Hillary slams health insurers

"How many of you know somebody who doesn't have health insurance?" White House hopeful Hillary Clinton asked a thousand cheering supporters at the downtown Hyatt Regency on Tuesday night. At least half of the hands went up. "How many of you have health insurance but you had to fight with the health insurance company to get it to pay for what you needed?" she asked. About a third of the hands went up. "When you really need it, they won't pay," Clinton said. "What point is it to have health insurance if you're diabetic if they won't cover diabetes?"

Despite her failure to solve the health insurance issue during her husband's presidency, Clinton said she is resolved to solve it as president. "We're going to tell the insurance companies that they're going to have to change the way they do business," Clinton said. "You know, we regulate banks. We regulate utilities. Well, we're going to regulate the insurance companies."

Source

Comment by Jammie wearer

One of the many things socialists such as Clinton never seem to grasp is that you cannot force a company to provide a product/service against their will. Guess what the insurance companies will do the government starts telling them how to run their business? They will either raise their rates to pass on the extra costs or just will not write the coverage.

If you understand elementary economics, what Clinton is proposing doing here will shift the supply curve of health insurance inwards and thus reduce supply, not increase it. Reducing the supply of health coverage is the opposite of what she claims to want to do. Clinton also has been advertised as the smartest woman in the world, so you have to figure that she took Econ 101 along the way somewhere and should therefore understand the laws of supply and demand. So, what we have here is a situation where Hillary Clinton is either stupid or lying to you. It's one or the other.





Patients to beat NHS queues in EU plan for open health market

And the British government is fighting it. Can't have competition, can we?

Patients will find it easier to escape NHS queues and head across the Channel for treatment under an EU blueprint for European health tourism to be published tomorrow. It will guarantee that, in most cases, treatment within the European Union will be funded by the taxpayer. The move will open up competiton between the NHS and European health services and is being hailed as a big step towards an open market for public healthcare.

Until now, patients who have paid for more efficient treatment in France or Germany without securing prior funding approval have faced court battles to get the NHS to reimburse them. A draft of the EU directive on cross-border healthcare, seen by The Times, obliges the NHS to fund outpatient treatments in Europe, such as scans and minor operations, provided that the patient has been referred by a medical professional and is suffering delays. The EU wants the same system for major hospital procedures such as joint replacements and serious dental work. But Brussels will allow countries to refuse to fund such operations abroad if they can argue that domestic services will suffer as a result. Such opt-outs would be negotiated procedure by procedure.

Ministers are concerned that the changes could lead to too much cash flowing out of the NHS -- potentially a significant loss of control for Whitehall. The Government plans to fight the proposals as it tries to retain control of the purse strings. It does not expect a great influx of European patients to travel to British hospitals. [I wonder why?] Keith Pollard, director of Treatment Abroad, a British company that places patients overseas, said: "The whole idea is to make an open market for healthcare throughout the EU. The NHS faces the prospect of losing revenue to hospitals overseas.

"But to get the NHS to a position where it is providing the same level of healthcare available in many European countries, something needs to shake it up. Otherwise we will carry on with this healthcare system which we worship but does not deliver."

The draft directive states: "If the appropriate care for the patient's condition cannot be provided in their own country without undue delay, then they will be authorised to go abroad, and any additional costs of treatment will be covered by public funds."

The definition of "undue delay" is likely to be based on the assessment of a medical professional rather than a funding body. The directive was drawn up after several patients took the NHS to the European Court of Justice to try to recover the costs of treatments in the EU. This has left the refunding of treatment abroad governed by a confusing series of court rulings.

Yvonne Watts, 76, who went to France for a hip replacement in 2002, confirmed the right of patients to seek treatment abroad if they suffered undue delay in a legal battle decided by the European court last year. Her local health funder, Bedford Primary Care Trust, had refused to pay her 4,000 pound bill. Edwina Currie, the former Health Minister and spokeswoman for the Patients' Association, said: "This is not about individual countries giving up their health services to Brussels. This will affect a number of people like Mrs Watts who have had to wait too long for routine surgery."

Any patients seeking to come to Britain from EU countries would have to join the queue. NHS centres of excellence, such as Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children and the Royal Marsden cancer hospital, both in London, are seen as potential draws.

The Government plans to fight the proposals, however, to retain control over funding and, therefore, whether patients are allowed to travel. The Department of Health said: "We are committed to ensuring that the right legislative framework is developed which ensures that, where patients choose to travel abroad, the NHS retains the ability to decide what care it will fund to meet the clinical needs of people it looks after. What people want is good services close to home and that is what we are committed to providing."

Source