NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5315700.stm

I found this article interesting. That there may develop a market for health services in a region of the world that is dominated by state-run programs. I'd be interested to see the effects of such a market, and I do believe that this would be good for the healthcare services in Europe.

I think it might have some benefits; it would help alleviate some of the strain on certain healthcare systems by shifting some of the demand from one system to another, and it would make the system much more responsive to demographic trends.

Let's hope it makes it. Big.

Because after that farce with the health "reform" in Germany, it's obvious that the politicians won't fix it.

One question though: Who pays for it? The health systems aren't unified, so will only wealthy private patients be able to take advantage?

Let's hope it makes it. Big.

Because after that farce with the health "reform" in Germany, it's obvious that the politicians won't fix it.

One question though: Who pays for it? The health systems aren't unified, so will only wealthy private patients be able to take advantage?

Blame the low birth rate for the crises in healthcare. You know it's one of the major reasons.

Blame the low birth rate for the crises in healthcare. You know it's one of the major reasons.
Not in Germany's case. That hasn't even kicked in properly yet.

In Germany's case, it's year after year of adding more benefits for those with state-owned insurance policies, including more people and so on.
Followed by one incompetent reform after the other, ultimately resulting in underpaid and overworked doctors (so much so that they go on massive strikes...), and people moaning every time some medicine gets taken off the "for free" list.

It's politics that's fucked up, more than anything.

Not in Germany's case. That hasn't even kicked in properly yet.

In Germany's case, it's year after year of adding more benefits for those with state-owned insurance policies, including more people and so on.
Followed by one incompetent reform after the other, ultimately resulting in underpaid and overworked doctors (so much so that they go on massive strikes...), and people moaning every time some medicine gets taken off the "for free" list.

It's politics that's fucked up, more than anything.
politics is facked up in Poland as well, now that some stupid nazi's have taken the positions of president and prime minister.

Not in Germany's case. That hasn't even kicked in properly yet.

In Germany's case, it's year after year of adding more benefits for those with state-owned insurance policies, including more people and so on.
Followed by one incompetent reform after the other, ultimately resulting in underpaid and overworked doctors (so much so that they go on massive strikes...), and people moaning every time some medicine gets taken off the "for free" list.

It's politics that's fucked up, more than anything.

Less babies = stagnating economy = less goverment revenues = everything is fucked up.

Less babies = stagnating economy = less goverment revenues = everything is fucked up.

Fewer kids wouldn't even matter if the economy's productivity were growing fast enough to compensate; unfortunately, due to the screwy nature of their labor laws, that isn't happening and productivity is being stifled. The result is slower productivity growth, lower or stagnant GDP growth, high structural unemployment, and falling tax revenues.

They have a stagnating population, but lack the productivity to cover it. Even if their birthrates soared it would still be a problem because there wouldn't be enough jobs for the kids anyway.

Fewer kids wouldn't even matter if the economy's productivity were growing fast enough to compensate; unfortunately, due to the screwy nature of their labor laws, that isn't happening and productivity is being stifled. The result is slower productivity growth, lower or stagnant GDP growth, high structural unemployment, and falling tax revenues.

They have a stagnating population, but lack the productivity to cover it. Even if their birthrates soared it would still be a problem because there wouldn't be enough jobs for the kids anyway.

Fewer kids = pension problems = less confidence at the economy of future = less investment now. Confidence means a lot in economy.

Fewer kids isnt the only cause but it certainly is one of the important causes. And importing 20s/30s immigrants who themselves end up unemployed isnt the solution.

Edit: Oh and if birthrates soared, gdp would increase a lot more, since consumers would buy lots of shit for the children. And a bigger gdp increase means more job.

Less babies = stagnating economy = less goverment revenues = everything is fucked up.
That's an interesting take on the issue.

Care to show me any sort of statistics on how less babies are causing Germany's economic issues at the moment? Afterall, it's not like the population numbers are actually falling, since immigration has so far been cancelling it out.

Fewer kids = pension problems = less confidence at the economy of future = less investment now. Confidence means a lot in economy.
You're talking to two people who are doing quite a bit of studying in macroeconomics.
Business Confidence is certainly important, but if you look at the stats published by the ifo institute in Germany, I don't think pension problems are the reason that it hasn't always been as high as it is right now.

Edit: Oh and if birthrates soared, gdp would increase a lot more, since consumers would buy lots of shit for the children. And a bigger gdp increase means more job.
That must be one allmighty soaring...

Fewer kids = pension problems = less confidence at the economy of future = less investment now. Confidence means a lot in economy.

Confidence is hit even more by the inability of companies to take the kind of risks necessary to grow their businesses in Europe; the demographic issue is just part of the gloomy outlooks many have of their nation economies.

Fewer kids isnt the only cause but it certainly is one of the important causes. And importing 20s/30s immigrants who themselves end up unemployed isnt the solution.

Well, you've got a bunch of undereducated or even uneducated workers immigrating only to find out that there are no jobs either due to labor laws or because demand for their services is nonexistent. Compared to places with at-will employment laws, the ability of immigrants and unskilled workers to get jobs in Europe is next to nothing.

Edit: Oh and if birthrates soared, gdp would increase a lot more, since consumers would buy lots of shit for the children. And a bigger gdp increase means more job.

Normally, yes. The problem is, labor laws in a lot of European countries make it very difficult to hire and fire workers; the result is that companies stop hiring in order to minimize their losses in the event of a downturn. Unemployment rates are highest among young adults and even college graduates may have a hard time in certain fields; these kids might grow up but not have jobs even though demand for goods and services has risen along with them.

Let's hope it makes it. Big.

Because after that farce with the health "reform" in Germany, it's obvious that the politicians won't fix it.

One question though: Who pays for it? The health systems aren't unified, so will only wealthy private patients be able to take advantage?

If only wealthy patients take advantage of it then it is still a good thing as it will still be reucing the pressure on the state healthcare system.

I wasn't around at the time of the British EEC vote, but I don't think meddling with healthcare was a part of the deal. The EU can stick their noses out of this one - the NHS is the responsibility of the British elected government (as flawed as it is), not the unaccountable and unelected eurocrats.

I wouldn't (and nobody did) vote for a "health market", so I see no reason why I should have one forced on me, thank you very much.

Blame the low birth rate for the crises in healthcare. You know it's one of the major reasons.

NOOOO! We don't want your children! Keep'em to yourself. On Jan Mayen, preferably.

I wasn't around at the time of the British EEC vote, but I don't think meddling with healthcare was a part of the deal.
That's not what this is. All the EU is thinking of doing is allowing people to get their healthcare where they want. Less bureaucracy. The summary in the OP is probably not perfect.

And the beauty of the market principle is precisely that it is unelected, that it does not require majority consent, that everyone is free to do as they want.

And if the vote to join the EEC was a vote to join a free market area, then yes, it was a vote to meddle with health care. Plus, according to the article, the NHS isn't exactly something to be proud of - if people can save themselves a lot of time on waiting lists, I don't see why you want to reward bad organisation by forcing customers to use it.

Wouldn't this result in a worsening of healthcare systems? If these systems are as overburdened as people say they are, wouldn't they want to give people disincentives to use them?
Unless there's some type of pool started that compensates the receiving government, I can't see how this would be helpful.

Wouldn't this result in a worsening of healthcare systems? If these systems are as overburdened as people say they are, wouldn't they want to give people disincentives to use them?
Unless there's some type of pool started that compensates the receiving government, I can't see how this would be helpful.

It's partially fascinating because it would be putting government services in a market situation, something that's not really been heard of before. At the same time, I see the benefits of competition aiding the European healthcare systems, and possibly forcing the more failing systems to alleviate the problems more effectively.

It's partially fascinating because it would be putting government services in a market situation, something that's not really been heard of before. At the same time, I see the benefits of competition aiding the European healthcare systems, and possibly forcing the more failing systems to alleviate the problems more effectively.If it were a situation where the government that the person left had to pay a fee to the other government plus the costs of treatment, then that would make sense (punish the government for underfunding its national healthcare service), or even just pay for the cost of the treatment, it would work. Otherwise, countries would just underfund their services to get people to leave, thus shifting costs to the other country.

Well it seems to be a positive evolution to me. Although Jello Biafra has a good point. Still, such a reform is necessary. European national healthcare systems, other than that of France, are doing badly. They need reform of some sort. And as Leonstein noted, who will be funding this system?

NN, yes, low birthrates do negatively impact an economy. This isn't even a question in the countries being mentioned of though. If low birthrates were Germany's only problem, things would be significantly better. Yet they aren't. Germany's economy is stagnant and underperforming due to horrific legislative burdens, political standstills, an over-ripe welfare state and general confusion amongst the populace regarding what must be done. If it is to tackle birthrates, it must first solve other issues clouding that problem. Then it can begin its resolution. Also, a GDP is only a means of measuring a country's wealth, not its citizens'. Hence, a higher GDP by no means is the sole indicator of a healthy economy. Higher birthrates among the middle- and upper classes would indeed be a boon. This would cause a consequent rise in consumption and consumer confidence. The same does not apply in the case of lower class families - the children would end up on welfare, further burdening the system and in the end solving nothing. Such is the case in many third-world countries, countries which the West can certainly do without emulating.

Confidence is hit even more by the inability of companies to take the kind of risks necessary to grow their businesses in Europe; the demographic issue is just part of the gloomy outlooks many have of their nation economies.
German businesses aren't the ones suffering you know.

Germany's economy is stagnant and underperforming due to horrific legislative burdens, political standstills, an over-ripe welfare state and general confusion amongst the populace regarding what must be done. If it is to tackle birthrates, it must first solve other issues clouding that problem. Then it can begin its resolution.

German politicians are the ones that are stagnant.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5315700.stm

I found this article interesting. That there may develop a market for health services in a region of the world that is dominated by state-run programs. I'd be interested to see the effects of such a market, and I do believe that this would be good for the healthcare services in Europe.

I think it would be a good idea. The waiting lists in some countries are so long that even to get a scan to confirm whether or not you have a tumor can take up to 2 years by which stage you'll be dead. It could however have a negative effect on countries with more efficient health care as everyone will go to them.

NN, yes, low birthrates do negatively impact an economy.
Most long-term growth models actually consider capital per capita to be the main driver of growth (or some function including it - either way what I'm saying holds true).
Thus, if capital could be held constant or increased, and population reduced, the resulting increase in GDP per capita would be more than proportional.

German businesses aren't the ones suffering you know.

Of course, the German businessmen are not the only one's who set the policy of their company's. After all, the unions typically have representatives on the boards of major firms.

Germany needs the liberalizing reforms that will make it so that businesses can be more flexible, and make it easier to react. The dreaded Anglo-Saxon model, as the French call it.

Germany needs the liberalizing reforms that will make it so that businesses can be more flexible, and make it easier to react. The dreaded Anglo-Saxon model, as the French call it.
Exactly. And which Merkel promised me, and broke that promise.

Instead we get a "wealth tax", courtesy of the SPD. Guess I'll be voting FDP next time.

Exactly. And which Merkel promised me, and broke that promise.

Instead we get a "wealth tax", courtesy of the SPD. Guess I'll be voting FDP next time.

You should have done so in the first place.


I really wish the US had something akin to the Freie Demokraten.

You should have done so in the first place.
I thought something like that at first. But then...it wouldn't have changed anything. The FDP did well, but most of its new voters came from the CDU.

It was the strong performance of the FDP which kept the SPD in power. So I don't regret anything. To me it was ultimately more important to get the SPD into opposition than it was to give the FDP a strong showing.

But I deluded myself when I thought that Merkel was a Thatcher. Sometimes she says thinks that makes you think that she wants to be. But she's not strong enough to get her party to follow that sort of line. And the fact that many Germans apparently thought it would be a good idea to give the SPD (which is happily eating itself) another go just turned the whole thing pearshaped.

Most long-term growth models actually consider capital per capita to be the main driver of growth (or some function including it - either way what I'm saying holds true).
Thus, if capital could be held constant or increased, and population reduced, the resulting increase in GDP per capita would be more than proportional.
This probably is true. It makes sense theoretically, at any rate. However, I doubt that if population growth is below the replacement rate (2.0) that this will be a positive thing. It probably makes sense for countries with extremely high birthrates though, who need to reduce them to the rate of replacement, which is basically just enough to keep an economy running without draining it of labour supply. For instance, it most likely explains the logic between having just two to three children as opposed to ten.

Exactly. And which Merkel promised me, and broke that promise.

Instead we get a "wealth tax", courtesy of the SPD. Guess I'll be voting FDP next time.
I think you are being a little harsh on her. She has immense forces working against her. You even showed me an article on the Golgotha she is currently faced with. The only way for her to push her will through would probably be to pass some sort of Enabling Act and remove the SPD altogether, something I do not think she would do, or that would even be desirable. The best she can hope is to use diplomacy and perhaps intimidation. Given how immovable the SPD is, this is likely to be difficult. Perhaps if she were to rerun in a few years, the general population would give her party more support as opposed to the SPD? Maybe then she can resurrect Germany?

You should have done so in the first place.


I really wish the US had something akin to the Freie Demokraten.
What about your Libertarian Party? Isn't it very similar? I know that I would probably vote for it in the US if I were there. That, or the Republicans, given the fact that they still harbour many paleolibertarians and paleocons amongst their ranks of imbecilic neocons and fascist wannabe's. I agree though; voting for the FDP would be the best course of action. If only they shook off their image as a "party for the rich," then perhaps they'd garner more support... Their ideas are sound and could do much good to Germany.

Good (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,433353,00.html) news (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2006/09/05/business/EU_FIN_COM_Germany_Economy.php), by the way. Sorta. (http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,435452,00.html)

Blame the low birth rate for the crises in healthcare. You know it's one of the major reasons.
Since most Muslims have a few children, they're clearly the answer to your problems, then, aren't they!

To my knowledge most countries here have private health industries alongside the state bodies.

Exactly. And which Merkel promised me, and broke that promise.

Instead we get a "wealth tax", courtesy of the SPD. Guess I'll be voting FDP next time.

*snorts* Did you even vote?

*snorts* Did you even vote?
I did. Went through the whole bureaucracy to get registered, and sent my ballot per mail.

Maybe it got lost and they didn't count it though, if that makes you feel any better.

I did. Went through the whole bureaucracy to get registered, and sent my ballot per mail.

Maybe it got lost and they didn't count it though, if that makes you feel any better.

The Deutsche Post losing stuff? So. Which one of your red heroes got your vote? Stasi-Gregor? Laffe Oskar?

So. Which one of your red heroes got your vote? Stasi-Gregor? Laffe Oskar?
Nope. I voted for Merkel. Have a look in my signature (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11076192&postcount=36). I don't exactly fit their voter profile.