June 9 votes in Switzerland: how can healthcare costs be reined in?
Health insurance premiums are a growing burden for Swiss households. This year alone, they increased by 8.7% on average. As a result, a large part of the population is unable or difficult to pay the compulsory monthly premiums.
On June 9, the Swiss will vote on two initiatives aimed at capping health costs. While the Social Democrats want to limit health insurance premiums to 10% of a household’s income, the Center party wants to introduce a mechanism to force the state to curb the rising costs.
Do these two initiatives convince you? What measures do you think would be most effective to put an end to the ongoing rise in healthcare costs? Should financial help for households be boosted, or should the procedures covered by health insurance be reduced? Let us know in the conversation below.
More
Swiss federal votes on June 9: what’s on the agenda?
We prefer the term "Swiss abroad" to "Swiss abroad". We are first and foremost Swiss and not foreigners. We live in Italy and have our health insurance in Switzerland.
Italy has a well-functioning healthcare system. Basic care and emergency services are free for everyone. You pay for basic insurance with your taxes.
The healthcare market worldwide is a growth market, especially in Switzerland, dependent on supply, demand and incentives. In a complex market, it is difficult to reduce costs. This is already the task of the price watchdog and the Federal Council. This is obviously not working. Political steering measures fail in Switzerland due to federalism and lobbying. It also needs to be said out loud: Nobody wants so-called two-tier medicine. But that is exactly what we have had for a long time, we even have a three-tier medical system with people with general, semi-private and private insurance.
One approach would be to introduce a single health insurance fund for everyone. This fund would cover the costs of basic medical care, including emergency care. A consensus is needed on what is included in basic care and which services are reimbursed and how. Consistent digitalisation of patient files, supra-regional cooperation (across cantonal borders) and binding cost estimates would be a basis, as would the controllability of this health insurance fund, with the Confederation and cantons being majority shareholders and the success criteria being verifiable and measurable.
Anything that goes beyond basic care can be insured privately, such as hospital supplements, compensation for loss of earnings, etc.
As long as the healthcare system is not controllable, as it is in Switzerland, costs will continue to rise and more and more individuals and families will have to be insured by the welfare system because they can no longer afford the premiums. As a result, the system itself creates social recipients and makes everything even more expensive.
The centre party's proposal to curb costs may alleviate the problem. However, the aim is not to put the brakes on, but to control them. The healthcare system and the associated costs must become controllable and be subject to a mandatory consensus procedure. The Social Democrat's proposal is only person- or premium-orientated and creates new problems. My fear is therefore that the market will continue to grow and that the links between the interests of health insurance companies, the pharmaceutical industry, hospitals, chief physicians, universities, patients and lobbyists will find ways to grow further.
Wir ziehen den Begriff "Schweizer:innen im Ausland" dem Wort "Auslandschweizer" vor. Wir sind in erster Linie Schweizerinnen und Schweizer und nicht Ausländer. Wir leben in Italien und haben unsere Krankenkasse in der Schweiz.
Italien hat ein gut funktionierendes Gesundheitswesen. Die Grundversorgung und Notfalldienste sind für alle gratis. Die Grundversicherung bezahlt man mit den Steuern.
Der Gesundheitsmarkt weltweit ist ein Wachstumsmarkt, besonders in der Schweiz, abhängig von Angebot, Nachfrage und Anreizen. In einem komplexen Markt ist es schwierig, die Kosten zu senken. Das ist ja schon Aufgabe des Preisüberwachers und des Bundesrates. Das funktioniert offenbar nicht. Politische Lenkungsmassnahmen scheitern in der Schweiz am Föderalismus und durch Lobbyismus. Ausserdem muss es einmal ausgesprochen werden: Niemand will eine sogenannte Zweiklassen Medizin. Aber genau das haben wir schon lange, wir haben sogar eine Dreiklassen Medizin mit allgemein-, halbprivat- und privatversicherten Personen.
Ein Ansatz wäre die Einführung einer Einheitskrankenkasse für alle. Diese Kasse deckt die Kosten für die medizinische Grundversorgung, einschliesslich der Notfallversorgung. Es braucht einen Konsens, was alles in der Grundversorgung eingeschlossen ist und welche Leistungen wie vergütet werden. Eine konsequente Digitalisierung der Patientenakten, eine überregionale Zusammenarbeit (über Kantonsgrenzen) hinweg und verbindliche Kostenvoranschläge wären eine Grundlage, so wie die Steuerbarkeit dieser Krankenkasse, indem Bund und Kantone Mehrheitsaktionäre sind und die Erfolgskriterien nachprüfbar und messbar sein müssen.
Alles was über die Grundversorgung hinaus geht, kann privat dazu versichert werden, wie Spitalzusatz, Lohnausfallentschädigung, etc.
Solange das Gesundheitswesen nicht steuerbar ist, so wie in der Schweiz, werden die Kosten wachsen und immer mehr Einzelpersonen und Familien müssen durch die Fürsorge versichert werden, weil sie die Prämien nicht mehr bezahlen können. Dadurch schafft das System selbst Sozialempfänger und macht alles zusätzlich teurer.
Der Vorschlag der Mittepartei zur Kostenbremse mildert das Problem möglicherweise. Es geht aber nicht darum zu bremsen, sondern zu steuern. Das Gesundheitswesen und die damit verbundenen Kosten müssen steuerbar werden, und obligatorisch einem Konsensverfahren ausgesetzt sein. Der Vorschlag des Sozialdemokraten ist nur Personen- oder Prämienorientiert und schafft neue Probleme. Daher ist meine Befürchtung, dass der Markt weiter wächst und die Interessenverknüpfungen zwischen Krankenkassen, Pharmaindustrie, Spitälern, Chefärzten, Universitäten, Patienten und Lobbyisten Wege finden werden, weiter zu wachsen.
We need to make a distinction between the so-called diseases of civilisation and those created from scratch by agrochemicals, whether local or imported.
The poisoning of the earth, water and air are the major factors in the decline in health, while many ancestral diseases such as pollomelytis and tuberculosis have disappeared.
Age is another factor, and the time when all the excesses of years of over-consumption become acutely apparent.
To reduce the costs, or at least limit them, we need to launch a federal campaign to get to the source of the major dysfunctions: food, its excesses, drugs, alcohol consumption and narcotics.
There will come a time when these burdens will be unbearable for everyone.
So let's get back to basics: "Let your food be your medicine".
Il faudrait faire une distinction entre les maladies dites de civilisation et celles créées de toutes pièces induites par l'agrochimie, locale ou d'importation.
L'empoisonnement de la terre, des eaux, de l'air sont les facteurs majeurs des dérives de la santé alors qu'une bonne partie des maladies ancestrales ont disparu, pollomelyte, tuberculose, etc.
L'âge aussi est un facteur supplémentaire et le moment où tous les excès d'années de surconsommation se manifestent avec acuité.
Pour réduire les coûts ou tout au moins les limiter il faudrait lancer une campagne fédérale pour aller à la source des dysfonctionnements majeurs, alimentation, ses excès, drogue, consommation d'alcools et stupéfiants.
Il arrivera un moment où ces charges seront insupportables pour tout un chacun.
Donc revenons aux basiques 'que ton aliment soit ton médicament"
Recipe a bit too simplistic: people are living longer and the narrative of bad food does not hold water at all. Rather, there is an excessive demand for health services and there is also the claim that in old age (over 90) one has the right to undergo unhelpful operations and to take very expensive, even unhelpful drugs.
Ricetta un po' troppo semplicistica: la gente continua a campare di più e la narrazione del pessimo cibo non regge affatto. Piuttosto c'è un'eccessiva richiesta di servizi sanitari e si pretende anche che in tarda età (oltre i 90) si abbia il diritto a subire operazioni poco utili e ad assumere farmaci costosissimi, pure poco utili.
Capitalism and a healthcare system that serves people do not go together. Pharmaceutical companies want to make a profit, shareholders want to see high returns. Prophylaxis is therefore not profitable. Research belongs in universities, not in corporations. The USA has the most expensive healthcare system - fully privatised. Our healthcare system is becoming more and more expensive. The Cubans have the best healthcare system - despite the inhumane and cynical blockade of Cuba by the USA.
Kapitalismus und ein Gesundheitssystem, das den Menschen dient, passen nicht zusammen. Die Pharmakonzerne wollen Profit machen, die Aktionäre hohe Renditen sehen. Prophylaxe ist daher nicht rentabel. Die Forschung gehört an die Unis, nicht in Konzerne. Das teuerste Gesundheitssystem haben die USA - voll privatisiert. Unser Gesundheitssystem wird immer teurer. Das beste Gesundheitssystem haben die Kubander - trotz der unmenschlichen und zynischen Blockade der USA gegen Kuba.
Again with these anti-capitalist narratives! Cuba is perhaps the only country where real communism is still in force, and apart from churning out doctors in supernumerary, their economy is bankrupt. Capitalism is now practised everywhere in the world, including Russia and China. In essence, there are only two forms of capitalism today: liberal-democratic and one-party capitalism.
Rather than lashing out at political 'maximum systems', the multiple (excessive!) health insurance funds should be changed to a single but state-run and even stricter health insurance fund.
Ancora con queste narrazioni anticapitalistiche! Cuba è forse l'unico paese ove vige ancora il comunismo reale, e a parte che sfornare medici in sovrannumero, la loro economia è fallimentare. Oggi il capitalismo è ormai praticato ovunque nel mondo, Russia e Cina comprese. In sostanza, oggi ci sono solo due forme di capitalismo: quello liberale- democratico e quello a partito unico.
Piuttosto che prendersela coi "massimi sistemi" politici, andrebbero cambiate le casse malati plurime (eccessive!) con una cassa malati unica ma statale e anche più rigorosa.
Nationalise the system. Like with all insurance, how much of what we pay goes towards private company overheads, staff salaries and bonuses and shareholder dividends? One system for all would work here, as it's such a small country. Plus stop the time wasters abusing the system - those who see a doctor for minor ailments such as a cold. Those who call an ambulance for non-emergencies. All of these push up what we pay. Plus check what pharmacies charge. I once had a prescription and went to a pharmacy. I said I'd pay cash. They said no, my insurance would pay (except I had not used up my excess). I checked the final amount. It was 4x what I would have paid in cash.
Like the U.K. NHS?
In January I paid CHF 1,000 in premiums for 3 people (2 adults + 1 child). I went for a biopsy for suspected breast cancer (fortunately there was nothing), 1500 CHF. The doctor screwed up and asked for a new biopsy because he wasn't sure he'd cut off the right piece of flesh to test (it's difficult to do, they told me). We decided to cut our costs in Switzerland and go abroad for treatment (the biopsy cost CHF 90).
Everything is going wrong in this paragraph:
You pay a lot per month AND you don't get reimbursed a penny (excess at 2500).
Exorbitant costs compared with other countries.
So yes, we need to find solutions, and if the vote on 9 January can help, then I say YES.
En Janvier j'ai payé 1000 CHF de primes pour 3 personnes (2 adultes + 1 enfant). J'ai été faire une biopsie pour une suspicion de cancer du sein (heureusement il n'y avait rien), 1500 CHF. Le médecin s'est planté et à demandé de faire une nouvelle biopsie car il n'était pas sur d'avoir charcuté le bon bout de chair à tester (c'est difficile à faire m'ont-ils indiqué). Nous avons préféré arrêter les frais en Suisse et nous faire soigner à l'étranger (la biopsie y a couté 90 CHF).
Dans ce paragraphe tout va mal:
On paye par mois beaucoup ET on est pas remboursé un kopek (franchise à 2500)
Des couts exhorbitants par rapport à d'autres pays.
Alors oui il faut trouver des solutions et si la votation du 9 janvier peut aider alors je dis OUI
The increasingly burdensome increase for Swiss households is a direct consequence of the slowing down of the Administration, comfortably settled and trying not to make too much movement in order not to innovate and that this result creates some inconvenience to their bucolic estates. There must be greater empathy and generate tools to update and improve self-financing systems. To do so, it is necessary to get on the right track and start working seriously to improve the system. Respectful Greetings.
El incremento cada vez mas oneroso para los hogares Suizos es consecuencia directa de la ralentizacion de la Administracion, comodamente asentada y tratando de no hacer mucho movimiento para no innovar y que ese resultado les cree algun inconveniente a sus bucolicos estamentos. Debe existir una mayor empatia y generar herramientas que actualicen y mejoren los sistemas de auto financiamiento. Para ello es necesario arremenarse y ponerse a trabajar en serio para mejorar el sistema. Respetuosos Saludos.
Procedures covered should definitely not be reduced, though for a while household financial help may or may not be increased. More research and debate is required into why the premiums are going up in the first place, and to stem the cost increase there itself. A lot of times premiums go up due to the prices of prescription drugs. These prices are negotiated by insurers with the pharma companies. If the price is increased, the cost is passed on the customer as a raised premium. The state can perhaps start offering basic insurance, to force private players to innovate and reduce costs. There are flaws in this plan, but it gets the ball rolling in the right direction.
One step in the right direction might be to get prices for medications under control. The pharma industry should also contribute to this effort.
I would support the limiting of premiums collection by all Krankenkassen companies. I understand the magic of health insurance and any kind of insurance. However, the magic formula has now become a monster and just look at the profit levels of the big companies to see how much profits they make. They are a business but they are also a social entity designed not to make maximum profits. The government and legislation must step in. Too many fat cats Krankenkassen bosses.
This shows the inefficiency of the administration. All these overpaid, under-employed civil servants (holidays, sports leave). Unable to see how many imaginary sick people manage to obtain medication and sick leave. Too many doctors now only work 4 days a week, with lifestyles that are out of kilter.
Take the example of craftsmen, farmers and a few others, who work 60 to 80 hours a week on salaries of less than CHF 5,000 a month.
With the UNIA models, everything will increase, and only a few rich people will be able to afford the luxury of some leisure time. STOP electing and hiring people with no practical experience. We want experienced managers, like Mrs Keller-Suter, who has been immersed in the atmosphere of a small business since she was a child, with the ups and downs of the economy. Little work, high salaries, lead to the ruin of the economy. These people, who only want to work a little, will be the next to ask taxpayers for help paying for food and health insurance. Their pensions will be a reflection of their behaviour = VOID.
Happy Sunday
Ainsi, on peut constater l' inefficacité de l'administration. Tous ces fonctionnaires, trop payés, sous employés, (vacances congés sports). Incapables de constater la part de malades imaginaires, qui arrivent a obtenir des médicaments, des congés maladie. Trop de médecins , ne travaillent plus que 4 jours / semaine, avec des trains de vie hors cadre.
Prendre exemple, sur les artisans, les paysans et quelques autres, qui travaillent 60 à 80 heures /semaine, avec des salaires inférieur à CHF 5000.- / mois.
Avec les modèles UNIA, tout va augmenter , et, seuls quelques riches pourront se payer le luxe de quelques loisirs. STOP à l'élection et à l'engagement de personnes sans expériences pratiques. On veut des responsables expérimentés, genre Mme Keller-Suter, qui depuis gamine déjà, a baigné dans l'ambiance d'une PME , avec les haut et les bas de l'économie. Peu de travail, gros salaires, mènent à la ruine de l'économie. Ces personnes qui ne veulent que peu travailler, seront les prochains à réclamer l'aide des contribuables pour payer la nourriture et l'assurance maladie. Leurs retraites seront le reflet de leur comportement = NUL.
Bon Dimanche
Yes, specialist doctors have (depending upon the field), created a monopoly of sorts and work quite less. They see only 5-6 patients a day, with follow ups scheduled for months. The waiting time to see an orthopaedic doc is like 2 months. This needs to be addressed by encouraging doctors to go for specialisation, and reducing the cost of doing so.
It seems to me that the title of your article is confusing and distorts the debate. In fact, the initiative on health insurance premiums is not aimed at "curbing the rise in healthcare costs", as stated in your title, but rather at limiting the impact of the cost of HEALTH INSURANCE on the purchasing power of households and families. Since this cost is unfortunately not reflected in the cost of living index - which is used as an indicator to determine a number of things - and since it is by far one of the largest items in household budgets, we need to limit this impact by defining a judicious percentage of household income for the health insurance item.
The second initiative, on the other hand, clearly responds to the concern to "curb the rise in healthcare costs", and is clearly aimed above all at reducing federal, cantonal and municipal budgets, as well as health insurance costs. The users, the citizens, would see only a very slight reduction in their contributions. This is not where the initiative is heading.
Il me semble que le titre de votre article prête à confusion, et fausse le débat. En effet l'initiative sur les primes d'assurance maladie ne vise pas à "freiner la hausse des coûts de la santé", comme formulé dans votre titre, mais bien plutôt à limiter l'impact du coût de l'ASSURANCE MALADIE sur le pouvoir d'achat des ménages, des familles. Comme ce coût n'est malheureusement pas répercuté dans l'indice du coût de la vie - qui sert d'indicateur pour déterminer pas mal de choses - et que c'est de loin un des postes importants du budget des ménages, il convient de limiter cet impact en définissant un pourcentage judicieux du revenu des ménages pour le poste assurance-maladie.
La deuxième initiative répond, elle, clairement au souci de "freiner la hausse des coûts de la santé", et elle a clairement pour objectif d'alléger avant tout les budgets fédéral, cantonaux, communaux, ainsi que les charges des assurances-maladie. Les usagers, le citoyens, ne verraient leurs cotisations que très faiblement allégées. Ce n'est pas sur ce point que cette initiative veut agir.
Hello and thank you for your contribution! You're quite right. The main aim of the Socialist Party's initiative is to curb healthcare costs for the population by increasing subsidies, whereas the Centre's initiative aims to have a direct impact on costs. Which solution do you think is more appropriate?
Bonjour et merci de votre contribution! Effectivement, vous avez raison. L'initiative du Parti socialiste veut avant tout freiner les coûts de la santé pour la population en augmentant les aides, alors que celle du Centre souhaite agir directement sur les coûts. Quelle solution vous paraît la plus adaptée?
Please get hold of my latest book, "L'Informaticien".
It was published in French in Quebec.
I don't agree with increasing the cost of health insurance.
Have we reached the first point of global disaster?
Why should health insurance be increased for the benefit of financial profitability?
I lived with food ration cards.
Have we reached the point where health care is equivalent to the money we have?
When we retire, are we doomed to die?
Je vous prie de vous procurer et lire mon dernier livre « L'Informaticien ».
Il avait été publie au Québec en Français.
Je ne suis pas d'accord d'augmenter les couts de l'assurance maladie.
Somme nous arrivé aux premier point du désastre mondial ?
Pourquoi l'assurance maladie dois être augmenter au bénéfice de la rentabilité financière.
J'ai vécu avec les cartes de rationnement alimentaire.
Somme nous arrivé ou se soigner est équivalent avec l'argent que nous possédons ?
A notre retraite sommes-nous voué à mourir ?
There is a fundamental principle of health: let your food be your medicine.
The urgency is not the ever-increasing costs of ageing, but the ability of a people to implement healthy, pollution-free food solutions, as well as the dietetic education that is essential to prevent all excesses of food, particularly fat and sugar.
Instead of the sums demanded and the health costs that are becoming exorbitant, we need to launch a plan throughout the Confederation to overhaul the habits established since the overabundance of food.
Above all, we need to put an end to the import of basic products treated with agro-chemicals, and the same goes for livestock farming. In short, a radical change away from mass consumption.
Il y a un fondamental de la santé : que ton aliment soit ton médicament.
L'urgence n'est pas aux montants toujours plus lourds dus au vieillissement mais la capacité d'un peuple à mettre en oeuvre les solutions alimentaires saines, dépolluées, ainsi qu'une éducation diététique indispensable pour faire barrage à tous les excès de nourriture, gras et sucre notamment.
A la place de sommes demandées et aux coûts de santé qui deviennent exorbitants il faudrait lancer sur toute la Conféderation un plan de remise en cause de habitudes installées depuis la surabondance de nourriture.
Et surtout mettre un terme à l'importation des produits de base traités par l'agro chimie, idem pour l'élevage. En somme un changement radical pour sortir de la consommation des masses.
Excessive eating is certainly an important factor in health, but no more so than alcohol, which is consumed everywhere and whose first sip increases the likelihood of developing cancer. And let's not forget physical exercise, which is essential for good health. Add to that the fight against tobacco, and you've got a magnificent plan for improving public health, and it's not expensive, except in terms of advertising campaigns and various incentives (a tax on sugar, for example...).
L'excès de nourriture est certainement un élément important de santé, mais pas plus que l'alcool, partout consommé et dont on sait que la première gorgée augmente déjà la probabilité de développer un cancer. Sans oublier l'exercice physique, essentiel à une bonne santé. En y ajoutant la lutte contre le tabac, on aurait un magnifique plan d'amélioration de la santé des citoyens, pas cher, sauf en campagnes publicitaires et incitatifs divers (par exemple un impôt sur le sucre...)
Hello and thank you for your interesting comment! Do you think that eating better will really be enough to solve the problem of exorbitant health insurance costs?
Bonjour et merci de votre commentaire intéressant! Manger mieux suffira-t-il vraiment pour résoudre le problème des coûts exorbitants de l'assurance maladie à votre avis?
Agreed, our willingness to consume mass produced processed foods is not helping either, while some medical doctors load up their patients up with bags of unnecessary and expensive pills, lotions and potions. Everyone in their own way is to blame.
Join the conversation!