8 ms·

I have a gentle rule, which is when discussing (geo)politics with friends, we should try not to use Switzerland as an example. It's just too good, too rational

• ceejayoz 6mo ago
  I have a gentle rule, which is "if you can do it in one place, it is probably possible to do it in a second". The Swiss are not a separate species.
  • mft_ 6mo ago
    So one would think. And yet, living in Switzerland after the UK involved one after another discovery of how well-ordered and -run a country could be. And then moving to Germany was like stepping back even further behind my memories of the UK. I'm sure you could find examples of countries that do specific things as well as Switzerland; but I'm not aware of many places that do almost everything so excellently. (Maybe Japan, in many respects, but I lack sufficient direct experience to adequately judge.)
    • ceejayoz 6mo ago
      I don't doubt there are differences. I doubt they're insurmountable. Again, because the Swiss aren't some genetically superior subspecies. Culture can be changed. I see Americans talk about how impossible universal healthcare is as if the rest of the developed world hasn't largely figured it out.
      • whereistejas 6mo ago
        Nothing is insurmountable; however each one of us must play within the practical constraints of our local geographies (political, social, financial and physical). The parent comment probably means that Switzerland is in a positive on all axes unlike the rest of the world.
        • lll-o-lll 6mo ago
          It’s politics. Boil most things down and the technical is inconsequential when compared to the politics. Look at the political system of Switzerland and you will see a radically different setup. And I think that’s the horse. The rest is cart. Yes they are rich but why? Yes they are relatively stable socially but why? Decentralised Canton government structure + direct democracy (referendums all the time for things that matter). That, I think, is why all the rest.
          • Vinnl 6mo ago
            Heh, you were walking right up to my viewpoint and then turned away. A parliamentary democracy with proportional representation has way more influence IMO, and you'll find another couple of relatively well-run countries that work like that.
          • mft_ 6mo ago
            I think there's more to it than that. From a philosophical perspective, I love the cantonal/direct democracy model. But it's supported by a strong culture of awareness of current affairs, and involvement in the political process. (Of course, these two aspects are likely strongly synergistic.) However, I'm not sure this unique political structure explains the trains running on time, the sensible choices made about the internet structure (per the article), the top-of-the-world healthcare system, the Swiss cheese science institute, or many other aspects of the broader country. It may partly explain the routinely excellent government bureaucracy (say that with a straight face anywhere else!), the convenient and reliable local public transport options, and the local police being well-resourced to the point of apparent boredom.
            • Moldoteck 6mo ago
              Awareness doesn't happen automatically either. During referendums ppl also get flyers explaining the subject, positive and negative things about it Ppl also recently voted for eid which should reduce bureaucratic hurdles Imo in many cases public transport problems in other areas are heavily related to corruption
      • somedude895 6mo ago
        > Culture can be changed. Over the course of a hundred or so years maybe. Culture is hard work.
      • yowayb 6mo ago
        For me, this is the point of the article. People fought and the best decision was the result. And I suspect there's a fundamental cultural difference that makes the fight much less fair in America.
      • strictnein 6mo ago
        Been an American my entire life. 45+ years. I've never heard a single person say that universal healthcare is "impossible".
        • ceejayoz 6mo ago
          https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-not-possible-us-pay-medicaid-medicare-daycare-re-fighting-w-rcna266381 https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-says-not... > President Donald Trump on Wednesday said it’s “not possible” for the federal government to fund Medicare, Medicaid and child care costs, arguing that it should be up to the states to “take care” of those programs while the federal government focuses on military spending.
          • strictnein 6mo ago
            I guess I'm pretty confused on what your point is here? Universal Healthcare would be a new program in the US that would see a drastic tax increase, in that our healthcare spending currently going to insurance companies would instead go to a new federal agency. The amount of money companies and citizens spend on it may or may not also increase, but your quote has basically nothing to do with that.
            • ceejayoz 6mo ago
              That’s sleight of hand. “Ooooh! A tax increase! Scary!” If I can pay $100 in tax to save $200 in premiums and copays, that’s a win. The US is an extreme outlier in healthcare spend.
              • strictnein 6mo ago
                It's like you're purposefully misreading what I'm saying. I wasn't saying it was scary. I was saying that Trump saying we can't afford current programs has nothing to do with universal healthcare. Universal healthcare would be funded through a large tax increase, the majority (or entirety) of which would be redirecting the money going to health insurance companies. Again, no one has said this is impossible, which is my original point. Even Trump's idiotic rambling, which was mainly about child care costs, said nothing about the impossibility of universal healthcare.
      • mike_hearn 6mo ago
        Switzerland uses a system similar to the original plan for Obamacare, where individuals are mandated to buy insurance, so if Switzerland is what you mean by "universal healthcare" then it's not only not impossible, but the USA already has a more voluntary take on the exact same concept.
        • ceejayoz 6mo ago
          The ACA has been steadily kneecapped since its inception. And the “more voluntary” bit is pretty important. As is it costing about double.
          • mike_hearn 6mo ago
            The US system is more expensive partly because Americans throw a fit any time insurers try to constrain costs. The blowup over anesthetists is one example. Swiss insurers seem more able to tell doctors they're spending too much and to cut it out, without patients engaging in lobbying efforts to stop it. It's a cultural difference rather than an important difference in system design.
      • eqvinox 6mo ago
        The healthcare system is actually one of the few things Switzerland isn't doing that well. It's somewhat "americanized", lots of "extra" insurances for random areas that will only accept you if you're healthy. Base insurance is regulated, has to accept all customers, and you're required to (pay for and) have it. The FR and UK systems are better IMHO. Just to be clear, the Swiss healthcare system is still very good. Just not perfect.
        • mft_ 6mo ago
          It might be (like many things in Switzerland) reassuringly expensive, but my original point was that on many objective metrics (e.g. longevity, avoidable mortality, cancer diagnosis and survival, waiting times, etc.) the Swiss healthcare system consistently achieves some of the best outcomes in the world. The NHS (for example) costs less, and (depending on how you measure the value of health outcomes) might be more cost effective, but the outcomes aren't as good.
    • exidy 6mo ago
      > I'm not aware of many places that do almost everything so excellently Probably Singapore, which is sometimes described as the Switzerland of Asia anyway. 10 Gb symmetric fibre is broadly available at around SGD $50/month (about 35 EUR).
      • aix1 6mo ago
        This is not to say that it isn't well run, but I think it would be fair to mention that Singapore is one of the most densely populated countries on Earth (#3 overall; #1 among countries with population >1 million.) Separately, I am not totally sure just how widely deployed FTTH is in Switzerland. Here in Zürich it's everywhere, but zooming in on some rural place on init7's map tells quite a different story (perhaps not surprisingly). https://ftth.init7.net https://ftth.init7.net
      • fainpul 6mo ago
        Singapore seems very oppressive and medieval when it comes to punishment of crimes. I wouldn't want to live there.
        • wan23 6mo ago
          You wouldn't want to live there because it's too safe?
  • tjwebbnorfolk 6mo ago
    There are a lot of things you can do in a rich, tiny, homogenous country that you can't do in a enormous, diverse country. If my house were a country, I'd be in the top 0.1% of household internet speeds compared to other countries. Obviously everyone should be just like me!
    • ceejayoz 6mo ago
      > There are a lot of things you can do in a rich, tiny, homogenous country that you can't do in a enormous, diverse country. The US is a large collection of a whole bunch of rich (by global standards), tiny, fairly homogenous areas. We manage roads and schools at state, county, and local levels; we could do municipal broadband.
    • hibikir 6mo ago
      The difficulties of American internet speeds have little to do with the total size of the country, but how far individual families are from each other. Spain is roughly the size of Texas, and Spain has a higher population, but you need a lot less fiber to each home, because metro areas are so much denser, and therefore it's so much easier to lay the fiber. As usual, blame the suburbs, which make all kinds of infrastructure quite a bit more expensive per capita.
      • ceejayoz 6mo ago
        But the US has long lagged behind in even dense areas. It's more than just the distribution.
        • cvwright 6mo ago
          Right. It’s things like Baltimore (when I lived there) requiring that high speed internet had to roll out in poor areas first, before it could go into the rich neighborhoods. But this was the early 2000s and the internet was still “new”. Only the richer areas cared and were willing to pay the price. Letting them have first (or even equal!) access would have made it easier to fund the rollout in low income areas.
      • 6mo ago
  • ordu 6mo ago
    Lately I come to believe that success stories are not necessarily transferable. They can require some traits of the system that are not available. USA is made for corporations, so you just cant replicate internet access from Switzerland in USA. Corporations will fight you to death in courts and they will win. They are not going to lose their monopoly. To change that you need to change USA in a massive ways, I can't imagine how it can be done.
• throwaway27448 6mo ago
  It's also too tiny to be representative of most of humanity
  • ceejayoz 6mo ago
    Switzerland has a population larger than all but ~11 US states.
    • throwaway27448 6mo ago
      What is this supposed to imply? us states are also a poor representation of humanity. This matters a great deal: switzerland is notoriously ethnically homogenous and unable to get along with anyone. Life on easy mode!
      • ceejayoz 6mo ago
        It implies that Switzerland is by no means so tiny their lessons learned can't apply to other multi-million human sized regions. Switzerland gets along with others just fine, to the point where Italy and France used to handle their air defense on the weekends (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_702 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethiopian_Airlines_Flight_702). > The Swiss Air Force did not respond because the incident occurred outside normal office hours; a Swiss Air Force spokesman stated: "Switzerland cannot intervene because its airbases are closed at night and on the weekend. It's a question of budget and staffing." Switzerland relies on neighboring countries to police its airspace outside of regular business hours; the French and Italian Air Forces have permission to escort suspicious flights into Swiss airspace, but do not have authority to shoot down an aircraft over Switzerland.
        • throwaway27448 6mo ago
          Try 500 mil and you'll see china is the only interesting sample. If the swiss were able to get along with others, they wouldn't have such a reputation as racist nazis
• churchill 6mo ago
  [dead]
• raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
  Well and a little bit of research, tells me it’s far from universal across Switzerland. This article is so provable false in many of its premises it’s worthless - see my other comment.
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
• bombcar 6mo ago
  Switzerland and Japan should be excluded in most discussions - what they can do has little bearing on “the real world” ;)
  • dmix 6mo ago
    And Iceland.
• michaelsshaw 6mo ago
  Lets just exclude the best example, as everyone knows, we should never try to be the best. Being the best is dumb, liberal and possibly communist. Settling for 105th, that's freedom and democracy baby.