Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 09:57 AM Jul 2012

It seems we're moving toward a Swiss model of health care.

Swiss are required to purchase basic health insurance, which covers a range of treatments detailed in the Federal Act. It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[1]
Regulations also restrict the allowable policies and profits that a private insurer may offer, as noted by healthcare economics scholar Uwe Reinhardt in a review in JAMA. Reinhardt writes that,
"To compete in the market for compulsory health insurance, a Swiss health insurer must be registered with the Swiss Federal Office of Public Health, which regulates health insurance under the 1994 statute. The insurers were not allowed to earn profits from the mandated benefit package, although they have always been able to profit from the sale of actuarially priced supplementary benefits (mainly superior amenities).
Regulations require "a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium for the same type of policy..Overall, then, the Swiss health system is a variant of the highly government-regulated social insurance systems of Europe..that rely on ostensibly private, nonprofit health insurers that also are subject to uniform fee schedules and myriad government regulations."[3]


Health care spending, in U.S. dollars PPP-adjusted, in Switzerland per capita from 1998 to 2008
The insured pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, then the government gives the insured a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

It seems to work well in Switzerland. A primary difference, of course, is that insurance companies are not allowed to make profits on the basic plans, but can on supplemental plans.

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
It seems we're moving toward a Swiss model of health care. (Original Post) MoonRiver Jul 2012 OP
The Only Real Difference Is That Their Insurance Companies Are NonProfit TheMastersNemesis Jul 2012 #1
Yes, unless people purchase additional insurance. MoonRiver Jul 2012 #2
That's not what it says. Atman Jul 2012 #3
As all insurance companies should be. n/t discntnt_irny_srcsm Jul 2012 #7
A very big difference, enlightenment Jul 2012 #4
I'm hoping we can tweek our model to include those factors. MoonRiver Jul 2012 #6
But your OP claims we have adopted their model, not that we might 'tweak' ours to be like theirs Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #9
Cutting out the middleman (Ins. Co.) who add no value... Little Star Jul 2012 #5
That is a fundamental difference between our 'mandate' and all others used in other nations Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #8
Thank you. woo me with science Jul 2012 #10
I think I used the words "moving toward" in the OP. MoonRiver Jul 2012 #11
Not likely at all... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2012 #12
The sentence that I noted, Trillo Jul 2012 #13
I know there are many naysayers here, MoonRiver Jul 2012 #14

Atman

(31,464 posts)
3. That's not what it says.
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:19 AM
Jul 2012

They are not allowed to profit from the mandatory basic policy. But if you opt to buy additional coverages, they can make a profit off of that. A non-profit can't make a profit, period.

enlightenment

(8,830 posts)
4. A very big difference,
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:21 AM
Jul 2012

that profit factor. Plus the lack of a rate increase with age - if we survive, we do all get older. Plus uniform fee schedules and the (unstated) differences in what is covered.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
6. I'm hoping we can tweek our model to include those factors.
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:23 AM
Jul 2012

Once everybody accepts that ACA is here to stay maybe Congress will get it's shit together and follow in Switzerland's footsteps.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
9. But your OP claims we have adopted their model, not that we might 'tweak' ours to be like theirs
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:30 AM
Jul 2012

They do not allow profit, and they do not allow age as a factor in pricing. Not like our system at all, really.

Little Star

(17,055 posts)
5. Cutting out the middleman (Ins. Co.) who add no value...
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:22 AM
Jul 2012

what so ever to our health care is the way to go.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
8. That is a fundamental difference between our 'mandate' and all others used in other nations
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:26 AM
Jul 2012

which require the purchase of health insurance. All others make it illegal to make profit from that which people must purchase under force of law. This is a huge, huge difference, so large that it makes comparing our system to theirs sort of silly. We are not using the 'Swiss Model' we are doing a first time, never been tried method of allowing profit taking from those forced by law to purchase. This is our own, uniquely American system placing profit as job one in health care.
The Swiss would not agree that we are adopting their model, they intentionally disallowed profit taking, we intentionally enshrined it. Huge, huge difference. Primary, fundamental and pervasive difference.

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
11. I think I used the words "moving toward" in the OP.
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 10:33 AM
Jul 2012

We're obviously not there yet. Still, profit and overhead are now limited and reduced to 20% of premiums. As I previously said I hope we will adjust the model to be more like the Swiss model. That would mean taking the profit out of the mandatory insurance purchase. Profit could be made on additional policy purchases.

 

awoke_in_2003

(34,582 posts)
12. Not likely at all...
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 11:30 AM
Jul 2012

the insurance lobbies own (yes, own) too many politicians to ever allow that. The will be raking in money hand over fist with our version of mandated insurance.

Trillo

(9,154 posts)
13. The sentence that I noted,
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 12:47 PM
Jul 2012

"a 25-year-old and an 80-year-old individual pay a given insurer the same premium"

MoonRiver

(36,926 posts)
14. I know there are many naysayers here,
Sun Jul 8, 2012, 01:47 PM
Jul 2012

but I do think if we can get the public to accept ACA, we can move toward the more perfect model exemplified by Switzerland. Single payer would be better, but at least we're now, possibly, on the slippery slope towards fair, affordable universal health care.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»It seems we're moving tow...