HEALTHCARE, HONG KONG STYLE

[def_fr0g_42]

Some people have been asking me about the Hong Kong healthcare model. And seeing as how US Republicans love to point our way whenever they want to “prove” that flat taxes and laissez-faire capitalism works a treat and the US should copy it, whilst conveniently ignoring the fact that we have socialized medicine, public housing and govt investment in

Comments

here's my simplification of their article

[loissanborn]

i read the second article. my mother has been in medicine for over 25 years, and i am very familiar how the system works. for those who are not familiar with how the health care system works, i can see why this would be confusing.

this is a WONDERFUL article... though they do undermine my main objections to universal healthcare. i have not yet seen one this comprehensive before. i'll simplify what they say the problems are (which i agree with their analysis).

in terms of a government funded healthcare, they first talk about the rising cost of healthcare and what causes it.
:::cost:::
they surmise that one of the causes of the rise in cost is the advancement in medical technology. advancements are thought to be a good thing. it saves more lives and makes for a healthier population HOWEVER, these new medical advances cost exponentially more than previous, less effective treatments.
they also attribute a lot of the cost to the fact that there are so many different branches of the healthcare system, but no one entity to reign the whole system in and make it more efficient and cost effective.

:::selective insurance providers:::
they then point out that because of these more costly procedures, insurance providers try to keep themselves in the black by selecting who they will cover (ie those whose estimated yearly medical costs will be less).

:::the reasons for sub-standard care:::
They also point out that doctors make judgments based on how much treatment will cost because doctors know that the patient will be saddled with a portion or all of the bill. this contributes to sub-standard care due to medical cost.

:::the unraveling of employer based insurance:::
they talk about how employer based insurrence is unraveling because the cost to insure everyone is a financial strain. this issue is a bit more complicated so i'll try my best to simplify. bear with me...

they lay out what happens when everyone is charged the same medical premium(like employers do), and if everyone was insured regardless of medical issues.

let's say a flat-rate premium(how much a person pays for medical coverage per month) was calculated by:

estimating what percent of your insurance recipients will be healthy patients, and what percentage will be unhealthy patients... then factoring healthy individual's estimated medical costs, and the unhealthy individual's estimated medical costs. take the sum of that estimated cost and add it to the administrative costs to run the company. there is your bottom line of estimated medical costs for all of your insurance recipients. divide that overall cost by however many insurance recipients you estimate will buy your inssurance, and you have an individual's premium. thus everyone pays the same amount, and everyone is covered. the authors call this principle 'robbing peter to pay for paul'. sounds good in principle, but here is where they point out the problem with that:

-unhealthy people would flock to that insurance company because they'd be getting a half way decent rate, and no one else will insure them
-healthy people would flock to other companies. the reason for this would be that healthy people would be paying more in premiums at that company to compensate for unhealthy people who have higher medical expenses than they would at another company, whose overall expenses were lower. healthy people would opt for a company that is selective about who they insure, that can offer premiums at a lower rate.

because of this, the insurance company would be forced to raise premiums again and again because the majority of their insurance recipients medical costs would be unusually high. the insurance premiums would be so high, the recipients would no longer be able to afford the premiums.

the reason this is affecting employers is because they do not screen their employees for medical issues. legally they cannot. their unhealthy employees opt for the company insurance, and their healthy employees opt for other private insurance that may be at a lower rate. major funding problems are causing employers to no longer offer healthcare options because they are so expensive to the company.