Skip to comments.A conservative case for universal coverage
Posted on 01/17/2014 3:43:32 PM PST by lowbridge
Switzerland and Singapore achieve universal coverage while spending a fraction of what we spend, and they ensure broad access to high-quality doctors and the latest technology.
Switzerland has a system of universal, subsidized private insurance exchanges that look much like Paul Ryan'sMedicare-reform plan and Obamacare's exchanges. Unlike Obamacare, however, the Swiss exchanges actually work. In Switzerland, there are no public options or government insurers like Medicare or Medicaid. Everyone is in the private system. The poor get a premium support subsidy that covers the cost of their premium; as one moves up the income ladder, the size of the subsidy decreases. Wealthy and upper-middle-class Swiss get no subsidy at all.
The Swiss system is no libertarian utopia; its exchanges contain some of the unattractive features of Obamacare, like an individual mandate and excessively broad benefit requirements. Nonetheless, as a percentage of GDP, Swiss public spending on health coverage is 60 percent lower than America's. If we had the Swiss system, we wouldn't have a budget deficit and we'd have no single-payer health entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.
From a fiscal standpoint, Singapore is far better than even Switzerland. Singapores public spending on health care as a fraction of GDP is 86 percent lower than Americas. Thats because every Singaporean has a health savings account, which is used to pay for non-catastrophic medical expenses. Singaporeans pay a payroll tax, which is then redirected into the HSA in a manner similar to our Social Security system. But unlike Social Security, the Singaporean HSA is controlled by the individual and supplemented with a government-sponsored catastrophic coverage plan.
The bottom line is that Singapore and Switzerland spend far less on health care than we do and yet achieve all of the things that Americans value about their own system: choice, technology and physician access.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Statism (eg universal healthcare) and conservatism are mutually incompatible.
There is not conservative case for government control of our lives. Period!
For a fraction of the population, too. Funny how that works.
And that right there shows there is NO conservative case. There is NO liberty or self-determination if the gubment dictates what I must buy. How did we end up with so damn many progs in the party?
Too many pragmatists and not enough ideologues.
Yeah, but Switzerland doesn’t have people running all through their borders and becoming a citizen is difficult, like Japan.
They also don’t advertise free gubmint cheese for non-citizens outside their borders.
This is all predicated on a mound of Horse $hit. This idiot forgets that Singapore and Switzerland are homogenous societies with fewer residents than most bus stops. Hardly a thing he says is convertible to a continental hegemony of 300+ millions.
Besides he is a Manhattan Institute Leftist so he can be dismissed out of hand.
The government doesn’t subsidize anything. We, the taxpayers, do. Once again, I would be required to not only pay for my own health care but a bunch of other peoples. I’m tired of paying for other peoples free stuff.
Not only do Switzerland and Singapore have only a fraction of our population, they don’t have millions of illegal aliens draining the budget (federal and state/local), along with the crime they bring.
Also their combined defense budgets are, as we say in Yiddish, only “bupkis” (chump change, pennies) as compared to that of the US and OUR WORLDWIDE RESPONSIBLITIES.
You just cannot compare the US to these pipsqueak countries regarding healthcare policies or much of any other national policies.
If it weren’t for the US, there would be no Switzerland or Singapore. Maybe a Swissdeutchland and a Peoples Republic of Singapore instead.
It is like the French people who complain that US visitors don’t speak French (I do, un peu), to which we reply. “Maybe, but thanks to us, you still do”.
There is a difference.
There is NO conservative argument for it
I’m going to guess that a smaller percentage of their populations are on the taxpayer dole than the USA.
Switzerland, home to new world order’s Bank of International Settlements.
Exactly. Unless I have the freedom to obtain or decline coverage, to pay cash or do without medical treatment, then I am not free. Secondly, despite the execrable John Roberts, the Constitution gives no auhtority whatsoever to the Federal government to interfere with my private medical choices.
Precisely. Whenever someone touts a “conservative case” for a leftist cause, that someone is himself a liberal, often trying to pass himself off as “conservative”.
Lost me at the word mandate
Sure there is — if you take
conservative to mean keeping things the same.
The government wants to keep off the constraints of the Constitution that it's thrown off.
Switzerland and Singapore can fit in some U.S. counties.
Only a Romney adviser could have written this tripe.
Switzerland has 8M people.
Singapore has 5.312M people.
End of argument.
Didn't think so. Swiss population makes white rice look dark.
EVERY CANADIAN I MEET GETS QUIZZED ON HIS LIKE/DISLIKE OF HIS STATE SPONSORED HEALTHCARE....FIRST THEY EXPLAIN THEY LOVE IT AS THEY SWOOOON ABOUT IT THEN I PROVIDE THE STATS RE AVAILABILITY AND ‘WAIT FOR SERVICE’ CANADA VS US.
FINALLY I ASK THEM ....HOW MUCH MONEY THEY’D HAVE IN THEIR POCKETS HAD THEY NOT BEEN BRUTALLY TAXED EVERY YEAR FOR WHAT THEY GET...TO MAN THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH THEIR ‘CARE’ IS REALLY COSTING THEM...SORT OF SHEEEPLY IF U AKS ME...
I’m against universal coverage. I’m for choosing my own damn coverage.
“The government doesnt subsidize anything. We, the taxpayers, do. Once again, I would be required to not only pay for my own health care but a bunch of other peoples. Im tired of paying for other peoples free stuff.”
I don’t know the answer to this. I didn’t like the system before obamacare and I like it less with obamacare.
However we were covering the poor the young and the elderly before obamacare. That’s probably half of our population. I think the system did need reform... Just not the way it was done. As far a covering illegals is concerned, that’s a separate problem. They shouldn’t be here anyway, and their native country should be billed for their coverage and any handouts they get from the taxpayer.
You might say that they wouldn’t pay, but if they trade with us or get foreign aid, we can make them pay... Just deduct it from what we pay them.
I have been on a government health plan since I turned 65 (medicare plus VA), and although I have retirement insurance through the company I worked for all my life, the company insurance is as intrusive as medicare.
The bottom line is that we are not going to let people who are in this country die because of no insurance and I don’t think we should. That’s just a reality. We are, regardless of what obama thinks, a Christian nation.
What are the populations of those countries?
How many hoodrats and illegal aliens do they have to take care of?
Does either country have rampant anchor babies which suck them dry?
Do they every special interest group under the sun, trying to change their way of life?
Is either country the ‘go to’ country when sh!t hits the fan?
Does either country pretty much protect the rest of the world as the US does?
Do the people of either country know any other way? Thereby, not know what its like to be free to do what you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone else?
Switzerland is atypical in its successful political integration of a multiethnic and multilingual populace, and is often cited as a model for new efforts at creating unification, as in the European Union's frequent invocation of the Swiss Confederate model. Because the various populations of Switzerland share language, ethnicity, and religion not with each other but with the major European powers between whom Switzerland during the modern history of Europe found itself positioned, a policy of domestic plurality in conjunction with international neutrality became a matter of self-preservation. Consequently, the Swiss elites during the period of the formation of nation states throughout Europe did not attempt to impose a national language or a nationalism based on ethnicity, instead pushing for the creation of a civic nation grounded in democratic ideology, common political institutions, and shared political ritual
What strikes me about the National Healthcare Program in Canada is that those who support it most strongly are the ones who have never used it.
I am tired of paying for other peoples stuff. Their health care, their food, their housing, their education and everything else they want for nothing. If we are a christian nation, let the churches and various other charities pay for it. I’m done.
Why are commie ideas being posted here? I didn’t see your barf alert so I am worried about you.
“I am tired of paying for other peoples stuff.”
I’m tired of it too. Like I said, I don’t know the answer...
Churches used to do it. The truly needy should be helped by the truly charitable...
“This is all predicated on a mound of Horse $hit. This idiot forgets that Singapore and Switzerland are homogenous societies with fewer residents than most bus stops. Hardly a thing he says is convertible to a continental hegemony of 300+ millions.”
Singapore is not that homogenous a society. Malays/Chinese/Indians/Western Expats
Not to mention the religious divide between Muslims and everyone else
Your point is still valid in other ways though for example, the cost of medical insurance in Singapore is more expensive if you are not a citizen
What ever happened to “pro-choice”?
Or does the government dictate what is pro choice?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
There is no conservative case for socialism. Respect and abide by the constitution.
The health systems of Switzerland and Singapore are partially subsidized by the American consumer. In fact nearly ALL so-called universal systems in the world are subsidized by us. How so? By purchasing pharmaceuticals and medical devices(of which over 60% are developed here) from the US for a fraction over cost then having the American consumer make up the ‘profit’ difference. Wonder why we aren’t allowed to re-import drugs and devices at world prices? If we could, most of the world’s ‘free’ systems would implode due to increasing costs or increasing rationing or both. I doubt other countries want to see the US go to a ‘single-payer’ system unless of course our taxes pay for our system and continue to subsidize their’s.
Orwell thought words would just be outlawed and expunged. In fact words (and so thought) are being so larded with contradictory meanings that they are useless. There are socialists in Congress who proudly proclaim their conservationism.
Not anymore. The medical device industry is close to dead here thank you FDA and the medical device tax.
Eliminate the FDA and get the government completely out of medicine.
Make everyone responsible for their own medical care.
If you can’t afford it, lie down and croak!
Switzerland does something right.
My understanding is.
concerning non(or expired) patented drugs.
SW gives a price list to drug companies,
they agree to the entire list,
or do not do business in the country.
no more hospitals dispensing Tylenol
at $36 a pop.
Still ‘developed’ here, just hidden behind global corporations. Profits are still realized mostly from us, the US.
What are their policies on end of life care? About half of your lifetime medical expenses are spent in the last year. Add a government "death panel", a refusal to pay "unreasonable" efforts at delaying death (however the insurance company defines unreasonable), or even a society which accepts that life has come to an end and allows old people to die at home with family rather than attached to very expensive machines which go "ping" and you can drop national medical expenses. I don't like the idea of either a government or insurance bureaucrat deciding it is time for me to go, especially if they decide that they could save half by restricting medical care in the last year they could save even more by restricting it in the last five or ten years.
And where to you think those drug companies obtain their profits? Hint: we in the US are still paying that ‘$36 a pop’. Switzerland profits and we pay for it.....
Uninsured medical bills are typically paid in the range of 3 to 7 percent and the balance written off. So deals like that are basically a way to subsidize the non-payers.
You still have pesky illegals singing about climbing every mountain and crossing every border. :-)
Both of those places
A) Benefit from R&D subsidized from the ability to monopolistically charge for items/pharmaceuticals here.
B) Have a far lower freeloader to productive person ratio.
C) Have a lot few people than here.
Yea, like welfare in general. The ones who support it but never use it are the elitists who want the serfs using it to not riot and burn their crap down after they got them hooked on a cycle of dependancy in order to bring themselves to power...
Very well stated and 100% correct!
health insurance is destroying the middle class
in the US.
something has to give.
or people will vote away their freedom
at the ballot box.