By all means, Let's have health care like France . . . . .

[CO. Hoosier]

At one time, France's health care system was rated among the best. Looks like France is running out of other people's money. Not only is France convulsing with its pension reform, it now appears that health care is headed south on a fast track:

"Public hospitals are collapsing," read a joint statement published in November in Le Monde newspaper by 70 public health chiefs from Paris hospitals who feared the crisis was reaching an "irreversible breaking point".

"For decades, the French public hospital system has acquired a reputation for excellence and international renown, ensuring the most modern care for children and adults, that is accessible to all, as well as research and training missions," said the statement.

"We alert you because this system is collapsing and we are no longer able to carry out our jobs in good conditions and to provide quality and safe care."

The problems they listed were many and varied, but also very familiar: Budget cuts, slashing the number of available beds, closures of operating rooms, staff positions that remain unfilled, overworked nurses and doctors and carers suffering from exhaustion.

The result, they say, is that access to care is reduced as is the quality of treatment patients receive.

"Access to diagnostic, medical and surgical care at public hospitals is now extremely difficult, and those in charge of treatment and care are demotivated," they said adding that waiting times for urgent treatment were lengthening.
​

Now the doctors have resigned their supervisory positions in protest to the sad state of health care. There is a lesson to be learned here. A one size fits all universal care government system has inherent risks that a diverse and competitive system won't have. That risk is that a system weakness, or even collapse, will always be a big deal and would not be limited by the inherent nature of different competitive entities. Is it wise to have such an important aspect of humanity concentrated in a single system? There are advantages, France is showing us a disadvantage.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

A one size fits all universal care government system has inherent risks that a diverse and competitive system won't have.

You don't think our system isn't chock full of overworked nurses, doctors and other caregivers suffering from exhaustion who are increasingly unable to provide quality and safe care? I've got news for you.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

You don't think our system isn't chock full of overworked nurses, doctors and other caregivers suffering from exhaustion who are increasingly unable to provide quality and safe care? I've got news for you.

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case in some areas.

Now, reread my post and think about my point. You missed it.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case in some areas.

Now, reread my post and think about my point. You missed it.

Trust me, it's the case in most areas. Examples of where it's not the case are exceptions, not the rule.

No I didn't miss your point. I chose to comment on that particular part of it however, because implicit in your post was the idea that going to a single-payer necessarily means overworked healthcare workers. And it doesn't. Single-payer is not in itself a panacea. Any system needs to be constructed and managed well for it to work long term. I don't know enough about France's particular system to speak to whether or not it has been mismanaged. On the other hand, I'm not willing to get on board with the idea that France's example is proof positive that single payer systems inherently won't work.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

implicit in your post was the idea that going to a single-payer necessarily means overworked healthcare workers.

That is your inference, not my implication.

single payer systems inherently won't work.

I didn't imply that either.

So far you got an 0-for.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

That is your inference, not my implication.

Well unless you specifically disagree with their enumerating overworked healthcare workers as one of the results of their failed system, then yes it was your implication.

I didn't imply that either.

So far you got an 0-for.

Right, you didn't imply it - you outright stated it. Here: I'll quote you again, you must have missed it the first time:

There is a lesson to be learned here. A one size fits all universal care government system has inherent risks that a diverse and competitive system won't have.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Well unless you specifically disagree with their enumerating overworked healthcare workers as one of the results of their failed system, then yes it was your implication.


Right, you didn't imply it - you outright stated it. Here: I'll quote you again, you must have missed it the first time:

Still 0-for. Think about the quote you highlighted.

 

[Cream&Crimson]

Still 0-for. Think about the quote you highlighted.

I suggest you do the same.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I suggest you do the same.

Look, my point is about the benefits of a diverse competitive system that doesn't rely on a single source for funding and standards of patient care. That is a separate issue from being overworked which probably can happen in any system.

 

[hoot1]

Before we think about changes in our health care system and look at what other countries have done, we really should learn what other countries are doing.

The French system, for example may surprise many Americans as this article suggests. The article in part has this to say,

For starters, the French system is not what most Americans imagine, says historian Paul Dutton at Northern Arizona University, author of Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France

"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."

France, like the United States, relies on both private insurance and government insurance. Also, just like in America, people generally get their insurance through their employer.

In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.

He says the French want pretty much the same thing as Americans: choice and more choice.

​

 

[hoosboot]

By all means, Let's have health care like France . . . . .

Um...okay.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Before we think about changes in our health care system and look at what other countries have done, we really should learn what other countries are doing.

The French system, for example may surprise many Americans as this article suggests. The article in part has this to say,

For starters, the French system is not what most Americans imagine, says historian Paul Dutton at Northern Arizona University, author of Differential Diagnoses: A Comparative History of Health Care Problems and Solutions in the United States and France

"Americans assume that if it's in Europe, which France is, that it's socialized medicine," he says. "The French don't consider their system socialized. In fact, they detest socialized medicine. For the French, that's the British, that's the Canadians. It's not the French system."

France, like the United States, relies on both private insurance and government insurance. Also, just like in America, people generally get their insurance through their employer.

In France, everyone has health care. However, unlike in Britain and Canada, there are no waiting lists to get elective surgery or see a specialist, Dutton says.

He says the French want pretty much the same thing as Americans: choice and more choice.

​

Administering and providing French health care is highly centralized. For example:

Virtually all GPs in France are "conventioned", i.e. they have signed a contract with the national health insurance scheme to provide their services in the framework of the national health service, at the rates agreed nationally.
​

A highly centralized system does have advantages, but when the system weakens or runs into trouble, everybody suffers. Like France now. When the system is distributed among many different providers who compete for business, the risk of system collapse is considerably less.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

At one time, France's health care system was rated among the best. Looks like France is running out of other people's money. Not only is France convulsing with its pension reform, it now appears that health care is headed south on a fast track:

"Public hospitals are collapsing," read a joint statement published in November in Le Monde newspaper by 70 public health chiefs from Paris hospitals who feared the crisis was reaching an "irreversible breaking point".

"For decades, the French public hospital system has acquired a reputation for excellence and international renown, ensuring the most modern care for children and adults, that is accessible to all, as well as research and training missions," said the statement.

"We alert you because this system is collapsing and we are no longer able to carry out our jobs in good conditions and to provide quality and safe care."

The problems they listed were many and varied, but also very familiar: Budget cuts, slashing the number of available beds, closures of operating rooms, staff positions that remain unfilled, overworked nurses and doctors and carers suffering from exhaustion.

The result, they say, is that access to care is reduced as is the quality of treatment patients receive.

"Access to diagnostic, medical and surgical care at public hospitals is now extremely difficult, and those in charge of treatment and care are demotivated," they said adding that waiting times for urgent treatment were lengthening.
​

Now the doctors have resigned their supervisory positions in protest to the sad state of health care. There is a lesson to be learned here. A one size fits all universal care government system has inherent risks that a diverse and competitive system won't have. That risk is that a system weakness, or even collapse, will always be a big deal and would not be limited by the inherent nature of different competitive entities. Is it wise to have such an important aspect of humanity concentrated in a single system? There are advantages, France is showing us a disadvantage.

Administering and providing French health care is highly centralized. For example:

Virtually all GPs in France are "conventioned", i.e. they have signed a contract with the national health insurance scheme to provide their services in the framework of the national health service, at the rates agreed nationally.
​

A highly centralized system does have advantages, but when the system weakens or runs into trouble, everybody suffers. Like France now. When the system is distributed among many different providers who compete for business, the risk of system collapse is considerably less.

as i've stated many times, single negotiator is the key.. single payer just adds many efficiencies and eliminates inequities.

without single negotiator, (as France and everybody else but us has), there is literally zero way to hold down costs, which is why we spend over double what everybody else does.

and Medicare isn't socialized medicine, only socialized funding. (our military would be an example of something socialized).

the big problem with employer based healthcare is two fold.

1), your healthcare and your family's healthcare are dependent on your employer and tied to your job, and if your employer doesn't cover you and subsidize you, or you don't like your job or boss, or you aren't employed, you're totally sht outta luck.

2), having a $1,000 mo per employee fixed cost healthcare anchor attached to every full time employee has absolutely horrible ramifications on hiring/firing, staffing, pay, and competitiveness.

it's just a brain dead moronic way to do healthcare.

that said, if France was spending even 60% on healthcare what we are, i doubt they'd have any funding problems.

that said, with anything govt does, no matter how well they do it, if it can be monetized, there will always be powerful capitalistic forces trying to sabotage it, in hopes of privatizing it.

 

[hoot1]

as i've stated many times, single negotiator is the key.. single payer just adds many efficiencies and eliminates inequities.

without single negotiator, (as France and everybody else but us has), there is literally zero way to hold down costs, which is why we spend over double what everybody else does.

and Medicare isn't socialized medicine, only socialized funding. (our military would be an example of something socialized).

the big problem with employer based healthcare is two fold.

1), your healthcare and your family's healthcare are dependent on your employer and tied to your job, and if your employer doesn't cover you and subsidize you, or you don't like your job or boss, or you aren't employed, you're totally sht outta luck.

2), having a $1,000 per employee fixed cost healthcare anchor attached to every full time employee has absolutely horrible ramifications on hiring/firing, staffing, pay, and competitiveness.

it's just a brain dead moronic way to do healthcare.

that said, if France was spending even 60% on healthcare what we are, i doubt they'd have any funding problems.

that said, with anything govt does, no matter how well they do it, if it can be monetized, there will always be powerful capitalistic forces trying to sabotage it, in hopes of privatizing it.

Our Cooler longtime contributor did acknowledge a centralized administrator does have advantages.

He also mentioned when a highly centralized plan faces problems then everyone suffers. On this point, I would somewhat agree, except to point out to say "everyone suffers" may be a stretch. In addition all plans regarding health plans, including ours, have to be adjusted over time. A big example being a growing older age problem which both France and ourselves face.