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.
Personally, I like the idea that the individual makes their own choices - instead of having government dictate those choices.
In reality though - the Swiss system is a pretty fair system. And, even though there is a mandate - the only mandate is for Catastrophic illness - not the everyday aches and pains.
The Swiss System does allow for its citizens to decide, on their own, if they want the supplemental insurance. And if so, from where they want to acquire it.
The Swiss program shows that a UHC (Universal Health Care) system does not have to be government run. Where do you suppose these subsidies come from? They come from the government. Where do you suppose the govt. gets the money? From taxes!
The Swiss system seems somewhat of a "compromise" between somethink like UK system and total single payer system. It's an improvement..
But then people like GD then ***** that it's Mandatory. Without making a system mandatory but forcing them to cover those like myself.. they are setting themselves up for really high premiums across the boards which will keep insurance unaffordable.. or complete failure for the same insurance companies they so starkly defend.
Something has GOT to give. If the Gov't could assure me that I wouldn't have to pay higher than a certain % of my income on mandatory insurance (and as someone with a preexisting .. I could very well without this assurance or subsidy) I would consider a Swiss type plan somewhat of a "compromise" from the type of plan I've been pushing and the one those opposed have been pushing.
I mean if car insurance is mandated..why can't health insurance be. It would certainly lower the uninsured significantly.. thereby lessening the burden on the system for the rest (ie" making up the cost in charging higher rates for the rest to recoup).
Not the most ideal in my eyes.. but a Swiss type plan is the best compromise, IMO.
Personally, I like the idea that the individual makes their own choices - instead of having government dictate those choices.
That's all well and good when you live on your own deserted island and your decisions do not affect the rest of us....
But as illustrated... your decision NOT to buy into a system or have it mandated.. .would lead to that same system failure and nothing accomplished in improving it..
You can't have cake and eat it too GD.. don't want a gov't run UHI.. want to have it all Privately run.. the Swiss system seems a good compromise.. but you have got to give a little to get a little.. and if that means that insurance is mandatory then why the heck not..
Again.. it has been on the table with talks going on in Washington between all parties.. including insurance companies.
That's all well and good when you live on your own deserted island and your decisions do not affect the rest of us....
But as illustrated... your decision NOT to buy into a system or have it mandated.. .would lead to that same system failure and nothing accomplished in improving it..
You can't have cake and eat it too GD.. don't want a gov't run UHI.. want to have it all Privately run.. the Swiss system seems a good compromise.. but you have got to give a little to get a little.. and if that means that insurance is mandatory then why the heck not..
Again.. it has been on the table with talks going on in Washington between all parties.. including insurance companies.
Once again - you take what I say/said, out of context.
That's all well and good when you live on your own deserted island and your decisions do not affect the rest of us....
But as illustrated... your decision NOT to buy into a system or have it mandated.. .would lead to that same system failure and nothing accomplished in improving it..
You can't have cake and eat it too GD.. don't want a gov't run UHI.. want to have it all Privately run.. the Swiss system seems a good compromise.. but you have got to give a little to get a little.. and if that means that insurance is mandatory then why the heck not..
Again.. it has been on the table with talks going on in Washington between all parties.. including insurance companies.
Actually, I would rather have neither. any UHC is bad for the USA, but also at the same time, get both the state and federal goverments out of regulatin health care completely.
Actually, I would rather have neither. any UHC is bad for the USA, but also at the same time, get both the state and federal goverments out of regulatin health care completely.
Yes I read it... Switzerland does not have UHC provided by the government. They have an all private insurance system in which insurance is a mandatory purchase. Did you even read the article
While it is not provided by the government it is subsidized by the government. They also require all private insurance companies to pay into a fund so no insurance company will lose money.
Give me a break between the subsidizes and the special fund it's socialism.
In your opinion, do you think that the United States Government can run a Health Care delievery system better than the private sector?
A trained monkey could run it better.........
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.
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.
