Holland - An Alternative Health Care System
Toro @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:21 am
I find this debate on whether or not health care is better in Canada or the US to be stale - as if there are no other alternatives.
Well, here is one country that is a mixture of both. I am no expert on healthcare financing, but I feel the solution, or quasi-solution, between the problems in health care for Canada and America lies somewhere in between the two systems.
The Netherlands.
$1:
The Netherlands is using competition and a small dose of regulation to pursue what many in the U.S. hunger to achieve: health insurance for everyone, coupled with a tighter lid on costs.
Since a new system took effect here last year, cost growth is projected to fall this year to about 3% after inflation from 4.5% in 2006. Waiting lists are shrinking, and private health insurers are coming up with innovative ways to care for the sick.
The Dutch system features two key rules: All adults must buy insurance, and all insurers must offer a policy to anyone who applies, no matter how old or how sick. Those who can't afford to pay the premiums get help from the state, financed by taxes on the well-off.
The system hinges on competition among insurers. They are expected to cut premiums, persuade consumers to live healthier lives, and push hospitals to provide better and lower-cost care.
Some are already taking unusual steps. The insurance company Menzis has opened three of its own primary-care centers to serve the patients it insures, and plans to open dozens more in a move to lower costs. Rival UVIT offers discount vouchers to customers who buy low-cholesterol versions of yogurt, butter and milk.
To prevent insurers from seeking only young, healthy customers, the government compensates insurers for taking on higher-risk patients. Insurers get a "risk-equalization" payment for covering the elderly and those with certain conditions such as diabetes. ...
What works in the Netherlands, a small country of 16.6 million people, may not readily apply to America. A Dutch-style scheme would likely raise opposition among U.S. doctors and Republicans who are cautious about higher taxes. But many U.S. states are similar in size, and one, Massachusetts, is already experimenting with a universal-coverage scheme.
"The lesson for America is that this is what we ought to do," says Alain Enthoven, a professor at Stanford University.
Three decades ago, Prof. Enthoven published a pioneering proposal for what he called "managed competition," a version of which the Dutch have now adopted.
The Enthoven plan partly inspired the Clinton administration's failed health-care overhaul effort in the 1990s. It has now come full circle. Last October, an economist from the Dutch health ministry was invited to describe his country's new approach to about 50 Massachusetts politicians and policy makers in Boston, as the state was developing its own plan for mandatory health insurance. ...
The notion of competition among insurers is nothing new to Americans. Most Americans under 65 get insurance via their employer, which can compare plans and pick the one that it thinks offers the best coverage for the money. To cut costs, U.S. insurers bargain with doctors for discounted rates and try to weed out overbilling and frivolous treatments.
The system has failed to stop U.S. health costs from shooting up, and it has left many doctors complaining that their medical judgment is being second-guessed by bean counters. It isn't clear that a Dutch-style system, also centered on insurer competition, could do any better. Dutch doctors were among the most vociferous opponents of an overhaul and many remain skeptical.
Still, there are some differences in the Dutch way that may work to its advantage. One is the emphasis on individuals buying coverage. In the U.S., employers tend to be poor buyers of health care. They're unfamiliar with the needs of the people actually using the health care -- their employees -- and it is difficult for a large company to switch insurers.
By putting the onus on consumers, Dutch officials hope that more people will get the coverage they need. The "risk equalization" that helps Dutch insurers cover sicker people is also critical. In the U.S., competition among insurers often means competition to find the healthiest customers, especially in the individual market. ...
n late 2004, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law to usher in mandatory health insurance and switch people on state-run insurance to private carriers. But family doctors fretted that it would allow insurers to interfere in medical decisions, for example by pushing cheaper drugs.
The following May, thousands of Dutch general practitioners went on a three-day strike. Some tied their hands together with rope to symbolize their helplessness. In response, Mr. Hoogervorst promised to provide some protections for doctors in the new legislation. One of them was that patients wouldn't bear a big financial cost if they chose to go to a doctor not under contract with their insurer. Soon after, the senate approved the new plan.
It took effect on Jan. 1, 2006. Despite predictions of chaos, the changeover was surprisingly smooth. The government set up a Web site where consumers could analyze insurers' offerings. Consumers were allowed to switch insurers once a year. As 2006 approached, the health ministry predicted that only 5% would bother. Instead, nearly 20% of people switched, either to get a better price or because they were dissatisfied with their insurer. ...
In most European countries, consumers have no idea what their health insurance costs because they are covered by national health-insurance schemes financed by payroll taxes, as used to be the case in the Netherlands. On a visit to Germany last year, Mr. Hoogervorst boasted that thanks to his country's switch to private insurance paid by individuals, "no other European country has a population so keenly aware of the costs of their health-care insurance."
Now that they see the bills more clearly, some consumers feel their payments have gone up. In one survey mainly of labor-union members, about 70% said they were financially worse off in some ways. ...
The real test of the Dutch approach is yet to come: Can insurers push hospitals to lower their costs and improve their quality? Insurers have clout because they can direct large numbers of patients toward particular hospitals. But, in a holdover from the old system, insurers can currently negotiate prices for only 10% of the services hospitals offer. The figure will rise to 20% by the end of this year, and continue to go up.
Because Dutch hospitals used to receive fixed prices for their services, and got more money for more service regardless of quality, they had little incentive to improve their care. Under the new system, insurers should be providing that incentive, but Mr. Hoogervorst acknowledges, "There's still a long way to go to increase competition among hospitals." ...
Since a new system took effect here last year, cost growth is projected to fall this year to about 3% after inflation from 4.5% in 2006. Waiting lists are shrinking, and private health insurers are coming up with innovative ways to care for the sick.
The Dutch system features two key rules: All adults must buy insurance, and all insurers must offer a policy to anyone who applies, no matter how old or how sick. Those who can't afford to pay the premiums get help from the state, financed by taxes on the well-off.
The system hinges on competition among insurers. They are expected to cut premiums, persuade consumers to live healthier lives, and push hospitals to provide better and lower-cost care.
Some are already taking unusual steps. The insurance company Menzis has opened three of its own primary-care centers to serve the patients it insures, and plans to open dozens more in a move to lower costs. Rival UVIT offers discount vouchers to customers who buy low-cholesterol versions of yogurt, butter and milk.
To prevent insurers from seeking only young, healthy customers, the government compensates insurers for taking on higher-risk patients. Insurers get a "risk-equalization" payment for covering the elderly and those with certain conditions such as diabetes. ...
What works in the Netherlands, a small country of 16.6 million people, may not readily apply to America. A Dutch-style scheme would likely raise opposition among U.S. doctors and Republicans who are cautious about higher taxes. But many U.S. states are similar in size, and one, Massachusetts, is already experimenting with a universal-coverage scheme.
"The lesson for America is that this is what we ought to do," says Alain Enthoven, a professor at Stanford University.
Three decades ago, Prof. Enthoven published a pioneering proposal for what he called "managed competition," a version of which the Dutch have now adopted.
The Enthoven plan partly inspired the Clinton administration's failed health-care overhaul effort in the 1990s. It has now come full circle. Last October, an economist from the Dutch health ministry was invited to describe his country's new approach to about 50 Massachusetts politicians and policy makers in Boston, as the state was developing its own plan for mandatory health insurance. ...
The notion of competition among insurers is nothing new to Americans. Most Americans under 65 get insurance via their employer, which can compare plans and pick the one that it thinks offers the best coverage for the money. To cut costs, U.S. insurers bargain with doctors for discounted rates and try to weed out overbilling and frivolous treatments.
The system has failed to stop U.S. health costs from shooting up, and it has left many doctors complaining that their medical judgment is being second-guessed by bean counters. It isn't clear that a Dutch-style system, also centered on insurer competition, could do any better. Dutch doctors were among the most vociferous opponents of an overhaul and many remain skeptical.
Still, there are some differences in the Dutch way that may work to its advantage. One is the emphasis on individuals buying coverage. In the U.S., employers tend to be poor buyers of health care. They're unfamiliar with the needs of the people actually using the health care -- their employees -- and it is difficult for a large company to switch insurers.
By putting the onus on consumers, Dutch officials hope that more people will get the coverage they need. The "risk equalization" that helps Dutch insurers cover sicker people is also critical. In the U.S., competition among insurers often means competition to find the healthiest customers, especially in the individual market. ...
n late 2004, the Dutch House of Representatives passed a law to usher in mandatory health insurance and switch people on state-run insurance to private carriers. But family doctors fretted that it would allow insurers to interfere in medical decisions, for example by pushing cheaper drugs.
The following May, thousands of Dutch general practitioners went on a three-day strike. Some tied their hands together with rope to symbolize their helplessness. In response, Mr. Hoogervorst promised to provide some protections for doctors in the new legislation. One of them was that patients wouldn't bear a big financial cost if they chose to go to a doctor not under contract with their insurer. Soon after, the senate approved the new plan.
It took effect on Jan. 1, 2006. Despite predictions of chaos, the changeover was surprisingly smooth. The government set up a Web site where consumers could analyze insurers' offerings. Consumers were allowed to switch insurers once a year. As 2006 approached, the health ministry predicted that only 5% would bother. Instead, nearly 20% of people switched, either to get a better price or because they were dissatisfied with their insurer. ...
In most European countries, consumers have no idea what their health insurance costs because they are covered by national health-insurance schemes financed by payroll taxes, as used to be the case in the Netherlands. On a visit to Germany last year, Mr. Hoogervorst boasted that thanks to his country's switch to private insurance paid by individuals, "no other European country has a population so keenly aware of the costs of their health-care insurance."
Now that they see the bills more clearly, some consumers feel their payments have gone up. In one survey mainly of labor-union members, about 70% said they were financially worse off in some ways. ...
The real test of the Dutch approach is yet to come: Can insurers push hospitals to lower their costs and improve their quality? Insurers have clout because they can direct large numbers of patients toward particular hospitals. But, in a holdover from the old system, insurers can currently negotiate prices for only 10% of the services hospitals offer. The figure will rise to 20% by the end of this year, and continue to go up.
Because Dutch hospitals used to receive fixed prices for their services, and got more money for more service regardless of quality, they had little incentive to improve their care. Under the new system, insurers should be providing that incentive, but Mr. Hoogervorst acknowledges, "There's still a long way to go to increase competition among hospitals." ...
WSJ
Brenda @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 7:44 am
Well, I am not so happy with the new system. First, it is mandatory. Second, it is expensive. I can only talk about our personal situation, not about everybody or majority.
What I experienced, is that I pay (as a small business owner without employees, which we were before the new system) much much more. Then, we paid € 45,-- per month, that included partial dental and full drugs coverage. € 45,-- per month x 12 x 2 + € 17,60 x 12 x 2 (for the kids)= about € 1500,--.
Now, we pay € 75,-- a month x 12 x 2 (kids are free), without dental, without drug coverage, and the first € 500,-- are your own costs. This costs us € 1800,--. If I want FULL coverage, I am to pay € 312,16 per month.
(x12 = € 3745,92 per year)
Because we own a small business, we also pay the employers part, which is 6.25 % of your anual income, with a max of € 1825,--.
So, we have an insurance that doesn't cover much, and I pay 3 times as much.
We still have waiting lists in hospitals, we still have to little family doctors. Dentists are more expensive than insurance covers (you can insure yourself ofcourse, we didn't do that, too expensive), you can insure drugs, but it still doesn't cover all.
This is a lot of money when you never see your doctor 
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:31 am
That idiotic "tax on the well-off" is a recipe for your "well-off" citizens to emigrate to Ireland along with their money.
Penalizing people for their success is as stupid as one can get. Look at Ireland where there's no such tax structure and the Irish are now Europe's richest people (per capita).
Just twenty years ago they were the poorest. And they also had a 99% tax rate for their "well-off" citizens.
Consequently, they had no well-off citizens. 
This is where I seriously oppose socialized medicine. The whole concept of making other people subsidize non-productive people - such as the muslim immigrants who refuse to learn Dutch and who refuse to assimilate and are therefore unemployable - offends me at my core.
It is nothing more than government sponsored theft to take one person's hard-earned money away from them at gunpoint just to hand it to someone else.
If these people want health insurance then let them earn it.
If they refuse to earn it then screw them.
Brenda @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:37 am
You are considered "well-off" here if you don't collect welfare...
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:41 am
lily lily:
At gunpoint?
If you don't pay your taxes people with guns come after you to take you to jail and if you resist they shoot you.
lily lily:
Some people are TRYING to earn their health insurance, Bart. Not everyone can be wildly successful - sometimes life gets in the way of one's best plans.
You consider people who can pay their own way in life to be "wildly successful"?
bootlegga @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:55 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
That idiotic "tax on the well-off" is a recipe for your "well-off" citizens to emigrate to Ireland along with their money.
Penalizing people for their success is as stupid as one can get. Look at Ireland where there's no such tax structure and the Irish are now Europe's richest people (per capita).
Just twenty years ago they were the poorest. And they also had a 99% tax rate for their "well-off" citizens.
Consequently, they had no well-off citizens.
This is where I seriously oppose socialized medicine. The whole concept of making other people subsidize non-productive people - such as the muslim immigrants who refuse to learn Dutch and who refuse to assimilate and are therefore unemployable - offends me at my core.
It is nothing more than government sponsored theft to take one person's hard-earned money away from them at gunpoint just to hand it to someone else.
If these people want health insurance then let them earn it.
If they refuse to earn it then screw them.
Penalizing people for their success is as stupid as one can get. Look at Ireland where there's no such tax structure and the Irish are now Europe's richest people (per capita).
Just twenty years ago they were the poorest. And they also had a 99% tax rate for their "well-off" citizens.
Consequently, they had no well-off citizens.
This is where I seriously oppose socialized medicine. The whole concept of making other people subsidize non-productive people - such as the muslim immigrants who refuse to learn Dutch and who refuse to assimilate and are therefore unemployable - offends me at my core.
It is nothing more than government sponsored theft to take one person's hard-earned money away from them at gunpoint just to hand it to someone else.
If these people want health insurance then let them earn it.
If they refuse to earn it then screw them.
99%? I'd like to see a link to prove that...until then I'll remain skeptical.
Progressive taxation is no big deal unless it's onerous (like that 99% would be). Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing people who make 7 figure incomes (that's what I'd call well off). Justify it all you want, but no hockey player/CEO/plastic surgeon really NEEDS to earn 5 million a year. Even if the government takes 75% of 5 million, you still have over a million dollars annually. Even in Alberta, you don't need more than about $100,000/year to live quite well. Two married professionals can quite easily make that.
Once again, that's a fundamental difference between Canada and the US. Here we believe in the group and down there, they tend to believe in the individual. Nothing is wrong with either system IMO. I just prefer our system to yours.
I don't know about 'socialized' medicine anywhere but Alberta, but here everyone is pays health care premiums. The only people who don't pay premiums are very low income people, like students and the very poor (less than $10,000 a year income last time I checked). We have private clinics that compete with each other (eye care, dentists, and a few other specialists like orthopedics) but their fees are regulated by the government.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:10 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
99%? I'd like to see a link to prove that...until then I'll remain skeptical.
Here you go: http://www.freema.org/Events/Papers/gurdgiev.pdf
That's the closest to describing the Irish tax structure during the 1970's that I can find on the net - the USA had a 98% upper income tax bracket during the 1950's and that tax rate was repealed by John F. Kennedy which helped the country recover from the 1958-1961 recession. My cousins who used to live in Galway moved to the US in the mid 1980's to escape the unfair tax burden on their business and moved back three years ago now that the tax rates on businesses are limited to 12.5%.
The UK well into the 1980's had an upper income tax rate of 95% which the Beatles documented in their song "Tax Man"; there's one for you, nineteen for me.
Canada used to have pretty high tax rates, too, as I recall.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:24 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
Progressive taxation is no big deal unless it's onerous (like that 99% would be). Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with taxing people who make 7 figure incomes (that's what I'd call well off). Justify it all you want, but no hockey player/CEO/plastic surgeon really NEEDS to earn 5 million a year. Even if the government takes 75% of 5 million, you still have over a million dollars annually. Even in Alberta, you don't need more than about $100,000/year to live quite well. Two married professionals can quite easily make that.
The problem here is with your perspective. The people you cite as high income earners earn their money. No one gives it to them. Their earnings are a result of their talents and labors and creativity and the market rewards them accordingly. So-called 'progressive' taxation schemes penalize people who are uniquely talented or skilled. Consequently, such people who will reap higher rewards by emigrating will do so. Or they'll organize their affairs to avoid the punitive tax rates. Either way, your country is denied their productivity.
bootlegga bootlegga:
Once again, that's a fundamental difference between Canada and the US. Here we believe in the group and down there, they tend to believe in the individual. Nothing is wrong with either system IMO. I just prefer our system to yours.
And a good many highly productive Canadians prefer our system to yours. Thanks for encouraging them to move down here, they make great Americans.
bootlegga bootlegga:
I don't know about 'socialized' medicine anywhere but Alberta, but here everyone is pays health care premiums. The only people who don't pay premiums are very low income people, like students and the very poor (less than $10,000 a year income last time I checked). We have private clinics that compete with each other (eye care, dentists, and a few other specialists like orthopedics) but their fees are regulated by the government.
And no small number of Canadians still come south for their medical treatments. I wonder why?
bootlegga @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:06 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
The problem here is with your perspective. The people you cite as high income earners earn their money. No one gives it to them. Their earnings are a result of their talents and labors and creativity and the market rewards them accordingly. So-called 'progressive' taxation schemes penalize people who are uniquely talented or skilled. Consequently, such people who will reap higher rewards by emigrating will do so. Or they'll organize their affairs to avoid the punitive tax rates. Either way, your country is denied their productivity.
The only problem with my view is from your perspective. You are right that hockey players, CEOs et al 'earn' their salaries in that they go to work and do a job. My problem is that they are paid exobitantly for this job, which in a lot of cases are grown men/women acting like kids; playing sports, acting in movies, etc. CEOs 'earn' their money by living off the misery of others, laying people off, damaging economies, ripping apart companies, supporting sweatshops, etc. all for a select group of shareholders. Wal-mart for example has destroyed thousands of smaller companies in its race to the top/bottom of the retail food chain. And they are not the first (and won't be the last) to do so. Personally, I don't think any CEO deserves a higher salary than the President of the USA, which IMHO, is a much tougher job than acting, playing sports or running a company with 50,000 employees. After all, he is directly responsible for 300 million people and indirectly (through his actions) hundreds of millions more.
Personally, if those people want to leave, then they're free to do so. I didn't cry a single tear when Bryan Adams became a UK citizen to pay lower taxes and I won't do it for anyone else either. Same goes for Jim Carrey, Brett Hull or any of other dozens of Canadians who've chosen to adopt other nationalities. Is Canada really any worse that Bryan Adams doesn't pay taxes here anymore? Not really...I can still hear his music whenever I want on the radio. Yes, we loses a few million in taxes, but he loses competitive advantages in the Canadian marketplace (CanCon for example). A fair trade-off I'd say.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
And a good many highly productive Canadians prefer our system to yours. Thanks for encouraging them to move down here, they make great Americans.
You're more than welcome to them. The ones that stay are usually willing to be apart of Canada the way it is now. I have no problem with Canada being a little less productive than the USA if our way of life remains the same.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
And no small number of Canadians still come south for their medical treatments. I wonder why?
And no small number of Americans come north for prescription drugs. I wonder why?
Every American I know personally (I don't mean on the Internet, but have met and actually know), believes Canada has the superior health care system? Neither is 100% than the other all the time, but on the whole, I'd say ours is pretty damned good. And it costs far less than yours does. IMHO, your vastly higher health care costs and user fees are a hidden form a taxation, and if added into the mix, would probably mean our taxes are much closer than most Americans would like to admit.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:34 am
Boot, what difference does it make to you what someone else's income is?
So what if some hockey player makes $5 mil per year?
I always go to the wall in such discussions and I'll ask you the same thing I always ask of people who are concerned with someone else's income:
Should there be a maximum wage law?
Should the government put a limit on how much money anyone can earn in a given year?
If a million dollars is all you really need, then would it be reasonable to limit salaries and compensation to no more than that amount?
Brenda @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:40 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Boot, what difference does it make to you what someone else's income is?
So what if some hockey player makes $5 mil per year?
I always go to the wall in such discussions and I'll ask you the same thing I always ask of people who are concerned with someone else's income:
Should there be a maximum wage law?
Should the government put a limit on how much money anyone can earn in a given year?
If a million dollars is all you really need, then would it be reasonable to limit salaries and compensation to no more than that amount?
So what if some hockey player makes $5 mil per year?
I always go to the wall in such discussions and I'll ask you the same thing I always ask of people who are concerned with someone else's income:
Should there be a maximum wage law?
Should the government put a limit on how much money anyone can earn in a given year?
If a million dollars is all you really need, then would it be reasonable to limit salaries and compensation to no more than that amount?
That is exactly what our Minister of Finance is trying to do
Not in government owned business, but in normal companies...
bootlegga @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:03 am
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Boot, what difference does it make to you what someone else's income is?
So what if some hockey player makes $5 mil per year?
I always go to the wall in such discussions and I'll ask you the same thing I always ask of people who are concerned with someone else's income:
Should there be a maximum wage law?
Should the government put a limit on how much money anyone can earn in a given year?
If a million dollars is all you really need, then would it be reasonable to limit salaries and compensation to no more than that amount?
So what if some hockey player makes $5 mil per year?
I always go to the wall in such discussions and I'll ask you the same thing I always ask of people who are concerned with someone else's income:
Should there be a maximum wage law?
Should the government put a limit on how much money anyone can earn in a given year?
If a million dollars is all you really need, then would it be reasonable to limit salaries and compensation to no more than that amount?
With a progressive tax system, it is in essence a maximum wage law.
Personally, I see no problem with paying a lot to those who really contribute to society (like a brain surgeon for example) as opposed to plastic surgeons who specialize in liposuction. It's when hockey players, actors and others, who in a real survival situation would starve to death, make more than regular people (in their entire life) that you know the system isn't working. For a year or two after 9/11, firefighters were called heroes but paid crap. Why?
Call me a commie/marxist/whatever but the consumerist society we have where everyone tries to outdo each other is a huge waste of resources. For example, I see no reason why Arnie needs four Hummers. If he wants one I can understand that, but four? I don't know when, but this continual "Keeping up with the Joneses" will have to come to an end at some time. Whether that's because the world runs out of resources or because the barbarians are at the gates I don't know, but it can't last forever.
Say what you want about markets and capitalism and so on, but Phil Esposito, a huge hockey star in the 70s, used to work in a lumber mill in the summer to pay the bills. Nowadays, hockey players drive Ferraris. Something's not right with that picture IMO.
BartSimpson @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:22 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
With a progressive tax system, it is in essence a maximum wage law.
You're very sharp to see where I was going.
bootlegga bootlegga:
Personally, I see no problem with paying a lot to those who really contribute to society (like a brain surgeon for example) as opposed to plastic surgeons who specialize in liposuction.
Why not? Plastic surgeons do more than just liposuction, they repair people's faces after car crashes and etc. And what's wrong with a talented surgeon earning more than an average surgeon by doing elective surgeries?
bootlegga bootlegga:
It's when hockey players, actors and others, who in a real survival situation would starve to death, make more than regular people (in their entire life) that you know the system isn't working. For a year or two after 9/11, firefighters were called heroes but paid crap. Why?
Because a relative handful of people play hockey at the professional level and tens of thousands of people are awesome firefighters. Supply and demand dictates here.
bootlegga bootlegga:
Call me a commie/marxist/whatever but the consumerist society we have where everyone tries to outdo each other is a huge waste of resources.
Not everyone does. We're all free to choose our own path.
bootlegga bootlegga:
For example, I see no reason why Arnie needs four Hummers. If he wants one I can understand that, but four? I don't know when, but this continual "Keeping up with the Joneses" will have to come to an end at some time. Whether that's because the world runs out of resources or because the barbarians are at the gates I don't know, but it can't last forever.
Again, why not? The USA has had twenty-four straight years of economic expansion despite the naysayers telling us that it could only run for so many years in a row.
bootlegga bootlegga:
Say what you want about markets and capitalism and so on, but Phil Esposito, a huge hockey star in the 70s, used to work in a lumber mill in the summer to pay the bills. Nowadays, hockey players drive Ferraris. Something's not right with that picture IMO.
What wasn't right was that Phil Esposito made so little while the owners of the NHL were rolling in money likes pigs in mud. These days the hockey players are enjoying a more proper portion of the wealth that their labors generate.
In truth, they really are receiving a fair wage.
Scape @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:56 am
Brenda Brenda:
Well, I am not so happy with the new system. First, it is mandatory. Second, it is expensive. I can only talk about our personal situation, not about everybody or majority.
What I experienced, is that I pay (as a small business owner without employees, which we were before the new system) much much more. Then, we paid € 45,-- per month, that included partial dental and full drugs coverage. € 45,-- per month x 12 x 2 + € 17,60 x 12 x 2 (for the kids)= about € 1500,--.
Now, we pay € 75,-- a month x 12 x 2 (kids are free), without dental, without drug coverage, and the first € 500,-- are your own costs. This costs us € 1800,--. If I want FULL coverage, I am to pay € 312,16 per month.
(x12 = € 3745,92 per year)
Because we own a small business, we also pay the employers part, which is 6.25 % of your anual income, with a max of € 1825,--.
So, we have an insurance that doesn't cover much, and I pay 3 times as much.
We still have waiting lists in hospitals, we still have to little family doctors. Dentists are more expensive than insurance covers (you can insure yourself ofcourse, we didn't do that, too expensive), you can insure drugs, but it still doesn't cover all.
This is a lot of money when you never see your doctor
What I experienced, is that I pay (as a small business owner without employees, which we were before the new system) much much more. Then, we paid € 45,-- per month, that included partial dental and full drugs coverage. € 45,-- per month x 12 x 2 + € 17,60 x 12 x 2 (for the kids)= about € 1500,--.
Now, we pay € 75,-- a month x 12 x 2 (kids are free), without dental, without drug coverage, and the first € 500,-- are your own costs. This costs us € 1800,--. If I want FULL coverage, I am to pay € 312,16 per month.
(x12 = € 3745,92 per year)
Because we own a small business, we also pay the employers part, which is 6.25 % of your anual income, with a max of € 1825,--.
So, we have an insurance that doesn't cover much, and I pay 3 times as much.
We still have waiting lists in hospitals, we still have to little family doctors. Dentists are more expensive than insurance covers (you can insure yourself ofcourse, we didn't do that, too expensive), you can insure drugs, but it still doesn't cover all.
This is a lot of money when you never see your doctor
You can't opt out? Are you making any savings on the tax end yet? Are there any improvement on the quality of care since they dropped dental and eye cover? Are they doing anything like edrug?
bootlegga @ Thu Sep 06, 2007 12:42 pm
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Why not? Plastic surgeons do more than just liposuction, they repair people's faces after car crashes and etc. And what's wrong with a talented surgeon earning more than an average surgeon by doing elective surgeries?
Yes they do, but I specifically said those who specialize in Lipo...of which there are plenty in California.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Because a relative handful of people play hockey at the professional level and tens of thousands of people are awesome firefighters. Supply and demand dictates here.
But if they are heroes, don't they truly deserve more than what supply/demand dictate?
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Not everyone does. We're all free to choose our own path.
Yes, but a large majority of North Americans are sheep and simply follow the pack, buying/leasing a new car every few years, constantly getting bigger TVs, and so on.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
Again, why not? The USA has had twenty-four straight years of economic expansion despite the naysayers telling us that it could only run for so many years in a row.
The reason it can't last forever is simply because we will eventually run out of resources to make cars, computers, TVs, and all the other trappings of our consumerist society. It also can't last forever because eventually everyone on Earth will want 2 cars, a huge house and all the other shit we have. Either that, or we will become so consumed with bigger TVs and cheap crap that we will destroy our own industries amd manufacture them overseas (so that CEOs can have their share price increase a buck or two and justify their huge salaries), so that when the next war happens, we will have no way (or possibly even will) to defend ourselves...wait a minute, I think we've already started down that path.
BartSimpson BartSimpson:
In truth, they really are receiving a fair wage.
You and I possess very different morals if you think that someone who plays a game for 30 minutes a night deserves millions of dollars annually.