Poor people get worse health care than the middle class and wealthy
No surprise here, private healthcare is much much better than public healthcare…
Poor people get worse health care than the middle class and wealthy, even in Finland’s welfare state. This is according to research conducted by the OECD.
A patient’s income affects the quality of health care in Finland more than it does in other industrialized nations. The problem is more acute only in Portugal and the United States.
[...]Public health care centres, on the other hand may be far away, involve long lines, and result in some fees – all of which may deter someone in need of health care.
Wow! Finland’s healthcare class gap is on par with the U.S.!!
It isn’t on par though. There is a basic(and far from perfect) and universal health care in Finland….The US can’t say the same…
Comment by Kai — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 11:58 am
I find the Finnish system rather frightening. That’s why I pay for a policy that covers me internationally. If I need something that Finland can’t offer at an acceptable quality or timetable, then I fly to a different country of my choice.
Public healthcare is cheapest per-capita, but it’s definitely NOT the best value. The best way is probably to optimize between public and private. But fundamental decisions regarding care should come from the private side. I don’t want some government bureaucrat deciding my fate.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Why do you think that this run down, stripped and raped version of the “welfare state” is working as intended? Of course it’s not working properly any longer, so much funding has been taken away from the public sector that Finland really is no welfare state anymore.
This is just the end result you see when the welfare state is being dismantled. I suppose you should be happy. People’s freedom is growing. Now people are free to die to their disease as they’re not treated efficiently any longer with common tax money.
Let’s just get rid of the remaining taxes and our journey to the Dark Side will be complete.
Comment by Ã…boy — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
It’s a bit like bitching to a fireman that he can’t stop any fires and should be fired himself. Then taking his hose away from him and mocking him “See, see! Like I said: you can’t stop any fires!”
Comment by Ã…boy — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Well, actually there are significant public subcidies also for the private sector. Finnish system is amazingly cheap (the USA manages to have both a very wasteful AND non-universal system), but the quality is admittedly increasingly bad. We have gotten a private insurance for our first child (due to be born in March) - it would seem to me quite cheap indeed, ca €400 per annum, covering all medical costs above 70 euros. In this situation, it is no wonder that people are deserting the public system, but this is scarcely the fault of the welfare state as such. There are really good systems in Europe, much cheaper than the American mess, and providing better care than the Finnish version. (Of course even in Finland the national health statistcs are clearly better than the American - I suppose we should blame capitalism for that?)
Comment by mjr — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
“In an extensive ABCNEWS/Washington Post poll, Americans by a 2-1 margin, 62-32 percent, prefer a universal health insurance program over the current employer-based system. That support, however, is conditional: It falls to fewer than four in 10 if it means a limited choice of doctors, or waiting lists for non-emergency treatments.
Support for change is based largely on unease with the current system’s costs. Seventy-eight percent are dissatisfied with the cost of the nation’s health care system, including 54 percent “very” dissatisfied.
Indeed, most Americans, or 54 percent, are now dissatisfied with the overall quality of health care in the United States  the first majority in three polls since 1993, and up 10 points since 2000.”
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:38 pm
“Public health care centres, on the other hand may be far away, involve long lines, and result in some fees”
May result in some fees?
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Finland should study the French public healthcare system which is regarded the best in the world.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:43 pm
Why do you think that this run down, stripped and raped version of the “welfare state†is working as intended? Of course it’s not working properly any longer, so much funding has been taken away from the public sector that Finland really is no welfare state anymore.
Even a libertarian like me agrees that public healthcare is important, that’s why I support stripping and raping the welfare state of it’s non-essential activities and moving that money towards essential things like healthcare.
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
May result in some fees?
“Free healthcare” ain’t free!
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
For your average flu symptoms and other non-emergency cases, it is better to go to a private clinic. You get friendlier service etc etc. and it is (still) relatively cheap (about 50 euros per visit). I’d like to know how much you have to pay in the US…
For real emergencies public healthcare is good as any private hospital and you do not have to worry whether your insurance covers this or that. That is the crucial difference. When you are really sick or badly injured, the last thing you want to worry about in ER is your insurance coverage.
Comment by tim73 — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Not to be a pedant but Phil’s comment that the Finnish health inequality is “on a par” with the US contradicts the article which states that the problem is “more acute” in the US. This could mean the US is a bit worse than Finland or twice as bad as Finland. What it cannot mean is that the US is “on a par” with Finland.
Comment by finnsense — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Oh yes, for serious illnesses the public system is still quite good. But it must be said that health centres have really gotten worse during last 10 years. I had recently a fairly unpleasant immune system sickness that lasted for 2,5 years: Jorvi took care of it with no problems, quartely visits and tests, costing 26 euros, no waiting times, high quality and effective care. All paid by tax money. I love the welfare state in action!
Comment by mjr — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
Ã…boy: “Why do you think that this run down, stripped and raped version of the “welfare state†is working as intended?”
I remember the ‘true’ welfare state medical system of the 80’s. It was probably the worst in Europe and 10X worse than the US. They put my uncle on an 8-month waiting list for something that was simple, yet potentially risky. He could have died during that time.
My family collected about 10K and had him treated privately, in another country.
If we relinquish fundamental care decisions to the state, then we’ll always lag behind other countries who have privatized systems. With that said, I don’t think the choice needs to be between Finland’s system and America’s.
Plus, America’s system is difficult to compare, because America’s demographics are vastly different. Just consider the ex-slave population and all those immigrants from down-south. Otherwise, I’ve had private insurance in the states, and it was excellent…..really excellent. I’ve had it in Switzerland too….excellent, maybe even better than the US.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 1:30 pm
I don’t want some government bureaucrat deciding my fate.
It’s so much better having bloodsucking lawyers doing that.
Comment by Anonymous — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Something is wrong with phils commenting system, that or he has banned me from commenting
Nothing I post gets through.
Comment by John Evans — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
Phil, “more acute” doesn’t really mean the same thing as “on par”.
Kristian (in Espoo), Finland does have a private health care system, just like the US has a public health care system. In fact, in absolute per capita terms, Americans pay more for their public system than we Finns do for ours.
Comment by a lamb with no guiding light — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 7:18 pm
Phil, “more acute†doesn’t really mean the same thing as “on parâ€Â.
Fine, the next time Norway or Sweden is #1 and Finland is #3 on a OECD list for like quality of education or healthcare, I’m gonna be like, “Finland is at a shitty third place. Wayyyyy off from from Norway. Definitely not on par with Norway.”
Comment by Phil — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 7:43 pm
#17
Finland does have a private health care system, however, it is not fully equiped to handle all types of health problems. There simply is not enough money around to support a “complete” private health care system due to lack of customers.
Comment by Unit — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
It is hard to hear everyone comlaining about univeral healthcare when, as a self-employed person, it costs me $1600.00 a month for healthcare for myself and my family, and, of course, that just gets me 80% hospitalization coverage, and the prescription coverage is a joke. My health care costs per month are more than my mortgage!
Comment by Nipsu — Mon, Jan 29th, 2007 @ 9:33 pm
Welcome to the dark side.
Now get used to it. It really does work better.
Comment by winter — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 12:03 am
#11: ‘For your average flu symptoms and other non-emergency cases, it is better to go to a private clinic.’
Absolutely, if you really think you need any treatment for common flu. A big reason why you have to wait for hours on end to see a doctor during ‘päivystys’ is the people who bog down the clinics by having doctors order them Burana for their cold symptoms.
Comment by aet75 — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 6:07 am
I don’t want some government bureaucrat deciding my fate.
It’s so much better having bloodsucking lawyers doing that.
Not to mention some insurance company bureaucrat.
Comment by N. Siinistö — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 9:55 am
#23 Actually, I trust my contractual relationship with the insurer more than anything else. The contract spells-out what’s covered and what’s not. There are consumer services that report on the quality of insurers and readiness to fulfill their obligations. Reputable companies like to stay at the top of the rankings. If you try to save money by going with a low-ranked insurer, then it’s your own fault—unless it’s a calculated risk and you’re willing to pay the difference if something happens.
Also, lawyers tend to play a role in ensuring quality within the medical profession. I think about how doctors in America immediately take your blood pressure when you walk in the door. If they don’t, and you have a heart attack next month, then they can be sued for overlooking the most obvious warning sign. Also, a doctor’s malpractice insurer would probably drop him.
Try getting your blood pressure checked at Jorvi. I asked for it once when I was having trouble breathing. They just rolled their eyes. Couldn’t even find the device. I was having trouble breathing and b/p was their least concern. Think about that.
Naturally, if incentive to sue is too great, then costs rise needlessly for everyone. I think that’s the problem in the US; the law is structured so that lawyers benefit disproportionately. Insurance companies too. There needs to be balance.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:12 am
“I trust my contractual relationship with the insurer more than anything else.”
did you really mean:
I trust my contractual relationship with the insurer more than the Government.
Welcome to the Borg, we are taking over, its called free enterprise, killing Government control.
Comment by winter — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 3:14 pm
Phil:
““Free healthcare†ain’t free!”
Who ever said it was? Except all libertarians using the “free health-care”-card for bitching about healt-care in Finland time after time.
Comment by Thomas — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 10:52 pm
Kristian:
“Try getting your blood pressure checked at Jorvi. I asked for it once when I was having trouble breathing. They just rolled their eyes. Couldn’t even find the device. I was having trouble breathing and b/p was their least concern. Think about that.”
Even the health-care center in “poor east-Helsinki” (as compared to rich Espoo where you and Phil seem to spend your life) has a blood-pressure meter that anyone can use (even Espoo-inhabitants - maybe you should consider emigrating, so you don’t choke the next time you have trouble breathing in rich Espoo), free of charge.
Funny though, Phil seemed to imply that the quality of health-care is worse, based on income.
Comment by Thomas — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
…as compared to rich Espoo…
Not every part of Espoo is rich. In fact, most of it isn’t.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
mjr:
“it would seem to me quite cheap indeed, ca €400 per annum, covering all medical costs above 70 euros.”
You think 400e per annum is cheap? For ONE child covering expenses over 70e.
Are you kidding?
I pay 800e a year for 3 kids, 2 dogs + home insurance + boat insurance and some permanent travel insurances. And the insurances for the kids have (if I remember correctly) a 50e self-risk. But maybe it is due to the fact that the child - your child I mean - is not born yet. I would - if I were you - consider getting a new insurance, after the kid is born (if that goes without trouble, that is. A new insurance will of course not cover any problems that are known in advance. That’s why I’m stuck with my current insurer, since 2/3 of my kids have chronic illnesses).
Comment by Thomas — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
Kristian:
“Not every part of Espoo is rich. In fact, most of it isn’t.”
We do seem to read (e.g. in the “letters to the editor”-section of HeSa) about these horror conditions in Itäkeskus, Helsinki, as compared to the wonderful city of Espoo, though. But I’m glad that somebody else is also starting to get a grip on reality.
Comment by Thomas — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
I can somehow understand why many Americans hate governments. For them a government employee is a loser, not quite making it out there and choosing easier life in the “dark side”.
But they are forgetting that government employees are enablers of free entrepreneurship, maintaining fair rules for all and without them the royalty would rule without mercy above those pesky peasants.
Hey, wait a minute! That really sounds like US today! Clinton or Bush, that is your choice, basically. Too rich families fighting for political power just like in 15th century Venice while current King Saint Dubya from the political party of Wingnutzis having those lovely Caligula moments and declaring wars every other year.
So how is that different from 17th century England you ancestors ran away? At least Brits were much more civilized…what an irony….
Comment by tim73 — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:35 pm
“…as compared to the wonderful city of Espoo…”
Actually, despite the healthcare difficulties you mention, I’d rather live in Helsinki. I only live in Espoo because I have family nearby. For that matter, I was born here—but not in West End! Haukilahti, rather. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haukilahti
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Tue, Jan 30th, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
“I don’t want some government bureaucrat deciding my fate.”
Well, here in the USA it’s a insurance bureaucrat answering to shareholders wanting higher profits deciding your fate. I’ll pick the government bureacrat, thanks.
Comment by Anonymous — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 5:34 am
“Well, here in the USA it’s a insurance bureaucrat answering to shareholders….”
Well, then I’d say you either have a bad policy or you live in a US state that has weak laws governing how insurance companies operate.
I sort of like the Swiss model: Each canton negotiates rates and services with insurance companies before their offerings are made available to the public.
Costs under 3K/person/year and less for children. Of course, tax rates are between 0 and 30% overall (30% assumes a really high income), so the insurance hit isn’t so bad. Plus, those who can’t afford the price, get it subsidized.
I have relatives who live there; the Finnish medical system is a main reason for why they wouldn’t live here……of course, the Finnish tax system is another.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 11:59 am
Kristian:
“Well, here in the USA it’s a insurance bureaucrat answering to shareholders….â€Â
Well, then I’d say you either have a bad policy or you live in a US state that has weak laws governing how insurance companies operate.
So, your insurance company doesn’t make a profit? I suppose the CEO doesn’t get a salary either. What kind of a collective is it anyway?
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Wed, Jan 31st, 2007 @ 9:26 pm
“IS THE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE ABOUT TO COLLAPSE? “I am starting to lend more personal credence to the theory that a combination of strong growth, fat corporate profits, and already tight labor market might push the unemployment rate to lows we have not seen since the 1960s.”
Yea, its “fat corporate profits” not Government intervention, that drives a strong market.
Must blow you social welfare state guys away.
Welcome to the Borg. We have won.
Comment by winter — Thu, Feb 1st, 2007 @ 4:36 am
Kristian:
“Costs under 3K/person/year and less for children. Of course, tax rates are between 0 and 30% overall (30% assumes a really high income), so the insurance hit isn’t so bad.”
In what sense does this system ensure population growth (which I seem to recall even you whining about - I could be wrong though) since it’s clearly VERY unfavourable (economically) to have kids in an economic system such as this.
And let’s take a family of five 2 adults and three children. With health insurance costs close to 15000e you need to have a gross income in the household of 150000e for the insurances not to exceed 10%. And you say this doesn’t hit bad.
Comment by Thomas — Fri, Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 12:11 am
I pay over $13,000 dollars a year for insurance for my family. My wife, three kids, and I. I earn a middle class income at my job. My wife is a part time student and does not work. I also own a business but all my profits have been rolled back in to the business so I do not have extra liquid income from the business.
We have 3 kids, so our system has not discouraged population growth, in our life anyway. I see way more people having children here than I ever did in Finland; even though we don’t have an entrenched public health care system which supposedly makes it easier to have children. I find that statement to be utter nonsense.
I make about $75000 a year and health insurance is our biggest bill aside from our mortgage. We have 2 cars, a 401k(retirement savings), a 210 square meter house in a nice neighborhood. We can afford great insurance because we don’t have the snot taxed out of us. We don’t pay income tax, we get big tax breaks for our 3 kids, our mortage, our health care premiums, etc. I even get a tax break for my wife because she does not work. We don’t pay high gas taxes, auto taxes, sales taxes etc. We get government assistance for my wife’s schooling and in our home loan program.
All these things add up to make a $12,000 a year insurance plan pretty easy to afford. All my premiums are counted against my income by the goverment, making my taxable income much lower. Of course I hate shelling over $12000 in premiums; but our quality of care is unbelievable. Especially when compared to the health care we recieved through the NHS in Finland.
Just ask my FINNISH wife; she will go on and on and on about it. We had one child in Finland, one child in the US on a government health care program (they do exist in the US and some are actually quite good and easy to qualify for), and one on our current private health insurance. So we have 3 different experiences to compare and the Finnish experience was by far the worst.
While I believe there are some(very few) good things about the Finnish NHS, making it easier to have kids is not one of them. I prefer to pay my own way if I can afford it and get the tax breaks for doing so. Of course if I can’t afford it, then I can qualify for a government health program.
Having government insurance crammed down peoples throats at all levels of society makes for equally poor health care for all. Competition does work wonders in improving health care, so if I have to pay more I don’t care.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Fri, Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 7:17 am
“Having government insurance crammed down peoples throats at all levels of society makes for equally poor health care for all.”
Actually is just means everyone stands in the same long line.
Is all about getting to the front of the line. I pay more for the front of the line service, using private insurance. The fact that money talks, and I get much better service, is making my quality of life better.
After all I do not have to worry about turning 80, and having the government health care service say “To old for that operation, we need the money for younger folks, here is a free wheelchair for you, goodby”.
Comment by winter — Fri, Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 3:15 pm
Thomas: “With health insurance costs close to 15000e…..”
As I stated in post #34, Swiss health insurance is subsidized according to both income and number of children in the family. I guess Switzerland also favors population growth.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Fri, Feb 2nd, 2007 @ 9:35 pm
Maksalaatikko:
So you pay 13000$ in health-care insurance but end up paying 12000$ in total (taxes etc. including health-care)? How is this possible? No wonder the U.S. economy is a disaster waiting to explode.
And 13000 out of 75000 is still 17,3% of your income (which given the current rate of the $ is more or less equal to mine, and I pay 30% in taxes). Then we do not talk about schools, universities, …
You live in a 210 square meter house, and can afford the mortgage on one salary? I don’t know where you live, but you wouldn’t in Helsinki. Here you have to HEAT those square meters 9 months of the year (so from my point of view surplus square meters is just stupid, since you pay for every unused square meter, and I’m not prepared to do that). And your mortgage - given the price level - wouldn’t be affordable on the income you earn. But I was surprised, when a former colleague of mine, who now lives in Oregon (works at Intel) visited me. When he told me what he paid for his house, I was really surprised. I thought houses in the U.S. were expensive, but the price he said he paid was surprisingly low. But then he said that the quality of houses was really poor. That is said about houses in Finland too, but he was very definitive in his opinion, having visited our house.
A stupid question btw., do you typically own the lot on which a house is built in the U.S.?
Concerning the number of cars, even owning one seems lika waste to me. Is there any worse investment than a car? And concerning retirement schemes, you don’t need (but you CAN of course) to invest in such in Finland. That’s why taxes are somewhat higher.
“So we have 3 different experiences to compare and the Finnish experience was by far the worst.”
In what sense? These kind of arguments, thrown out, without the slightest evidence, are really tiresome.
“While I believe there are some(very few) good things about the Finnish NHS, making it easier to have kids is not one of them.”
In what sense? I think the finnish NHS does a very good job in terms of making it easier to have kids.
“Having government insurance crammed down peoples throats at all levels of society makes for equally poor health care for all. Competition does work wonders in improving health care, so if I have to pay more I don’t care.”
There are a number of people in the U.S. claiming the U.S. health-care is WAY too expensive, w.r.t. the results it provides. Dean Baker (?) e.g.
Competition in the U.S. has apparently not improved health-care. At least not in the typical way competition should work, i.e. driving down costs.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 12:01 am
Kristian:
“As I stated in post #34, Swiss health insurance is subsidized according to both income and number of children in the family. I guess Switzerland also favors population growth.”
Not necessarily. It depends on the level of the subsidies. But as usual, you only quote hearsay, but give no FACTS.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 12:03 am
#42 It depends on the voters.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 1:55 am
“Concerning the number of cars, even owning one seems lika waste to me.”
Easy to say when you live in downtown Helsinki or Itäkeskus. But even then, public transit in Finland is probably the worst in Europe, in terms of availability. Most stops at midnight or shortly thereafter.
“ Is there any worse investment than a car?”
Considering the Finnish car tax? NO.
Cars cost roughly half Finland’s price in the US.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 2:00 am
“ And concerning retirement schemes, you don’t need (but you CAN of course) to invest in such in Finland. That’s why taxes are somewhat higher.”
Ah yes, the Finnish pension. When you die, your children get nothing.
Conversely, investment-based retirement funds can be given to your children when you die.
Investment retirement funds would keep more capital within Finland, rather than losing it because of some pension Ponzi scheme.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 2:09 am
“Concerning the number of cars, even owning one seems lika waste to me. Is there any worse investment than a car? ”
Huh, I have 4 cars, 2 boats, and they were all paid for by tax cuts that made the Liberals unhappy over here.
Thats the best part, spending my money the way I want.
Comment by winter — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 3:40 am
Kristian:
“Easy to say when you live in downtown Helsinki or Itäkeskus. But even then, public transit in Finland is probably the worst in Europe, in terms of availability. Most stops at midnight or shortly thereafter.”
You’ve made the choice to live in Espoo. Couldn’t say I admire your choice. I would never live in that shit-town. But why couldn’t they (the oh-so-clever decision makers in Espoo) drag the decision of the metro 50 years further, to avoid the invasion of scum from itäkeskus to the beautiful Espoo?
But in Helsinki where I live, public transportation - IMHO - works relatively well. I agree that transportation after midnight is a problem, but I think I’ve been to many cities (including NYC) where the same problem is evident. Then again, I’m not one of the needy ones in this case, since I don’t usually leave home after I get back from work.
“Considering the Finnish car tax? NO.”
So you consider a car to be a GOOD investment if the price is - like 10% - lower than the current one? Investing 30Ke in a car that is “worthless” after 10 years, that’s idiocy in my opinion. Actually, I have new car, but I think this one is the last one. Regardless of whether the car has leather seats, nice gadgets etc. It’s just stupid. Dumb. Idiotic. If you choose to live in Espoo - where housing prices are, let’s say astonishing - you should calculate the need of two 30Ke cars (including change every three years) into the equation. When you sum it up, those two cars are extremely expensive. If you want to live that way, fine, but clever is not the adjective I would use, to describe this Espoo-lifestyle.
“Ah yes, the Finnish pension. When you die, your children get nothing.”
WTF? Your parents screwed you up? Well that happens, but the Finnish society does definately NOT hinder parents from transferring their assets to their children. Ever heard of the Ehrnrooths, Ahlströms, … and like. No problem there. The children get much more than nothing. In fact, a former class-mate of mine was listed as one of the wealthiest people in Helsinki recently. She - herself that is - didn’t earn one cent of this wealth, that is for sure.
So don’t start talking in these terms, if you don’t have FACTS. But normally you DON’T. I mean - have facts. What else is new in this blog. Even the blog-keeper himself is lost in space, and on a mission to prove that Finland is the worst thinkable place to live in.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 5:31 pm
Winter:
“Thats the best part, spending my money the way I want.”
Yes. That’s right. Buy some “Brooklyn Bridges” while you’re at it (maybe you get a tax cut for that as well). I do not get tired of U.S. idiots wasting money on air. I’m more concerned of fellow countrymen/countrywomen doing the same thing.
But keep on bying cars/boats (somehow I do not think you are the person who would invest sanely, even concerning boats) that will be worthless 10 years from now. Some of that money might end up in Europe. But in your case that’s probably not bloody likely.
But anyway, you may finance the next learjet of GM executives for all I care. I’m not going to participate. Idiots like you handle that oh-so-well. And then they have the nerve to advice others on how to use their money. And even giving advice on how governments should spend their money. It’s a mad mad world.
Comment by Thomas — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
“….[decision makers in Espoo] drag the decision of the metro 50 years further…”
Good point, especially considering that most people in Espoo aren’t rich and could benefit from cheaper transportation to/from Helsinki. Taxi costs about 22e, one way.
“But in Helsinki [...] transportation after midnight is a problem [...] I’ve been to many cities (including NYC) where the same problem is evident.”
Yes, the 97N runs sort of late. I’ve taken it many times.
US doesn’t have great public transit, but taxis are dirt-cheap in most cities. About half-price of here in overtaxed Finland.
.
.
“So you consider a car to be a GOOD investment….”
Nope. That’s why I only buy used cars. Hopefully Finland’s upcoming car-tax proposal will enable us to buy used cars at normal European prices—instead of double-price like we do now.
.
.
“If you choose to live in Espoo - where housing prices are, let’s say astonishing [...] to describe this Espoo-lifestyle.”
I have a cheap flat here in Espoo, to be near family. Admittedly though, I have a second residence outside of Finland for tax reasons.
Eventually, I’d like to get a place in Helsinki. Then again, I have some land in the countryside, so maybe I’ll build….
My decision to move here permanently and invest, employ people, etc., depends on Finland’s future tax picture, healthcare situation, etc.
I’d like to see improvement first.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 8:30 pm
“So you pay 13000$ in health-care insurance but end up paying 12000$ in total (taxes etc. including health-care)? How is this possible? No wonder the U.S. economy is a disaster waiting to explode.”
This is possible because most of the tax burden in this country is carried by the super wealthy. I do pay sales tax, SS tax, Medicare, and taxes hidden products I buy that are paid for by manufactures, etc. The last of which a Finn will never mention in taxes he/she pays. As for the U.S. econ being a disaster waiting to explode; that predictions has been made on a regular basis for as long as I can remember by America hating Europeans. I’m still waiting for it to happen. At %4.6 REAL unemployment, and steady, consistant GDP growth; it won’t be anytime soon.
“And 13000 out of 75000 is still 17,3% of your income (which given the current rate of the $ is more or less equal to mine, and I pay 30% in taxes). Then we do not talk about schools, universities”
Another ignorant trick. Comparing our incomes through the exchange rate. What should be compared is the buying power of our incomes, of which I have much more than you do, due to taxes and competition.
By the way, my University education was paid for by the federal and state governments. You see, at the time I was POOR so the govt. paid for my education(and health care).
“You live in a 210 square meter house, and can afford the mortgage on one salary? I don’t know where you live, but you wouldn’t in Helsinki.”
I don’t know prices in Helsinki, but the tax appraised value of my house is $267,500. Market value usually is %3-%5 higher than that. As for your “FACTS” from your friend from Intel who came to your house and said some stuff; tell him to stick to computer chips and don’t base your arguments in hearsay. Your friend has no idea what he is talking about. Houses, constructed in the last 15 years: In Finland are stronger and typically more energy effiecient than American houses due to snow load requirements for roofs; In the US houses are healthier due to air exchange(which lowers energy efficiency)and construction methods and materials than Finland.
“so from my point of view surplus square meters is just stupid, since you pay for every unused square meter, and I’m not prepared to do that”
Typical Finnish comment. Never prepared to do anything. I’ve heard it many times. I agree whole heartedly that my house is way to big for my family, but the surplus square meters have been a GREAT investment financially. As for buying the lot, Americans always own the lot(it would be unAmerican not to). The lot is what apprieciates in value, a house by itself is a depreciating asset. Leasing land from govt. for a home is so rare that it could be considered non-existant.
Concerning the number of cars, even owning one seems lika waste to me. Is there any worse investment than a car? And concerning retirement schemes, you don’t need (but you CAN of course) to invest in such in Finland. That’s why taxes are somewhat higher.
Cars are not investments, they are luxery items and very liberating. Typical Finnish response to cars and large houses is they are stupid and we don’t even need them. When the real reason is they just can’t afford them and don’t want to admit it. Of course you don’t NEED them. Who does? But is sure nice to have them. Owning a car is a status symbol and a testament to standard of living in almost every country in the world, including Finland. Along with house size and location.
“I think the finnish NHS does a very good job in terms of making it easier to have kids.”
In what sense? These kind of arguments, thrown out, without the slightest evidence, are really tiresome.
“There are a number of people in the U.S. claiming the U.S. health-care is WAY too expensive, w.r.t. the results it provides. Dean Baker (?) e.g.”
So don’t start talking in these terms, if you don’t have FACTS. But normally you DON’T. I mean - have facts.
“Competition in the U.S. has apparently not improved health-care. At least not in the typical way competition should work, i.e. driving down costs.”
This is where you do not understand the basic fundmentals of private insurance and business. You write about executives flying in jets and other ridulious things along those lines. You are missing the boat. There is plenty of competition among private insurers in the US. Nobody is make %30 profit margins in the insurance business. Health care being very expensive is a recent phenomenon in the US, yet we’ve had the same system in place for years and year. SO IT’S NOT THE SYSTEM. What is it then? Technology and Innovation.
Technology and innovation has been moving a light speed in the health care field. Much faster than most people in the world can afford to pay for. It’s very expensive, especially when first released. The only people who can afford the latest and greatest is people with expensive insurance plans. They demand the best, and pay for the best. When it comes to peoples’ lives and health; they do not look for the best deal, they look for the best service and care. Therefore prices go up, not down.
If I have a simple malady such a the flu or strep throat it doesn’t really matter what country I’m in; the prices and treatment are going to be relitively same. But if I have a life threatening illness, emergency, cancer, heart attack, premature baby, etc. there is no better plan to have and no better place to be; than a very expensive private insurance plan in St. Paul, MN, USA.
“And concerning retirement schemes, you don’t need (but you CAN of course) to invest in such in Finland. That’s why taxes are somewhat higher.”
Yes, put a Euro in when your 20 years old; take a Euro out when your 65. And live in a tiny apartment eating rice and rye bread to save money. I prefer untaxed compounding returns, managed by myself not spent by some govt. official. Put an untaxed dollar in when your 20 years old, and take $16 dollars out when your 65. That would be a very conservative rate of return. Anyways, there won’t be any govt. funded retirements for young Finns unless massive reforms are made.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
Spot-on maksalaatikko. Plus, the pensions here in Finland can’t be transfered to heirs.
For example, a bus driver can pay-into a Finnish pension plan for all his life and none of that ‘investment’ is left for his children or grandchildren after he dies. And he might die sooner rather than later, due to mediocre public healthcare here in Finland.
Maybe that’s good for the pension system though :-/
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 9:40 pm
“And he might die sooner rather than later, due to mediocre public healthcare here in Finland.”
Ahem…according to CIA world fact book, the life expectancy for the finns with mediocre public healthcare is 78.5 years, while worlds best, private, capitalist etc. etc. U.S. system produces life expectancy of 77.85 years. OK, the Swiss reach 80.51 years, but they have all that healthy mountain air and Dr.Vogel’s herbal products.
And what about the infant mortality rate?
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 9:55 pm
“…all that healthy mountain air and Dr.Vogel’s herbal products.”
Good one
I’m pretty sure that life expectancy in America corresponds with ethnicity. As does poverty. Unfortunate but true. Much is due to the ex-slave population and also the massive amounts of immigrants that have come over the border in recent years. In terms of demographics, we have nothing in Finland that compares.
I’m sure that pulls-down life expectancy numbers by AT LEAST the half-year difference that you mention.
Seriously, based on healthcare, I would much rather be an old person in America.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 10:09 pm
Actually, Finland *could* potentially devolop a better healthcare system than America. But, it would have to be part of a Europe-wide effort. Core-competency centers would need to be developed in various countries.
It would probably involve a combined government/private industry effort.
It’ll cost more, so to make it possible, we’d probably need to raise our GDP. The high-tax European economic model would need to be nixed. More emphasis on private investment.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 10:21 pm
Ask any health professional any where in the world what factors have the biggest impact on life expectancey and infant mortality. Genetics and living a healthly lifestyle are by far the two main contributing factors. Most people who live to a ripe old age are healthy people that rarely go to the docter… If you eat food that makes you look like a whale and don’t excercise (a fat chunk of the American population falls in this catagory), it doesn’t matter if you have a room in the best cardic arrest ward in the world or live in a mud hut in central Africa, your life expectancy is likly to be quite short. Likewise if you have a drug or smoking habit. None of these factors have anything to do with the health care system.
In fact the areas of the world where people live the longest have no health care system. The are remote mountain villiages in Asia. Most people don’t even know how old they are. There is no statistics available. They have simple healthy diets, get plenty of exercise, and have a great gene pool.
Life expectancy and infant mortality are the same tired statistics that have very little basis in actuall health care, but are yet constantly used by NHS advocates because they have no other statistics.
But when it comes to the minutes that lapse from suffering a heart attack to landing on an operating table, and survival rates etc for any type of emergency operation, cancer treatment, etc. Very specific and important data. A private system will outshine any public system. Public health care systems do not even keep track of this kind of info because there is no incentive to do so. There is no one to compete with, it costs money to do so, and if the numbers are dismal then they would be held accountable. So they just don’t keep track… Whereas a private system keeps very good data on these types of things because to be the best means to be in a very lucrative situation. Hospitals are in constant compitition with each other and many times response times, etc., are measured down to the second. The title of best for this or best for that are huge points of pride for hospitals and clinics, and mean lots of dollars for the businesses that run them.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Sat, Feb 3rd, 2007 @ 11:20 pm
Well, the Finns are not exactly a model nation in healthy lifestyles either. We North-Karelian males had a world record in heart diseases, so the slightly longer life expectancy is not explained by rosy-cheeked, protestant wintersports and moderate alcohol consumption.
“Public health care systems do not even keep track of this kind of info because there is no incentive to do so.”
If this was the case, they could as well give us the 1950’s health care with no incentive to modernize. The rescue departments have goal times set within which they should reach the patient and get to the hospital. They have to keep statistics, how well they are doing. Hospitals and health care districts have to keep statistics, how their treatments are working and they are compared with each other and internationally.
Funding of the medical faculties by the university hospitals partly depends on their research results. Doctors get plenty of honor and prestige for inventing new treatments or being the first one in Finland using one. One incentive to keep the deviations small is also a pissed-off inspector from the ministry with mandate to pull some chairs. Never underestimate what a mulquist a Finnish civil servant can be.
Sure the system is not end-of-history perfect. Far from it, but I don’t think it quite fits into shablon you guys, not to talk about winter, are trying to put it.
My mom lost her second round to the cancer at age of 74, but after all the treatments she received, I can’t say the public healthcare system quit on her.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 1:13 am
My comments aren’t intended to say the Finnish system is totally backwards and doesn’t included the above items you mentioned. I understand that they may come across as rather strong.
My overall point is to expensive private insurance plans are expensive because of what type of coverage is received. The more one pays, the more one receives; and the best healthcare is found where there is the most money to pay for it. A public mandated system is not going to be the best because it takes away the incentives to be the best. I don’t think Finnish system is horrible, I don’t think that it doesn’t evolve and adapt to new methods and technologies. Of course it does. But like everything, when the incentives and competition are taken away, the product becomes mediocre. The altruistic competition between two hospitals or groups of researchers vying for the same pool of government funds is not in the same league as hospitals, or more specificly medical tech companies, competing for in some cases the choice of untold wealth or failure and bankruptcy.
“Well, the Finns are not exactly a model nation in healthy lifestyles either. We North-Karelian males had a world record in heart diseases, so the slightly longer life expectancy is not explained by rosy-cheeked, protestant wintersports and moderate alcohol consumption.”
I think it would be accepted as fact that on average, Finns have much healthier lifestyles than Americans.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 2:51 am
Eventually, I think we’ll find the right balance between private and public system, but in the end it really depends on our ability to pay for it. However, I don’t really see any reason why service should be determined by income or wealth. Everyone should have good quality care available to them. It only costs a few-thousand/capita/year anyway.
Advancements in quality and service are paramount. Government-funded endeavors can succeed, but perhaps only in narrow realms. Even the Soviets had some impressive accomplishmentsâ€â€it just didn’t have a broad range of them like the US. We need to change our narrow picture here in Europe to move forward.
We need people who are willing to speculate financially to fund research, etc. with hope of being rewarded. It takes private capital. In the end, everyone benefits from it. Our high-tax European economies (especially Finland) with correspondingly low GDP’s isn’t the way to encourage a broad range of advancement.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
“Even the Soviets had some impressive accomplishments”
Like the famous Russian worker saying” You pretend to pay me, I pretend to work”.
Thats the government in charge, just ask any Finnish Heath Care provider in your welfare state system.
Come on guys, welcome to the Borg, Private Insurance is here and taking over.
Comment by winter — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 7:10 pm
winter:
Like the famous Russian worker saying†You pretend to pay me, I pretend to workâ€Â.
A saying fit for any 21st century cubicle, I might add.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 8:38 pm
I think it would be accepted as fact that on average, Finns have much healthier lifestyles than Americans.
Is it the beer, sausage or smoking that does it?
Actually, I think that whether it comes to healthy or unhealthy lifestyles, you will find that Americans excel in both extremes. While you won’t find as many grossly obese people in Finland, neither will you find as many anal-retentive health freaks.
As for illegal drugs, they are pretty irrelevant as a national health problem in both countries.
Comment by Freeridin' Franklin — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 8:44 pm
Of course, the health care system here has not evolved to what it is now through luxury of having choices. The modern industry was pretty much started by the state, as there was not enough private capital and the same goes for the health care system. With the resources of 5 million people, I’m not sure, whether we are rich enough even now to go completely private. Given the small population, the people with some rarely occurring disease would probably have to seek their treatment abroad more often, than now.
“A saying fit for any 21st century cubicle, I might add.”
How true. The world is filled with projects for which the substance can be produced two hours prior to deadline after ample reading of FFT, testing which porn pages have made it to the company blocking list etc. One is left with an empty feeling for all those years in the university.
Ouch, I have hard time pretending prof. Juvonen operated my hernia.
Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, Feb 4th, 2007 @ 11:48 pm
“…the people with some rarely occurring disease would probably have to seek their treatment abroad more often, than now.”
That’s the idea. Certain core-competencies will develop in each country. If doctors in Finland develop a special procedure, then people will fly here to have it performed.
There’s a doctor in Florida,US who specializes in parathyroid (sivu kilpirauhanen I think) operations, but without full anesthesia. Takes most of the risk out of the procedure. He’s the only one that does it (or he was about 3-years-ago).
It probably costs about 10K for one-hours work + prep work by staff. He does many-per-day. I think his waiting list is over 6-months and people fly-in from all over the world. I know someone from the US who had it done. Insurance covered most of it—she had to pay for flight and hotel.
With some private capital investment, I don’t see why it’s not possible for Finnish doctors to develop such specialties and take patients from around the world. It’ll offset patients who fly abroad.
Comment by Kristian (in Espoo) — Mon, Feb 5th, 2007 @ 12:35 am
“Of course, the health care system here has not evolved to what it is now through luxury of having choices. The modern industry was pretty much started by the state, as there was not enough private capital and the same goes for the health care system. With the resources of 5 million people, I’m not sure, whether we are rich enough even now to go completely private. Given the small population, the people with some rarely occurring disease would probably have to seek their treatment abroad more often, than now.”
Makes sense.
“Actually, I think that whether it comes to healthy or unhealthy lifestyles, you will find that Americans excel in both extremes. While you won’t find as many grossly obese people in Finland, neither will you find as many anal-retentive health freaks.”
True, but IN GENERAL, Finns have much healthier lifestyles. It’s almost impossible to live in Finland and be as sedentary as you can be in the US. I find it ironic that Americans are very hardworking in some ways,but also very lazy in other ways. It’s all about time and convenience in the US. I can use myself as an example. In Finland I was in great shape and made no particular effort to be so. My lifestyle dictated it. In the US, it’s become the exact opposite. If I want to be in shape I have to make an effort(which I haven’t made), because my lifestyle goes against it.
“As for illegal drugs, they are pretty irrelevant as a national health problem in both countries.”
True. I stand corrected.
Comment by maksalaatikko — Tue, Feb 6th, 2007 @ 2:08 am
The whole world needs to go private.
Imagine getting your surgery in India, recovery in Bermuda.
Got to love the way this is going.
Comment by winter — Wed, Feb 7th, 2007 @ 5:15 am
China Import and Export Fair (CECF), also called Canton Fair, is held twice a year in Spring and Autumn since it was inaugurated in the Spring of 1957. It is China’s largest trade fair of the highest level, of the most complete varieties and of the largest attendance and business turnover. Preserving its traditions, the Fair is a comprehensive and multi-functional event of international importance.
Fifty Trading Delegations, being composed of thousands of China’s best foreign trade corporations (enterprises) with good credibility and sound financial capabilities, take part in the Caton Fair, including foreign trade companies, factories, scientific research institutions, foreign invested enterprises, wholly foreign-owned enterprises, private enterprises, etc.
Besides traditional way of negotiating against samples, the Fair holds Canton Fair online. The Fair leans to export trade, though import business is also done here. Apart from the above-mentioned, various types of business activities such as economic and technical cooperations and exchanges, commodity inspection, insurance, transportation, advertising, consultation, etc. are also carried out in flexible ways. Business people from all over the world are gathering in Guangzhou, exchanging business information and developing friendship.
Comment by Canton Fair — Tue, Apr 17th, 2007 @ 3:50 am