4 ms·

The Swiss health system is very good in terms of treatment, but the costs are rising every year by 5-6%. It is also a two tier system - everyone must pay for b

The Swiss health system is very good in terms of treatment, but the costs are rising every year by 5-6%. It is also a two tier system - everyone must pay for basic health insurance, but supplementary cover is extra and is subject to acceptance. This means that you may not be able to get the latest cancer drugs, latest technology or be treated by the senior doctors unless you have the supplementary cover. I don't offer a better solution; but merely state the facts. I guess there is no perfect healthcare system, but in my limited experience I am not surprised the Swiss system ended victorious. Having to cater for only 8 million people surely helps them though. As a final remark - I bumped into another British expat over here a few weeks ago and he was walking on crutches after a hip replacement operation. When I asked him how he thought it would have played out on the NHS, he said he'd still be waiting to see a consultant!

Asooka 9y ago
I think it's ok-ish to make that tradeoff (the one the Swiss make). You really can't have everyone see the best doctors without the atrocious wait times of the Canadian and British systems. You could have a lottery system in place of paying for healthcare to distribute available healthcare to people, but I think most would agree it's fairer to just sell healthcare. Your other option is spending maybe twice or thrice what Canada spends and having that many times more doctors on staff to keep wait times low. But I have a feeling it will work the same as widening roads - the wider the road, the more cars drive on it and the congestion doesn't improve; similarly I expect wait times to remain high even if you have one doctor per (say) 100 people, as long as everything is completely free. I agree that it feels cruel to tell people "You must pay this much money for that amount/quality of healthcare", but I don't see any other working system. Maybe if you keep the price affordably low and give additional subsidies to the poorest individuals. As long as people have to pay, even if it's within their means, they'll try to be intelligent with going to the doctor. I'm also a bit surprised they didn't also look at the Japanese system. I've heard it's good and the life expectancy figures match. However, I admit I haven't researched it in any detail.
ZenoArrow 9y ago
> "As a final remark - I bumped into another British expat over here a few weeks ago and he was walking on crutches after a hip replacement operation. When I asked him how he thought it would have played out on the NHS, he said he'd still be waiting to see a consultant!" I wouldn't read too much into that remark. The NHS has been underfunded for decades. There was a time when the NHS was one of the most cost effective healthcare systems in the world, but it's been seriously undermined by both Labour and Tory governments over the past 25 years. There's no reason it can't be a well-run healthcare system again, but it will take time to undo the damage that's been done.
- caseysoftware 9y ago
  The health/economic experts in the article cite the British system for its quality, efficiency, competitiveness, and access. If that's true, it's sounds like it's funded "enough" for the current responsibilities. If it was underfunded - especially for decades - then some of those things would be big problems, right?
  - jaggederest 9y ago
    I think it's more of a credit to the British system that, even underfunded relative to ideal the NHS produces still excellent outcomes. I imagine that, if it were funded with another 1-2% of GDP it would truly excel more like the French system.
maxxxxx 9y ago
I actually would be fine with a two tier system if the price was right. The problem is that at least in the US the doctors tend towards the shiny and newest because that's where the big money is.
princeb 9y ago
> Having to cater for only 8 million people surely helps why is having fewer people more advantageous? to take that to the logical extreme, does a healthcare system that only caters to ONE person make sense? will it be cheaper than a system that serves 50 million? if there are more patients, the fixed and overhead costs per person should go down, and the variable, healthcare costs per person remains the same but in fact everyone will benefit from risk pooling.

Asooka 9y ago

I think it's ok-ish to make that tradeoff (the one the Swiss make). You really can't have everyone see the best doctors without the atrocious wait times of the Canadian and British systems. You could have a lottery system in place of paying for healthcare to distribute available healthcare to people, but I think most would agree it's fairer to just sell healthcare. Your other option is spending maybe twice or thrice what Canada spends and having that many times more doctors on staff to keep wait times low. But I have a feeling it will work the same as widening roads - the wider the road, the more cars drive on it and the congestion doesn't improve; similarly I expect wait times to remain high even if you have one doctor per (say) 100 people, as long as everything is completely free. I agree that it feels cruel to tell people "You must pay this much money for that amount/quality of healthcare", but I don't see any other working system. Maybe if you keep the price affordably low and give additional subsidies to the poorest individuals. As long as people have to pay, even if it's within their means, they'll try to be intelligent with going to the doctor. I'm also a bit surprised they didn't also look at the Japanese system. I've heard it's good and the life expectancy figures match. However, I admit I haven't researched it in any detail.

ZenoArrow 9y ago

> "As a final remark - I bumped into another British expat over here a few weeks ago and he was walking on crutches after a hip replacement operation. When I asked him how he thought it would have played out on the NHS, he said he'd still be waiting to see a consultant!" I wouldn't read too much into that remark. The NHS has been underfunded for decades. There was a time when the NHS was one of the most cost effective healthcare systems in the world, but it's been seriously undermined by both Labour and Tory governments over the past 25 years. There's no reason it can't be a well-run healthcare system again, but it will take time to undo the damage that's been done.

caseysoftware 9y ago
The health/economic experts in the article cite the British system for its quality, efficiency, competitiveness, and access. If that's true, it's sounds like it's funded "enough" for the current responsibilities. If it was underfunded - especially for decades - then some of those things would be big problems, right?
- jaggederest 9y ago
  I think it's more of a credit to the British system that, even underfunded relative to ideal the NHS produces still excellent outcomes. I imagine that, if it were funded with another 1-2% of GDP it would truly excel more like the French system.

maxxxxx 9y ago

I actually would be fine with a two tier system if the price was right. The problem is that at least in the US the doctors tend towards the shiny and newest because that's where the big money is.

princeb 9y ago

> Having to cater for only 8 million people surely helps why is having fewer people more advantageous? to take that to the logical extreme, does a healthcare system that only caters to ONE person make sense? will it be cheaper than a system that serves 50 million? if there are more patients, the fixed and overhead costs per person should go down, and the variable, healthcare costs per person remains the same but in fact everyone will benefit from risk pooling.