in a little country called Switzerland. The healthcare system there is not only quite effective but also quite desirable by the majority (if not practically all) of its citizens. Of course Switzerland has a purer form of government, a true direct democracy, where binding referendums and double majorities not only give people direct access to their government and its inner workings and policies, but also to prevent the possibility of "majority rule" so often elaborated by the "two wolves and a sheep" analogy. So, they "can" change what the do not like about their system.
To date, they have not changed this.
Another major advantage is that the Swiss do not suffer from the problems of lawsuits brought about by one's own lack of knowledge or general stupidity. If you go for an operation and are advised on the risks, then the risks are known and those risks are in your hands as they should be. If you stub your toe on your neighbors sidewalk, forget about any legal action against him. Its your problem.
The point of the matter is, that with liberty and independence comes the full embrace of one's responsibilities that come with THOSE TWO THINGS. The Swiss understand this and live it. We do not. They are fully accountable for themselves, while here in the states, people are not.
So can a universal healthcare system work and be effective and desirable? Yes, but it takes a mindset we do not have.
Am I arguing for or against? No, but GJ is hardly being honest if he thinks there are not countries where universal healthcare is not only effective, but also desirable by its people.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: