Because it can always happen that medical assistance is needed.
As this can be very costly, it is a good idea to have a health insurance.
Right?
An ordinary health insurance for a permanent pilgrim is not an option.
Because a health insurance company wants a client to live in one fixed place.
If a client travels a lot and something happens during a journey, the health insurance will not cover when they learn of the frequency of traveling.
Fortunately, there are health insurance companies that are prepared to cover persons on the road constantly.
One such company is “HealthCare International”.
Based in London, U.K.
They are having 35 years of experience insuring expatriates and travelers.
It goes too far to explain the details of the policy but this tireless traveler pays for a health insurance with “HealthCare International” an annual premium of € 2.050 ($ 2,880).
That’s € 170 ($ 238) per month.
There is a deductible of € 1.000 ($ 1,405) per year but this does not apply to outpatient physician and paramedical fees.
Now, just for the fun of it, the lowest monthly payment USA health insurance for a similar person as the permanent pilgrim will cost € 158 ($222,29).
From Avera Health Plans.
However, there is a deductible of € 3.558 ( $ 5,000).
Plus the policy holder must pay 30 % of all medical bills him/herself.
In other words: an American health insurance is very expensive.
So, we may conclude that it would make sense for an American citizen to also get a health insurance from the British company “HealthCare International”.
Not really.
Because the above mentioned “HealthCare International” insurance of
€ 170 ($ 238) per month excludes the USA.
This means that when the policy holder of the “HealthCare International” insurance breaks his or her arm while in the USA, the medical bills have to be paid from the own pocket.
This doesn’t mean that a worried customer frequently in the USA cannot have medical costs covered over there as well.
The same policy from “HealthCare International” including the USA will cost € 446,57 ( $ 627,45)
An enormous difference.
The USA excluded € 170 or the USA included € 446.
We all know that the health care system in the USA has become the playing field of the capitalists.
American health insurance companies make annually $ 250 billion.
Because it is a free for all society where nothing is protected from making profit.
Even if it results in people not getting proper health care.
Health care should be excellent and for free worldwide.
It should not be the playing field for greedy capitalists to grab more money.
Health care for free everywhere and of top quality?
An idiotic thought?
An impossibility?
Not at all, fervent and loyal blog readers.
Global military spending stands now at over $ 1.2 trillion.
If we would spend half of that money on health care, good doctors could be for free everywhere.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To learn more about "HealthCare International", click on:http://www.healthcareinternational.com/
To learn more about USA health insurance premiums, click on:
https://www.ehealthinsurance.com/ehi/Quote.fs
To learn more about global military spending, click on:
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
.
4 comments:
Dear Michel,
You are an idealist, and I think unrealistic in your assessment of how to pay for everyone to have health care the world over. While I agree that countries, especially the US that have military presence all over the world could economize by closing obsolete bases thereby cutting costs considerably. I believe that the funds already exist in many nations to provide health care in an efficient and effective manner. Unfortunately, GOVERNMENT is notoriously poor at running things.
Government inefficiency and fraud within the current systems of US Medicare and Medicaid mean that the existing system costs many times more than what it should and could. If it were not for malpractice suits and fraud (including use of the system by non-citizens) the entire US health care system would function well and everyone WOULD have affordable health care. Those who could not afford health insurance would have their health care costs covered by government programs (that would have to resemble the current ones not at all)
In addition, I don't think it is well known outside of the US that most US businesses, large and small, already offer health insurance plans for their employees. The reality is that US citizens are paying exorbitant taxes to cover fraudulent use of the system AND paying for very high malpractice insurance for physicians hamstrung by huge court judgments resulting very often from frivolous lawsuits.
The US system is just one example of what happens when checks and balances are not in place. Similar inefficiencies exist in nations where health care is "free" and these systems are further hamstrung by inefficiencies that result when government gets involved in regulating something. As a Canadian I have seen this side of socialized medicine first hand.
I guess my point is that I do not believe that 100% socialized medicine is the answer. There has to be a better solution that increases the quality of service (something that a free market system promotes) as well as reduces the overall cost (efficiency efficiency efficiency).
Michel, you are absolutely correct!
There is a lot of debate about providing health care to all citizens, I believe it's a right. As for the Canadian system, there is a lot of misinformation and outright lies put forward by the US health care industry and it's supporters to try to block universal health care.
The reality is that the cost to provide care in Canada is less than the for profit US system, and the system works.
The only improvement that the Canadian system needs is to have a small ($10 to $20) user fee per service to help prevent frivolous use, and perhaps a detailed "invoice" to show people what the cost of the services are.
Al
Al,
I take great exception to your assertion that the Canadian system "works". There is ample evidence that this is simply not true. I have both personal and professional experience that illustrates that the Canadian system does not work in many cases. The wait to see a specialist when a patient may have cancer or other life threatening disease is often MONTHS. Canadians who can afford it therefore often go South to the US to get the biopsy or MRI that they need to survive. For those unable to do so, the months that pass permit a tumor to grow and metastasize.
My father at the age of 72 waited six hours to be seen by a physician after breaking his hip. During that time he lay on a gurney in the drafty hallway of the hospital, still in his sweat drenched hockey equipment and not a single member of the staff asked him if he needed a drink of water, to urinate or to be made more comfortable. Why was he in the hallway? Because there was no space for him anywhere. Why was there no space? Because the system is chronically underfunded. This is ONE among many such examples.
It has been demonstrated many times over that in a free market system, quality is maintained because the consumer has a CHOICE and determines what they are willing to pay for. Do you think that in universal health care the quality of care will be elevated across the board to levels currently at the best institutions? Or will they instead tend towards mediocrity? I would contend it is the former.
As Michel pointed out to me, the health insurance industry is a multi-billion dollar industry in the US. Is that necessarily wrong? In a nation of how many people? Is this service not worthy of that cost? Again, like I said, costs could be reduced by addressing inefficiencies, fraud and litigation. Remove those factors, maintain choices and the consumer will find that insurance has become more affordable. Having more money in their pocket as a result of lower tax levels, the wealthy are proven to be more generous with donations to causes such as those that provide health care for the under privileged.
I maintain that socialized medicine is not the way to achieve the best medical care for a nations people and that increased taxation to achieve these ends will stunt the overall economy.
Dawn:
Waiting for treatment in an ER is not only a Canadian problem, ask people in the USA, it happens there as well. You had the choice in Canada to take your father to any other facility in the area (or in the country for that matter)at no cost if you were unhappy with the response, my understanding is that in the US under privatized medicine you are restricted to the hospital(s) or doctors that your plan funds. My personal experience with the Canadian ER system is that the triage works well, if your situation is serious enough you get an almost instant response.
As to the issue of charity, I've heard enough comments from folks in the US advocating "let those folks with no insurance fend for themselves" to believe that you are the idealist in this situation, not Michel.
Al.
Post a Comment