 in 2004, saw their average effective tax rate edge down to 2.9 percent in 2004 from 5 percent in 2000. That translated to an average tax cut of $1,180 per household, but the tax rate actually increased slightly from 2003.

 

Tax cuts were much deeper, and affected far more money, for families in the highest income categories. Households in the top 1 percent of earnings, which had an average income of $1.25 million, saw their effective individual tax rates drop to 19.6 percent in 2004 from 24.2 percent in 2000. The rate cut was twice as deep as for middle-income families, and it translated to an average tax cut of almost $58,000.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08tax.html

 

I also wonder if they actually polled economists to see what "most" thought before making the claim. I know Krugman was all in favour of an increased tax solution last week...

Edited July 20, 2009 by Happy Face

[Fop 1]

You're on their hit list now.

[Park Life 71]

NicVos strikes back.

[ChezGiven 0]

Their opinion is as i'd expect it.

 

By embracing these two taxes, the House rejected the financing method recommended by most economists. The tax preference given to health insurance provided by employers (over, say, the coverage bought by the self-employed) is a market distortion that costs the exchequer some $250 billion a year. Abolishing or even merely restricting that policy could pay for much or all of the cost of universal coverage, as well as boosting labour mobility and making the cost of coverage more transparent to consumers. This virtuous policy never had a chance in the House, because union members get some of the best insurance packages.

 

Get rid of the inequitable and inefficient tax break for the rich, i.e. increase tax revenue by removing a badly designed incentive.

 

Not exactly 'free market'.

[ChezGiven 0]

NicVos strikes back.

 

 

Get a grip.

[Park Life 71]

In 30 years we'll have the best dependancy ratio in Europe.