Europeans Warn Against Government Healthcare
ASSOCIATED PRESS -- "I would warn Americans that once the government gets its nose into health care, it's hard to stop the dangerous effects later," said Valentin Petkantchin, of the Institut Economique Molinari in France. He said many private providers have been pushed out, forcing a dependence on an overstretched public system.
"The minute you make health insurance mandatory, people start overusing it," said Dr. Alphonse Crespo, an orthopedic surgeon and research director at Switzerland's Institut Constant de Rebecque. "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium."
Government influence in health care may also stifle innovation, other experts warn. Bureaucracies are slow to adopt new medical technologies. In Britain and Germany, even after new drugs are approved, access to them is complicated because independent agencies must decide if they are worth buying. When the breast cancer drug Herceptin was proven to be effective in 1998, it was available almost immediately in the U.S. But it took another four years for the U.K. to start buying it for British breast cancer patients.
"Government control of health care is not a panacea," said Philip Stevens, of International Policy Network, a London think-tank. "The U.S. health system is a bit of a mess, but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe, I'd be nervous about recommending more government involvement."
7 Comments:
but based on what's happened in some countries in Europe
What has happened? Better results with half the costs? OH NO! The horror!
Nationalized health systems in other countries will no longer be slow to adopt medicines that are developed in the US after Obama's plan. Eventually, there won't be any new medicines developed in the US.
What has happened? Better results with half the costs? OH NO! The horror!
Delusional
What has happened? Better results with half the costs? OH NO! The horror!
What better results? Please don't say life expectancy, which has little to do with health care and much more to do with lifestyle (and ethnicity -- at least in this country where Asian Americans have an expectancy of 85 years).
Or maybe you want to trot out that WHO ranking that was cited in Sicko? The one that places Colombia ahead of the US?
You can't cut health care costs by stimulating demand. You have to increase supply of health care providers. Obama doesn't understand....
The citizens of EU countries are free to move around and get their healthcare from the country where they pay their taxes. This gives them a menu of more than 20 different government healthcare plans to choose from, and that provides controls on the reach of those governments. Of course, healthcare comes along with the total government package of whichever country they work in, but that's what a common labor-capital-consumer market provides. The EU creates competition for governance and does not impose social welfare programs and also does not directly tax individuals or businesses to pay for them. If the US took this approach, the states would compete more meaningfully and the US would attract more capital and more talented and skilled people. It would be interesting to see if any state would then offer universal health care. It is quite possible that European countries eventually won't.
Money quote: "If I have a cold, I might go see a doctor because I am already paying a health insurance premium."
I am a US health care provider---people from all "walks of insurance" will come in to be treated for a cold. Have seen that for the past 20 years, both in the civilian and military health care systems.
What else is new?
Post a Comment
<< Home