What happened with health reform?

[ar81]

As it was advertised, health reform would introduce a European style health system.
However, the bill was severely modified, turning it into something that is quite similar to what it was before.
I might like to know from front row americans:
1.What is good and what is wrong about the bill as it was approved.
2.Why do you say that it causes deficit.
3.What changed for Americans, before and after the bill.

I might like to know from Europeans:
1.What is needed in US to become a european style health system
2.Why European system is better and cheaper than US system.

[Loki]

As it was advertised, health reform would introduce a European style health system.

No, it wasn't. Thread fail.

[Steely Glint]

As it was advertised, health reform would introduce a European style health system.

I think you mean, "as it was lied about by right wing pundits". Thread fail.

[earthJoker]

As it was advertised, health reform would introduce a European style health system.

What's that? Each European country has its own system

I might like to know from Europeans:
1.What is needed in US to become a european style health system
2.Why European system is better and cheaper than US system.

There is no "European system".

[ar81]

First, no one answered those questions. Could you please stay on topic?
Second, if you talk about European healthcare here are some references:
What Obama Can Learn from European Healthcare
European Health Systems: Still Better

[earthJoker]

Tell me which European healthcare system you mean and I might can answer. Obviously I have the best knowledge of the Swiss system.

[ar81]

Tell me which European healthcare system you mean and I might can answer. Obviously I have the best knowledge of the Swiss system.

That would work.

[Lebanese Dragon]

I know this concept is foreign to everyone here, but there is something to understanding the spirit of a question as opposed to attempting to answer it literally as stated, or poking holes in its structure, which is a waste of time, and is dumb.

The question can be phrased, what are the health changes that health care brings about as is, and what are the major pros and cons. Secondly will it save us money, and if so how?

The way it's going to save us money is that it'll cost us less to do than maintaining the current system we have in place. That is often a misguided con against the reform, they say we're taking money out of helping the elderly/out of the current system. That is true but we're reinvesting it in a new program that will accomplish helping out the same groups hopefully in a better manner.

[rumrunner]

Loki; SG; Joker could have been helpful to ar81 and still made the point that there is no centralized "European healthcare system". Joker could have said here in Switzerland we have a Blah-blah system where craptastical things happen and someone pays for it. Making it better because craptastic outweighs funkadelic (which is absurd, funkadelic kicks craptastic in nards). instead you all offered sarcasm and rhetoric. Meaningful dialogue averted.

Edit: I'm slow on the draw again.

[earthJoker]

I am not at all sarcastic this time. I know it's hard to think of Europe as a whole and as separate countries at the same time. But that's how it is, you have the EU and then a bunch of agreements but the health-care is something that is run by the countries.

[earthJoker]

That would work.

So what is the big difference. You need to have health insurance in most European countries. IIRC this is not the case with the new US reform. The Swiss system is divided in two kids of insurance, general and private/additional. The general insurance is regulated, the government decides which drugs/treatments are paid by the insurance. The private and additional ones are insurances on things that are not covered by the general one. Also the private insurance will pay you things like a single room in the hospital.
All kind of insurance are provided by private companies, the government is only regulating.
If you are to poor to pay the insurance you get support from the state (canton), I think this is very similar to the US reform.

In the end the reform will bring the US closer to the Swiss system with two differences. Switzerland has nothing similar to Medicare. The US has no obligation to be insured (IIRC)

[GGT]

Republicans in congress have been planning a "repeal and replace".

Up to half in U.S. have pre-existing conditions

WASHINGTON — As many as 129 million Americans under age 65 have medical problems putting them at risk of being rejected by insurance companies or having to pay more for coverage, according to a U.S. government study reported by the Washington Post on Tuesday.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41132734...h-health_care/

[rumrunner]

So what is the big difference. You need to have health insurance in most European countries. IIRC this is not the case with the new US reform. The Swiss system is divided in two kids of insurance, general and private/additional. The general insurance is regulated, the government decides which drugs/treatments are paid by the insurance. The private and additional ones are insurances on things that are not covered by the general one. Also the private insurance will pay you things like a single room in the hospital.
All kind of insurance are provided by private companies, the government is only regulating.
If you are to poor to pay the insurance you get support from the state (canton), I think this is very similar to the US reform.

In the end the reform will bring the US closer to the Swiss system with two differences. Switzerland has nothing similar to Medicare. The US has no obligation to be insured (IIRC)

Health insurance is mandated by the new healthcare law. That is the basis for the lawsuits some states are bringing against the government. They argue a free market comes with the option to not purchase a good service if the individual so chooses. Correctly so I feel.
I like the way you describe the Swiss system, the most basic of services are covered by the govt. If you want more, pay for it (with "additional insurance") yourself. A fair and reasonable, while simultaneously responsible system. How stringent are your immigration laws?

[earthJoker]

I like the way you describe the Swiss system, the most basic of services are covered by the govt. If you want more, pay for it (with "additional insurance") yourself. A fair and reasonable, while simultaneously responsible system. How stringent are your immigration laws?

They are only regulated by the government not covered, they insurance companies are still private companies. Unfortunately the "basic services" have been bloated so too many treadments are now covered. The result is that the insurance rates rise faster than the GDP.

Immigration to Switzerland depends weather you come from an EU country or not. If you are EU citizen you only need a job. If not it is harder, but not impossible.