Unlike the United States, where the Medicare program for the elderly costs taxpayers about $500 billion a year, Switzerland has no special break for older Swiss people beyond the general subsidy.
“Switzerland’s health care system is different from virtually every other country in the world,” said Regina Herzlinger, a Harvard Business School professor who has studied the Swiss approach extensively.
“What I like about it is that it’s got universal coverage, it’s customer driven, and there are no intermediaries shopping on people’s behalf,” she added. “And there’s no waiting lists or rationing.”
Since being made mandatory in 1996, the Swiss system has become a popular model for experts seeking alternatives to government-run health care. Indeed, it has attracted some unlikely American admirers, like Bill O’Reilly, the Fox News talk show host. And it has lured some members of Congress on fact-finding trips here to seek ideas for overhauling the United States system.
The Swiss approach is also popular with patients like Frieda Burgstaller, 72, who says she likes the freedom of choice and access that the private system provides. “If the doctor says it has to be done, it’s done,” said Mrs. Burgstaller. “You don’t wait. And it’s covered.”
Read the whole article from the front page of yesterday’s New York Times.
The problem with the Swiss health care system and the reason it cannot be an acceptable approach for the Obama’s vision for the future of the United States is a plan based on the Swiss model won’t secure government control over life and death decisions for Americans as the path to affect the transformational change he seeks for us.
Dilbert, it sounds as if you are arguing that Obama has a single clear vision for what health care would look like. It looks, in fact, that congress is examining both the Dutch and the Swiss model.
However, the players are different. Regulating doctors and pharmaceutical companies wouldn’t be easy. Nor would making sure that private companies (aside from supplemental health care) are not-for-profit.
If you can find me one sentence where Obama argues we shouldn’t have private health insurance, I’ll change my mind.
Obama doesn’t have to argue against private health insurance, because he knows if he gets “public” health insurance he can undercut private offerings, and eventually drive private (i.e., for-profit) companies out of business.
Magicians point with the left hand to distract you while they work “magic” with the right hand. Obama uses words the same way.
#3,
You mean the way that the US Postal Service has driven UPS out of business, or the public school systems have driven parochial and prep schools out of business? Or public universities have driven Harvard and Yale out of business?
Those are great comparisons. Unfortunately none of them were set up under the auspices of a socialist, with radical advisors even further to the left than Obama. There’s an attempted “new day” dawning. Unfortunately it has a red tint.
Wouldn’t one big difference be that the Swiss have virtually full employment in meaningful jobs, while a huge percentage of people in the U.S. consist of people permanently on the dole, the undereducated, and illegal aliens? The American socialist gambit on the table now is not really about health care, it is about forcing the shrinking number of people who can afford it to pay for everyone else’s healthcare.
Re # 5
[Edited by Elf]
John Wilkins (#2).
First the handle is Dilbertnomore – not Dilbert. I have done Dilbert as an employee in a large tech firm and have shed that manifestation.
Second, the last thing in the world I would argue about Obama is that he has a clear vision about health care. During the campaign Obama told us we could judge him by his appointments. I believe we can also take his measure by examining his associates. Therefore, I do argue that his end game through health care, the environment, taxation and through any other thing he can latch on to is to move America as far as he can in a direction his appointees and associates would find agreeable. Obama managed to be elected President without disclosing very much of his core belief in an open, clear form as the electorate and media were content to suckle on the pablum of ‘Hope’ and ‘Change’ leaving the flesh of these gauzy concepts to the individual listener’s own design. So the next best thing is to gage the Obama’s anti-America pogrom by considering his long, deep associations with such ilk (in no particular order) as Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, Frank Marshall Davis, Rashid Khalidi, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Fr. Michael Pfleger, Bernardine Dohrn, Kevin Jennings, et. al. Of course we also have Obama’s own words stating he sought out Marxist courses and professors in college. (But we just have to take his word for that since he has never released his college/law school transcripts – aided and abetted by a remarkably incurious media.)
Others above have most effectively refuted your remaining assertions.
Bottom line, if Obama is for it, it probably is bad for America as America was envisioned by our Founding Fathers.
Ad Orientem (#7):
What’s [Edited].
I was going to respond along the lines of Dilbertnomore’s thoughtful list of Obama’s associates, but he beat me to it.
Suffice to say that what’s different today from Eisenhower’s day is that we have the Internet, Google, Youtube, etc.
If one wants to, one can do searches, read speeches, look at videos, etc.
You might want to do that for some of the names Dilbertnomore listed above. You might also want to watch and listen to some of Obama’s speeches to SEIU gatherings; or review some of his early work as a community organizer.
Finally, Jesus is my Lord. Not Obama, and not some asterisk.
[Edited by Elf – please avoid derogatory references to other commenters and address the thread topic]
Dilbertnomore,
You are welcome to judge someone by their associates. Hey, our Lord was also judged by his associates. MLK jr. was called a communist. As was FDR, who probably had a few in his cabinet. It’s great to have people who can follow associates around to make sure we only hang with the right people.
You’ve listed people who are loosely associated with Obama. It’s an interesting list, but as someone involved in a few boards myself, I’m amused that someone in ten years might make these associations, “deep.” I’m sure that a few of them are Republicans and others are commies, but I’ve never asked or looked into it.
But it’s guilt by association, and it doesn’t say very much.
I wonder why these guys, who have no real influence (except, perhaps Jarrett, who’s not very radical), are on your list and not Paul Volcker, William Donaldson, [url=”http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/03/AR2007100302003.html]Austen Goolsbee[/url], [url=http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21491]Cass Sunstein[/url], or [url=”http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29453760/]Robert Gates[/url]. Those are people making the decisions.
Obama’s a politician, from Hyde Park, in Chicago. Hyde park was the good government, intellectual side of the Democratic Machine. If you really want to understand him (which you might not want to do) you might consider listening to [url=http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=84]This American Life’s story on Harold Washington[/url]. [url=http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/7878/]Kendall has even approved of it[/url].
Harold Washington was why Obama moved to Chicago. So I’m always perplexed when people look to other minor influences, when it’s pretty obvious who most directly shaped him and his hopes.
Personally, seeking out Marxist teachers seems like a wise thing to do if you want to understand Marxism. But from what I’ve read about Obama, he tends to like debate rather than conformity. Some people thrive when presented with contestable ideas. But it also depends if you think people can change their minds. I tend to think that Obama thinks for himself. I get the impression that lots of people think he gets regular phone calls from Ayers and Wright telling him what to do. Don’t get me wrong, I think people are entitled to their fantasies and speculations.
This is the evidence. He taught at the University of Chicago, a conservative law school. Why not ask why Legal Conservatives [url=http://www.tnr.com/article/con-law?id=86dd0277-c6ee-4e3c-83e9-0bb468c5c40d]wanted to hire him[/url]? And as far as Harvard’s transcript goes: he finished Magna Cum Laude. Do you [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/11257.html]remember how he ran the Harvard Law Review[/url]? If he is a socialist, he’s a very disappointing one. At least according to my socialist friends, who think he’s just another conservative tool of the oligarchy.
While you judge by associations, I prefer to judge by his actions. And even, the consequences of his actions. Let’s see: movement in peace in the middle east; Russia has agreed to support sanctions in Iran; a slowdown in number of job losses; a generally improved stock market; money for community colleges; [url=http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/08/68495996/1]money for GIs[/url].
There are good reasons to judge Obama. He’s made several mistakes along the way. But it’s been only ten months, and nobody should have expected him to be perfect. To call him a “socialist,” however, is simply inaccurate, the flailing, sputtering, accusations of pundits who benefit from controversy and misinformation.
Um, UPS and FedEx were created because people were dissatisfied with the only option in existence for getting mail from point A to point B – The US Postal Service. The USPS was not created as competition to undercut them, it’s been around for about 200 years, and not doing too well in light of increasing competition (how many increases in postage recently?).
IIRC, it took a court decision to allow companies like FedEx and UPS to actively compete against the USPS, who argued based on the anti-monopoly laws for their decision. I think.