Steigende Gesundheitskosten – 70 Prozent der Bevölkerung zugunsten eines einzelnen Krankenversicherers

    https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/steigende-gesundheitskosten-70-prozent-der-bevoelkerung-haben-sympathie-fuer-eine-einheitskasse

    Von BezugssystemCH1903

    Share.

    19 Kommentare

    1. GYN-k4H-Q3z-75B on

      I used to be against it. I am still not convinced this is a solution. But I would vote in favor simply to fuck over the insurance companies. Get fucked.

    2. Cute_Employer9718 on

      I’m not sure that’s the right answer either.

      At least now insurances have incentives to lower costs, and we’ve seen this with the recent example of several insurances stopping their coverage for hôpital de la tour since they judge that this specific healthcare provider has very high fees.

      The reform of TARMED (future TARDOC) is way more important 

    3. TrollandDumpf on

      It wouldn’t solve the underlying problem but at least there wouldn’t be the need anymore to change the insurance provider every year. 

    4. fellainishaircut on

      that‘s not gonna change anything. premiums rise because costs rise. the insurance companies themselves are pretty much an irrelevant factor for the costs.

    5. I don’t think a single provider will lower the costs. I just feed like that the „mittelstand“ just yet again will pay more because they statt making it income dependend. Nad yes i know with the ipv it already kinda is but i think it will get even more unfair

    6. If the premium is a % of your tax.

      I would also be ok with only basic insurance being that way and anyone that wants supplementary can purchase that additionally.

    7. ExplorationGOD on

      Wouldn’t it make sense if health insurers where only allowed to be non-profits? We shouldn’t monetize our health..
      Then again, there would be no competition and need for efficiency, which can also negatively influence costs..
      Either way, we need to look for other solutions, and I’m no expert.

    8. Competition lowers prices and improves service. Check out Austria if you want to see what a single (or very few) provider looks like.

      You pay like 20% of your gross salary for health insurance alone and if you really need something special like an MRI you have to basically wait 3 MONTHS or pay private anyway..

      Because they don’t give a fuck. They are a monopoly and it’s not like you have a choice or can switch to another provider if you are not satisfied

    9. Would the prices then be the same on a national level? Or would someone in canton X still have to pay twice as much as in canton Y?

    10. I don’t think this will change much, it will just get more political and less competition typically means worse service etc.

      The problem is increasing age span and available treatments. But that is the price to pay, if you have cancer don’t you want the best treatment for it? It comes at a price obviously.

      The other solution is to exclude more from the insurance, so don’t cover certain treatments that are maybe not 100% necessary.

      Also, there has been a shift in mentality in the population, I can see this especially with immigrants, everybody goes to ER if they have a little hurt. With my parents for example, they would only go if they could not handle it at home (like break a leg).

      Finally, insurance companies can’t make a profit by law for the basic insurance, so in theory they operate on cost level, I think a better look here whether that is actually the case would definitely help as well.

    11. swagpresident1337 on

      A single provider wouldnt change much.

      Maybe make it even worse, as now they don‘t have competition and no pressure to be competitive/keep prices low.

    12. swissthoemu on

      Corporate greed will not be solved by a single health provider. The market needs strong regulation and price caps.

    13. MightBeEllie on

      I’m in favor in principle but I think the more important step right now would be to tie insurance premiums to income. We already subsidize health insurance through the cantonal premium support.

      Cleaning this chaos up would go a long way to support lower income people.

    14. A lot of good arguments for and against it here. It’s a complex topic and we see good and bad examples for both sides. We need a good debate on this as the current situation is getting worse.

    15. This is not a solution. If done well, it might help a bit with the administrative costs, but that’s not the reason why healthcare is expensive. It would have some downsides too, because people actually do have different needs and priorities.

      But all that is not important. The real reason the healthcare is expensive is… well, **becaus** **it is expensive** and we (as a whole) are spending a *shit-ton* of money on it. In particular >>90% of the healthcare system cost is going to care for people in their final 1-2 years.

      There is no easy solution. There are many non-solutions that the populists would like you to believe:

      * *“Just introduce limits to the primes and make* ***them*** *pay“*. You know, them. „The rich“, „the corporations“, „the government“, whoever SP decides to use in this month’s posters. Rest assured Herr Regular Schweizer, totally not you.
      * *“Just cut the costs“*. Right? Like, pay the doctors, nurses, etc less. SVP would love it. I’m totally, totally sure this will work just fine.
      * Nobody is proposing this (yet) but, hey, why not cut the amount of healthcare that the seniors receive in their final years?

      The only real solution is demographics. We *have* to flip the age pyramid. And this has to come from immigration. Carefully controlled, ensuring culture fit, integration, values shared with ours. With strictly enforced rules and easy way to get rid of those who end up being a strong net negative to the society. But this is the only way – not just for healthcare, but for some more fundamental problems too.

    16. PrFaustroll on

      It just gonna make it worst. Next step will be to make the rich to pay for the less rich and Switzerland will be over

    17. deadthewholetime on

      Maybe stop covering pseudoscience and quackery like homeopathy etc as a first step to reduce costs

    18. Beneficial-Ship3528 on

      Guys, I feel no sympathy for insurance companies, but have you ever looked at the bill you receive when you visit your GP? They basically charge you 50 francs just to say hello, and we are talking about a general practitioner, not a specialist. I have a PhD in engineering from the ETH, but if I had studied medicine, I would easily make more money, even without a specialization. All the doctors I know are at least financially well-off, many are more than just „well-off“, and a few border on the „filthy rich“.

      The second problem is that pharmaceutical companies charge ridicuolous amounts of money for everything. The introduction of „generic“ drugs helped a bit, but still medicines are way overpriced. The cheapest generic medicines available in Switzerland are more than twice as expensive as in other countries, according to a study by the Swiss price watchdog (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/price-watchdog-criticizes-excessive-prices-for-generics/88229042).

      In the end, we are going to pay for that, one way or another.

      There is more, of course, this is a simplification, but the insurance companies are probably not the root cause of the problem, although certainly a contributing factor.

    Leave A Reply