Arkady
President
The Chief Executive Moron of Whole Foods is, once again, embarrassing himself. He originally described Obamacare as Socialism, then changed that to Fascism. When the predictable outcry erupted, he backtracked, but reiterated his opposition to Obamacare, on grounds of his belief in free-market healthcare solutions, and he suggested we should instead have something like they have in Switzerland.
This is bizarre on a couple levels. First, if you had to pick one other national system that's MOST like Obamacare, it would probably be the Swiss system. The Swiss were long holdouts in an antiquated system like the one we had before Obamacare, and when they finally switched over to a modern system of universal coverage, a couple decades ago, they tried to stick pretty closely to the private-insurer structure, just as Obamacare did, only with a universal mandate to buy coverage, and efforts by government to make that affordable. This isn't a system where a single payer government covers healthcare costs, much less a UK-style National Health Service with state-run hospitals and state-employed doctors. If you're going to attack Obamacare, suggesting we move to the system that's most like it is odd, to say the least.
Moreover, the ways the Swiss system differs from Obamacare are ways that make it LESS free-market oriented. The Swiss system, like the system of Germany and others that still use private health insurance companies to cover basic services, has eliminated the profit motive. Private insurance companies are required to provide basic healthcare plans that meet specific government criteria (in terms of what's covered), and they're not allowed to make a profit on that. Their profits come only in selling supplemental coverage for things that go beyond basic care. Obamacare, by comparison, doesn't require that insurers sell certain products (though it does require individuals to have qualifying policies), nor does it outlaw making a profit on basic insurance. I'd much prefer the Swiss system, but I'm not a right-wing free-market zealot like Mr. Whole Foods. I can't even begin to fathom how someone with that outlook could bash Obamacare and then praise a system that's at least a full step to the left of Obamacare.
Finally, pining for the Swiss system is a little questionable for anyone, left or right, since although the Swiss system compares favorably to what we have, it's actually not great relative to other wealthy nations When you look at the relative cost and quality of various systems, Switzerland seems to be getting a bit less bang for their buck than is typical for a wealthy nation. Their healthcare quality is up to snuff for Western European standards, but their costs are very high. Because of the private-insurer setup, and because of a fair amount of cantonal redundancy, the Swiss pay the third-most for healthcare of any wealthy nation (after the US and Norway). They pay 35% less per capita than we do, which sounds great, but they pay 29% more than neighboring France, with nothing to show for the extra, and 50%-70% more than some of the cheaper systems like New Zealand, Finland, and the UK. If you're a right-winger looking to save the society money, the extravagant Swiss system is a weird place to look.
This is bizarre on a couple levels. First, if you had to pick one other national system that's MOST like Obamacare, it would probably be the Swiss system. The Swiss were long holdouts in an antiquated system like the one we had before Obamacare, and when they finally switched over to a modern system of universal coverage, a couple decades ago, they tried to stick pretty closely to the private-insurer structure, just as Obamacare did, only with a universal mandate to buy coverage, and efforts by government to make that affordable. This isn't a system where a single payer government covers healthcare costs, much less a UK-style National Health Service with state-run hospitals and state-employed doctors. If you're going to attack Obamacare, suggesting we move to the system that's most like it is odd, to say the least.
Moreover, the ways the Swiss system differs from Obamacare are ways that make it LESS free-market oriented. The Swiss system, like the system of Germany and others that still use private health insurance companies to cover basic services, has eliminated the profit motive. Private insurance companies are required to provide basic healthcare plans that meet specific government criteria (in terms of what's covered), and they're not allowed to make a profit on that. Their profits come only in selling supplemental coverage for things that go beyond basic care. Obamacare, by comparison, doesn't require that insurers sell certain products (though it does require individuals to have qualifying policies), nor does it outlaw making a profit on basic insurance. I'd much prefer the Swiss system, but I'm not a right-wing free-market zealot like Mr. Whole Foods. I can't even begin to fathom how someone with that outlook could bash Obamacare and then praise a system that's at least a full step to the left of Obamacare.
Finally, pining for the Swiss system is a little questionable for anyone, left or right, since although the Swiss system compares favorably to what we have, it's actually not great relative to other wealthy nations When you look at the relative cost and quality of various systems, Switzerland seems to be getting a bit less bang for their buck than is typical for a wealthy nation. Their healthcare quality is up to snuff for Western European standards, but their costs are very high. Because of the private-insurer setup, and because of a fair amount of cantonal redundancy, the Swiss pay the third-most for healthcare of any wealthy nation (after the US and Norway). They pay 35% less per capita than we do, which sounds great, but they pay 29% more than neighboring France, with nothing to show for the extra, and 50%-70% more than some of the cheaper systems like New Zealand, Finland, and the UK. If you're a right-winger looking to save the society money, the extravagant Swiss system is a weird place to look.
