Healthcare Reform? Let's Take a Close Look at Some Examples Abroad: Republicans won the presidency and majorities in Congress based in part on promises to replace Obamacare.

Rivers

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in Congress based in part on promises to replace Obamacare. Nonetheless, with so many Republicans facing re-election in states that voted for Clinton, the strategy of “repeal and replace” is easier said than done. Furthermore, in view of the challenges involved in garnering enough votes for the “Obama-Lite” alternative that barely passed the House, Republicans appear to be running out of options.

If the “gradualist” strategy is so problematic, why not move to single payer? In Japan, healthcare spending makes up only 10% of GDP even though it has the world’s highest percentage of people 65 or older. In the U.S. it is an appalling 17% (Fig. 1). Japan also has the world’s lowest infant mortality, while in America this healthcare indicator exceeds that of all other developed nations with a comparable GDP (Fig. 2). If lack of access to healthcare is responsible for this shocking statistic, why not “get with the program” and shift these costs to taxpayers as they do in nearly all other affluent nations?

Before turning over 17% of GDP to the government, we should not overlook one extraordinary exception to this worldwide trend: Singapore is second only to Japan in having the world’s lowest infant mortality (Fig. 2) even though it has the least-subsidized healthcare in the developed world (Fig. 1). Singapore also stands apart from other developed nations in that it spends less than 5% of its GDP on healthcare (Fig. 1). If privatization works so well in Singapore, why have market forces failed so miserably in America?

While it is common knowledge that increasing the supply or decreasing the demand results in lower costs, many overlook the importance of having a critical mass of savvy customers shopping around for the best deals. This selective pressure ensures that the product or service gets better and cheaper for all consumers. In Singapore, patients shop around because co-payments cover a considerable portion of their medical bills and everyone is required to have a health savings account. In the single-payer systems that predominate in Europe, it is the government that does the shopping and bargaining. In America, health maintenance organizations stabilized prices in the 1990s by bargaining with providers and rationing services. However, many patients objected to “managed care” and the ensuing backlash resulted in government mandates that limited what these HMOs could do to cut costs. In the absence of a conscientious buyer, hyperinflation resumed by the end of the decade. Even though European governments provide healthcare at a lower cost, Americans who want to replace Obamacare with single payer should be careful what they wish for. More on this later.

Another reliable strategy for lowering costs is deregulation. We need not look abroad to see this principle applies to medical services: The cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. has remained remarkably stable despite a huge increase in demand. This has been attributed largely to a streamlined regulatory process that makes it easier for competitors to enter the market and for cost-cutting innovations to get approved.

Competition between providers intensifies when there is a lower demand. The Canadian government lowers demand for healthcare by rationing, which in turn results in lower prices. Singapore presumably reduces demand by investing in health education. Even though this city-state has one of the lowest obesity rates in the developed world, how much this can be attributed to health education is debatable. At any rate, there is growing evidence that obesity increases the risk of infant mortality in affluent countries (Fig. 3). Strategies for curbing obesity in the U.S. are beyond the scope of the article, but its presumptive role in neonatal mortality underscores the seriousness of this problem in America. It also discredits the narrative that “lack of access” to healthcare is largely responsible for infant mortality in America.

As more insurers withdraw from the exchanges it becomes increasingly evident that Obamacare was meant to fail in order to pave the way for single payer. Many welcome this transition because they fear a return to the “bad old days” when people with costly pre-existing conditions were justifiably reluctant to change jobs. But since so many Americans rebelled when their healthcare choices were delegated to HMOs in the 1990s, they might have second thoughts after the government becomes the only HMO in town. Hence, the Singapore model of putting patients more in control may be the most viable option. After all, an important restraint on the cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. is that clients usually pay out of pocket.

In all fairness, Singapore differs from the U.S. in many other ways; including walkability, home ownership rates, and transportation policies for minimizing gridlock. Even though none of these variables relate directly to healthcare, all of them affect risk factors like obesity and stress. Anyone who believes that this island nation’s policies will automatically achieve the same level of success in the U.S. is being disingenuous. Nonetheless, the Singapore model shows that there are alternatives to single payer for making healthcare both cost-effective and accessible. Furthermore, since policymakers in single-payer nations like Australia are also looking to Singapore for ways to contain healthcare costs, this model may provide valuable lessons for all nations regardless as to how healthcare is financed.

See charts, and article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/healthcare_reform_lets_take_a_close_look_at_some_examples_abroad.html

S. Maturin

Rivers wrote:

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in Congress based in part on promises to replace Obamacare. Nonetheless, with so many Republicans facing re-election in states that voted for Clinton, the strategy of “repeal and replace” is easier said than done. Furthermore, in view of the challenges involved in garnering enough votes for the “Obama-Lite” alternative that barely passed the House, Republicans appear to be running out of options.

If the “gradualist” strategy is so problematic, why not move to single payer? In Japan, healthcare spending makes up only 10% of GDP even though it has the world’s highest percentage of people 65 or older. In the U.S. it is an appalling 17% (Fig. 1). Japan also has the world’s lowest infant mortality, while in America this healthcare indicator exceeds that of all other developed nations with a comparable GDP (Fig. 2). If lack of access to healthcare is responsible for this shocking statistic, why not “get with the program” and shift these costs to taxpayers as they do in nearly all other affluent nations?

Before turning over 17% of GDP to the government, we should not overlook one extraordinary exception to this worldwide trend: Singapore is second only to Japan in having the world’s lowest infant mortality (Fig. 2) even though it has the least-subsidized healthcare in the developed world (Fig. 1). Singapore also stands apart from other developed nations in that it spends less than 5% of its GDP on healthcare (Fig. 1). If privatization works so well in Singapore, why have market forces failed so miserably in America?

While it is common knowledge that increasing the supply or decreasing the demand results in lower costs, many overlook the importance of having a critical mass of savvy customers shopping around for the best deals. This selective pressure ensures that the product or service gets better and cheaper for all consumers. In Singapore, patients shop around because co-payments cover a considerable portion of their medical bills and everyone is required to have a health savings account. In the single-payer systems that predominate in Europe, it is the government that does the shopping and bargaining. In America, health maintenance organizations stabilized prices in the 1990s by bargaining with providers and rationing services. However, many patients objected to “managed care” and the ensuing backlash resulted in government mandates that limited what these HMOs could do to cut costs. In the absence of a conscientious buyer, hyperinflation resumed by the end of the decade. Even though European governments provide healthcare at a lower cost, Americans who want to replace Obamacare with single payer should be careful what they wish for. More on this later.

Another reliable strategy for lowering costs is deregulation. We need not look abroad to see this principle applies to medical services: The cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. has remained remarkably stable despite a huge increase in demand. This has been attributed largely to a streamlined regulatory process that makes it easier for competitors to enter the market and for cost-cutting innovations to get approved.

Competition between providers intensifies when there is a lower demand. The Canadian government lowers demand for healthcare by rationing, which in turn results in lower prices. Singapore presumably reduces demand by investing in health education. Even though this city-state has one of the lowest obesity rates in the developed world, how much this can be attributed to health education is debatable. At any rate, there is growing evidence that obesity increases the risk of infant mortality in affluent countries (Fig. 3). Strategies for curbing obesity in the U.S. are beyond the scope of the article, but its presumptive role in neonatal mortality underscores the seriousness of this problem in America. It also discredits the narrative that “lack of access” to healthcare is largely responsible for infant mortality in America.

As more insurers withdraw from the exchanges it becomes increasingly evident that Obamacare was meant to fail in order to pave the way for single payer. Many welcome this transition because they fear a return to the “bad old days” when people with costly pre-existing conditions were justifiably reluctant to change jobs. But since so many Americans rebelled when their healthcare choices were delegated to HMOs in the 1990s, they might have second thoughts after the government becomes the only HMO in town. Hence, the Singapore model of putting patients more in control may be the most viable option. After all, an important restraint on the cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. is that clients usually pay out of pocket.

In all fairness, Singapore differs from the U.S. in many other ways; including walkability, home ownership rates, and transportation policies for minimizing gridlock. Even though none of these variables relate directly to healthcare, all of them affect risk factors like obesity and stress. Anyone who believes that this island nation’s policies will automatically achieve the same level of success in the U.S. is being disingenuous. Nonetheless, the Singapore model shows that there are alternatives to single payer for making healthcare both cost-effective and accessible. Furthermore, since policymakers in single-payer nations like Australia are also looking to Singapore for ways to contain healthcare costs, this model may provide valuable lessons for all nations regardless as to how healthcare is financed.

See charts, and article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/healthcare_reform_lets_take_a_close_look_at_some_examples_abroad.html

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in C... (show quote)

The more I read and hear about that abomination called OBAMACARE the more I realize Pelosi lied to us all. When that disreputable woman said, "We have to pass it to see what's in it..", she and Obama knew exactly what was in it. What that bill contained was the instrument meant to result in the destruction of th republic... a fundamental transformation of a democratic republic into a socialist dictatorship.

They knew.

Babsan

S. Maturin wrote:

The more I red and hear about that abomination called OBAMACARE the more I realize Pelosi lied to us all. When that disreputable woman said, "We have to pass it to see what's in it..", she and Obama knew exactly what was in it. What that bill contained was the instrument meant to result in the destruction of th republic... a fundamental transformation of a democratic republic into a socialist dictatorship.

They knew.

Remember,the Muslim FRAUD told all the STUPID voters at the "Greek collonades" that we was going to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA" and all the sheeple clapping hands in the 2007?grand standing

S. Maturin

Babsan wrote:

Remember,the Muslim FRAUD told all the STUPID voters at the "Greek collonades" that we was going to "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE AMERICA" and all the sheeple clapping hands in the 2007?grand standing

A minority of working, striving, tax-paying sloggers - like me- have encouraged the growth of a huge population of no-ambition, below-avg. IQ people to benefit by being parasitic forever and forever dependent. A lot of what is now trying desperately to drive us to ground was that of our own doing. We fostered the growth of a massive demprog-type that could never exist in the hard world of reality that our forbears knew.

My entire family and almost all of our associates always worked, always kept reality and common sense in high regard.

Geez; most of the demprogs cannot tell for certain whether they are of one sex or another. Confusion of that degree was unheard of before this effete mob of tender fools. Incredible.

So, seeing so many think Obama was their new savior and Hillary was their great queen... well...

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

I cannot believe the number of working age people I have come in contact with that are fine with living off a meager government check (SS disability for many) as long as they can sit around all day playing video games or texting. Many want to live with their parents. As long as they have their gadgets they are happy. This group cares little who would control them as long as their basic needs are taken care of.

S. Maturin wrote:

A minority of working, striving, tax-paying slogge... (show quote)

EL Loc: Massachusetts

JFlorio wrote:

I cannot believe the number of working age people I have come in contact with that are fine with living off a meager government check (SS disability for many) as long as they can sit around all day playing video games or texting. Many want to live with their parents. As long as they have their gadgets they are happy. This group cares little who would control them as long as their basic needs are taken care of.

Did you ever think you would see Americans like those we're hearing from today? I didn't. And, I shouldn't have called them Americans. They're FAR from it!

Babsan

EL wrote:

Did you ever think you would see Americans like those we're hearing from today? I didn't. And, I shouldn't have called them Americans. They're FAR from it!

We have to realize it took 4-5 generations to DUMB down the people to this extent.The Democrats infiltrated Communists into the school system in the 50's and it took this long to reach 2008 election

S. Maturin

JFlorio wrote:

I cannot believe the number of working age people I have come in contact with that are fine with living off a meager government check (SS disability for many) as long as they can sit around all day playing video games or texting. Many want to live with their parents. As long as they have their gadgets they are happy. This group cares little who would control them as long as their basic needs are taken care of.

Classic.

A lot of people do about as little as they can possibly get away with doing. And, get this..we're culpable; we encourage legislators to pass laws encouraging exactly that bad behavior.

bggamers Loc: georgia

Rivers wrote:

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in Congress based in part on promises to replace Obamacare. Nonetheless, with so many Republicans facing re-election in states that voted for Clinton, the strategy of “repeal and replace” is easier said than done. Furthermore, in view of the challenges involved in garnering enough votes for the “Obama-Lite” alternative that barely passed the House, Republicans appear to be running out of options.

If the “gradualist” strategy is so problematic, why not move to single payer? In Japan, healthcare spending makes up only 10% of GDP even though it has the world’s highest percentage of people 65 or older. In the U.S. it is an appalling 17% (Fig. 1). Japan also has the world’s lowest infant mortality, while in America this healthcare indicator exceeds that of all other developed nations with a comparable GDP (Fig. 2). If lack of access to healthcare is responsible for this shocking statistic, why not “get with the program” and shift these costs to taxpayers as they do in nearly all other affluent nations?

Before turning over 17% of GDP to the government, we should not overlook one extraordinary exception to this worldwide trend: Singapore is second only to Japan in having the world’s lowest infant mortality (Fig. 2) even though it has the least-subsidized healthcare in the developed world (Fig. 1). Singapore also stands apart from other developed nations in that it spends less than 5% of its GDP on healthcare (Fig. 1). If privatization works so well in Singapore, why have market forces failed so miserably in America?

While it is common knowledge that increasing the supply or decreasing the demand results in lower costs, many overlook the importance of having a critical mass of savvy customers shopping around for the best deals. This selective pressure ensures that the product or service gets better and cheaper for all consumers. In Singapore, patients shop around because co-payments cover a considerable portion of their medical bills and everyone is required to have a health savings account. In the single-payer systems that predominate in Europe, it is the government that does the shopping and bargaining. In America, health maintenance organizations stabilized prices in the 1990s by bargaining with providers and rationing services. However, many patients objected to “managed care” and the ensuing backlash resulted in government mandates that limited what these HMOs could do to cut costs. In the absence of a conscientious buyer, hyperinflation resumed by the end of the decade. Even though European governments provide healthcare at a lower cost, Americans who want to replace Obamacare with single payer should be careful what they wish for. More on this later.

Another reliable strategy for lowering costs is deregulation. We need not look abroad to see this principle applies to medical services: The cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. has remained remarkably stable despite a huge increase in demand. This has been attributed largely to a streamlined regulatory process that makes it easier for competitors to enter the market and for cost-cutting innovations to get approved.

Competition between providers intensifies when there is a lower demand. The Canadian government lowers demand for healthcare by rationing, which in turn results in lower prices. Singapore presumably reduces demand by investing in health education. Even though this city-state has one of the lowest obesity rates in the developed world, how much this can be attributed to health education is debatable. At any rate, there is growing evidence that obesity increases the risk of infant mortality in affluent countries (Fig. 3). Strategies for curbing obesity in the U.S. are beyond the scope of the article, but its presumptive role in neonatal mortality underscores the seriousness of this problem in America. It also discredits the narrative that “lack of access” to healthcare is largely responsible for infant mortality in America.

As more insurers withdraw from the exchanges it becomes increasingly evident that Obamacare was meant to fail in order to pave the way for single payer. Many welcome this transition because they fear a return to the “bad old days” when people with costly pre-existing conditions were justifiably reluctant to change jobs. But since so many Americans rebelled when their healthcare choices were delegated to HMOs in the 1990s, they might have second thoughts after the government becomes the only HMO in town. Hence, the Singapore model of putting patients more in control may be the most viable option. After all, an important restraint on the cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. is that clients usually pay out of pocket.

In all fairness, Singapore differs from the U.S. in many other ways; including walkability, home ownership rates, and transportation policies for minimizing gridlock. Even though none of these variables relate directly to healthcare, all of them affect risk factors like obesity and stress. Anyone who believes that this island nation’s policies will automatically achieve the same level of success in the U.S. is being disingenuous. Nonetheless, the Singapore model shows that there are alternatives to single payer for making healthcare both cost-effective and accessible. Furthermore, since policymakers in single-payer nations like Australia are also looking to Singapore for ways to contain healthcare costs, this model may provide valuable lessons for all nations regardless as to how healthcare is financed.

See charts, and article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/healthcare_reform_lets_take_a_close_look_at_some_examples_abroad.html

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in C... (show quote)

I have a prexsisting and do agree we need to be in different level of care . what most dont take into account is the millions of baby boomer who were going to drop into the system I had to come off obama care because in less then 5 mo they jacked my rate from 275 to 475 so instead of being retired had to go back to work for the insurance till medicare came through. What most dont realize when you come off obama care they make you pay back the tax rebate now am stuck with a 1600.00 bill

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

Oh yea, and if you're self-employed and make more than you estimated. You're going to owe the ACA more money in the form of a fine. The people that argue for the ACA invariably aren't on it. Can't figure out why the whole country isn't up in arms when the politicians don't have to be on a plan they devise for the rest of us. That little fact should tell everyone just how good or bad something is.

bggamers wrote:

I have a prexsisting and do agree we need to be in different level of care . what most dont take into account is the millions of baby boomer who were going to drop into the system I had to come off obama care because in less then 5 mo they jacked my rate from 275 to 475 so instead of being retired had to go back to work for the insurance till medicare came through. What most dont realize when you come off obama care they make you pay back the tax rebate now am stuck with a 1600.00 bill

bggamers Loc: georgia

JFlorio wrote:

Oh yea, and if you're self-employed and make more than you estimated. You're going to owe the ACA more money in the form of a fine. The people that argue for the ACA invariably aren't on it. Can't figure out why the whole country isn't up in arms when the politicians don't have to be on a plan they devise for the rest of us. That little fact should tell everyone just how good or bad something is.

If they were on our level they sure would be more careful but as I saw something yesterday they thing we are stupid and gullible.

Sassy Lass

Rivers wrote:

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in Congress based in part on promises to replace Obamacare. Nonetheless, with so many Republicans facing re-election in states that voted for Clinton, the strategy of “repeal and replace” is easier said than done. Furthermore, in view of the challenges involved in garnering enough votes for the “Obama-Lite” alternative that barely passed the House, Republicans appear to be running out of options.

If the “gradualist” strategy is so problematic, why not move to single payer? In Japan, healthcare spending makes up only 10% of GDP even though it has the world’s highest percentage of people 65 or older. In the U.S. it is an appalling 17% (Fig. 1). Japan also has the world’s lowest infant mortality, while in America this healthcare indicator exceeds that of all other developed nations with a comparable GDP (Fig. 2). If lack of access to healthcare is responsible for this shocking statistic, why not “get with the program” and shift these costs to taxpayers as they do in nearly all other affluent nations?

Before turning over 17% of GDP to the government, we should not overlook one extraordinary exception to this worldwide trend: Singapore is second only to Japan in having the world’s lowest infant mortality (Fig. 2) even though it has the least-subsidized healthcare in the developed world (Fig. 1). Singapore also stands apart from other developed nations in that it spends less than 5% of its GDP on healthcare (Fig. 1). If privatization works so well in Singapore, why have market forces failed so miserably in America?

While it is common knowledge that increasing the supply or decreasing the demand results in lower costs, many overlook the importance of having a critical mass of savvy customers shopping around for the best deals. This selective pressure ensures that the product or service gets better and cheaper for all consumers. In Singapore, patients shop around because co-payments cover a considerable portion of their medical bills and everyone is required to have a health savings account. In the single-payer systems that predominate in Europe, it is the government that does the shopping and bargaining. In America, health maintenance organizations stabilized prices in the 1990s by bargaining with providers and rationing services. However, many patients objected to “managed care” and the ensuing backlash resulted in government mandates that limited what these HMOs could do to cut costs. In the absence of a conscientious buyer, hyperinflation resumed by the end of the decade. Even though European governments provide healthcare at a lower cost, Americans who want to replace Obamacare with single payer should be careful what they wish for. More on this later.

Another reliable strategy for lowering costs is deregulation. We need not look abroad to see this principle applies to medical services: The cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. has remained remarkably stable despite a huge increase in demand. This has been attributed largely to a streamlined regulatory process that makes it easier for competitors to enter the market and for cost-cutting innovations to get approved.

Competition between providers intensifies when there is a lower demand. The Canadian government lowers demand for healthcare by rationing, which in turn results in lower prices. Singapore presumably reduces demand by investing in health education. Even though this city-state has one of the lowest obesity rates in the developed world, how much this can be attributed to health education is debatable. At any rate, there is growing evidence that obesity increases the risk of infant mortality in affluent countries (Fig. 3). Strategies for curbing obesity in the U.S. are beyond the scope of the article, but its presumptive role in neonatal mortality underscores the seriousness of this problem in America. It also discredits the narrative that “lack of access” to healthcare is largely responsible for infant mortality in America.

As more insurers withdraw from the exchanges it becomes increasingly evident that Obamacare was meant to fail in order to pave the way for single payer. Many welcome this transition because they fear a return to the “bad old days” when people with costly pre-existing conditions were justifiably reluctant to change jobs. But since so many Americans rebelled when their healthcare choices were delegated to HMOs in the 1990s, they might have second thoughts after the government becomes the only HMO in town. Hence, the Singapore model of putting patients more in control may be the most viable option. After all, an important restraint on the cost of cosmetic surgery in the U.S. is that clients usually pay out of pocket.

In all fairness, Singapore differs from the U.S. in many other ways; including walkability, home ownership rates, and transportation policies for minimizing gridlock. Even though none of these variables relate directly to healthcare, all of them affect risk factors like obesity and stress. Anyone who believes that this island nation’s policies will automatically achieve the same level of success in the U.S. is being disingenuous. Nonetheless, the Singapore model shows that there are alternatives to single payer for making healthcare both cost-effective and accessible. Furthermore, since policymakers in single-payer nations like Australia are also looking to Singapore for ways to contain healthcare costs, this model may provide valuable lessons for all nations regardless as to how healthcare is financed.

See charts, and article: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/05/healthcare_reform_lets_take_a_close_look_at_some_examples_abroad.html

Republicans won the presidency and majorities in C... (show quote)

I don't know why people are so concerned about infant mortality rates when we are so willing to sacrifice 60 million babies to the abortion mills. Just sayin'...

JFlorio Loc: Seminole Florida

In PC parlance the typical voter is naïve. In my parlance they're dumber than hell. Most vote on promises. Promises that usually consist of someone saying "here's what I am going to give you." Just like the left losing their minds over the new health care bill, House version. No one knows what this will look like. I imagine, and hope it takes months to complete. Let the ACA implode like it will. Show people what a piece of crap this bill was.

bggamers wrote:

If they were on our level they sure would be more careful but as I saw something yesterday they thing we are stupid and gullible.

S. Maturin

Sassy Lass wrote:

I don't know why people are so concerned about infant mortality rates when we are so willing to sacrifice 60 million babies to the abortion mills. Just sayin'...

Good/excellent point.

I also find it entertaining that whenever demprogs devise some failing plan or another, they simply change the name of the thing and then 50% of Americans think the problem has been solved.

Ex: Obamacare turned to poop, so now it's ACA!. See ?

Sassy Lass

S. Maturin wrote:

Good/excellent point.

I also find it entertaining that whenever demprogs devise some failing plan or another, they simply change the name of the thing and then 50% of Americans think the problem has been solved.

Ex: Obamacare turned to poop, so now it's ACA!. See ?

Well know it's an excellent plan when Congress and the Senate use the same plan! When it's good for them, it's great for us 👍🏻