Government Spending On Health Care In Switzerland

[Campbell]

Government spending on health care in Switzerland is only 2.7 percent of GDP, by far the lowest in the developed world. By contrast, in 2008, U.S. government spending on health care was 7.4 percent of GDP. If the U.S. could move its state health spending to Swiss levels, it would save more than $700 billion a year.

'Course that would deprive insurance companies of massive annual profits...Can't Have That!!

 

[Rustic]

Government spending on health care in Switzerland is only 2.7 percent of GDP, by far the lowest in the developed world. By contrast, in 2008, U.S. government spending on health care was 7.4 percent of GDP. If the U.S. could move its state health spending to Swiss levels, it would save more than $700 billion a year.

'Course that would deprive insurance companies of massive annual profits...Can't Have That!!

It should not be up to the federal government to pay for healthcare, it's not a right...

 

[Campbell]

Government spending on health care in Switzerland is only 2.7 percent of GDP, by far the lowest in the developed world. By contrast, in 2008, U.S. government spending on health care was 7.4 percent of GDP. If the U.S. could move its state health spending to Swiss levels, it would save more than $700 billion a year.

'Course that would deprive insurance companies of massive annual profits...Can't Have That!!

It should not be up to the federal government to pay for healthcare, it's not an right...

"AN RIGHT" ???????


LOL

 

[Confounding]

People that are against single payer aren't thinking logically. Taxes would go up slightly, but you'd save money because you would no longer have to make insurance payments. It's stupid to have a middle man raking in billions of dollars when there is a better way.

 

[Rustic]

People that are against single payer confuse me. Taxes would go up slightly, but you'd save money because you no longer have to make insurance payments. It's ******* stupid to have a middle man raking in billions of dollars when there is a better way.

Taxation without representation... Simple

 

[Iceweasel]

Government spending on health care in Switzerland is only 2.7 percent of GDP, by far the lowest in the developed world. By contrast, in 2008, U.S. government spending on health care was 7.4 percent of GDP. If the U.S. could move its state health spending to Swiss levels, it would save more than $700 billion a year.

'Course that would deprive insurance companies of massive annual profits...Can't Have That!!

Kinda simple analysis there. They are probably healthier (which isn't a stretch) and probably don't have the litigation industry medical has to support and guard against.

 

[Iceweasel]

People that are against single payer aren't thinking logically. Taxes would go up slightly, but you'd save money because you would no longer have to make insurance payments. It's stupid to have a middle man raking in billions of dollars when there is a better way.

People like you confuse me. You want a dead beat that treats his body like shit to have the same plan as a man that works his tail end off and keeps himself healthy. It doesn't get any stupider than that.

 

[Confounding]

Taxation without representation... Simple

That was a slogan used by the colonists to express their disdain with having to pay taxes to a distant country that doesn't represent them. I'm clearly missing something; how is that relevant here?

 

[Rustic]

Taxation without representation... Simple

That was a slogan used by the colonists to express their disdain with having to pay taxes to a distant country that doesn't represent them. I'm clearly missing something; how is that relevant here?

Millions will and would never use single payer healthcare by the federal government, and taxing them anyway??

 

[Confounding]

You want a dead beat that treats his body like shit to have the same plan as a man that works his tail end off and keeps himself healthy. It doesn't get any stupider than that.

Look, I know it bothers you that poor people would be treated equally, but it's the most logical thing to do. We have the most expensive and least effective healthcare system in the world. We would save money and the American people as a whole would be healthier because single payer would greatly improve preventative care.

 

[Iceweasel]

You want a dead beat that treats his body like shit to have the same plan as a man that works his tail end off and keeps himself healthy. It doesn't get any stupider than that.

Look, I know it bothers you that poor people would be treated equally, but it's the most logical thing to do. We have the most expensive and least effective healthcare system in the world. We would save money and the American people as a whole would be healthier because single payer would greatly improve preventative care.

I didn't say anything about what bothers me, I basically called you an idiot. I gave the reasons above, if you don't like it, tough shit.

 

[Rustic]

I can't think of much worse way to waste my time and money than on a single payer system controlled by the federal government...
It would be George Orwells 1984...
Sick and twisted

 

[Confounding]

Millions will and would never use single payer healthcare by the federal government, and taxing them anyway??

You'll probably never use a lot of the roads your tax money paid for either. That doesn't mean you shouldn't have to pay for them. Conservatives seem to believe they owe nothing to society because all of their success is their own. That's nonsense; some of their success came from their hard work and some of it came from them being lucky enough to be part of this society. Do you think your odds of success would be as good if you had been born in Africa? Extremely successful people do owe something to the society that gave them the opportunity to thrive.

 

[Manonthestreet]

If you dont do anyting about the collusion and monopolistic practices in healthcare you are just shoveling good money after bad with single payer...it wont be any cheaper and the crisis will still exist.

 

[mikegriffith1]

As is often the case, we have another liberal OP praising Switzerland's health care system and arguing that we should copy it and thus eliminate the role of insurance companies, etc., etc. We often see liberals saying America should be more like Switzerland, Germany, Norway, etc., not realizing that those nations have some very non-liberal fiscal policies. Anyway, the author of the thread on the Swiss health care system and the liberals who are responding in it are apparently unaware of the following facts about the Swiss health care system:

* Switzerland's system is a not single-payer system.

* Switzerland's system is an *individual* mandate where individuals are mandated to buy health insurance from private insurance companies. And Swiss insurance companies, although basically non-profit for basic health care plans, sell supplemental health care plans for profit.

* There is no employer health care mandate in Switzerland. None. Zero. It is strictly an individual mandate.

* There is no government health insurance exchange and no government-run insurance company to compete with private insurance companies. There are subsidies for those who need help paying for health insurance, but that's it, and Swiss citizens have a choice from over 90 private insurance companies.

* Switzerland's tort laws for malpractice are far tougher than ours, and as a result, Switzerland's tort costs as a percentage of GDP are much lower than ours, yet liberals fight tooth and nail against tort reform in the U.S. Why? Because Democrats take huge chunks of money from malpractice lawyers (aka ambulance chasers).

A few other facts to consider when debunking the liberal myths about Switzerland and socialism, etc.:

* Switzerland has a balanced budget amendment. By law, the government must balance the budget each year. Gee, liberals, why don't you ever mention that when you talk about the glories of Switzerland, even as you doggedly opposed a balanced budget amendment for the U.S.?

* Switzerland's tax laws are much more pro-growth and pro-business than ours, and Swiss law limits the government's ability to impose taxes. As a result, the Swiss have one of the lowest rates of income redistribution in Europe, and Switzerland is viewed as a tax haven by other nations. Yet, liberals doggedly oppose reducing our corporate and capital taxes to attract capital back to America, and then they wonder why trillions of dollars worth of American capital is parked overseas!

* Switzerland has a relatively hard currency monetary policy. That means they do not print up tons of paper money to paper over reckless budgets. But they don't have reckless budgets because they have a balanced budget law.

* Switzerland has a very strict, selective immigration policy. I'm amazed that liberals don't scream against it as racist and discriminatory, but I guess they're too busy repeating the myth that all European nations have rejected capitalism and embraced socialism and progressive values. In point of fact, Switzerland severely restricts immigration from Central and South America, and practically prohibits immigration from Arab nations.

So, liberals, if Switzerland is to be our model, then why don't you support a balanced budget amendment, a hard-currency monetary policy, abolition of Obamacare's employer mandate and insurance exchanges, Swiss-style medical malpractice laws, and a selective and restrictive immigration policy? Hey?

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/18/health-care-abroad-switzerland/?_r=0

A Swiss-Style Spending Cap Would Have Prevented the Current Fiscal Mess in America

Iceland, Switzerland, and the Golden Rule of Fiscal Policy

Balanced budget amendment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immigration to Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Study from German Economists Shows that Tax Competition and Fiscal Decentralization Limit Income Redistribution

 

[Iceweasel]

I didn't say anything about what bothers me, I basically called you an idiot. I gave the reasons above, if you don't like it, tough shit.

A comma can't separate two individual clauses; you're supposed to use a semicolon. Anyway, thanks for your contribution to this debate. I'll think on your strong arguments for a while.

You've demonstrated you can't think. You said you don't even understand people that don't agree with single payer and I said why it's a horrible idea. Which got you all fluffed up.

 

[Confounding]

You've demonstrated you can't think. You said you don't even understand people that don't agree with single payer and I said why it's a horrible idea. Which got you all fluffed up.

You said it's a bad idea because you don't think people should have equal access to healthcare. You apparently don't care that we would save money and be more healthy by switching to single payer. I think my position is more logical.

 

[Iceweasel]

You've demonstrated you can't think. You said you don't even understand people that don't agree with single payer and I said why it's a horrible idea. Which got you all fluffed up.

You said it's a bad idea because you don't think people should have equal access to healthcare. You apparently don't care that the U.S would save money and be more healthy by switching to single payer. I think my position is more logical than your position.[/QUOTE]You're a liar. That's all liberals know how to do. I said specifically that it makes no sense that a dead beat that abuses his body should have the same plan, pay the same, as a man that works his ass off and takes care of himself.

In no way does that translate into "doesn't have equal access", how does the dead beat not have the same access? He can do the same as the other guy. You want the rewards to be the same regardless of effort. Your socialist world view will kill incentive for the go getters. And how is it cheaper if the working guy pays for his and the dead beat's insurance? That isn't logic, it's called stupidity.

 

[mikegriffith1]

Yet another liberal OP that has no clue about what it's talking about.

Liberal Myths About Switzerland and Its Health Care System

 

[Confounding]

You're a liar. That's all liberals know how to do. I said specifically that it makes no sense that a dead beat that abuses his body should have the same plan, pay the same, as a man that works his ass off and takes care of himself.

You are against giving equal access to the poor people that cannot afford it on their own. You think healthcare is a privilege; I think it should be a right. In the United States of America sick people should not be dying because the care they need is too expensive.

In no way does that translate into "doesn't have equal access", how does the dead beat not have the same access? He can do the same as the other guy. You want the rewards to be the same regardless of effort. Your socialist world view will kill incentive for the go getters. And how is it cheaper if the working guy pays for his and the dead beat's insurance? That isn't logic, it's called stupidity.

Poor people don't have the same access because they cannot afford the same access. I don't accept the argument "Well, it's their fault for not being more successful."

And how is it cheaper if the working guy pays for his and the dead beat's insurance?

It would be cheaper because expensive health insurance would be replaced by less expensive taxes. Yes, poor people would benefit the most from that. I know, what a horrible thought. You'd also save a lot of money with preventative care. Due to the cost a lot of people hold off on going to the doctor until something is an emergency. By that point the problem is much worse and much more expensive to fix. Oh, there's also the fact that millions of uninsured people are using ERs and getting bills they will never be able to pay, so really the taxpayer is already covering them.