Switzerland: Inside the World’s Finest Health Care System
Is it any surprise that Switzerland has, arguably, the world's finest health care system? Would you expect any less from a nation where the air is crisp, the streets are clean, and the trains run on time?
Consider the achievements of the Swiss system:
- Everyone is covered
- Health outcomes are excellent
- Health costs are reasonable
- Patient satisfaction is high
What’s especially remarkable about the Swiss system is that it is admired by both liberals and conservatives. Liberals like it because it guarantees universal coverage and conservatives like it because there's no burden on business.
Although more expensive than the British and French systems, the Swiss system is much less expensive than the American system. Mortality rates are lower, waiting times are shorter, and technology is advanced. Not surpris-ingly, patient satisfaction is among the highest in Europe.

There are four major health care systems: the British system, in which the government employs doctors and runs hospitals; the French system, which is largely financed, but not run, by government; the Swiss system, which is financed through a tightly regulated insurance industry; and the American system.
As Paul Krugman points out in his outstanding New York Times piece, the American system has British, French, and Swiss elements. The Veterans Administration system follows the British model, Medicare follows the French model, and the Massachusetts Health Plan follows the Swiss model.
Most Americans rely on an unregulated insurance industry, which fails on most counts: costs are exorbitant, outcomes are poor, coverage is restricted, and patient satisfaction is low. The major European systems – British, French, and Swiss – produce better results. The British system is the least expensive, but access to care, patient satisfaction, and technological innovation lag behind the Swiss.
The Swiss system works by regulating commercial insurance. People buy insurance directly from insurance companies, so businesses are out of the loop. Everyone must carry insurance, and those who don’t pay a penalty.
The government subsidizes the cost of insurance for low-income individuals (about one-third of the population). The affluent are not subsidized. (Contrast that with Medicare, which covers everyone over the age of 65, including wealthy people who don't need government assistance.)
In Switzerland, insurance companies must provide basic insurance to all recipients and cannot deny coverage on the basis of poor health. Premiums are not affected by health status. "Basic insurance" is defined by government, which decides which drugs, lab tests, and devices will be covered. Deductibles and premiums are tightly regulated and cannot exceed certain limits. Insur-ance companies cannot profit from the basic plan, though they may profit from supplemental insurance.
The Swiss health care system costs 40% less than the American system (on a per capita basis). Health care costs rise at a slower rate than in America. Healthy lifestyles (e.g. not smoking) translate into lower premiums, and people keep their coverage when they change or lose jobs.
The Swiss system has been criticized by right-wingers, who hate government, and by left-wingers, who hate insurance companies. But facts are facts, and results are results. By any standard, the system delivers. And the result is a nation of healthy, satisfied people.

So why aren’t Americans talking about the Swiss system?
Well, actually we are. The Swiss system is the crux of the Obama plan. Specifically, it meets Obama's goals:
- Reduce growth of health care costs for businesses and government
- Protect families from bankruptcy or debt from health care costs
- Guarantee choice of doctors and health plans
- Invest in prevention and wellness
- Improve patient safety and quality of care
- Assure affordable, quality health coverage for all Americans
- Maintain coverage when changing or losing a job
- End barriers to coverage for people with pre-existing medical conditions
So before we get too upset about single-payer and other details in the emerging health plan, let’s remember that the Swiss are masters of efficiency and proficiency. They are long-lived, cost-conscious, and technologically advanced.
If Obama takes us as far as Switzerland, he will have done us all an incalculable service.
*I am indebted to Paul Krugman for his indispensable analysis of the American and European health care systems.


Salon.com
Comments
Latest story on the reform scam here.
As the great Winston Churchill wisely remarked: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
As the great Winston Churchill wisely remarked: "You can always count on Americans to do the right thing - after they've tried everything else."
Thanks for this Steve (and Paul Krugman);
d
Having had experience with and in the the Swiss healthcare system, I will also add that the hospitals are run as efficiently as the trains and the food is probably the best you will find in hospitals anywhere in the world. The only thing the Swiss don't offer in hospitals that the Danish do is beer and wine with your meals. No, I'm not kidding. And if you are hospitalized in Denmark and in reasonably good shape, they send you home for the weekend to relieve the demand/stress on the employees. You return on Monday morning to the same room and bed and nobody has stolen anything you left behind.
I say this post should be on the cover and deserves an EP. But then again, I adore you. I bow to your intelligence and wisdom.
Someday, doc, our myopic politicians are going to quit preaching "we're the greatest country on earth" and open their minds to other possibilities.
Oh, sorry. I fell asleep for a moment and was dreaming.
Good post, as usual Okie.
I still prefer the French system (under which I live, here in Canada - government paid but not operated), but (for the American psyche) it's too "socialistic".
In a way we already have a Swiss healthcare system - it's full of holes.
In a competitive market, any insurance company that makes itself attractive to the chronically ill will be swamped with costs. Attracting the healthy will work better. Offer your customers discount gym memberships, not home dialysis.
and damn Switzerland is beautiful!
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/22/the_list_the_world_s_worst_healthcare_reforms
Have a great day.
So, will this happen for us, Steve? I'm serious. It's overwhelming to think that the US cannot make this happen.......
Thanks for explaining all of this. I sure do envy you Americans for having Obama as a leader - this man is an icon. And if you end up adopting the Swiss model of healthcare to boot, I just might consider that move to Santa Monica afterall....
What really irks me is all the ignorant people (and some are anchors on Fox News) who say, contrary to all documented evidence, that the US has "the best health care in the world." The delusion is endless about the deficiencies of our system. And I've also heard liberal, well-educated people say something similar, really fearing the "European system" and thinking ours is great. I think if we can just change things and people live under it for a few years, they'll soon change their minds and realize what they've been missing.
Rated.
(Love the Switzerland photos - my birth certificate says Geneva.)
thank you for posting this. Information without bias teaches... I hope many. rAted!
Seriously, why aren't you co-surgeon general with Dr. B?
And by the way, Steve, will you run away with me to Switzerland?
My paternal ancestry is Swiss, and had they a “Law of Return” I’d have probably ”returned” there long ago. I am a member of “ProTell”, the Swiss NRA, but that doesn’t mean that they would let me in their militia (despite a huge overlap in membership). My neighbors who are Amish also claim Switzerland as their country of origin. How they deal with the “English” (ie non-Amish neighbors and Government) would probably seem very strange to most of you, but it stems from what I would call a basic Swiss ibertarianism, much like that which inspired our own founding fathers.
One of the things our Founding Fathers warned against as a death knell of freedom was the development of partisanship and political parties.
I didn’t see anything like this “Healthcare Plan” in the President’s remark that “We don’t want a lot of talk from those who caused the problem” (We just plan on scoring big for our Party) and certainly I haven’t seen this proposal from the Republicans (who are mostly just gleefully watching their “Opponents” being beaten up)
So, are we all agreed on the Swiss model of Healthcare?
What do we need to do to get us there? And no, I don’t trust either the Republicans or Democrats to “Drop me off in Switzerland”, judging from the “Flight Plans” currently under discussion. Suggestions welcomed.
The US is either going to get this right, beginning now and evolving over the next few years, or the place will implode.
And if that happens, I'm moving to Switzerland. Or Paris. It's a coin-toss.
Thanks. Rated.
Not once did I ever have to wait more than a few hours for an appointment to see my or my children's doctor.
When my second child was born there, a midwife made daily visits to our home for two weeks to check on both me and the baby and serve as a lactation consultant. (She even took the stitches from my episiotimy out, right there in my bedroom, and THANK GOD because they were killing me.)
We were BROKE when we lived there--broke, young and stupid. But we never, ever suffered lack of health care.
Today, I earn ten times what I earned in Switzerland and because I'm self-employed, all I can afford to purchase is a policy that covers catastrophic illness or injury. My deductible is $5000, which makes me reluctant to go in and see about a stomach problem I'm having as it's probably nothing, but it'll cost me my whole deductible to find out.
We need to do something right now to fix this system, and having lived under the Swiss system, I'd be all for it's adoption here.
~rocco and rusty
who don't need health insurance, just health care
Well, actually we are. The Swiss system is the crux of the Obama plan."
___
Obama has a plan? Really? Could have fooled me. He's pretty much lost control of the reform effort because he's let Congress draft the legislative proposals, and they in turn are letting K Street ghostwrite the specifics. I rather doubt that anything we pass will end up in any substantive manner resembling the Swiss system.
.
*(notavailableinthecontiguousunitedstatesoralaskaorhawaiiaothersocializedhealthcareuptoandincludingunpluggingyourgrandmothermaybesubstitutedatthewhimoftheexecutiveorlegislativebranch)
I’m not from Missouri, but show me, anyway .Please show me so that I can vote for this, we really could use “Swiss” Healthcare, and not just another partisan looting of the American pocketbook and way of life.
Sorry, apparently even the comment upload could't handle the fine print
*(notavailableinthecontiguousunitedstatesoralaskaorhawaiia
othersocializedhealthcareuptoandincludingunpluggingyour
grandmothermaybesubstitutedatthewhimoftheexecutiveorlegislativebranch)
John E Moore MD
John E Moore MD
Pul-eeze, spare us the wingnut name calling.
Clear and cogent and appreciated. The only problem I've ever heard about it was that it was ineffective with the Swiss Navy.
only real weakness is no surf beaches.
Funny thing about posting on Salon, you can never be sure who you’ll offend, but you can always be pretty sure you’ll offend someone. Take me for instance, I pretty much agree with you that “Obamacare” is not going to take us to a “Swiss Utopia” without a lot of rewriting, but that is no reason to disparage the Swiss. My ancestry is Swiss, and if Family Legend is true, then it was a shirt tale cousin of mine who, as President of Switzerland, when faced with a Nazi demand for surrender, asked about the size of the German invasion force. The German Envoy replied that he had 5 times the soldiers that Switzerland could put in the field. The President is said to have replied, “Very Good, I shall see that each of my Marksman is issued at least 5 bullets.
Had France and Britain maintained their militia forces as Switzerland had, they could have given the same answer ( ‘course tanks don’t work real good in mountains)
Switzerland did quite enough just keeping itself free and providing a haven for refugees,
Had that flaming Liberal FDR not pushed us into the war, I could have grown up in the shadow of the Third Reich instead of The Soviet Union ( all Hitler wanted was ….)
So, by your implication, that flaming liberal FDR did at least something right, and my kith and kin of German ancestry who fought against Germany in WWII, would agree. But don’t put it on the Swiss to have done more than defend themselves, when Britain, France, and Russia could not.
When you disparage the Swiss, Smile when you say it.
John E Moore
Arrogance is DUMB. DUMB and STUPID, together they are a very bad combination.
It is about time that America got rid of the STUPID and DUMB. Lets start a medical care system like the Swiss or the French or even the Brits. Any of the above sound great to me, as long as the one we have now (do we even have one) is trashed and ended forever.
John E Moore
John E Moore MD
John E Moore MD
Thank you for thinking of me Mr. President, I am one American that really appreciates you.
>>"Do you honestly think Doctors are going to be motivated in a system wthout apprpriate re imbursements."
And there is the crux of John Moore's objection to healthcare: he'll make less money. Never mind the 45 million people who will die because you make more money: you want yours. Why should you make more than teachers and firemen make? As for the disastrous effect: it would drive people like you, whose only motivation is mercenary, out of healthcare. That can only improve the quality of healthcare in this country.
John E Moore MD
Well, if we're critiquing each other's writing skills, you could learn to spell. ("Childesh?" Really?) Then people might take you more seriously, though I doubt it, as your condescending, self-involved and self-aggrandizing tone are extremely off-putting.
I have never met anyone who is not driven by the profit motive physicians notwithstanding. You expect an altruism among physicians that I doubt you personally posess(sp?) And inasmuch as you know nothing of my clinical skillls I question the idea that medicine would be better off without me. All of the physicians I know are concerned about their income. I am merely bold enough to admit it. Obamacare has nothing to do with better healthcare. It has everything to do with power and money. We have it and they want it. But do not fool yourself into thinking that my opinions are in the minority. Push us far enough and we will unionize. Whatever it is that you do for a living I doubt you would be excited about doing it for less. Furthermore to imply that I am heartless to the 45 million that don't have health insurance is naive. As for the uninsured I can count myself among their ranks. But I do not ask the government to sponsor me. Healthcare is a privilige not a right. And like all those other uninsured I must earn that privilige.
As far as my own income, inasmuch as I practise in a rural area my income would actually increase under Obamacare. My objection to socialised medicine is not driven by greed. It is driven by common sense. If healthcare is a right what about food and a roof over our heads. Under your system are they not rights as well. And as such should the governemnt finance those as well. Socialism is like a cancer and finally as far as I can see the real people, not the knee jerk liberals I meet on this blog, are opposed to the impending coup that the democrats are inflicting upon us. If you ever want to see how the government runs healthcare just visit a VA hospital. The care rendered at these facilities is horific at best. If this is how the government cares for its war heroes how do you think it will care for us?
John E Moore MD
John E Moore MD
Good point, Johnny. That was not what I meant to say, as you're aware, and one can't edit comments. As for your accusation of arrogance, well, I'd suggest you reread your own comments for a prime example of the genre.
Your vast education--most PhDs spend far more time in school than MDs, by the way, and make far less--does not entitle you to a vast income. And as it happens, right now the market will "bare" paying you that income, but if under healthcare reform the free market you so blindly idolize refuses to cough up so lavish a salary, I hope you'll be to adjust to your straitened circumstances. BMWs instead of Bentleys...I shudder to think.
>>Push us far enough and we will unionize.
Hee! After you right wingers defanged unions, this is your best threat? You could more credibly threaten to leave to start a mortgage-backed security brokerage.
And people think I'm funny. You are hilarious. And ridiculous. I'm out; I've wasted enough time on you.
John E Moore MD
http://open.salon.com/blog/lawlawland/2009/08/23/i_love_private_health_care_like_i_love_the_cadillac_escalade
Also, I feel that it is extremely bad manners to serially post in someone else's blog. I apologize to Dr. Blevins for having been provoked to do so.
All the best---John E Moore MD
John E Moore MD
Here is a good start:
Decker, S.L., Remler, D.K. (2004) How much might universal health insurance reduce socioeconomic disparities in health? A comparison of the US and Canada. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 3 (4), pp. 205-216.
A strong association between lower socioeconomic status (SES) and worse health-- the SES-health gradient-- has been documented in many countries, but little work has compared the size of the gradient across countries. We compare the size of the income gradient in self-reported health in the US and Canada. We find that being below median income raises the likelihood that a middle aged person is in poor or fair health by about 15 percentage points in the U.S., compared to less than 8 percentage points in Canada. We also find that the 7 percentage point gradient difference between the two countries is reduced by about 4 percentage points after age 65, the age at which the virtually all U.S. citizens receive basic health insurance through Medicare. Income disparities in the probability that an individual lacks a usual source of care are also significantly larger in the US than in Canada before the age of 65, but about the same after 65. Our results are therefore consistent with the availability of universal health insurance in the U.S, or at least some other difference that occurs around the age of 65 in one country but not the other, narrowing SES differences in health between the US and Canada.
Wow! People living in a social democracy do better economically! Who would have figured this out?
O'Hara, B. (2004) Do medical out-of-pocket expenses thrust families into poverty? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 15 (1), pp. 63-75.
This paper estimates the impact of medical out-of-pocket expenses on families' well-being using the Survey of Income and Program Participation. Medical out-of-pocket expenses include the out-of-pocket costs from medical services and the family's share of health insurance premiums. Demographic characteristics, insurance status, and medical usage of the family are analyzed to determine which characteristics are most likely to impoverish a family. Families impoverished because of medical out-of-pocket expenses are far more likely to have older heads of the family, at least one family member in poor health, or some adults without health insurance. Families without at least one person who worked full time for the entire year were also likely to be impoverished. However, children in the family had little effect on the probability that the family became impoverished. This odd result is probably due to the high correlation between parental health insurance coverage and the health insurance coverage of their children.
I would have never believed this! The U.S. health care system leading its citizen into poverty? Go figure.
Himmelstein, D.U., Thorne, D., Warren, E., Woolhandler (2009) Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study. The American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 122, No. 8, pp. 741-746.
RESULTS: Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. CONCLUSIONS: Illness and medical bills contribute to a large and increasing share of US bankruptcies.
No way! The current health care system in the U.S. also contributes to personal bankruptcy?
Here is what the Canadian Government had to say about this:
The last on our list of leading causes of bankruptcy in Canada, are medical problems; they often can and do lead to a lot of financial problems. Fortunately, in Canada most of our medical expenses, such as hospital care, are covered by the government, unlike in the United States where medical bills for uninsured Americans are a leading cause of bankruptcy in America.
Himmelstein DU, Warren E, Thorne D, Woolhandler S (2005). "Illness and injury as contributors to bankruptcy". Health affairs (Project Hope) Suppl Web Exclusives: W5–63–W5–73.
In 2001, 1.458 million American families filed for bankruptcy. To investigate medical contributors to bankruptcy, we surveyed 1,771 personal bankruptcy filers in five federal courts and subsequently completed in-depth interviews with 931 of them. About half cited medical causes, which indicates that 1.9-2.2 million Americans (filers plus dependents) experienced medical bankruptcy. Among those whose illnesses led to bankruptcy, out-of-pocket costs average $11,854 since the start of illness; 75.7 percent had insurance at the onset of illness. Medical debtors were 42 percent more likely than other debtors to experience lapses in coverage. Even middle-class insured families often fall prey to financial catastrophe when sick.
Not only the poor, but middle-income families can also go into bankruptcy!
Woolhandler S, Campbell T, Himmelstein DU (August 2003). Costs of health care administration in the United States and Canada. The New England journal of medicine 349 (8): 768–75.
Results: In 1999, health administration costs totaled at least $294.3 billion in the United States, or $1,059 per capita, as compared with $307 per capita in Canada. After exclusions, administration accounted for 31.0 percent of health care expenditures in the United States and 16.7 percent of health care expenditures in Canada. Canada's national health insurance program had overhead of 1.3 percent; the overhead among Canada's private insurers was higher than that in the United States (13.2 percent vs. 11.7 percent). Providers' administrative costs were far lower in Canada. Between 1969 and 1999, the share of the U.S. health care labor force accounted for by administrative workers grew from 18.2 percent to 27.3 percent. In Canada, it grew from 16.0 percent in 1971 to 19.1 percent in 1996. (Both nations' figures exclude insurance-industry personnel.) Conclusions: The gap between U.S. and Canadian spending on health care administration has grown to $752 per capita. A large sum might be saved in the United States if administrative costs could be trimmed by implementing a Canadian-style health care system.
How about that? American doctors/researchers suggesting that socialism works! They even recommend implementing a Universal health care system based on a country that has 1/10th of the U.S. population.
Finally, you might want to learn a thing or two about helping other people, as Dr. St-Jacques did, not in a rural setting, but in a even more remote area: Prior to joining the Canadian Space Program, Dr. Saint-Jacques was a medical doctor and the Co-chief of Medicine at Inuulitsivik Health Centre in Puvirnituq, Quebec.
Inuulitsivik Health Center – Puvirnituq
If I have the time, I will add other peer-reviewed publications on this topic.
John E Moore
Thanks for the invitation to discourse, so few people have any interest in Swiss history during WWII (or any other time period, for that matter.) And, I must admit, I get so few opportunities to act offended that your “Attacking my ethnic Homeland” was too good an opportunity to miss. You seem to be hitting the high points in the “Obamacare” argument, so I’ll leave that area to you. What made me curious is that, one, you seem to harbor some ill will toward Switzerland, and two, that, as an amateur linguist, I seem to detect something not quite native English speaker in your sentence structure.
So, if you really would like to discuss Switzerland, WWII, or whatever, PM, me and I’d be glad to. Just don’t disparage anything really important, like the OSU Buckeyes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbJTBBoDFH0
Talk of enslavement is only a step or two above death panels (or calling people stupid).
I do agree that the shameful poverty that exists in the U.S. is a problem in all sorts of ways. If it is an obstacle to health reform, perhaps you have some ideas on how to alleviate it. Denigrating teachers, the front line against the major reason for poverty, doesn't do it. Nor, for that matter, denigrating the men who risk their lives in fires. But, never fear, our doctors up here in Canada earn lots more than teachers and firemen.
And what's with the hate-to-be-in-a-Canadian hospital? I've been in them several times, my daughter, my late husband, lots of people I know. I haven't heard any complaints. (And no heartbreaking, backbreaking bill afterwards.)
"Munchie I hate to burst your bubble but Obamacare has nothing to do with you. It is one part of a broader scheme where B. Hussein wants to engineer a socialist state ---an oligarchy where he and his liberal elite friends can tell us how to live and what to think. So throw away your girlish affection for the man and wake up before he strips even the last vestiges of freedom from your unknowing heart."
That would make too much sense wouldn't it?
RATED
The existing American model of healthcare is a system of cost shifting and subsidies which hides under the umbrella of capitalism, but which in reality is nothing like a market driven system. The consumer has no ability to compare or even understand costs, and depends on others to pay the bills. The complexity and specialized knowledge base of health care make it highly unlikely that most citizens could ever become well enough informed consumers to make a truly market driven system work. The alternative is providing a fair playing field through regulation, as well as control over excess spending.
Dr. Moore suggests a Swiss model would not work in the U.S., primarily due to the larger number of low income and no income citizens in America. Kanuk has done a good job of citing the evidence that U.S. uncontrolled healthcare costs have contributed to worsening that socioeconomic divide. He cites a 1999 statistic that the cost of U.S. healthcare was about $1060 per person per year. That figure is now about $7700, more than a 700% increase in 10 years. Most of us would agree that the system is not seven times better than it was 10 years ago.
One way to cover those who fall into that very low income group is to have a public health care plan - in essence, to expand Medicare availability to them, and to pay for it with some of the money which has gone to our huge increase in healthcare spending compared to other countries without a similar increase in quality.
The Swiss system simply regulates a basic level of fairness for the health care industry. If it is socialism to suggest that something as critical as healthcare have rules of fairness applied to it, then count me in as a socialist!
The final piece of reform, unfortunately not much discussed, is the need for greater cost control, which will pay for care for the underinsured. To control costs, we are talking about demanding healthcare providers show that their services provide benefit or that they are not gaming the system. And yes, it will require some type of rational adminstration. Rational doesn't mean "death panels." It means not trying to hold Dr. Moore or Dr. Blevins accountable for not ordering every test twice; it means not doing back surgery when physical therapy will give the same results; it means not paying $400 per month for a medication when an equally effective but less advertised generic goes for $65.
Ultimately, though, Dr. Moore gets to the nut of the issue. What kind of people are we going to be? Are we going to consider food and water and shelter and healthcare ultimately to be the right of every human? Is that what this country is all about!?
I hope so.
"Bobby G ---Liberal is a euphamism"
___
LOL! Learn to spell, troll. And, yes, you are a troll. No avatar pic, no posts, you just signed up an account so you could crack on others anonymously.
The hills are alive ... with the sound of music ...
Great post, Dr. Steve :) You do brilliant very well.
John E Moore MD
Government exists to provide a way for people of different beliefs to come together for the common good. So, yes, I think helping to equalize access a basic necessity like food is a fundamental responsibility of government in a large, multi-opinionated society. Hence the existence of the FDA and school lunch programs, just to give a couple of examples.
And I know I'm going to hate myself later for mentioning this, considering civil discourse and all, but isn't "salient point" redundant?
amen
Second of all, this is one of the best written articles I have read explaining the entire system. Thank you for writing it; I've shared it with my friends.
Hey John, how's that tort reform working out for Texas? Has it reigned in all those medical costs for the patients and doctors now that they finally passed it?
http://www.commondreams.org/news2004/1025-14.htm
http://www.ibjonline.com/print_medical_malpractice_tort_reform.html
And yet, patients in Texas report no reduced medical care costs, no reduced insurance costs, and basically, no benefit to the end consumer.
Basically, "tort reform" is a red herring. We'll talk about it when we have guaranteed health care for all.
"Most Americans rely on an unregulated insurance industry, which fails on most counts:"
Except for the accounts that despite having horrible diets, Americans live close to the same age as other socialized countries?
"costs are exorbitant,"
You fail to say why. For some reason liberals automatically assume its because greedy insurance ceo are raising costs to make profit. But only .5 percent goes to payroll - including the "fatcats". If you look at the numbers, medicare and lawsuits are contributing far more to the costs than the drive for profit.
"outcomes are poor,"
For who? For what? I have been able to get everything I need, when I need it. So you throw some anecdotal experience at me. So? Anyone can do that. Fact is, we have it good, and most people think so.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102934/majority-americans-satisfied-their-own-healthcare.aspx
"coverage is restricted, and patient satisfaction is low"
What are you talking about? Where is coverage not restricted? to what degree? Also, see above polling data.
This isn't a factually based argument, this is a post full of liberal talking points spiced up with pretty pictures to make you feel nice. Come on people.
"Oh so what should we do then?"
TORT reform.
HSA's.
Tax Credits.
Let them cross state lines.
Allow more competitive plans (currently state regulated/restricted)
More choices for people (variation of plans)
Incentives for healthy lifestyle
I simply suggest you read this, and get back to me - will ya?
http://collinskeith.wordpress.com/2009/09/04/on-healthcare-reform/
I guess guys like him are just acceptable losses in our dog-eat-dog system, eh?
I fear the corporate powers that be have too much sway for health care to be about caring for people. I'm generally not so cynical but I must have forgotten to put on my rose-tinted glasses this morning.