<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Health Care Around the World: Norway</title>
	<atom:link href="http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 08:04:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tedlink</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-21005</link>
		<dc:creator>Tedlink</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Apr 2012 08:39:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-21005</guid>
		<description>Folks, Norway was a population of 4.9M people. That&#039;s the size of Alabama, the 22nd largest state and only one million more people than Puerto Rico. Wake up people. That single payer government model would be a massive nightmare in a country of 310M people. it&#039;s just not feasible...heck, even Medicaid and Medicare are a mess, rife with Billions of fraud and waste.

What&#039;s needed is tort reform, less defensive medicine, cross state portability like the very competitive auto insurance industry. I don&#039;t want the govt touching my healthcare or getting between me and my doctor. 5M citizens in Norway vs. 310M....night and day folks, one size or approach does not fit all.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Folks, Norway was a population of 4.9M people. That&#8217;s the size of Alabama, the 22nd largest state and only one million more people than Puerto Rico. Wake up people. That single payer government model would be a massive nightmare in a country of 310M people. it&#8217;s just not feasible&#8230;heck, even Medicaid and Medicare are a mess, rife with Billions of fraud and waste.</p>
<p>What&#8217;s needed is tort reform, less defensive medicine, cross state portability like the very competitive auto insurance industry. I don&#8217;t want the govt touching my healthcare or getting between me and my doctor. 5M citizens in Norway vs. 310M&#8230;.night and day folks, one size or approach does not fit all.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mohamed</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-18700</link>
		<dc:creator>Mohamed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Dec 2011 01:10:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-18700</guid>
		<description>I have been studying different health systems as a part of my education in health administration. I came across this article and I wanted comment on it. I researched multiple systems extensively. I have to say that social contracts in health systems where you have proper partnership between the government and the private sector is the best. Relying on private payers is a risk, paying for some aged group and not others wouldn&#039;t benefit the system as a whole. The government is needed to control the system from regulation, cost, and budget stand points. Private sector is needed to provide alternative solutions to citizens who choose to get care faster and avoid waiting list or opt out. In healthcare, you have got to control cost, use of technology, and salarie along with expectations. Companies such as drugs and advanced technologies can adjust their business model in a way to maintain their presence and competitive edge. However regular citizens wont be able to adjust their basic healthcare needs. It is better to have a basic system that covers all population  with some contribution from the private sector. Such model won&#039;t exist in the US for the following reasons; corporation, lobbyiests, strong AMA and desired high clinical professionals compensation, shortage of healthcare providers, the highest expenditures on the US economy on other sectors such as defense, litigious society, and the individualistic cultural values of americans. To sum up, In the US it will continue to be harder to challenge the current system and impose proper reform.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have been studying different health systems as a part of my education in health administration. I came across this article and I wanted comment on it. I researched multiple systems extensively. I have to say that social contracts in health systems where you have proper partnership between the government and the private sector is the best. Relying on private payers is a risk, paying for some aged group and not others wouldn&#8217;t benefit the system as a whole. The government is needed to control the system from regulation, cost, and budget stand points. Private sector is needed to provide alternative solutions to citizens who choose to get care faster and avoid waiting list or opt out. In healthcare, you have got to control cost, use of technology, and salarie along with expectations. Companies such as drugs and advanced technologies can adjust their business model in a way to maintain their presence and competitive edge. However regular citizens wont be able to adjust their basic healthcare needs. It is better to have a basic system that covers all population  with some contribution from the private sector. Such model won&#8217;t exist in the US for the following reasons; corporation, lobbyiests, strong AMA and desired high clinical professionals compensation, shortage of healthcare providers, the highest expenditures on the US economy on other sectors such as defense, litigious society, and the individualistic cultural values of americans. To sum up, In the US it will continue to be harder to challenge the current system and impose proper reform.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Am I A Socialist? &#124; Wachter&#039;s World</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-18387</link>
		<dc:creator>Am I A Socialist? &#124; Wachter&#039;s World</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Dec 2011 22:10:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-18387</guid>
		<description>[...] Norwegian healthcare system is organized into five regional trusts, whose underlying philosophy is similarly communal. Each [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Norwegian healthcare system is organized into five regional trusts, whose underlying philosophy is similarly communal. Each [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: don short</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-16957</link>
		<dc:creator>don short</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Nov 2011 15:10:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-16957</guid>
		<description>Well yes, Norway exports a lot of oil and the U.S. imports a lot, but that difference is not the reason that Norway can afford universal health care and the other benefits it accords its  citizens.  The reason is that Norway OWNS the oil company doing all the drilling--yes, I know that there is  that nasty socialism--and the profits go directly into the government coffers just as our income taxes do.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Well yes, Norway exports a lot of oil and the U.S. imports a lot, but that difference is not the reason that Norway can afford universal health care and the other benefits it accords its  citizens.  The reason is that Norway OWNS the oil company doing all the drilling&#8211;yes, I know that there is  that nasty socialism&#8211;and the profits go directly into the government coffers just as our income taxes do.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MimiR</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-16435</link>
		<dc:creator>MimiR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Oct 2011 12:26:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-16435</guid>
		<description>In the US, all states have free Kindergarten.  FYI.  We have for more than 30 years.

Median household disposable income in Norway and the US is virtually identical, adjusted for PPP.  If you adjust our non-European-descent numbers to match yours, US median disposable income becomes higher, even accounting for health care expenses.  And that&#039;s without crazy amounts of oil money going into the public coffers.

Most people have dental insurance already--many more than those who should, really, since it&#039;s just not worth it financially for many.

Most of our high medical costs come from &quot;unnecessary testing,&quot; but it&#039;s that &quot;unnecessary testing&quot; that gives us the highest cancer and heart attack survival rates in the world.  It&#039;s really expensive, per person saved, but most Americans feel it&#039;s worth it if they have a chance of not dying.  Acute care in Norway is pretty awesome, and Norway has managed to instill a better sense of responsibility in its citizens when it comes to diabetes and asthma management (these ARE diagnosed in good numbers in the US, and they DO have access to medication and doctors, but lower SES groups refuse to manage the diseases properly).  But the government control of cost-effective medicine means that, yes, more people really do die of preventable things.

Americans also choose to have more surgeries than Norwegians for the same conditions.  We are on more medicines, as well.

Please note that the poor in the US do have a number of subsidies, including a full food subsidy, a pension system, disability benefits similar to that of Norway, free medical care, and the like.  The debate is about the people who have the disposable income for some health insurance but choose not to buy it--whether they should be forced to buy insurance or whether the government should put everyone on the same plan.  Right now, the government pays so little for its medical plans that the insured and out-of-pocket subsidize the government system by paying more.

Poverty rates are set at levels that are also a bit ridiculous in the US because of extreme differences in the cost of living in different areas.  Three-bedroom, two-bath houses can be had in mixed blue-and white-collar neighborhoods in some areas for well under $100,000.  In a lower wealth area, still without high crime, houses can go for $60-80,000.  In comparison, houses in some areas start at $500,000 and more for structures that aren&#039;t as nice as the $60-80k houses.  Rent where I came from started at about $450/month in areas that were low crime.  Here, they start at $1300 a month.  So a family has to make more than $10k more here to even start at the same place!

Yet there is a single government poverty rate for most of the US.  In many areas, the cost of living is low enough that people below the &quot;poverty&quot; line are doing very well.  The median household below the poverty line has a 40% chance of living in a house that they own, and living spaces are notably larger than Western Europe&#039;s averages.  The structural condition of the median dwelling below the poverty line is good, and the number of appliances is comparable to the average European house.  Food prices, too, vary drastically from area to area and can easily be 150-200% higher in some areas.  So in some areas, people at the poverty line are truly struggling--impossibly so, in some places.  In most, they really aren&#039;t.

I&#039;d rather have more control of my spending and be more rewarded if I work hard and achieve, thanks all the same.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In the US, all states have free Kindergarten.  FYI.  We have for more than 30 years.</p>
<p>Median household disposable income in Norway and the US is virtually identical, adjusted for PPP.  If you adjust our non-European-descent numbers to match yours, US median disposable income becomes higher, even accounting for health care expenses.  And that&#8217;s without crazy amounts of oil money going into the public coffers.</p>
<p>Most people have dental insurance already&#8211;many more than those who should, really, since it&#8217;s just not worth it financially for many.</p>
<p>Most of our high medical costs come from &#8220;unnecessary testing,&#8221; but it&#8217;s that &#8220;unnecessary testing&#8221; that gives us the highest cancer and heart attack survival rates in the world.  It&#8217;s really expensive, per person saved, but most Americans feel it&#8217;s worth it if they have a chance of not dying.  Acute care in Norway is pretty awesome, and Norway has managed to instill a better sense of responsibility in its citizens when it comes to diabetes and asthma management (these ARE diagnosed in good numbers in the US, and they DO have access to medication and doctors, but lower SES groups refuse to manage the diseases properly).  But the government control of cost-effective medicine means that, yes, more people really do die of preventable things.</p>
<p>Americans also choose to have more surgeries than Norwegians for the same conditions.  We are on more medicines, as well.</p>
<p>Please note that the poor in the US do have a number of subsidies, including a full food subsidy, a pension system, disability benefits similar to that of Norway, free medical care, and the like.  The debate is about the people who have the disposable income for some health insurance but choose not to buy it&#8211;whether they should be forced to buy insurance or whether the government should put everyone on the same plan.  Right now, the government pays so little for its medical plans that the insured and out-of-pocket subsidize the government system by paying more.</p>
<p>Poverty rates are set at levels that are also a bit ridiculous in the US because of extreme differences in the cost of living in different areas.  Three-bedroom, two-bath houses can be had in mixed blue-and white-collar neighborhoods in some areas for well under $100,000.  In a lower wealth area, still without high crime, houses can go for $60-80,000.  In comparison, houses in some areas start at $500,000 and more for structures that aren&#8217;t as nice as the $60-80k houses.  Rent where I came from started at about $450/month in areas that were low crime.  Here, they start at $1300 a month.  So a family has to make more than $10k more here to even start at the same place!</p>
<p>Yet there is a single government poverty rate for most of the US.  In many areas, the cost of living is low enough that people below the &#8220;poverty&#8221; line are doing very well.  The median household below the poverty line has a 40% chance of living in a house that they own, and living spaces are notably larger than Western Europe&#8217;s averages.  The structural condition of the median dwelling below the poverty line is good, and the number of appliances is comparable to the average European house.  Food prices, too, vary drastically from area to area and can easily be 150-200% higher in some areas.  So in some areas, people at the poverty line are truly struggling&#8211;impossibly so, in some places.  In most, they really aren&#8217;t.</p>
<p>I&#8217;d rather have more control of my spending and be more rewarded if I work hard and achieve, thanks all the same.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bon</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-16196</link>
		<dc:creator>Bon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Sep 2011 23:07:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-16196</guid>
		<description>I just have to comment to gungaden above here about a few points.
In Norway, we do not spend all our oil money to keep our &quot;social programs&quot; running. We have a whooping 3000 billion kroner (600 billion USD) fund, where we invest the money to gain revenue and keep the norwegian market stable, as well as saving it for future generations.
And your argument for having 307 million people vs 5 million people can be used just as well against you, as you would have taxes from 307 million people as we have from 5.

Norway rules, and I truly LOVE taxes, would gladly pay more of them!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just have to comment to gungaden above here about a few points.<br />
In Norway, we do not spend all our oil money to keep our &#8220;social programs&#8221; running. We have a whooping 3000 billion kroner (600 billion USD) fund, where we invest the money to gain revenue and keep the norwegian market stable, as well as saving it for future generations.<br />
And your argument for having 307 million people vs 5 million people can be used just as well against you, as you would have taxes from 307 million people as we have from 5.</p>
<p>Norway rules, and I truly LOVE taxes, would gladly pay more of them!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: gungaden</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-15805</link>
		<dc:creator>gungaden</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 19:15:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-15805</guid>
		<description>I have enjoyed the discourse, above, especially the details provided from our Norwegian allies.

I agree that Norway has since about 1970 enjoyed a very high standard of living. It is a standard of living coveted by the citizens of many nations.

I feel that it is important, however, to state several facts to place the details in proper perspective. Since the 1970&#039;s Norway has established itself as one of the World&#039;s leading oil exporters. Norway receives more oil export-generated tax relief per capita than perhaps any nation on earth. This tremendous source of federal government funding has permitted Norway to provide many social programs which are simply not possible for other countries. Certainly, the U.S. does not have the capability to match Norway&#039;s oil exports per capita. Moreover, Norway has a total population of only 5 million people. The U.S. has a population of 307 million people. Norway can certainly afford to provide strong government-assisted care for its people for the short term because of the per-capita oil export revenue currently provided. It is noteworthy that one of Norway&#039;s current concerns is how they can provide for the future when the oil revenues subside. 

Again, I believe that it is foolishness to make generalizations regarding the economic situation in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) to Norway in regard to standard of living or governmental programs. Norway is a fine country blessed by an abundance of natural resources per capita, but is very small in comparison to many other countries in the world in population, GNP, and economic complexity. What works for them is not likely going to work for larger nations with vastly more complex economies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have enjoyed the discourse, above, especially the details provided from our Norwegian allies.</p>
<p>I agree that Norway has since about 1970 enjoyed a very high standard of living. It is a standard of living coveted by the citizens of many nations.</p>
<p>I feel that it is important, however, to state several facts to place the details in proper perspective. Since the 1970&#8242;s Norway has established itself as one of the World&#8217;s leading oil exporters. Norway receives more oil export-generated tax relief per capita than perhaps any nation on earth. This tremendous source of federal government funding has permitted Norway to provide many social programs which are simply not possible for other countries. Certainly, the U.S. does not have the capability to match Norway&#8217;s oil exports per capita. Moreover, Norway has a total population of only 5 million people. The U.S. has a population of 307 million people. Norway can certainly afford to provide strong government-assisted care for its people for the short term because of the per-capita oil export revenue currently provided. It is noteworthy that one of Norway&#8217;s current concerns is how they can provide for the future when the oil revenues subside. </p>
<p>Again, I believe that it is foolishness to make generalizations regarding the economic situation in the U.S. (or any other country for that matter) to Norway in regard to standard of living or governmental programs. Norway is a fine country blessed by an abundance of natural resources per capita, but is very small in comparison to many other countries in the world in population, GNP, and economic complexity. What works for them is not likely going to work for larger nations with vastly more complex economies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John J</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-15701</link>
		<dc:creator>John J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jul 2011 02:37:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-15701</guid>
		<description>I am a Norwegian, and I work as a computer and copier technician - making an average industrial workers wage (about 70 000 us dollars).  That&#039;s not much - at least since my wife does not work.
That&#039;s about 5833 us dollars a month before tax. After tax I&#039;m left with about 3650 us dollars.

I have 3 children and a wife that&#039;s home with the children. 
I get 200 dollars for every child a month from the state. My wife get about 1000 dollars for staying home with the children (but will be reduced if I have the children in a kindergarten, because the government subsidizes kindergartens in Norway. 
So I (we) get 1600 dollars back from the government. 
I have then 5250 dollars a month.. they take some and give some back :-)

Anyway.. my children gets free dental care until they are 18 years old. Then they have to pay 25% of the costs until they are 20 and 50% until they are 25. They are now expected to have a job so they can pay the full price - OR be a student (at a free) university. Many universities have free dental included or have reduced prices.

They get 100% free medical care until they are 18 years old. When they turn 18 they have to pay about 15 dollars for every visit to the doctor or hospital. I make 34 dollars an hour. I work 37,5 hours a week.. more and less.
I get a 5 week holiday with pay every year.
A pregnant woman gets at least 1 year maternity leave with full pay after the child is born and a few month before birth. She also gets 100% free medical care in this period.
If you are ill a lot, or have a permanent decease - there is a limit on how much you will be charged, including the 15 dollar fees. I think it&#039;s about 3-400 dollars. After that everything is free. Medicine included of course. 
The 15 dollar is for every doctors visit, and includes the meds. It does not matter if you get 10 pills, 500 pills or you need heart surgery. It is 15 dollars anyway.
It you are retired, on welfare and stuff like that - you don&#039;t pay at all.
The government will also refund your traveling expenses too - so the 15 dollars is usually something you get back - unless you are next door neighbor with the hospital.

We get subsidized price for the kindergarten and for SFO (you can deliver the school children earlier at school and pick them up later - and the school will the the &quot;babysitter&quot; and help them with homework or let them play or both)
My daughter was born with a heart defect (hole in the heart) that needed surgery. There is basically no waiting time for this kind of surgery. Buy we had to travel 250km to another hospital that have specialized themselves in heart surgery on small children. The trip is free. They fixed the heart via a blood vessel in the thigh. Now I can not even see a scar.
A few years later they discovered she had diabetes. We can choose to use shots/pens or a pump. Everything is free. Also when she gets an adult.
We also get another 150 dollars a month because of the potential inconvenience the disease could be to us.

The other children have also been to the hospital a few times. No waiting time.

If you are older and need a new hip joint for example - you may have to wait for a while.   
It is not the cost of the surgery but there is a limit on how many doctors/surgeons the government can have on each hospital. They need to be effective and they have to include a lot of technology to reduce the number of man hours. So hospitals are now very automated : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rutHGN4IMB8
They can use a lot of money on systems like this - and it will still be profitable because we are a high cost country.
If you are working for a company, and they know you have to wait 4 month for a surgery - they can opt to pay for it, so you can come back to work much faster.
There are also some deceases or surgeries that we don&#039;t have enough experience to fix, or foreign hospitals can do better. That is special instances. Then the government buys these services from another hospital in Germany, the UK or somewhere else.
There are talks now about sending more patients abroad to reduce the load on the hospitals in Norway for a while. There are talks about using some international hospitals in Thailand: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YScPBuig6l0     which would be cheaper for Norway, because people get back to work faster and can start to make money again - and pay taxes :-)

They are also talking about offering free dental care for everybody. It will cost, but I think it is worth it. It is cheaper to fix the teeth early, before the patient get serious problems. Just like medical care, some people smoke, eat fatty food, don&#039;t exercise and don&#039;t brush  their teeth. But the cost is divided among so many people that it is doable. 

As you can see from my tax level and what I get back - I really get more back then I pay. If you are really rich, you pay more - but you have more money to begin with. With a healthy educated population there are less risk of being robbed or mugged too.
So in the end I think everybody wins with this kind of health care.

But with a system like this, it is important that the government use the money wisely. People have to take a responsibility to stay healthy and exercise.  There are always some people that will take advantage of this system.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am a Norwegian, and I work as a computer and copier technician &#8211; making an average industrial workers wage (about 70 000 us dollars).  That&#8217;s not much &#8211; at least since my wife does not work.<br />
That&#8217;s about 5833 us dollars a month before tax. After tax I&#8217;m left with about 3650 us dollars.</p>
<p>I have 3 children and a wife that&#8217;s home with the children.<br />
I get 200 dollars for every child a month from the state. My wife get about 1000 dollars for staying home with the children (but will be reduced if I have the children in a kindergarten, because the government subsidizes kindergartens in Norway.<br />
So I (we) get 1600 dollars back from the government.<br />
I have then 5250 dollars a month.. they take some and give some back <img src='http://healthcare-economist.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>Anyway.. my children gets free dental care until they are 18 years old. Then they have to pay 25% of the costs until they are 20 and 50% until they are 25. They are now expected to have a job so they can pay the full price &#8211; OR be a student (at a free) university. Many universities have free dental included or have reduced prices.</p>
<p>They get 100% free medical care until they are 18 years old. When they turn 18 they have to pay about 15 dollars for every visit to the doctor or hospital. I make 34 dollars an hour. I work 37,5 hours a week.. more and less.<br />
I get a 5 week holiday with pay every year.<br />
A pregnant woman gets at least 1 year maternity leave with full pay after the child is born and a few month before birth. She also gets 100% free medical care in this period.<br />
If you are ill a lot, or have a permanent decease &#8211; there is a limit on how much you will be charged, including the 15 dollar fees. I think it&#8217;s about 3-400 dollars. After that everything is free. Medicine included of course.<br />
The 15 dollar is for every doctors visit, and includes the meds. It does not matter if you get 10 pills, 500 pills or you need heart surgery. It is 15 dollars anyway.<br />
It you are retired, on welfare and stuff like that &#8211; you don&#8217;t pay at all.<br />
The government will also refund your traveling expenses too &#8211; so the 15 dollars is usually something you get back &#8211; unless you are next door neighbor with the hospital.</p>
<p>We get subsidized price for the kindergarten and for SFO (you can deliver the school children earlier at school and pick them up later &#8211; and the school will the the &#8220;babysitter&#8221; and help them with homework or let them play or both)<br />
My daughter was born with a heart defect (hole in the heart) that needed surgery. There is basically no waiting time for this kind of surgery. Buy we had to travel 250km to another hospital that have specialized themselves in heart surgery on small children. The trip is free. They fixed the heart via a blood vessel in the thigh. Now I can not even see a scar.<br />
A few years later they discovered she had diabetes. We can choose to use shots/pens or a pump. Everything is free. Also when she gets an adult.<br />
We also get another 150 dollars a month because of the potential inconvenience the disease could be to us.</p>
<p>The other children have also been to the hospital a few times. No waiting time.</p>
<p>If you are older and need a new hip joint for example &#8211; you may have to wait for a while.<br />
It is not the cost of the surgery but there is a limit on how many doctors/surgeons the government can have on each hospital. They need to be effective and they have to include a lot of technology to reduce the number of man hours. So hospitals are now very automated : <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rutHGN4IMB8" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rutHGN4IMB8</a><br />
They can use a lot of money on systems like this &#8211; and it will still be profitable because we are a high cost country.<br />
If you are working for a company, and they know you have to wait 4 month for a surgery &#8211; they can opt to pay for it, so you can come back to work much faster.<br />
There are also some deceases or surgeries that we don&#8217;t have enough experience to fix, or foreign hospitals can do better. That is special instances. Then the government buys these services from another hospital in Germany, the UK or somewhere else.<br />
There are talks now about sending more patients abroad to reduce the load on the hospitals in Norway for a while. There are talks about using some international hospitals in Thailand: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YScPBuig6l0" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YScPBuig6l0</a>     which would be cheaper for Norway, because people get back to work faster and can start to make money again &#8211; and pay taxes <img src='http://healthcare-economist.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>They are also talking about offering free dental care for everybody. It will cost, but I think it is worth it. It is cheaper to fix the teeth early, before the patient get serious problems. Just like medical care, some people smoke, eat fatty food, don&#8217;t exercise and don&#8217;t brush  their teeth. But the cost is divided among so many people that it is doable. </p>
<p>As you can see from my tax level and what I get back &#8211; I really get more back then I pay. If you are really rich, you pay more &#8211; but you have more money to begin with. With a healthy educated population there are less risk of being robbed or mugged too.<br />
So in the end I think everybody wins with this kind of health care.</p>
<p>But with a system like this, it is important that the government use the money wisely. People have to take a responsibility to stay healthy and exercise.  There are always some people that will take advantage of this system.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Debra</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-15588</link>
		<dc:creator>Debra</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2011 13:56:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-15588</guid>
		<description>To Bill, who commented about paying for someone else&#039;s hip replacement: Sir, do you not realize you already pay for someone else&#039;s hip replacement, oxygen treatments (because he/she has emphysema from years of insisting upon their &quot;right&quot; to smoke); or the native american woman who would rather run her children through ER (because that is covered on the reservation for free) than take them to the local town clinic, which would be out-of-pocket; or the man on a CPAP machine and diabetes medicines because of his perceived right to over eat and make poor choices in his dietary habits for years.  All these things are already being covered by you, in part, through the ever-increasing health insurances premiums offered to you (at gun point) by your employers. No matter how you slice, most everyone helps to fund most everyone else&#039;s health care. 
Remember, the original plan was a &quot;government For the People, By the People.&quot; We all benefit with a national health care system in place - exercising as an extension of the government - for the good of the people. A healthy citizenry assists is creating a a healthy economy and a healthy world presence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To Bill, who commented about paying for someone else&#8217;s hip replacement: Sir, do you not realize you already pay for someone else&#8217;s hip replacement, oxygen treatments (because he/she has emphysema from years of insisting upon their &#8220;right&#8221; to smoke); or the native american woman who would rather run her children through ER (because that is covered on the reservation for free) than take them to the local town clinic, which would be out-of-pocket; or the man on a CPAP machine and diabetes medicines because of his perceived right to over eat and make poor choices in his dietary habits for years.  All these things are already being covered by you, in part, through the ever-increasing health insurances premiums offered to you (at gun point) by your employers. No matter how you slice, most everyone helps to fund most everyone else&#8217;s health care.<br />
Remember, the original plan was a &#8220;government For the People, By the People.&#8221; We all benefit with a national health care system in place &#8211; exercising as an extension of the government &#8211; for the good of the people. A healthy citizenry assists is creating a a healthy economy and a healthy world presence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nancy Wilson</title>
		<link>http://healthcare-economist.com/2008/04/18/health-care-around-the-world-norway/comment-page-1/#comment-15569</link>
		<dc:creator>Nancy Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Jul 2011 02:31:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://healthcare-economist.com/?p=900#comment-15569</guid>
		<description>I was just figuring the other day that, as the primary earner in my household and source of employer based health insurance...I pay about 25% of my income SOLELY for health care...insurance premiums, copays, deductibles for medical, dental and eye care.
about 20 more out of my check for taxes...and I earn just over the 2X poverty level for my household size (thus do not qualify for help).  
I also work at a pharmacy and see the ridiculous amount of money for high end drugs (paid by ALL plans, not just gov&#039;t or private)...when no one has even tried the cheaper alternatives....so it is not a matter of just swapping out public for private care, there is a whole overhaul that is needed.  
The basics should be covered.  The documented illnesses above and beyond that should be covered.  We should accept a small amount of bureaucracy in insisting that cheaper alternatives be tried first.  Then we would be one step towards a much saner solution....
I came here to see how one of the economies doing best during these hard times handles their health care.  I was not surprised at the answer....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was just figuring the other day that, as the primary earner in my household and source of employer based health insurance&#8230;I pay about 25% of my income SOLELY for health care&#8230;insurance premiums, copays, deductibles for medical, dental and eye care.<br />
about 20 more out of my check for taxes&#8230;and I earn just over the 2X poverty level for my household size (thus do not qualify for help).<br />
I also work at a pharmacy and see the ridiculous amount of money for high end drugs (paid by ALL plans, not just gov&#8217;t or private)&#8230;when no one has even tried the cheaper alternatives&#8230;.so it is not a matter of just swapping out public for private care, there is a whole overhaul that is needed.<br />
The basics should be covered.  The documented illnesses above and beyond that should be covered.  We should accept a small amount of bureaucracy in insisting that cheaper alternatives be tried first.  Then we would be one step towards a much saner solution&#8230;.<br />
I came here to see how one of the economies doing best during these hard times handles their health care.  I was not surprised at the answer&#8230;.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

