That's the total cost to the French medical system for a normal delivery? I find that hard to believe. In Canada that rate is a couple thousand dollars.
What the patient has to pay is close to zero, even with anesthesia (which is more or less compulsory -- you would have to make a big scene to avoid it) and complications.
If you want a doctor to attend (instead of simply a midwife) you have to pay him out of pocket (but if you have private insurance it might cover that too).
What it costs to the French medical system is anyone's guess. The French medical system is financed by the taxpayer. In theory, it's financed by a tax on salaries, but since it's in perpetual deficit and the deficit is covered by the state, it's in fact paid for by the taxpayer -- which is just as well, since everyone is covered.
It's a system of fully socialized medecine; there are pros and cons to such a system; it's not all good, but it's certainly not as bad as the American system (before or after Obamacare).
Difficult to say if that's the case for hospitals, since they run on public money anyway, so they could run at a deficit and it would hide the higher cost than what they charge.
But in all cases, social security pays exactly what you are billed.
In most cases you pay yourself the hospital, clinic, doctor, whatever, and social security then gives you part of the costs (depending on the procedure) and if you have one, your private health insurance gives you the rest (or less, depending on your plan, of course).
The tendency is at removing the unnecessary payment by the patient before being reimbursed, but for now this at least serves as a way to ensure you know exactly how much was paid for the procedure, and to prevent too many excesses (since, well, the patient has to be able to pay, even if he gets reimbursed).
It certainly is not. It is paid for by one of the highest tax rates in the world. I currently work in Norway and pay more than 50% in income tax and social contributions - and that does not even include other taxes and excise duties like the 25% VAT, the 9USD/gallon gas price (mostly tax) or the new car tax of something like 150-200%, property taxes, road taxes, vehicle taxes, alchold and tobacco taxes...
So no, it is certainly not "free".
(And yes, people in Scandinavia stating things are "free" is a rant-trigger for me.)
And people in America stating that healthcare is not free is a rant-trigger for me.
Everyone here knows that it's not "free" but subsidised by taxes. That's what "free" means when talking about healthcare, free at the point of service, and free as equally available to everyone.
How else would it work? Are the doctors without pay and with no equipment?
It's an important point to make that even "free" healthcare is not actually free - the money has to come from somewhere, and most of it comes from forcefully confiscating it from people.
Not only that, but if you're using money, it's much easier to use someone else's money instead of your own, you just won't be too careful about how you spend it. In fact, if you've got a "limitless" supply of other people's money, you just won't give a fuck about what you do with it. This is one reason why public healthcare (and public anything) turns to shit sooner or later.
> "Not only that, but if you're using money, it's much easier to use someone else's money instead of your own, you just won't be too careful about how you spend it."
Sounds logical on paper but doesn't bear out in reality - just about every country where health care is provided via "confiscated funds" pays dramatically less for better outcomes than the USA where people are responsible for spending their own money.
The Parasite(tm) is more bedtime-story boogeyman than observed reality. They exist, but in far fewer numbers than reported, and their effects on the system far less grave than prognosticated.
This makes a lot of sense in fact, if for nothing else than the simple reason that most people really don't want to be sick or pretend to be sick so bad that they actually spend a lot of time at a hospital.. They have better things to do.
In Canada, where I'm from, most of the people I know avoid doctors and hospitals unless they really aren't feeling good. They don't want the hassle of waiting and waiting again to see specialists or get a procedure of some kind done.
The canadian socialized system is still really, really slow though for non emergency care but I never believed it was because of parasites wasting hospital resources.
>> Sounds logical on paper but doesn't bear out in reality - just about every country where health care is provided via "confiscated funds" pays dramatically less for better outcomes than the USA where people are responsible for spending their own money.
The US healthcare system is truly fucked, but serves as another great example of how people use someone else's money. That's why healthcare is so absurdly expensive there. Patients generally aren't using their own money to pay for medical services, and so, insurance companies get charged ridiculous prices behind the scenes, and the customer doesn't care. Businesses are forced to buy insurance, right?
Well, without the "forced middlemen" of insurance companies, and with customers paying for whatever services they use, you can bet your ass that health care would be massively cheaper. Competition drives quality up, and prices down.
>> The Parasite(tm) is more bedtime-story boogeyman than observed reality
I hadn't even heard of that "theory". But I bet I would have, if I were still watching Bill Maher's show.
You're right in that some parasite patients are not the problem. The whole system is.
Think about it. If you're running a hospital on a "limitless" supply of other people's money (as in, "public healthcare"), you're just not that concerned with efficiency, nor the quality of your services, because you don't have to be. It doesn't matter if your customers are unhappy, because you'll still be getting your money! .. It's blindingly obvious that this kind of system is doomed, but of course, healthcare is not socialized in order to make it better. It's socialized to make the masses dependent on the State.
Comparisons between countries like Norway and the US are a bit misguided IMO. It's hard to imagine that an oil rich country with a homogeneous society of 5 million people at the edge of the world can be fairly compared to the leader of the world's current Pax-Americana with a population of 300 million. Norway enjoys the benefits of being an almost-city-state as described in Antifragile by Nassim Taleb.
There might be. The US government spends way more money per head on public healthcare than the UK (and only slightly less than Norway) and that's totally separate to all the private spending! http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jun/30/healthc...
Procedures are so expensive, doctors so highly paid, and insurers so profitable that the US is essentially subsidizing all that while still not providing universal healthcare.
In the UK we're both taxed less AND don't have to have private insurance due to the above. (It does have some downsides though, particularly in not being able to easily 'shop around' or get access to cutting edge/experimental medicine.. it's a bit one size fits all.)
A top-level policy with Bupa/Pru will get you easy access to top hospitals in the UK (including London), for diagnostics at least. I just got a quote for £70/mo (it will almost double if you claim, however).
EDIT: hm, not sure about 'experimental', but top quality/teaching hospitals anyway.
Nobody in the United States gets access to cutting edge/experimental medicine either. Insurances just won't pay for it. They say "too experimental" and "not medically nessessary" is a reason not to pay. I am currently in a 3rd level of appeal to get my insurance company to pay for my medication they claim is "too experimental" (it isn't by the way!!!)
