I dunno.
Works for me.
Posted on 10/03/2009 8:54:19 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Now that the "public option" health care proposal has become a political hazard, the far left and its water-carrying media are turning to other proposals. The New York Times recently produced a piece lauding the Swiss health care system as a model to emulate. It's all the rage amongst elitists and perhaps it can revive Mr. Obama's "plan" from life support.
In the piece, "Swiss Health Care Thrives Without Public Option," the author notes that, "Like every country in Europe, Switzerland guarantees health care for all its citizens. But the system here does not remotely resemble the model of bureaucratic, socialized medicine often cited by opponents of universal coverage in the United States."
Before getting into the details of how the Swiss system bureaucratically guarantees health care for all its citizens we must observe a fatal problem: The United States is not Switzerland.
Liberals tend to forget that our unique system of federalism does not permit the central government to control the health care policies of the 50 states. I can almost see the glazed-over eyes and yawns. I can almost hear the grumbles: Please, that argument is slightly expired, considering the feds have already assumed partial control of medical care long ago.
Well, as Obama attempts to fundamentally remake America, conservatives and a whole lot of moderates have become inspired to fundamentally reclaim America.
Part of the reclaiming involves transparency initiatives like the "We the People Can Read," campaign that produced HR 554. The current Republican-led resolution would require congressional bills to be posted on the Internet at least 72 hours before voting. The bill would prevent further "stimulus" and "cap and trade" disasters. The bill would not allow thousands of pages of unread drafts, costing billions to become law without public scrutiny. Of course, the most transparent administration in world history has said nothing in support of the House Proposal.
Transparency is a good thing; but a substantive reclaiming of America will require forcing the federal government back to its constitutional limitations. It is untenable to argue that because the federal government has already usurped power and crossed boundaries there is no point in enforcing the Constitution now. That is akin to a pet owner saying: Oh well, my dangerous dog broke away from his chain. No point in re-chaining the beast. Might as well let it run wild. Besides, he's so intelligent and well-meaning.
If we stand true to our foundational principles, no European system works for America.
Comparing Switzerland to the United States is like comparing apples to a cornucopia of assimilated fruit. Newsflash: The Switzerland is not the United State of America.
It would be asinine to compare the United States' divorce system to Switzerland's or Germany's or France's. Personal matters like family law and health care law constitutionally reside with the individual 50 states. Family law is an area the federal government has not usurped and therefore real diversity in family law exists from state to state. Hence, there is no U.S. divorce system. It should be as equally non sequitur to compare the U.S. health care system to any European health care system.
We are nothing like Europe in many respects. Our system of dual sovereignty (federalism) is foremost, which prevents central control in all areas not specifically delegated by the Constitution. The lack of central control allows real diversity and the potential for the free market to flourish. Incidentally, many of the individual states have already implemented variations of state-controlled health care. Some provide medical care for children and some have experimented in socialized medicine. If Massachusetts wants full-on state subsidized health care, then, hey, go for it. Real diversity means different options in different states.
Unfortunately, it appears that Obama and the far left are not about "reforming" health care, but extending the power and control of the central government.
You will notice that no solutions that would actually solve our Obama-proclaimed health care crisis are offered by the Left. Removing the restrictions to purchase health care insurance across state borders would bring down the cost of insurance overnight. So would federal regulations on insurance companies which force expensive policies onto people they don't want. Allowing people to select custom health care policies as they do when selecting auto or other insurance would also drive down costs immediately. Those solutions don't require federal entanglement and therefore they're not very popular with leftists.
The New York Times piece, mentioned above, notes that the Swiss government guarantees health care by transferring taxpayer money in the form of cash subsidies to about 35-40 percent of Swiss households (to go towards health insurance if premiums equal more than 8 percent of personal income).
Additionally, in Switzerland health insurance is mandatory and the insurance companies are heavily regulated. Insurance companies are required to provide a basic, low cost, not-for-profit plan. But all citizens are required to pay out-of-pocket for many medical services, totaling, on average $1,350 annually, according to the Times. By spreading the wealth around I guess it works out for the Swiss. For those who prefer a better health care plan the premiums are rather "hefty," amounting to $13,600 in U.S. dollars for a family of four.
And then there is the issue of the Swiss government controlling "costs," which means doctors and health care industry workers earn substantially less than their counterparts in the good old U.S. of A. Similar to what Obama has promoted by impugning doctors, the Swiss government sets price limits for doctors on medical procedures.
Fundamentally, no federal health care system will work in the United States because of our unique constitutional system and complex collection of partially-sovereign states. Notably, the federal government has no jurisdiction to force citizens to purchase insurance by threat of penalty. And then there is the Democrat's problem of the elderly. In Switzerland, many elderly citizens must sink or swim on government subsidies. There is no separate system of "Medicare" for the elderly in the land of the Alps.
Like much of Europe, the Swiss are a homogenous and distinct people whose health and health care system cannot reasonably be compared to the diversity we find in America. All European governments operate from systems of central control. One size fits all.
In the United States that just doesn't work.
Which Swiss health care model is that? Is she as pretty as a Swedish health care model?
Without pictures, how do we know if we even want her in the United States?
Do the Swiss offer free healthcare to Illegals? I bet they have much more control over their borders.
bump
While I can find lots of stuff not to like about the Swiss plan, there is at least one principle that makes it better than the single payer system promoted by Obamacare—
That is the subsidy of private insurance rather than providing health care itself.
While I find Section 8 housing vouchers to be yet another redistributionist scheme that is extended far beyond deserving participants, I vastly prefer them to public housing projects. I see health care the same way.
This article is full of misinformation, and is wrong.
I dunno.
Works for me.
Socialism sometimes works in small countries that are run like a corporation. It does not work in big countries where you must walk and chew gum at the same time.
Make sure you pay her generously!
A maybe one is a very small country that has one strong culture and controls ALL immigration very very very well...
That's what we WANT! We'd love to find a high deductible ($20K or so) Catastrophic Health care plan that is designed to protect us against major medical costs. I don't particularly want a plan to pay all or part of my 'routine care'. If we paid, retail, out of pocket, for all of our typical doctor visits, even with my four times a year, $300 at a pop visit to my Cardiologist, then all our routine screenings, pap, mammo, prostate, colonoscopies, throw in a couple of visits for really bad colds, flu, etc. then add the cost of all our prescriptions, we STILL wouldn't be paying more than $3500 or so out of pocket each year! That's less than the $4000 cost of just the Prescription Drug Coverage that the Nanny-stater Dem legislature tacked onto our $10000 basic health insurance premiums last year!! Those legislators are the ones deciding what kinds of health care policies are ALLOWED in the state of MA, and we can't buy anything like what we'd like to have, because it's considered 'Non-compliant' and no insurance company in the State will sell such a thing.
Where do you live where all that screening doesn’t pass $3500?
If we hadn’t given the tax break to comprehensive, employer-provided care all along, that’d very likely be the case, but where I am in the Northeast just a single mammogram is in the high three digits and everything is ridiculously priced except for the insurance compensation tables.
Sorry, I see it’s MA.
Once you shed the health insurance, you can actually start negotiating with care providers. ;o)
Got it.
“the Swiss are a homogenous and distinct people”
Does the author know anything about Switzerland at all? I don’t think so.
That's a major blooper. (I think she means they are all white, a fact that, in Europe, has never prevented the Irish from revolting against the Brits, the Kurds against the Turks, the Basque against the Spanish, etc). But it's a throwaway line. Her principal argument doesn't rely on this assertion.
In Switzerland the authority of the national government or Federal power is definite, the authority of each of the Cantons is indefinite. It is very similar to the US federal structure which they modeled themselves on. In Canada the Federal power is indefinite and expansive. The author of this article is simply ignorant about Switzerland, and the arguments she makes are largely nonsense.
The best argument is that it doesn’t scale. The difficulties and deficiencies in operating such a system grow as the population size, if not even more quickly. Compare Switzerland to Sweden, Sweden to Britain, Britain to Canada. The situation goes from OK to bad to worse. Now consider that just California has more people than Canada. No way Jose is this turkey going to fly as a United States federal program. With herculean effort, individual states MIGHT be able to match Canada, on their own.
I have lived under the Swiss system as well as working in Swiss human resources. There are a few, very essential, elements of the Swiss system that can better our current system, and that is what I would implement were I Queen.
The good things about the Swiss system that would work here:
1. Making everyone either purchase health insurance OR take the risk of being billed for every cent of any medical treatment.
2. Legislating that every private insurance company MUST sell at least one reasonable “no frills” policy. In Switzerland there are three categories of health insurance, based on the type of hospitalization the person would receive. Private, semi-private (shared with only one roommate), and ward. In ward, you do have about 6-10 people in one old-fashioned hospital ward. Medical care would be more limited in the no frills policy, but anyone could afford it, and it would behoove them to, because the risk would be too great not to.
3. Completely separating health insurance from employers. Every family and individual pays their own premiums. Employers can offer higher salaries.
4. Killing the workman’s comp and lawsuits against employers by having employers cover EVERY accident of their employees. In Switzerland, the employer pays for ALL accidents of their employees. No need to figure out if it was work related. It could have happened on the slopes. It’s cheaper to just cover all accidents than to go through the endless investigations and suits.
While the article’s author is right, that the Swiss control over all industry including medicine would not work here, and that the Swiss population is small and homogeneous contrasted with ours, that does not change the truth that SOME of the crucial elements in the Swiss system are IDEAL for our country.
(Two other changes that have nothing to do with the Swiss system need to occur simultaneously: tort reform and being able to purchase policies across state lines.)
It is true that there are some elements of socialism in Switzerland. But they deliberately made the Ward policies cheap enough for an elderly person living off her AHV (like social security). There is some subsidizing.
But they do not have an underclass — or rather, they didn’t until recently. There are a lot more refugees there now. I believe they are subsidized. Some are not allowed to work.
They do not have “slums” like we do. The country does have an extremely strong work ethic. They work long hours but get much less done, sometimes. Two hour lunches are still pretty common.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.