On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 11:32:37 -0400, Lu Powell wrote:


You are probably right. I simply have a problem with folks who go for a
government solution without considering measures that do not involve
unimaginable public debt and increased taxes forever. The Swiss have an
effective program that doesn't involve public funds at all, except to
regulate. A number of other options are not being considered because the
power-hungry Congress and Dims generally have their minds set in
concrete. Opposition is met with derision, rather than seeking common
ground.

I wasn't familiar with the Swiss system, so I did a little reading on
it. I like that it is not employer based. Our model of tying health
care to a job, IMO, is a mistake. It's anti-competitive in the world
market. Their care is not cheap, however, at 11.5% GDP, it's second only
to us. By the by, it is also subsidized by the government, according to
income levels. Another thing, I'm not sure would fly over here, it's
government price controlled.

Nothing for nothing, but Obama's plan seems similar to me. Everyone
would be required to have health insurance, with subsidies for lower
incomes. Because, price controls won't fly over here, he wants to have a
government option, or co-op, to provide competition in the market. I
don't think this is unreasonable. Without price controls, something has
to provide competition, or with health insurance being required, nothing
will keep prices down.

Another thing of note, the Swiss have considerably more doctors and
nurses per capita. Perhaps, we should get into subsidizing medical
students heavily. More doctors and nurses, might keep costs down
somewhat.