From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Re Will 92 Be Like 76?
Date: 15 Oct 92 23:35:29 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
>dmw@ece.cmu.edu writes:
>
>
>>One exception might be national health insurance, since it can be
>>argued that it is just transfering the health care administration
>>from companies to the government, with the companies and individuals
>>still paying for it through taxes.
>
>Since the government now spends much more per person on health care than
>private industry, costs would rise enormously (which isn't in the budget).

>The Canadian process is also touted, but Canada saves money by not
>providing many items which Americans aren't willing to do without.
>This solution is also not politically possible.

Outside of basic medical coverage, Canadian health insurance (which
pays out to private doctors, and private and public hospitals on a
single fee scale negotiated by the former with the provincial health
insurance) is still private for supplemental non-medical (e.g. for a
private (single) hospital room, travel, dental, etc.) with private
providers.  Essentially, the private insurance sector kept the high
profit/least hassle portion -- this is one thing to keep in mind IF
history ever repeats itself in the United States (France, with the
same system to Canada, see 75% of its citizens buy private health
insurance of the same nature, or receive it as benefits from their
jobs according to France Magazine, Summer 1992).  In a hypothetical
American scenario, private health insurance stock prices may become
depressed during the changeover confusion but can recover or even be
better than ever with basic health care out of the market and the
profitable, non-life preserving portion of coverage retaine (whether
basic health care is market or non-market is an issue, and culturally
relative e.g., Canada-Europe vs. USA).

Another thing to note about the Canadian situation is that their
population is only 26 Million people (1/11th of the US) and very
geographically imbalanced at that.  Shortages of some procedures occur
because they simply lack the population base, and is also compounded
by preventive care being available in the first place (Canadian health
insurance will pay for most medical travel, and note that Americans
from states the same size as Ontario must still travel).  That is a
positive aspect of universal health insurance; however, the savings
are only realized in administration (only one public insurance plan
per province, outside of private providers mentioned) and preventive
medicine because the citizens have insurance ... however, there are no
controls over how citizens actually spend their benefits.  Canada's
situation is pretty steady state, and there was no health care crisis
in effect when that system went into transition through the 60's and
ending about 20 years ago.  The United States faces an unknown cost
timebomb among an uninsured/underinsured population the size of
California's ... a factor to keep in mind for any evaluation in
your economic crystal ball.

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare				
> gld@cunixB.cc.columbia.EDU		Oct 26/92: Just say "OUI!"
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			(Let's worry about the economy!)
Newsgroups: misc.invest