The Swiss System

For indispensable reporting on the coronavirus crisis, the election, and more, subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter.

Tyler Cowen has a list of 11 healthcare reform ideas (plus three extras) over at his site today, and he says he would “trade away the Obama bill for these in a heart beat.”  I wouldn’t, for reasons having more to do with future reform than with anything on the table today, but there’s plenty to agree on here.  Tyler would like to federalize Medicaid, spend more on medical R&D, make an “all-out” effort to limit hospital infections, encourage the spread of walk-in clinics, and a few other things that I’ve written in favor of before.  So bring ’em on.

But he’s also in favor of limiting universal coverage to catastrophic care, which I’m not so keen on, and thinks that universal coverage is pretty much impossible if you try to build it on top of our current jury-rigged system:

11. Realize that you cannot tack “universal coverage” (which by the way it isn’t) onto the current sprawling mess of a system, so look for all other means of saving lives in other, more cost-effective ways.  If you wish, as a kind of default position, opt for universal coverage if the elderly agree to give up Medicare, moving us to a version of the Swiss system and a truly unified method of coverage.  But don’t bet on that ever happening.

I’m sympathetic to this idea, but I’m not really sure why it has to be true.  The current bills pretty clearly move us along the path toward a Swiss system — not my first choice for a model to follow, but certainly better than what we have now — and I don’t think that the existence of Medicare as a separate part of that really stands in the way.  A single comprehensive system for all would probably be better and more efficient, but it’s hardly an absolute precondition.  My own guess is that a decade or two from now we’ll basically have Medicare for the elderly and the Swiss system for everyone else.  Austin Frakt adds this:

The current debate over health reform is just the beginning–call it Health Reform Debate 1.0 (beta). Debate 2.0 will be about costs, specifically about payment reform….Therefore, I’d like to add a 15th item to Cowen’s list: payment reform that compensates providers, at least in part, on the basis of quality and cost control. That’s very vague. One can conjure up some specifics and some have. Few are thoroughly tested and none have been anywhere near the center of political debate. But they will, and soon.

Agreed.  Coverage first, cost controls second.  It would be great to do it all at once, but politically there’s really no alternative to the way we’re doing now.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest