Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Sherry

French Healthcare system

33 posts in this topic

Well if Obama gets elected, the United States would be looking for some country to model their Universal health care after and I heard that France has the best healthcare system in the world. I would like some input because i personally don't like Universal healthcare for several reasons such as the fact that the doctors get paid alot less, care is not very good etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In non-universal health care systems, people dont receive the healthcare they deserve. In this scenario, wealthy has a much greater advantage

In universal health care systems, people receive treatment equally, heart, and other expensive surgeries are available to everyone.

I personally think that Canada's health care is much better than France's. But thats just my opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eh, sorry for the generalizations here, but each and every time I hear an American speaking about European health care (be it France, the UK or Scandinavia), I'm shocked by the amount of misinformation and even pure ignorance in the message.

First and foremost, your post is very vague. You could attempt to give an overview of the French health care system (no, not the best in the world, but it's still good), seeing that most people here won't be too familiar with it. Since you're trying to start a debate, you could also extend on why you don't like the idea of universal health care, not just that doctors don't get paid as well. A doctor's salary has nothing to do with universal health care per se: you can have universal health care and have doctors with high salaries, or you can choose to have a system where doctors 'only' have good salaries. It's of course a question of money, but it is possible to have universal health care with high salaries.

If you want input, give some yourself.

bomb: I agree with you that there are better examples of health care than France, I really don't know which study points out to France being the best. However, I'm curious to know, is it so that in Canada there is no (or only a very small one) private sector for health care?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay

The french univesal healthcare or national health insurance(it's official) name was implemented in 1946 and it did not cover many people just the farmers. Over the course of the year, the health care system has grown and in 2000, it started to cover everyone else. Don't get me worng i like the idea of getting to go to the hospital for next to nothing but that is never the case. The amount of taxes required to keep the system running is huge and is basically like paying for the health care from my own insurance. Also money does have alot to deal with socialized health care. Doctors in France do not get paid two thirds of what the doctors in america gets paid. France has the best health care system because they unlike many countries that have universal health care do not have rationing and waiting lines. In canada there is alot of waiting in line and people needing desperate need of medical help would not recieve it on time. Most of this statistics came from the World Health Organization. France is able to incorporate what many people want with health care in their system which no other country in the world is able to do. But the amount of money that goes in to keeping the system running is tremendous and France is going into deficit (10bil) every year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should watch the movie Sicko by Michael Moore. It's quite interesting and tells alot about the different health care systems in Northern-America and Europe.

Even though it's true that the population has to pay higher taxes, it hard to compare, because the taxes cover a large amount of expenses, that I think you americans have to pay outside the taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's a very american way of thinking where they don't feel that social provision is important.

The idea that poor people should recieve worse and less healthcare than somebody who is well off is extremely distasteful to me. A poor person suffering from cancer deserves exactly the same standard and set of options for care as a rich person does. Both the rich and the poor should be agreed on that. Otherwise we're in a situation where we have to say: some people are more deserving of good health than others. Even if you don't agree with that statement, that is the scenario which has been created. Poor people don't deserve to have the same quality of healthcare that the rich do, as demonstrated by the fact that the poorest people don't have it.

Personally I feel that it's a part of social responsibility. It's horrific, to me, that societies exist where healthcare isn't standard. No society can really say that it provides equality of life or opportunity where people have to pay proportionally to their illness. Good health and bad health are, by and large, not self-inflicted. The idea that I could fall ill and, because I don't have the money, not afford to get better again is a quite disturbing prospect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I echo what's been said above by sandwich. And anyways, it's not like France and other countries with universal healthcare don't have private doctors in addition to the ones working for the system. If you're rich and want to go see them, go ahead. No one's stopping you.

Care is not very good in countries with universal healthcare? And how many Americans die each year because they don't have medical insurance to pay for ridiculous bills? What about families that have lots of kids, and can't afford insurance for each family member? Should parents have to decide which kids get insurance and which don't (in effect, they're deciding who gets to live and who gets to die)? Some form of care is better than no care at all, and I think it's a gross overgeneralization to say that public healthcare isn't of a good standard. Israel provides free healthcare to it's citizens, and the care is of such a high standard that foreigners come here for IVF/ cancer treatments.

And another bonus of the universal health care system is that the government guarantees people jobs as doctors. European doctors are keeping their jobs while American ones are getting laid off in hospitals. Who's losing out more, the socialists or the capitalists? Don't complain about the recession when you've caused it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like having universal health care.

It's nice to just be able to flash my health card and get treated by any clinic in Canada anytime, anywhere.

And it's true that the doctors are paid less since they're employed by the government, but if you're a doctor, you shouldn't be in it for the money anyways, it should be about helping people. All types of people, not just the ones who can afford to pay hefty medical bills.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just a party the other night, where a woman was talking about Canadian healthcare and her sister's situation.

She said her sister's husband had some tumor or something fatal, at three months notice for life.

In order to extend his life, they needed some test done but they would have to wait 4 months to get that test done, that would determine the extent of his next operation just prolong his life.

So as we all know, there are many stories on both sides.

So my question is..dont you have to wait for some procedures long enough to worsen the condition?

And Obama will never revise the healthcare system in ways which we describe here, as modeling the French. The roots of insurance are so far down, you will never get this type of health care.

One of the best things I have ever seen on TV, the most wonderful show was 2051 Medicine. It talked about the future of medicine and where we are going, and I think that's better than Sicko. It talks about extending the thread we are on, knowingly, we won't change much. You will have ultra revival techniques, amazing super things like bubbles of some compound that deliver oxygen to the brain twice as fast as red blood cells. But enough of the tantalizing talk, lets talk about the relevant topic. It has been said that insurance will EAT away at 2/3 of our money that we make. We will have super insurance that covers everything. If you don't have it you will see you doom basically. It was wonderful, because the story immediately described or illustrated the story of a doctor who sees her patient deposited off to the "no insurance (i.e., slow death) floor of the hospital". As a doctor she struggles with morality, and goes off to print a heart (yes print, another wonderful invention we already have worked out with tissue, jsut not heart arteries yet) for the no-insurance individual saving his life.

I suggest it to anyone. I have never ate up so much information in my life. It was absolutely aaaaaamazing :P :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was reading about French health care, and it is somehow based in insurance. As far as I understand, the state reimburses 80% of medical costs, and you can join a private scheme that reimburses the other 20%. But all it all, it's not free, it's just universal. I don't see why instead of overhauling the system to model the french, the American insurance system can't just be expanded. The government should try do more to ensure everyone has insurance, and if they can't pay for this, THEN the government can intervene.

That said, the above idea is very idealistic and in the end, I don't see much changing in the way it's run at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In all honesty, I plan on being a doctor and the one place I will never practice is in the States. Why? Because I have a moral obligation to help every single human being regardless of pay. How can you live knowing that the people you are treating are paying an arm and a leg to even see you for something that could just be treated easily? How can you live knowing that you're forced to turn away people who can't afford to pay you? I can't. Money is NOT the point of being a doctor, it's to help those who need it. If you American doctors start complaining that you'll be making less money, then too bad. You're missing the point, entirely. And even so, by making less money, you're still going to be stinking rich, so suck it up and deal with it.

Sorry for the rant, but this is something that really ticks me off.

I truly think everyone should have universal health care. It hurts my heart knowing that people are denied because they can't afford it. Or seeing the elderly still having to work their jobs because they need money to fund their prescriptions? If my parents are ever in that position my heart would break a million times over. Watching Sicko made me cry multiple times and I'm not usually one to get teary-eyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been intrigued by this topic many times in fact, I checked many sources to confirm that France has the best healthcare system in the world despite having heard that Scandinavia has been said to have the best healthcare system in the world. I am not seeing this from only a French POV but also Swedish and British since I'm part Swedish and British.

In France treatment is virtually free, whereby it has been said quite rightly, the goverment pays 80% and your chosen company which is called a 'mutuelle' will pay off the remaining 18 to 20%. Many factors have had an affect on the very succesful French healthcare system such as availabilty, very good treatment overall ( although maybe not as specialised as certain countries such as Canada I can't remember for what and Israel for IVF and radiotherapy). France is one of the leading countries of the development of drugs, so there is this steady flow of medication and there needn't be as many tests to assure safety which would be present in other countries.

In the UK treatment is completely free, whereby it's paid off all by once by the NHS. You get a range of treatments and surgeories ofr basic and developed. (I got a fish-hook through my hand last year when my fraid tossed his bag at me and didn't realise he left his fish-hook in the side-netting of the bag). The only problem with treatment in the UK has been the presence of a bacteria which has killed many patients. I don't know what it's called and also the lack of specific treatment for specific needs. If you ever wished to go off a tangent and seek treatment which a private company or for drugs you are not allowed to seek further treatment with the NHS, which I think is nuts. However I do think they're going to solve this problem.

I'm not going to talk about Sweden because I'm not too sure. But to finish my point it's a collectivity of factors which endows the success of a country's healthcare system and not just single events which some of you guys have pointed out.

Edited by Bishup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many factors have had an affect on the very succesful French healthcare system such as availabilty, very good treatment overall ( although maybe not as specialised as certain countries such as Canada I can't remember for what and Israel for IVF and radiotherapy). F

In the UK treatment is completely free, whereby it's paid off all by once by the NHS. The only problem with treatment in the UK has been the presence of a bacteria which has killed many patients. I don't know what it's called and also the lack of specific treatment for specific needs.

The bacteria you're talking about is MRSA, it's very nasty and hard to get rid of. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methicillin-resistant_Staphylococcus_aureus It spreads easily and has been called a "superbug" because it is extremely resistant to penicillin. I read about one couple's awful battle with it after one of them contracted it in hospital after childbirth in the States, they had to wash all their sheets, household items and clothing with bleach/extremely strong chemicals and use abrasive body washes. Despite all these measures, it came back time after time.

And yes, in Israel cancer treatments are very advanced. They do lots of medical research in several universities. 2 years ago there was an Argentinian boy that came to our school for half a year, he was in the class above me. His parents had sold their house in Argentina to pay for advanced radiotherapy here in Jerusalem. Unfortunately, the treatment didn't work because his cancer was so advanced, and he died last year. His parents basically sold everything to come here because they'd tried everything in Argentina, and Israel had a good reputation.

Medical care here is paid for by taxes, but only Israeli citizens can use it. We have private medical insurance that my parents' firm pays for, even though there is a social security agreement between Israel and Finland that means we should be allowed to use their hospitals free of charge. Doesn't work out in real life.

Are NHS services free for EU citizens in the UK/same price as for UK citizens? I'm confused about this, and I'm going to university there in 2 months so I'd like to find out. I know that EU medical arrangements in new EU member states are still very shaky (like in Cyprus), and that you often have to pay for services even though they should be free. Oh the woes of bureaucracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes for you it would be Free. I'm pretty much sure that any European citizen, apart from citizens of the newly formed european countries, can benefit from free healthcare. Just to reinforce the fact that you'll get free healthcare from the NHS is because you're paying tuition fees in England. Unless you're planning to go to Uni in Scotland. Same difference. Besides what University are you going to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes for you it would be Free. I'm pretty much sure that any European citizen, apart from citizens of the newly formed european countries, can benefit from free healthcare. Just to reinforce the fact that you'll get free healthcare from the NHS is because you're paying tuition fees in England. Unless you're planning to go to Uni in Scotland. Same difference. Besides what University are you going to?

Leeds, they have an international student office's to help with this stuff but I'm not included in the international students welcoming week because I'm paying EU fees. Maybe I'll figure it out once I get there. Just hoping I don't Fresher's flu the first week and have to figure it out while staggering around nauseated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ashika that is a very idealistic view. I don't agree with it. I think if what you say is true, then let me remind you that practicing medicine in any other country comes with it's own crap of problems. I am not saying the US is the halcyon environment where tra-la-la we all put on the scrubs and bull**** the comings of the day. There are many places I don't want to practice medicine. I am not big on house calls in France, the voluntary service in many many countries in hopes of getting a real job, etc.

And I will be the first to tell you, with all honesty, I don't want to struggle anymore. I am not up for, nor will my kids experience, the hell I went through. There is a fine balance between the moral compass + living off the fruits of your labor = suspend it horizontally at all times in hopes of getting the balance right.

and no u dont have to turn away anything. If you own a private clinic then u can take all the patients you wish. Even those that don't have money can fall to your generosity and be forever grateful. It's that simple. If you work for the VA, then you can live knowing you will never turn a single person away. you can enjoy a insurance stress-free hospital, because all your patients are ensured under the law, and also enjoy the benefits of 1 hour lunch + vacation + a steady process of practicing medicine.

It just seems that you characterized the insurance policy presence as a blanket that sweeps all of America. And that is simply not true. And I am sure in your pursuit of medicine, you have acquired an analytical eye for things. Things like Sicko presented to us. It's all a nice candy - now changing the state of things is a much bigger problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I will be the first to tell you, with all honesty, I don't want to struggle anymore. I am not up for, nor will my kids experience, the hell I went through. There is a fine balance between the moral compass + living off the fruits of your labor = suspend it horizontally at all times in hopes of getting the balance right.

I think you missed the part where I said that Canadian doctors make a hell of a lot of money while using universal health care. That is FAR from struggling. All the doctors in my city live in large mansions with pools and tennis courts... and they don't have to leech off other people's money to get it. I think they have this "moral compass + living off the fruits of your labor" all figured out.

You don't need to struggle to do some good in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be the first to say, excuse my ignorance then :)

Forgive me for belaboring the point, but I just looked up the average salaries and they are less in Canada by 10-30k range than in the US. and the Canadian dollar is worth less, even in conversion, even at the 1 US dollar = 1.3 Canadian dollars the difference compounded by 130,000 amount is huuugee. I think the most important thing is not even conversions, but what the buying power of the currency is. So Canadians make less in the health care field, and also the buying power of their money is less.

So your comparison doesn't really apply, don't you agree?

I see it all the time. 1.99 in US, 3.99 in canada, or whatever.

oh and I don't really understand your point about seeing the tennis courts + pools. I could say that for any profession. I walk by a house, and an accountant is living in the upper west side.

That's not what I meant but struggle :hug: but that's okay, just forget it :D too much explaining for little outcome.

Edited by biochem

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be the first to say, excuse my ignorance then :)

Forgive me for belaboring the point, but I just looked up the average salaries and they are less in Canada by 10-30k range than in the US. and the Canadian dollar is worth less, even in conversion, even at the 1 US dollar = 1.3 Canadian dollars the difference compounded by 130,000 amount is huuugee. I think the most important thing is not even conversions, but what the buying power of the currency is. So Canadians make less in the health care field, and also the buying power of their money is less.

So your comparison doesn't really apply, don't you agree?

I see it all the time. 1.99 in US, 3.99 in canada, or whatever.

oh and I don't really understand your point about seeing the tennis courts + pools. I could say that for any profession. I walk by a house, and an accountant is living in the upper west side.

That's not what I meant but struggle :hug: but that's okay, just forget it :D too much explaining for little outcome.

I know we make less, but that's the point I'm trying to convey!

We are happy even though we make less.

Money means nothing when you're talking about someone elses health.

EDIT: Since my argument is apparently "crap"... the message I am trying to convey here is that universal healthcare is great for everyone involved and countries without it are being exploited by their insurance companies.

Edited by Ashika

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with Ashika. If you become a doctor for the financial side of it and only take patients with insurance because otherwise you lose out on your salary, you're going against the code of medical ethics. Hospital ratess in the States are ridiculous anyways; the only reason surgeries cost thousands, or hundreds of thousands, of dollars is because the surgeons refuse to do them unless they get paid well for them. This method puts a price on people's lives; if you have $100,000, we'll save your life. If not, you gotta go somewhere else.

Doctors are there to save eveyrone's life, regardless of how rich or poor they are. Discriminating with insurance policies is equivalent to racism that was in place decades ago in the States: if you're white, you get this=if you're rich, you get it all.

How many people that do run private clinics give people free medical treatment? Not many people are that generous. The best way to fix the whole insurance thing would be raising taxes. Americans make a hell of a lot of fuss about their income tax rates, which are only about 17%. No wonder you have nothing there, when most Europeans pay 30-40% but also have universal health care. If Americans weren't so individualistic, they would have some form of functioning state health care (bureaucratic maybe, but still catering to the poor's needs as well).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I'm going to need to take the less popular side of the argument here, because there's something rather ridiculous about some of the arguments in favor of universal healthcare.

Sure, if there was enough doctors and transplant organs and other things to go around, and to give everyone super good treatment, then sure, give it to everyone. But when we apply realism to the scenario, we realize that when there isn't enough to go around, you can't continue to say something is free for everyone. Say, for example, that I have two middle aged men who need a heart, one's on wellfare and the other's say, a successful carpentry contractor. If I have two hearts or no hearts, there's no question. That being said, if I have one heart, I don't see why it shouldn't go to the conctractor, because he can affort to pay his own way, and because he actually does something for the society he lives in.

Sure, you can go by what we have now in Canada, where healthcare is limited and applied on a lottery system where everyone has to wait, or you can give priority to the people who are actually supporting the society in which the system resides. Not all doctors have to be altruistic lifesavers, and I find it rather disturbing that people here would criticize someone for working privately, when without them, there'd be even less to go around.

As much as I hate to say it, healthcare is not a right, despite how many countries try to make it that. Healthcare is only available in a society that can handle the expense, and as such, people need to help front the bill in order to get the privilege of healthcare. If resources are scarce, then those who contribute very little should get very little, and those who help the system survive should benefit from it. That's not to say doctors in the ER should let someone die of blood loss from a cut they don't have the money to stich, but those people should always be on the bottom of the barrel, and when society's able to provide enough to go around, there won't be a problem anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I guess I'm going to need to take the less popular side of the argument here, because there's something rather ridiculous about some of the arguments in favor of universal healthcare.

Sure, if there was enough doctors and transplant organs and other things to go around, and to give everyone super good treatment, then sure, give it to everyone. But when we apply realism to the scenario, we realize that when there isn't enough to go around, you can't continue to say something is free for everyone. Say, for example, that I have two middle aged men who need a heart, one's on wellfare and the other's say, a successful carpentry contractor. If I have two hearts or no hearts, there's no question. That being said, if I have one heart, I don't see why it shouldn't go to the conctractor, because he can affort to pay his own way, and because he actually does something for the society he lives in.

Sure, you can go by what we have now in Canada, where healthcare is limited and applied on a lottery system where everyone has to wait, or you can give priority to the people who are actually supporting the society in which the system resides. Not all doctors have to be altruistic lifesavers, and I find it rather disturbing that people here would criticize someone for working privately, when without them, there'd be even less to go around.

As much as I hate to say it, healthcare is not a right, despite how many countries try to make it that. Healthcare is only available in a society that can handle the expense, and as such, people need to help front the bill in order to get the privilege of healthcare. If resources are scarce, then those who contribute very little should get very little, and those who help the system survive should benefit from it. That's not to say doctors in the ER should let someone die of blood loss from a cut they don't have the money to stich, but those people should always be on the bottom of the barrel, and when society's able to provide enough to go around, there won't be a problem anymore.

Luxury is not a right. Money is not a right. Friendship is not a right. But healthcare to people is a right. By your theory, a person, who is on welfare, should be allowed to die because they can't pay for their treatment? You can't apply the economic theory of scarcity to every thing in life. It's not black and white like that.

So extrapolating on your theory, we should all adopt China's one child policy so that, there would be fewer people on the dole, more resources to go around?

I don't criticise people who work privately, it's their choice. However the state should provide for the people who are actually paying in taxes. Since we are discussing the US system, the US chooses to tax their citizens even if they are working outside the country, hence enforcing double taxation. Even after all that tax, their citizens do not see a free healthcare system.

People who can afford healthcare, by no means, pay for it. However no one should be denied healthcare or a new heart because they can't afford it. It's morally and ethically wrong.

And for people to understand where I'm coming from, I've always paid for healthcare (and schooling too). I've seen people die because they don't have access to good healthcare. Citizens should access to basic good services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no need to argue it's simply the best :) Only kidding.

One thing they can be proud of. Don't try and steal the moment. I'm sure there are plenty of things the USofA are good at XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Luxury is not a right. Money is not a right. Friendship is not a right. But healthcare to people is a right. By your theory, a person, who is on welfare, should be allowed to die because they can't pay for their treatment? You can't apply the economic theory of scarcity to every thing in life. It's not black and white like that.

First off, you have no basis on which to declare healthcare a right. Consider that humans lived without healthcare as we have it for millenia, and that new technology and industrialization is what allows us the privilege of new ways to extend the lengths of our lives. People get sick and die, it's been like that and it always will be like that. We simply don't have enough resources to give the best healthcare to everyone on the planet, but if we spread those resources equally (Ie. Too thin) they won't be of much use at all. So you may say my argument is being "black and white" but what you're not considering is that it takes industrial power to even start a healthcare system, and that in order to function properly, any given system can only treat so many people. If we need to deny some people proper treatment, should it not be those who have done nothing to support the system itself?

So extrapolating on your theory, we should all adopt China's one child policy so that, there would be fewer people on the dole, more resources to go around?

Bit of a straw man there, but I'm not going to make a claim one way or another. I'm simply going to say that if you want to see a world that can give everyone a high standard of living, it would be much more possible with alot less people. What you make of it is your choice.

People who can afford healthcare, by no means, pay for it. However no one should be denied healthcare or a new heart because they can't afford it. It's morally and ethically wrong.

While I agree that nobody should be denied a heart transplant, you still have yet to tackle the issue of where there are simply not enough for everyone who wants one, and where some people can pay and others can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with sharkspider. While it would be great to give everybody perfect healthcare, but due to the fact of life that there are not enough doctors, nurses, medicines, facilites etc etc we have to find some form of distribution be it based on the American, Canadian, French or whatever. The fact is that in any of these systems some people will die without getting care. (They don't call economics the dismal science for nothing :) )

I personally favor a mixed system where things like emergency room care, and the very serious things like cancer are paid for by the state, while one would either get insurance or pay cash for things like check-ups or x-rays.

Thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0