Winners & Losers of the Health Care Debate

[Scuzz]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix ... id=topnews" target="_blank




The House health care vote is in the books and the after-action analysis has begun.

The Fix, of course, is knee-deep (heck, we might be waist-deep) in sorting through the winners and losers from the health care debate that was.

Our first cut at those who soared and those who stumbled is below. Who/what did we miss? The comments section awaits your suggestions.

[LawBeefaroni]

A more substantive take with less political highschooling:

WINNERS
BRAND-NAME DRUGMAKERS
BRAND BIOLOGIC DRUGMAKERS
DEVICE MAKERS
HOSPITALS
PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS


LOSERS
HEALTH INSURERS
GENERIC DRUGMAKERS
TANNING BED MAKERS

[Unagi]

Dennis Kucinich is listed as a winner and a loser.

nailed it.

[Arcanis]

winners: the free to me healthcare groups
loosers: the i have to pay for ^^^ group

[Scuzz]

I have heard both sides describe the insurers and the drug companies as eventual winners...

[Arcanis]

I have heard both sides describe the insurers and the drug companies as eventual winners...

more insured people = more people going to the doctor = more prescriptions = win for drug companies.

more people forced to get insurance = more people paying insurance companies = win for insurance

though the insurance companies have to take more risks and insure those who have potentially expensive illnesses, at least until they can shunt them off to the federal program.

[Kraken]

Arise! I wanted a general health care policy thread, so I'm pressing this one into service.

Vox is doing a series called Everybody Covered: What America can learn from other countries' healthcare systems. The first part is a warts-and-all look at How Taiwan built Medicare for all.

Taiwan made its choice in the 1990s and embraced single-payer. It has required sacrifice: by doctors who believe they’re forced to see too many patients every day; by patients with complex and costly conditions who can’t always access the latest treatments; by citizens who have been asked from time to time, and will be asked again, to pay more for their health care than they did before.

The vast majority of Taiwan’s citizens today approve of their health care system. They know it isn’t a utopia. The country has made hard choices to keep this program sustainable, and it will need to do so again. That is what it takes to realize the single-payer dream.

Comparable articles covering Australia, the Netherlands, Maryland (!), and the UK are scheduled over the next couple of weeks.

[gameoverman]

Arise! I wanted a general health care policy thread, so I'm pressing this one into service.

Vox is doing a series called Everybody Covered: What America can learn from other countries' healthcare systems. The first part is a warts-and-all look at How Taiwan built Medicare for all.

Taiwan made its choice in the 1990s and embraced single-payer. It has required sacrifice: by doctors who believe they’re forced to see too many patients every day; by patients with complex and costly conditions who can’t always access the latest treatments; by citizens who have been asked from time to time, and will be asked again, to pay more for their health care than they did before.

The vast majority of Taiwan’s citizens today approve of their health care system. They know it isn’t a utopia. The country has made hard choices to keep this program sustainable, and it will need to do so again. That is what it takes to realize the single-payer dream.

Comparable articles covering Australia, the Netherlands, Maryland (!), and the UK are scheduled over the next couple of weeks.

It sounds like Taiwan's system is filled with elements that would keep it from going anywhere here. "Required sacrifice" "can't always access" "pay more" "hard choices" "will need to do so again"- all are anathema to Americans it seems. We are the land of simplistic solutions which cost nothing and take no time to implement and forever fix the problem.

[Kraken]

The story on Australia is up.

The country’s health care system is perched precariously between two principles: universal coverage and personal choice. Australians generally believe everybody should be able to get care, affordably. At the same time, they believe that people who can pay more should be able to get more.

But those two tiers bring inequities. There can be long wait times for elective surgeries at public hospitals. The emergency and ICU departments get crowded, especially in a public health crisis (Australia has had particularly bad outbreaks of flu in recent years). Patients can occasionally get hit with unexpectedly big bills after a visit to a specialist.

The private care experience, as Campbell found, is smoother. You choose your doctor and you get more time with them. You can pick the day and time for your knee surgery. You have choices — but it will cost you