General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSwiss long required to buy health insurance -- without the furor
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/world_now/2012/06/swiss-long-required-to-buy-health-insurance-with-little-furor.htmlThe linchpin of the healthcare reforms championed by President Obama is the requirement that most Americans buy health insurance, a rule that could be overturned by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court ruling, expected Thursday, will decide whether requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, as critics claim. The rule has been fiercely debated in the United States, but a similar rule requiring people to be insured has long been in place in Switzerland without the furor.
The Swiss government started requiring residents to buy health insurance from competing providers in 1996, as part of a federal law aimed at controlling costs and ensuring equitable coverage. Switzerland feared that under its old system, tied to employers, people were staying with jobs they didnt want just for the health coverage, holding its economy back.
The Swiss system is seen as the closest analogue internationally to the Affordable Care Act. (snip)
Whereas many countries tax their citizens to ensure that as many people as possible have healthcare, the Swiss system is more like a private market.
(snip)
The results in Switzerland are just spectacular, said Regina Herzlinger, professor of business administration at the Harvard Business School. In a recent analysis, she found that healthcare costs there have increased less than in other countries, such as Germany and the United States, when compared to GDP growth.
(snip)
Theres another big difference to note as the Supreme Court prepares to issue its hotly awaited ruling in Washington: Mandating that the Swiss get insurance has not drawn outrage as in the United States. Herzlinger said most Europeans find the American debate bizarre. (snip)
*********
Interesting. Another take on the mandate.
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)as mentioned in your linked article.
Very different than the ACA.
Sirveri
(4,517 posts)CTyankee
(63,927 posts)has to operate...
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)what they can charge for every medical procedure. Doctors are free to do whatever they feel is called for, order up any test and prescribe any approved medication. But if a doctor's billings exceed the regional median by too much, he or she will get a "blue letter" -- a bill from the government demanding the return of some of those fees."
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/oct/18/opinion/oe-mcmanus18
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)former9thward
(32,178 posts)The court voted 7-2 that the mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause including the vote of one of Obama's appointees, Kagan. That part of the court's decision said the federal government could not force citizens to engage in commerce. So they decided it was a tax and let it stand.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)I am disappointed it doesn't fall under the commerce clause. But it IS constitutional, thank goodness.