Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)
36. Yet European plans are cheaper than ours and far more generous.
Mon Jan 18, 2016, 05:52 AM
Jan 2016

When I lived in Austria, they introduced a co-pay for medications. It was almost too small to even count. They introduced it at that time to discourage people from overusing the system.

Right now, in our system, Americans tend to underuse the system, that is seek medical help only after their problem has reached a critical stage. That's because of the cost of the care in spite of insurance.

It's been a long time, but I recall having a cesarean and a two-week hospital stay -- yes two weeks back then -- and virtually no charges.

Single payer really does save a lot of money. I was a horrible patient. I was very American about going to the doctor too late and too rarely. I didn't realize how American that was until I came back to the US and had to fight with our healthcare system.

Single payer really does save a lot of money and makes preventive care more likely to occur.

When I was having a September baby, the local pediatrician in the small town in which I lived called all of her patients who were having babies in late summer and early fall in to her office and advised us on parenting. She told us to watch and make sure our children were really ready for school before the September when they turned six, the age at which Austrian children start school. She explained that children who are not mature enough to start school even though they are six in September have a big disadvantage later in school.

I will never forget that she told us to never say "no" to her children. (I tried, but that system did not work well for me. I soon realized that what she really meant was that we should not over-discipline or hit or yell at a small child. Because of the culture of child-rearing in Austria, she went to a bit of an extreme in her advice. As an American, I tended to be a bit too lax so I had to say "no" gently but say it and it worked well. She told us that if our babies wanted to tear up books or something, we should just give them newspaper to tear up. This sounds odd to Americans, but it was great in the social context of Austria. It's things like that, extras, that you get under single payer that actually save money in the end. It's hard to explain to you why advice from a pediatrician on child psychology and gentle discipline might save healthcare problems later on. It's a cultural thing. In a culture in which maybe corporal punishment was at one time condoned, in a single payer system having a pediatrician discuss communication with children with expecting mothers is a good thing.

Here, we might want the pediatrician to warn mothers about guns in the home or about alcohol abuse during pregnancy, smoking during pregnancy, watching for signs of maturity in a child about to begin school. We might want a pediatrician to warn about the signs and activities that constitute child abuse -- like whipping or beating a child. Our juvenile dependency courts deal with parents who are amazingly ignorant when it comes to how to treat young children.

Single payer offers opportunities for preventing medical problems that our for-profit insurance system simply does not offer. We need not only universal, but also comprehensive health care. Doctors and nurses should be teaching us how to take care of ourselves and others and not just healing us after we have hurt ourselves. There is little incentive to do that in a pay for procedure for-profit healthcare insurance system.

I must say that Kaiser is a healthcare insurance plan that does a lot more of this kind of preventive care than some other insurance companies.

So the savings in single payer plans is there and if you enjoy such a plan you can see it but it is hard to quantify on a spread sheet.

One less child with whip marks and a skull fracture is the kind of thing that single payer can be better for than is for-profit insurance.

I am writing this based on my experience living in four European countries and enjoying their single payer plans when my children were born and were young.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It's a chimera. Congress will never pass it. His math is vague, too. MADem Jan 2016 #1
Ideologues work within a small area using broad strokes- KittyWampus Jan 2016 #47
Sounds like his too-big-to-fail bill. ucrdem Jan 2016 #2
As a Sanders supporter, I am sad to have to agree with Ezra Klein. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #3
It gives people a very good look at what to expect. Do all candidates release massive, completed in_cog_ni_to Jan 2016 #5
You're right, but I think he needs more evidence that what he is proposing can work. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #6
Why wouldn't it work? Kentonio Jan 2016 #17
Oh I think it *can* work, but it requires diligence to ensure that the plan put forward will. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #18
I don't disagree, but at this moment in time a huge policy document Kentonio Jan 2016 #19
+1. You're right. I just hope they have more specifics in mind, that this isn't the extent JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #23
I doubt this is the extent. Kentonio Jan 2016 #26
We are fortunate in that we can look at the many existing single payer plans to see what JDPriestly Jan 2016 #35
I assume you are kidding, right? mikehiggins Jan 2016 #25
No, I'm not kidding. Yes it answers HRC's disingenuous attacks. It does not completely satisfy me. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #27
Um... This is more than a "devil is in the details" scenario. Meldread Jan 2016 #29
If your claims are true, then why do France and the UK, just to cite two examples, JDPriestly Jan 2016 #31
They do deliver it for a fraction of the cost. Meldread Jan 2016 #37
By paying providers much less than we do Recursion Jan 2016 #41
France must have changed its plan. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #64
Perinatal care and some surgeries are exempt Recursion Jan 2016 #65
France enid602 Jan 2016 #52
I think the concept is what is important at this point Armstead Jan 2016 #45
Considering the fact this is Sanders wheelhouse and it's the best he can come up with? KittyWampus Jan 2016 #48
Can we at least wait until Robert Reich looks at it and not rely on Ezra Klein. draa Jan 2016 #8
Can someone brief me on why Ezra Klein is bad? I seem to have missed it. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #15
For one, he's not an economist as far as I know. draa Jan 2016 #22
I knew it was Ezra before I clicked the link. in_cog_ni_to Jan 2016 #4
Hillary lost the debate on health care. Kalidurga Jan 2016 #7
No, she defended ACA and Sanders couldn't. That's a win for Hill. nt ucrdem Jan 2016 #10
The audience gasped Kalidurga Jan 2016 #11
Indeed-- Bernie was powerful on healthcare, Hillary really flailed Fast Walker 52 Jan 2016 #46
Oh, she loves insurance companies leeching off of us! Do you too! Yay for you! cascadiance Jan 2016 #28
+1, Sanders WOULDN'T defend ACA... he didn't like it from the beginning. uponit7771 Jan 2016 #33
So her plan is to tinker with the ACA.... Armymedic88 Jan 2016 #9
Welcom to DU Kalidurga Jan 2016 #12
Thanks for the Welcome Armymedic88 Jan 2016 #14
If Clinton gets the Dem nomination, who will you support for Pres? uppityperson Jan 2016 #56
I will support progressive dems on the local level Armymedic88 Jan 2016 #57
That is good, and for Pres? uppityperson Jan 2016 #58
I honestly havent decided because that had yet to occur Armymedic88 Jan 2016 #61
If I were queen of the universe, things would be different. uppityperson Jan 2016 #62
I guess the question is if GP6971 Jan 2016 #59
"Puppies-and-rainbows approach". Yup, sounds familiar. (eom) oasis Jan 2016 #13
He addressed that during the debate AgingAmerican Jan 2016 #16
He posts on the sensible center.com? ejbr Jan 2016 #20
Gee, memory fails me Kall Jan 2016 #21
Obama promised savings of $2500 per family n/t MichMan Jan 2016 #44
Vermont proved that. nt SunSeeker Jan 2016 #24
The only reason that Bernie's plan seems vague is that those who criticize it have not JDPriestly Jan 2016 #30
The problem with this plan has nothing to do with it being vague. Meldread Jan 2016 #34
Yet European plans are cheaper than ours and far more generous. JDPriestly Jan 2016 #36
I am not saying that Single Payer isn't cheaper than the overall system we have right now. Meldread Jan 2016 #38
His plan does indeed cost 'essentially nothing' when compared to what we now have eridani Jan 2016 #40
That was snuffed out in the first line where employers were to pay 6.2% and not pass a dime of it .. uponit7771 Jan 2016 #32
employers currently providing health insurance will on average be paying much less Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #43
So Hillary's plan is for the 28 million uninsured to fuck off and die? eridani Jan 2016 #39
No, it's not Hillary's plan. tazkcmo Jan 2016 #49
Considering the Sanders plan is pie in the sky underfunded nonsense mythology Jan 2016 #54
"Underfunding" is pure unadulterated horseshit. We are currently paying nearly twice-- eridani Jan 2016 #66
That's absurd!!! Beacool Jan 2016 #63
I'm sure glad you aren't trying to sell my used car for me. eridani Jan 2016 #67
wtf - it is almost identical to the bill he filed in 2013 in the senate and is a plan. Warren Stupidity Jan 2016 #42
HRC's "plan": 32 million Americans can just Fuck off and die. - nt KingCharlemagne Jan 2016 #50
Similar to his Too Big To Fail Bill. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #51
Ezra Klein is correct in his analysis Gothmog Jan 2016 #53
huge K&R taught_me_patience Jan 2016 #55
Message auto-removed Name removed Jan 2016 #60
Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Bernie Sanders’s single-p...»Reply #36