Printable View
But your lifestyle doesn't dictate whether you get coverage and largely how much your premiums are. I think if you're fat, drink too much, smoke or ride your motorcycle without a helmet, you should pay more in premium. But you shouldn't be refused and you shouldn't be priced out of the system. And everyone out there should have access to reasonably priced health coverage no matter what.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
This happening to Americans: Going bankrupt because of health problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
People in need paying more than those who are not in need.
Quote:
“My wife and I are both self employed, she left a state job 2 years back when we moved to Florida where I had taken a consulting position, I have been self employed for 15 years. We no longer were entitled to the great health benefits we enjoyed when my wife worked for the state. The issue is that our son has a pre-existing condition and we are unable to get insurance coverage for him. yes it is possible to get this coverage but at the cost of going bankrupt! I am not against paying toward health care but I do take issue when a child of 7 years of age can not get coverage due to insurance companies refising on grounds of pre-existing conditions that he shows no signs off? If we are supposedly the most advanced and caring nation in the world then how come a 7 year old child is refused health care or can not afford health care due to the high cost? Shame on us. Reform is needed urgently to address this shameful situation in our country. – Stephen from Florida”
Quote:
“When my son turned 22, he ‘aged out’ of the family's health insurance plan. (He was no longer covered.) He applied to an insurance company for an individual health insurance policy. He assumed that, because he was young, strong, and healthy, his application for coverage would be approved. But the company did their ‘due diligence’ and discovered that my son had recently been treated for the dreaded disease, strep throat. My son received a letter from the insurance company stating that his application would be denied BECAUSE HE HAD HAD STREP THROAT! That, (strep throat, one step up from a cold) was his ‘pre-existing condition’! Talk about cherry-picking only the healthy to insure--I guess, with this company, if my son had admitted to having a hang-nail within the preceding three years, he would have been denied coverage. This is WRONG, and I fully support President Obama's plans to change the way health insurance is delivered in our country.” – Lisa from Colorado
Source: US governmentQuote:
“Health care reform is long overdue. I am a health care provider and a single mother of a chronically ill child who has reached 21 years of age. As a health care provider I have cared for the underserved populations for the greater portion of my years as a practicing nurse and nurse practitioner. I presently work for a county health system. One third of my monthly salary goes to my health insurance premium. My daughter requires health care from a major medical center that is doing research regarding her suspected diagnosis. I am required to carry a PPO which is an 80/20 plan after an annual deductible. After a few hospitalizations that 20% adds up. Further I have worked two to three jobs (at the same time) over the years and have kept her on private health insurance paying large premiums and many times finding I have to challenge the insurance company to get them to pay for her medications and treatment. Now that she is 21yrs of age and unable to attend school or work, I face her loosing her health insurance due to age restrictions.” - Elizabeth from California
You do know there are different types of diabetes, and not all lung disease is caused by smoking, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
About your hard earned money "going to anybody".....do you say the same for public education? Ya know, especially those who had unprotected sex!
Yes, we need. Lack of proper information makes people not to make good choices.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Smoking: Cigar companies should pay the premiums.
Overeating: Makers of unhealthy food should pay.
ImanOgre is typical for this 'I belong to no community' attitude you see so often in the US these days.
I do know there are different types of diabetes (I am a diabetic, adult onset). Probably a little factoid you didn't know about me.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Do I say the same for public education.... no, because most children cannot make choices that affect their upbringing.
Why should I subsidize some dumbasses behavior? You ride your bike without a helmet, you are on your own pal.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I don't want to belong of a community of dumbasses.... that's why I'm here!!! With the smart folks.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
oh right you're one of those PUNISHMENT FIRST folks aren't youQuote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
how come you don't want to punish children who make mistakes wrt lifestyle??
Why should I be punished (by paying more) for someone else's fuckup? Why should anyone be forced to pay? If you want to, be my guest. I always like it how people can be so charitable with other people's money.
As far as children are concerned, they are at the mercy of their parents until they leave the home (which happens usually about the time they are considered adults)
Instead of the old "why should i? Why should i?" rhetoric - try thinking "how does it benefit me?"Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Just for fun, because i do hate to see someones mind run down the same tracks on every topic.
Yeah, he'll keep it up until he finds himself in a mess that was no fault of his own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Wait wait... back it up a bit.
You people are honestly saying that some lardass who eats 20lbs of KFC then smokes 2 packs of cigarettes a day should get the same health coverage as someone who behaves in a way to preserve their own health?
Because I think that's what you are saying...
a lot of these harmful behaviours and trends are established at a young age and are extremely difficult to fix, esp. in a retarded society where regular people don't get any breaks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
cracky, i am saying that, more or less (barring eg. organ transplants and the like). it'll be fine once you as a society get somewhere in the fight against smoking and against eating at kfc.
What is "it"?
Yeah pretty much. In fact, you should have just quoted us. That would have saved you the effort of typing it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracky
Unless, of course, thats not what we were saying. *gasp*
the GIANT problem of the lardass who eats 20lbs of fried chicken and smokes two packs of cigarettes per day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracky
i have a brilliant idea how about we sponsor 1. gastric bypass surgeries 2. programmes to help people quit smoking ???
btw what the hell was ogre talking about with his snide remark about generosity with other people's money??? is he suggesting that i don't pay taxes, or that i won't be paying more taxes the more i earn?? that sounds crazy
Not sure what Ogre's saying. He doesn't seem to realize we ALL pay for everyone, insured or not, thru higher prices for services.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracky
-Group insurance doesn't usually review each person's health history (they can, some employers do that, and make employees' contribution higher for obesity/high lipids/smoking, or lower if they lose weight/stop smoking.)
-Individual insurance scrutinizes your entire history, for everything, and the application forms ask lots of lifestyle questions. They charge premiums based on that data, and can deny coverage of any body part or system. (ie If you have osteoporosis can they exclude coverage for any broken bones or PT or rehab related to broken bones....)
This is one move that wouldn't cost tax payers or providers anything in subsidy, but could bring down cost of premiums:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...e9wsxvcU&pos=6Quote:
Feb. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Christine Varney, the U.S. Justice Department’s chief antitrust enforcer, said the dominance of major health insurers might be hurting competition.
“We’re very concerned whenever we see the kinds of concentration we see in the health-insurance market,” she said in an interview today in the Washington bureau of Bloomberg News.
Varney endorsed a measure approved by the U.S. this week that would revoke insurers’ 65-year-old federal antitrust exemption. Insurers now share data to help set premiums without fear they will be charged with federal price-fixing violations. Revoking the exemption had been part of a health-care overhaul that has stalled in Congress.
......
Too Much Concentration
The health-insurance industry is regulated under state laws that ban price-fixing, market allocation and other anti- competitive practices.
Congress enacted the McCarran-Ferguson Act in 1945, granting insurers an antitrust exemption after the Supreme Court ruled the companies could be regulated by the federal government. The act was intended to preserve the states’ roles in overseeing the industry without federal intervention.
“Whenever you have anybody with an enormous amount of market share, whether it’s 70 percent, 80 percent, 90 percent of the product sales in a particular market, that tells us that market is probably not competitive,” she said.
Revoking the federal antitrust exemption “could alter behavior,” she said. “Hopefully it will introduce more competition. Anytime an industry or a sector of the economy enjoys immunity from a law, they behave differently than if they have to compete.”
So what you are saying is, it'd be fine if we purposefully take profits away from KFC instead of paying for the heart surgery for the bastard that eats too much of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cracky
Either way it's lost revenue.
Err.. this has nothing to do with the original topic then...Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm not sure how market monopolization really relates to this...Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
What? No, I don't see how you can extract that from my quote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
It was purely an analogy of cost distribution.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Your analogy lacks a few elements of health care which the car analogy does not. =)
1. Spreading health care to everyone with disregard for the health needs of people not only puts an unfair burden on young people (or I daresay healthier people), but it also makes people go to the doctor more often than they need and do more expensive procedures than they need. It's free, after all. This is proven in many contexts, including Soviet Russia (in terms of jobs that pay a flat rate regardless of peoples' efforts) -- when people CAN get something for free, they WILL -- except the taxpayer is paying for the waste. The alternative to this is a government bureaucracy set up to judge when you can get health care, which is what liberlulz have always claimed will never happen. A huge and inefficient government bureaucracy is the ONLY way to keep costs from spiraling insanely out of control. Completely free public health care is simply economically untenable.
*Insurance*, instead of "free healthcare lulz!" for everyone? That's a different matter.
For "free" insurance, use a scale AND DON'T INCLUDE ILLEGALS. For most cases (unemployed or **SEVERELY** disabled people (not just the current whimsical legal definition of "disabled") , only give a set number of free doctor's visits a year, plus various required medications and equipment (that required for the patient), and still add a co-pay requirement to some visits or pills.
Also, DON'T INCLUDE THINGS THAT ARE NOT ABOUT HEALTH CARE, like baby food!
I think Republicans would go along with this, if Democrats just agreed to (1) Tort reform, (2) free and unrestricted insurance company competition across state lines, and (I forgot the third thing that Republicans [and not just myself] wanted, so I'll add the one I would want) (3) much higher fines and penalties for insurance companies that try to skip out on their customers' claims by using obscure boilerplate contract terms.
Hope it works out for you. Means you won't be drinking beer anymore...?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
So you're in favor of SCHIPs, WIC and foodstamps? And allowing children on parents' insurance policies until age 21? Maybe public-funded college too?Quote:
Do I say the same for public education.... no, because most children cannot make choices that affect their upbringing.
They're in your insurance pool, they're your neighbors, they share the road and the health system, the dumbasses. Your utopian society can't separate individuals from the group, no matter how hard you try.Quote:
Why should I subsidize some dumbasses behavior? You ride your bike without a helmet, you are on your own pal.
Based on that, your employer should kick you out of their group insurance, since your diabetes "punishes" everyone in the pool. To be consistent about it, you should be buying your own individual policy, paying a much higher premium, full fee cash OOP for every office visit, market price for every medication.Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Maybe your employer should do away with their insurance benefit altogether, so that cost won't trickle down to the consumer in higher airline tickets? Why should we have to pay higher prices to fly, when it's padded with your benefits and not simply work performance/value? I like how you can be 'charitable' with my money, when it goes into your pocket.
Sure, but there are different COSTS and prices. Insurance premiums, medical services (consumer and provider), entitlement programs, subsidies----whole fruit basket! The Summit tried to address this, can't be done in 6-7 hours.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
The biggest COST I referred to was a societal one; if millions are unhealthy they can't be productive. If they can't get care it drags us all down. Hard to niche or measure what kind of nation we want to be, but I know we shouldn't let people suffer or die (or go bankrupt) just because they can't pay for treatment or buy insurance.
I listed the top 5 ideas that came from the Summit (from my POV)Quote:
<snip>
I think Republicans would go along with this, if Democrats just agreed to (1) Tort reform, (2) free and unrestricted insurance company competition across state lines, and (I forgot the third thing that Republicans [and not just myself] wanted, so I'll add the one I would want) (3) much higher fines and penalties for insurance companies that try to skip out on their customers' claims by using obscure boilerplate contract terms.
If they're all hell bent on seeing Care = Insurance, then we need to reform that industry. (Cracky, that's why the anti-trust laws matter.)
If Republicans want to have any credibility, they'll stop saying how great Medicaid and Medicare are, but anything else is SSSocialism or wealth re-distribution. They can't be alarmists clanging the liberty bell about guv'ment intervention, while keeping our whole system under Insurance Industry's (or Big Pharma's) big fat thumbs. :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has retired some time ago. He would like to go abroad to volunteer to teach poor children, but now is finding out that he actually can't afford to volunteer. He's covered by both Medicare and Medigap (?) neither of which will cover him outside of the US (which is sort of surprising to hear for a EU citizen to start with. So he decided to try for a private insurance, and sure enough there were private policies on offer. He'd be prepared to pay the $5,000 to $6,500 a year out of his own pocket, but recently found out that they don't cover pre-existing conditions for a period of 2 years. Which means that he, a man at age 67, won't be covered for anything related to high blood pressure (effectively that pretty much leaves him uncovered).
End of story; he'll have to give up his plans since his health insurance is keeping him hostage. And that's an American who actually has coverage.
The US has the best health care system IN THE WORLD. :rolleyes:
I don't know anything about Medicare portability, but millions of seniors travel abroad for months at a time. Can't imagine their Medicare wouldn't be their coverage as tourists. Was your friend thinking of changing residency or something like that?
And yes, the private insurance maze is fubar. One option outside Medicare is to buy the major medical (80/20) and supplement it with a catastrophic high-risk policy (covering his pre-existings) until the two year exclusion expires.
But if he actually USES the high-risk policy, the purpose for which it's intended....he won't be able to get rid of the exclusion! The utilization reviewers will turn any little thing into a condition secondary to his hypertension. Even heart burn.
Go go USA #1! :mad:
Ooh, found another juicy thing after reading through a few more posts here...
Again, just like subsidizing the young over the old, why should the country subsidize those who CHOOSE to be sick (ie: fat, smokers) ? If we instead set up rules to control these behaviors to bring down the costs the insurance companies will charge the government for these people, then that just results in more bureaucracy. Oh, and it won't be efficient bureaucracy, so you'll anyway find many fatsos and smokers covered by government insurance with no penalties.
He explained he can stay up to 60 days out of the country without losing his medicare coverage. I wonder if he could do this by simply flying back and forth after every 60 day period. He'd have to fly about 5 times a year, but that would still not look too bad compared to the premiums for health insurance.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
what?Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
I'm saying that there are two alternatives to a market-based solution. One is to subsidize people with whatever insurance plan/company anyone wants. Clearly, that's impossibly costly. The other is to set up limits and scrutinize insurance plans/companies that people choose to make sure they aren't picking an insurance plan that is unjustifiably expensive.. that scrutiny will be done by bureaucrats, and it will be wasteful thus won't work well.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Just look at the Massachusetts subdivisions for free health insurance (I'm not even discussing the cost here...). There are many groups, some inexplicably receiving fewer insurance benefits than others. (the division is mostly based on politics; unemployed mothers get way more insurance than unemployed singles I believe) This will be extended under a national insurance/health-care subsidy to many more groups of people.
You're still making small pools and they can't compete with a large one.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
That's supposed to explain this?--Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Again, just like subsidizing the young over the old, why should the country subsidize those who CHOOSE to be sick (ie: fat, smokers) ? If we instead set up rules to control these behaviors to bring down the costs the insurance companies will charge the government for these people, then that just results in more bureaucracy. Oh, and it won't be efficient bureaucracy, so you'll anyway find many fatsos and smokers covered by government insurance with no penalties.
what the hell?
Mothers would need more coverage for their dependent kids, unless the kids are covered some other way.Quote:
Just look at the Massachusetts subdivisions for free health insurance (I'm not even discussing the cost here...). There are many groups, some inexplicably receiving fewer insurance benefits than others. (the division is mostly based on politics; unemployed mothers get way more insurance than unemployed singles I believe) This will be extended under a national insurance/health-care subsidy to many more groups of people.
Mass. has its own mandate, set up by Republican Romney. Sen Brown was elected partly b/c he tapped into state residents saying hey wait, we already have "everyone" covered by insurance, we don't want to participate with federal stuff. Politics, yes.
There are more than two alternatives as you suggest. It doesn't have to be a decision between subsidies (tax payer money) vs bureaucratic red tape (inefficiency). It's interesting to see Republicans talk about Choice, Costs, Behaviors, and Rules....as decided by Insurance companies (or even employers). That's somehow "better" than any government agency doing the same?
Whatever happened to Care decided between patient and physician? Third parties are in control, that's what's real. Insurance as payer and gov't as regulator. Any solution will have to be a hybrid that includes them, plus the consumer and provider.
You can use this as an opportunity to rant about fatties, smokers, welfare mothers, illegal imm'grants, grannies, Big Brother (or whatever you complained about earlier), but how will that solve any of our problems to just exclude those groups you don't like?
Double post to share this article-opinion:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...LEFTTopOpinion
1) State cash subsidyQuote:
In Indiana's HSA, the state deposits $2,750 per year into an account controlled by the employee, out of which he pays all his health bills. Indiana covers the premium for the plan. The intent is that participants will become more cost-conscious and careful about overpayment or overutilization.
Unused funds in the account—to date some $30 million or about $2,000 per employee and growing fast—are the worker's permanent property. For the very small number of employees (about 6% last year) who use their entire account balance, the state shares further health costs up to an out-of-pocket maximum of $8,000, after which the employee is completely protected.
2) State subsidy of premiums
3) $8,000 'deductible' for 100% coverage
Not bad, eh? We can manage our sick office visits and wellness screenings, plus meds, for under $2,750. If we use it up--OOP up to 8K--state takes care of our bills. And this guy is saying HSA like this are a good idea.....?
I should tell my sister in Indiana about this. Self-employed with non-subsidized HSA and major medical policy with $10,000 deductible.
So now you want me to pay for someone’s surgery too? OMFG. Perhaps if someone makes decisions to change their habits then they wouldn’t need the surgery in the first place. And quitting smoking, how many free programs are already out there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It wasn’t snide at all, you want me to pay more money to taxes so people can continue their lifestyle choices that increase their health insurance cost. Quite simple. You’re a smart person, you should understand that. You say I should pay more… in addition to you. I on the other hand don’t want to pay for someone else’s poor lifestyle choices.Quote:
btw what the hell was ogre talking about with his snide remark about generosity with other people's money??? is he suggesting that i don't pay taxes, or that i won't be paying more taxes the more i earn?? that sounds crazy
When I found out that I was a diabetic, I made some lifestyle changes. I quit smoking (after smoking well over 10 years), I lost 50 pounds. I started eating healthy. Everyday, instead of McDonalds or Wendys for lunch I have a SmartOnes for lunch. I’m getting a lot more exercise. So much so that according to my Doctor, if I keep this up I’ll never need insulin and can remain diet controlled for the rest of my life.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
So… lifestyle changes.
I love the idea of public funding college, however I kind of like what we have now in Georgia with the Hope Scholarship. You keep a B average or better in college, and you college is paid for by Lottery dollars. Am I favor of WIC and foodstamps…. Not like they are used now because there is way too much fraud with these programs. The number of times I’ve seen someone using foodstamps while buying beer is amazing.Quote:
So you're in favor of SCHIPs, WIC and foodstamps? And allowing children on parents' insurance policies until age 21? Maybe public-funded college too?
But then again, perhaps the cost to investigate the fraud will outweigh the benefits…
I don’t know that much about it to make an informed decision.
Sure we can, and we can charge the dumbasses more. They do it for life insuranace…. Do you smoke? Life insurance cost more. If you make choices in your life that cost more, you should pay more. I have no problems with someone who smokes. Let them, but they also need to pay more for the stupid decision to smoke.Quote:
They're in your insurance pool, they're your neighbors, they share the road and the health system, the dumbasses. Your utopian society can't separate individuals from the group, no matter how hard you try.
If my employer wished to kick me out of the pool, that is their right. However, when I was hired, part of my contract with my employer was that I receive health insurance as a benefit of my employment. If they wish to kick me out of said pool, that is their right, but then they breach the contract.Quote:
Based on that, your employer should kick you out of their group insurance, since your diabetes "punishes" everyone in the pool. To be consistent about it, you should be buying your own individual policy, paying a much higher premium, full fee cash OOP for every office visit, market price for every medication.
You don’t have to fly. You can drive, or take a boat. But if you wish to fly, and CHOOSE to do so, you have to pay. I’m not making you fly, I’m not taking money away from you by force (as the government does with taxes).Quote:
Maybe your employer should do away with their insurance benefit altogether, so that cost won't trickle down to the consumer in higher airline tickets? Why should we have to pay higher prices to fly, when it's padded with your benefits and not simply work performance/value? I like how you can be 'charitable' with my money, when it goes into your pocket.
I was shrewd enough to negotiate a contract with my employer that benefits us both. I kick ass at my job, and they pay me a pretty nice wage.
If my employer chose to do away with health insurance, then they can. I also have the choice to leave and work somewhere else.
Are you saying an airline shouldn’t hire anybody so you can fly for free? Laughable!!
No, Ogre, I'm not saying that at all. Using your own logic to poke holes in that logic didn't work out too well tho.
Trying to get you to admit Personal Choice and Responsibility, while nifty lofty goals, can't ever be separated from other groups we're connected with. Not totally. Just take your case study and apply it to a self-employed or contract worker. Or someone who got laid off. Or anyone who can't afford the doctor (and testing and follow-up and meds) that were available to you, but they also don't qualify for subsidy.
Step outside your Individualism for a moment. Try on new glasses, the world might look a bit more complicated than "I don't wanna pay for anyone and don't take my hard-earned money!" ;)
So it took a diagnosis of diabetes to make you change your "dumbass behavior" (your words)? So that gives you the right to call others dumbasses right?Quote:
Originally Posted by ImAnOgre
Yes it does actually. I pay quite a lot more than my girlfriend who already has kidney problems. Added to that I pay taxes on what I smoke.Quote:
Do you smoke? Life insurance cost more
<Smokers do pay more in insurance premiums>
Ogre, why not put your ideology to a real life test? Try shopping and applying for health insurance on "the open market". You'll have to list your diabetes as a pre-existing condition, even if it's managed and not insulin-dependent. Then come back and tell us what kind of coverage you can find, how much the premiums are, what your deductible is; will you go with an HMO/PPO, 80/20 major medical, a CAT plan, HSA and everything cash OOP? How much would COBRA cost for you to continue your employer-subsidized plan, and what would you do when that expires?
One problem you illustrate is that everyone thinks they want more control and more choices and more information and blah blah blah. I don't. I want the coverage I need when I need it and I don't want to have to think about it at all. My life's too complex as it is - I don't have the time, energy or brain-power to become savvy in the insurance market. I'll just end up fucking it up and getting ripped off.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Same damn thing happened with 401k investments. More options, more choices, more plans, a hundred different ways to invest your money. Study found that the more options employees were given, the more likely they were to not participate. People don't need more complexity - they need something simple that works.
People don't need more complexity - they need something simple that works.
Ah, but that's part of the debate. One side says consumers want to be in charge, have more choices, make their own decisions. The other side says it's too complicated and messy, let's help the consumer out.
We don't mind others telling us what's best, bargaining on our behalf, doing our homework, or helping out with costs. As long as it's OUR employer doing that for US (and we think it works) nobody blinks an eye, but mention public servants or big corporations like WalMart and everyone hyperventilates.
ogre is dumb because he doesn't realise that gastric bypass is currently the most effective intervention for improving the health of the very obese, far superior to lifestyle choices. he is also silly for forgetting that obesity is frequently established in childhood or youth. finally he may be having a bad day because he 1. forgot to point out that he, unlike very many other fat people, is fairly well-off financially and in terms of job-security, and doesn't have kids etc and 2. forgot that just because something is free doesn't mean it's good. didn't we recently read about an unusually successful desmoking intervention relying on cash incentives???
how he can be so hard on others when he himself was at least 50 lbs overfat baffles me. no, wait, it doesn't... it's the whole self-made man nonsense in another form isn't it :o
Live Free or Die. Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death. Don't Tread On Me.
There's a pattern design that only works to a point.
GGT: ER, it's going to take me some time to respond to your post, if I get around to it.
I'll just address Being's comment for now:
What do you mean by "compete"? A set of smaller more targeted pools is more efficient than one huge pool because the targeted pool distributes costs and prices effectively. But this isn't exactly praise for a government insurance subsidy plan-- just an observation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Being
No problem Aggie. ;) The devil is in the details, a model has to work with all variables or it's just a Band-Aid.Quote:
Originally Posted by agamemnus
Someone should do comparison analysis of Switzerland, even tho they're tiny. They supposedly have healthcare via subsidized insurance "for everyone", with ~70+ main private insurers, while the US has less than 20.