Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I recently had a friend come here from Switzerland, hadn't seen him in about six years now, and wow, what the place is actually like vs what is touted around in the media and everywhere else is very different.
That said, their system is simple, and it works great, and is still privately owned. (first link is probably best)
Quote from the first link: There exist 94 different insurers, which are not allowed to strive for profit.
What the hell does that mean?
This sounds amazingly like the current plan proposed by the government. Every American is required to exercise his right to buy a product from a corporation, or pay a fine for not doing so. This is the most regressive way possible to distribute a necessary service to the people. A singe working mom with kids in daycare is required to buy the same health insurance that Bill Gates has, from the same vendor, and to pay the same price for it. And pay the same fine if she declines. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul (broken link)
This is the only plan I have heard of that is actually worse than the nightmare we already have. It's like giving people the "right" to bear arms, and then fining any person who does not buy a gun sold by a private for-profit vendor.
It "would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans."
The link to the news story in my post above now links to a new version of the story, which no longer carries references to the aspects that I referenced.
Switzerland is not homogeneous. It has four official languages, and 22 percent of the population is non-Swiss.
Of that 22% non-Swiss population, 85% of them are European.
Of the total Swiss population, 85% of them speak German or French.
Regardless, language and nationality are two small factors. Race, religion, and income are important as well. Plus "homogeneity" is relative, and we're comparing to the United States here.
Basicaslly its clear to see if we see a healthcare system what its going to be like by now. It wil have some not being able to affrod it ;so exempt. It will be a combination of privte;governamnt with some getting assistance on apyments from the government. the main problem is getting a governamtn plain that competes and doesn't driveout private because we then would look at a system that wopuld go bankrpt very quickly.Even the 1 to 2 trillion cost des not cover anyhting like half the nation;private will stil be covering that.The other is what cahnges in treatment it will bring as relates to rationing or abilty to find a doctor that accepts your insurance. I thnik for instance many will see co-payment required a before trteatment because of the cuts. Its becoming more common with private insurance now to require co-pay and any dedcutable before treatment in procedures.
quote from the first link: there exist 94 different insurers, which are not allowed to strive for profit.
what the hell does that mean?
This sounds amazingly like the current plan proposed by the government. Every american is required to exercise his right to buy a product from a corporation, or pay a fine for not doing so. This is the most regressive way possible to distribute a necessary service to the people. A singe working mom with kids in daycare is required to buy the same health insurance that bill gates has, from the same vendor, and to pay the same price for it. And pay the same fine if she declines. obama shifts into campaign mode on health care - yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090715/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul - broken link)
this is the only plan i have heard of that is actually worse than the nightmare we already have. It's like giving people the "right" to bear arms, and then fining any person who does not buy a gun sold by a private for-profit vendor.
It "would make health care a right and a responsibility for all americans."
Its not like that, you pay based upon your income, but there are many different plans, but all plans have to have a certain amount of care and there is no such thing as "pre-existing conditions" so ... um no, its not really like what the current US plan is. Obviously its not perfect, and ultimately single payer systems i think work out better, but in the US, that will never happen. So their model could be agreed upon by the dems and reps.... That said, if you pay less, then you aren't going to get the same plan as "Bill Gates" but you still get quality coverage.
What "there exist 94 different insurers, which are not allowed to strive for profit" means is that the government doesn't allow their insurers to be for profit, they are all non-profit, like Blue Care Network.... although they tried to pass legislation that would allow them to be for profit.... Having 94 insurance companies allows for a diversity of plans and coverage so there is still competition.
Of that 22% non-Swiss population, 85% of them are European.
Of the total Swiss population, 85% of them speak German or French.
Regardless, language and nationality are two small factors. Race, religion, and income are important as well. Plus "homogeneity" is relative, and we're comparing to the United States here.
Do you think the Swiss health care plan would be easier to implement if the US were monoracial but still had a population of 300,000,000 people? I don't think so. The sheer size of our country poses more of a challenge than our country being multiracial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.