More than 95% of health care premiums aren't used for administration and marketing but to pay for health care providers and drugs.

A monopoly insurance company would still need an administration. Therefore the potential for lower insurance premiums is very small, maybe one or two percent at most. As long as the premiums rise by several percent year after year, that doesn't make a noticeable difference.
In exchange for those measly savings we would get a monopolist bureaucracy you can't escape from.

Poor customer service? Deal with it!
Poorly trained calling center agents? Deal with it!
Late reimbursements? Deal with it!
etc.

Today I can always change my insurer if I'm not happy with my current one. (Basic coverage is supposed to be identical anyway.)
With a monopolist that won't be possible anymore. I'm not willing to give up my freedom of choice in exchange for some barely noticeable savings.

I totally agree with you here. Many drugs and other medical supplies are heavily overpriced in Switzerland, but that's an entirely different matter.

That is the point the insurance companies make. With a canton monopoly they can bring the prices down.

Have you experienced the British health care? People joke about it, but it is cheap and good.

According to Wikipedia, Switzerland's healthcare is not very expensive!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland

Absolutely right. But I don't go for the basic package, as I want to be in my own room and such if I do get seriously ill (admittedly, I've had relatively little use for health insurance the last 20 years, but you never know what might change).

I do get a little money from them for contact lenses and such, but that's about it. Oh, if you decide you like them and want to switch (they do a lot of correspondence in English, actually) let me know. I'll gladly take the 50 chf referral bonus.

According to the wiki article posted by Sbrinz, the insurance companies aren't allowed to make a profit on the basic package, so I really don't see any benefit that would be offered by a forced consolidation.

__________________
I'm likely typing from an iPad. Please disregard odd word usage.

I've experienced the NHS. Very skilled and, as funded through taxation, free at the point of use. But:

1. Six months to see a specialist
2. 4 hour wait at casualty on a good day
3. 2 day (or more) wait to see doctor
4. Difficult to change doctor
5. NHS dentistry very hard to find.
6. Dirty wards

For expertise, the NHS has the edge. For customer service, I'll stick with Swiss, thank-you.

Yeah I thought you might be entitled to a referral bonus so was gonna pm you anyway I actually remembered that my company also has a deal with them so that I get quite a nice reduction and I was thinking for a while now for getting supplimentary insurance before it's too late so I think I'll be going to them.

Anyway back on topic. The supplimentary insurance does not have to be with the same insurance as your basic one which is why I found pointing to the various benefits of supplimentary health insurances is not very relevant to the referendum. From what I've read it will still be planned that private insurances can still offer additional coverage.

Interesting.

Do you guys know how the Singapore system works? When SG first became independent, one of things the government thought about was to how best to provide affordable healthcare for a generally poor populace.

It realised that private healthcare like in the US was too expensive in order for it to be accessible to everyone. Which is something we are experiencing in CH now. On the other end, free healthcare like how they do it in Canada, UK, France or Scandinavia is too expensive for the government to fund in the long run.

The SG government decided that the best way to go forward is to cost share. Mix free market economics, so that there would be no waste and socialist principles so that everyone has healthcare.

What it did was not to overtax the tax base but made it mandatory that each employee should set aside a portion of his/her monthly income into a government managed healthcare savings account.

The benefit of it is that your contribution remains yours. It doesn't get lost in the system. When you are sick, you simply withdraw money from this account. You could also use this for your partner, parents, children or next of kin. Basically it's your money, you choose how you want to spend it.

To eliminate waste, the system gives you a choice. If you need inpatient treatment, you could choose a private ward which means you pay more, the system pays less. Conversely, if you choose a common ward, the system pays more, you pay less. You cost the medications too so that you actually finish the regime. If you pay, you will finish it.

How about people with low income? The government makes sure that aid will be given to people who have expended their savings or those who need more money for treatment.

In the end, you have a sustainable system. The government doesn't end up with piles of debt, the people benefit from lower tax rates, greater control of their finances. The healthcare system operates efficiently.

http://www.watsonwyatt.com/europe/pu...2.asp?ID=13850

Not necessarily the best system but definitely one that works.

Thanks for pointing that out. That pretty much matches what I've read and heard elsewhere. Not exactly what I call "cheap and good".

When you finally get the care, it's usually of the highest order. Generally, I would rate UK GPs over Swiss ones. UK trained nurses are in demand worldwide. In my sojourns in Swiss hospitals, I've frequently chatted with nurses who wish to spend time in the NHS - "you learn so much".

Just want to state that this benefit is a supplementary one, not a basic one for SWICA. It is also only for selected gyms.

True. That supplementary insurance cost me about 10 chef per month extra. Works out well if you're a Migros Fitnesspark member.