Finally, the third route to universal coverage relies on private insurance companies, using a combination of regulation and subsidies to ensure that everyone is covered. Switzerland offers the clearest example: everyone is required to buy insurance, insurers can’t discriminate based on medical history or pre-existing conditions, and lower-income citizens get government help in paying for their policies.
In this country, the Massachusetts health reform more or less follows the Swiss model; costs are running higher than expected, but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured. And the most common form of health insurance in America, employment-based coverage, actually has some “Swiss” aspects: to avoid making benefits taxable, employers have to follow rules that effectively rule out discrimination based on medical history and subsidize care for lower-wage workers.
And in Massachusetts, where the mandate was another bailout for the insurance companies, compliance is falling because people don't like being forced to buy junk insurance*. Who knew?
So where does Obamacare fit into all this? Basically, it’s a plan to Swissify America, using regulation and subsidies to ensure universal coverage.
Look, I admire the hell out of Krugman for filling the messaging void, here, but shouldn't somebody in the administration or the Congressional leadership be pointing this out?
If we were starting from scratch [Now, where have I heard that before?] we probably wouldn’t have chosen this route. True “socialized medicine” would undoubtedly cost less, and a straightforward extension of Medicare-type coverage to all Americans would probably be cheaper than a Swiss-style system. That’s why I and others believe that a true public option competing with private insurers is extremely important: otherwise, rising costs could all too easily undermine the whole effort.
But a Swiss-style system of universal coverage would be a vast improvement on what we have now. And we already know that such systems work.
So we can do this. At this point, all that stands in the way of universal health care in America are the greed of the medical-industrial complex, the lies of the right-wing propaganda machine, and the gullibility of voters who believe those lies.
Really?
The failures of the career liberal propaganda machine, and the failures of the Democratic Party don't stand in the way? At all?
NOTE * Help! MA experts, I recall a post that gave statistics on falling compliance in MA, where people started to ignore the mandate, but now I can't find it. Readers?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
In this other post, Krugman checks out of the reality-based
community for a spell:
Quite a diagnosis, Paul -- the problem is that progressives aren't hitting the hopium hard enough. Good grief!
I thought this comment was most relevant
as to why we can't have the Swiss system:
Of course it can not be done, not here, no way.
But he also fails to note that for-profits are not allowed to play in the Swiss basic health care coverage market. http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/7283
The liberty of democracy is not safe if people tolerate growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.---FDR
True regulation work
Of course, Obama doesn't intends to just feature touch the insurance companies.The plan now is a TARP for the insurance companies and pharma. If we had a president, she could have impose regulations that limit insurance rates to a realistic range and negotiate with pharma to stop their highway robbery.
A president would easily implement a true and successful Swiss health care. But it turns out that since 2000 we are governed by clowns.
KoshemBos
...but the reform has greatly
...but the reform has greatly reduced the number of uninsured.
hehe. yep they cut their uninsured rate in HALF or better. very impressive statistic, except that massachusetts had one of lowest rates of uninsured in the country even before
deformreform, so they went from something like 90% insured to something like 967% insured.of course, there are still lots of people with insurance that can't afford to use it, and to pay for this
deformreform, free care for the poor is being wiped out, but hey! the parasites are alive and healthy!from the report:
Lambert, is this the discussion you were thinking of?
In comments.
It's WSJ and BHIPs moaning about all those Mass. folks 'gaming the system' because the penalties for not buying crappy insurance aren't severe enough.
Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen