Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodney
There are other options: for example, a government-mandated system of private insurors. One big pool -- no exclusions -- with varying rates based on socioeconomic status. Insurers make money by maximizing efficiencies within the gov't-mandated set of outcomes and coverages (with certain subsidies available as necessary).
Apparently the Swiss -- hardly wild-eyed free-spenders -- run their system that way, and provide excellent healthcare to the entire population for ~11 percent of GNP. The population has choice between insurors, there is competition -- and even some public control of policy. I hear it's an expensive system; but it's in good shape and gives good service. And as a percentage of GNP, it's less than what the US spends on health care (15 percnet). Here's a report:
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Switzerland.pdf
My point: there's a point between private healthcare and public healthcare -- and that's private healthcare that does business under a set of national standards, regulations, and policies.
|
I agree. Some states have workers' compensation insurance systems that fit this mold. And those systems work. I still think "national healthcare" is a system that will fail in time.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."
|