Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jj82284" data-cid="971117" data-time="1488330402">
<div>
1.) I never stated that the Swiss system was perfect. 

No system is perfect. But the others are
significantly better.


2.) As we have stated above, Medicare already acts as a defacto government benchmark for fee schedules.  We still have the same challenges. 

Medicare in no way limits charges made by our private health systems.


3.) We've already talked about the importance of cost transparency and consumer choice. 

So you agree all of this talk of competition is pretty pointless if we can't know what everyone is charging? If not, how do you solve the problem and guarantee competition?


4.) Just as an aside, we currently have more than 150% of the entire population of Switzerland living in the country as undocumented aliens. 

Yes, and they are a bit of a drag due to emergency care. If emergency care is 2% of spending, and undocmented aliens are 3% of the population, it matters, but ins nowhere near the bulk of the costs.


5.) The Labor force participation rate in Switzerland is over 80% here its just over 60%,  They have conversations about how best to deliver care within their communal values and not as much about half the country trying to piggy back the other half. 

Yeah, or maybe it is the fact that all of the other countries use the government to actually do something useful like get decent rates on procedures and medicine.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
Just gonna point out again that you are equating better to cheaper. I don't think most people in healthcare see it that way.  There Labor Force Participation rate is a huge deal that you can't ignore. If 80% where working instead of 60% we might not even have a deficit. They don't have a massive retirement age population that is far larger than the generation below them. Their healthcare 'payer mix' is much better. 

 

Quote:1.)Significantly is a relative term.  As the Forbes article stated, we are essentially the world Leader in speed getting people to Treatment.  My wife for instance has had a routine check up at 10:00 and been in for a diagnostic referral before the close of business.  That creates value vs. a system that would make her wait 6 months for government approval.  Also, you have to make adjustments for other economic conditions.  Per Capita GDP in Britain is 38k and per Capita GDP in the US is nearly 60k then there is a built in difference in how that correlates to wages and thus the cost of delivering health care. 

 

There are certain features that other countries have tried that may add value to our overall health care market and I think it makes sense to consider adopting some of them. 

 

2.) Medicare Might not make statutory requirements of health care providers, but generally costs and reimbursements are based on the direction Medicare Takes.

 

3.) Agree, I am the one who bought it up.  When you walk into the average Doctors office, even if you ask what a procedure will cost they can't give you an answer.  More over, we bundle our catastrophic risk, preventative prepayment, incidental care risk, collective purchasing power, etc. all in the same financial instrument (current health insurance).  We should be looking at ways to take preventative and incidental care away from major insurance and have risk pools managed by care providers.  Also, we should be able to create groups to allow banding and collective purchasing that are a.) not tied to employment, b.) able to allow each individual policy owner to own their own policy. 

 

4.) You missed it.  at current about 71% of undocumented immigrants are on some form of government assistance.  The vast majority will not be covered or be receiving their care through some form of a government program.  That means that we are already subsidizing a population greater than that of most of the ALTERNATIVES That most people point to.  This is a contributing factor to why Switzerland actually spends about 1/3rd the money we do as a percentage of GDP on Healthcare expenses. 

 

5.) Why do you keep pointing to other countries that have longer wait times and less choice as better options?  more over, why don't you point to the VA as the system that you want to participate in?  Why don't you tout the actuarial solvency of Social Security as the Gold standard in Modern government run insurance?  Why don't you tout the transparency of the Obama Care deliberations, and the promises made to the American people as the clear winner over Public Insurance companies and their requirements to tell the Truth? 

 

Instead we just get the standard answer of "all other industrialized Democracies"  When we point out that our current employer based system is the byproduct of failed price controls what's your response? 

 

As FL pointed out, the basic principle of economics is Scarcity.  That Scarcity will manifest itself in some way, be it through price or lack of supply.  We could pass a law that says every laptop only costs 5 dollars.  Guess how many laptops will get produced?  Allow people to see their own costs, make their decisions and hold providers accountable to provide more options to the public to do things more efficiently while getting barriers out of their way! 

 

Quote:Exactly.  Companies don't invest time or money in the individual market (10% of the population) because the money is in the group markets (85% of the population)  IT's a bigger piece of the pie, the persistency of premium payments is going to be exponentially higher because you are dealing with corporate officers and not just random people.  Moreover, people are only going to be employed there for 3-5 years on average.  That creates and ARTIFICIAL TERM in the actuarial calculations that means that there is theoretically less risk insuring that pool. 

 

IF we truly had a free market where there wasn't a double blind between patients and Doctors (their employer and the insurance companies) then we would have much better options as consumers.

Excellent posts, agreed 100%.

---