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. Singapore’s public spending on health care as a fraction of GDP is 86 percent lower than America’s. That’s 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 ...
Singapore demographics: Chinese 74.2%; Malay 13.2%; Indian 9.2%
U.S. demographics: white 72.4% black 12.6%; Asian 4.8.
Break out the 16.4% of hispanics who are (in this Wiki entry) lumped in with white, and I guess the U.S. would be even more mightily 'diverse' than Singapore.
Not to mention the possibility of counting white people as German-American, Irish-American, Scandivian-American, Italian-, French-, Polish-, et al.
There is NO case for “universal” health insurance coverage!!! EVER!! IT is NOT an inalienable right and therefore, there is NO case for it.
Well, they have been complaining about one group of immigrants (besides Muslims) recently: Germans.
This rather strongly implies that a large amount of money was wasted, doesn't it?
Not only that, Singapore and South Korea have relatively healthy and homogenous populations.
I like the German system:
a) every employer and employee pays a share of the insurance costs proportional to the hours worked (you don't gain by slashing your employees' hours);
b)The unemployed and those on the dole (which isn't much these days) participate in the same plans and the cost is paid by the government;
c)You can only sue for malpractice if a medical review board finds malpractice, and compensation is limited to pain and suffering (since you're already insured) and is capped on a tight sliding scale-- if your lawyer asks for more than you get, the difference is deducted from any fees awarded.
Germany doesn't have a 'welfare' system-- it has a national insurance system based on real actuarial figures-- not some ratbag lying politician promising you everything for "free".
A system like this here would mean no more outrageous malpractice lawsuits, no more insurance companies wasting unbelievable amounts of time and money trying to make someone else pay, a uniform or at least proportional cost across the country for employers, etc.
Medical savings accounts might work if they were mandatory (a la Singapore) and if Americans could earn enough to pay for them, but the German system seems like a good way to keep a lot of the better parts of the American system while fixing the worst parts.
A very Confucian system-- the young pay for the care of the elderly-- as you get older, your constribution rate declines.
Yes, I've been waiting for the rocket surgeon who can explain why his version of "more free stuff" is conservative.
The writer makes a good point about the systems in Singapore and Switzerland. Their systems are very different than those of the U.K. or Canada.
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.