First of all it is insurance, you are insuring yourself from possible risks that you could experience. You have the choice of insuring against only high cost risk items (high franchise) or by paying more against more routine and lower cost items (low franchise).
You buy car insurance and likely will never see a payout, or life insurance where you will never get a return.
Almost all major economies have some form of universal health insurance - so no this isn’t socialism or communism.
errrrr, no?
It’s an insurance system, not socialism in the taxes. Albeit mandatory (which I don’t find a bad thing) you can at least switch insurances.
They (who are they?) don’t collect a multi billion pot, health costs are really that high, mainly because we pay a multiple of what other countries pay for medication as an example. That has to stop and can only be done by politics. If pharmaceutical industry doesn’t come to it’s senses then shopping abroad refunded by insurance should be legalized.
Doctors and medical actors can not set whatever price they want. There is a detailed list for the price of every bloody move of their hand 
. It’s called Tarmed. They fought for 10 years for a new system which is called Tardoc and should be implemented in 2026.
The Mafia bit in your post I did not understand.
No
No
No
Yes
The rail connection between Lausanne and Geneva is being improved, a third track is being built section by section, local stations improved, gare de Lausanne getting better. This is all happening.
The train connections to neighboring France matter a lot. The issue is that French workers are not only office workers that commute between 7h00 and 17h00. People working in restaurants, hospitals, senior care, the airport and other jobs that don’t follow office schedules are not served. Then, no surprises, they drive to work.
Is this answering in the order on the ballot (1. Motorways, 2. and 3. rent and 4. health) or the order Axa used above (rent, rent, health, motorways)? Just asking cos every news item and official communication has the ballot order so it’s unclear.
Actually there is no third rail being built between Renens and Coppet, 42kms out of 51. What is needed is not improvement to the single existing line but a second or third line. Twice in the last 18 months the single line was closed for days.
Gare de Lausanne is a construction site with the finish date pushed back to 2038, eight years late.
Rail service in Romande, particularly La Côte, has always been the poor forgotten child of the big ugly SBB, or CFF as we prefer to call it.
Zurich has 2,900 trains a day. Geneva less than 700.
Order on the ballot. The arguments around the last one are convoluted, but more out-patient treatments has to be a positive.
But would that be the result? As I see it some costs would be shifted from the Insurers to the Cantons. Clinics/Hospitals are still going to want to bill/bill/bill. And these days with so many Doctors tied to Hospital networks I don’t actually see that happening.
That is the issue, but I think putting ambulant/stationary on the same footing is good . Cutting out waste and improving efficiency is a separate issue.
Always a positive but what on earth makes you think that’s where it leads to?
The hospitals will still keep as many as long as possible as many hospitals are deficient. In future that would be paid by the premium payer as most people don’t have the nerve (or depending on the operation they had) the energy to just tell them “sod off, I’m going home”
Therefore the cantons can happily keep those hospitals up and running - for less money than before - proudly saying their canton has a hospital.
Not true, that’s why the → Fallpauschale has been introduced some years ago.
2009 to be precise. And those are valid for what ever operation/treatment the person is there for. Individuals are different, so they can still claim someone needed to stay longer.
To get a picture: Let’s ask Bowlie if his cases took place before or after 2009.
One before, the others after.
From the Swiss Times:
On Thursday in Lausanne, Pierre-Yves Maillard, member of the Vaudois Council of States and trade union leader, confirmed his intention to launch a new popular initiative for the introduction of a single public health insurance scheme. Speaking at the Forum of 100, he said he hoped to be able to present a text next fall.
“I believe that this will be my last task on this topic with an ultimate popular initiative. That motivates me a lot,” said Maillard in front of around 1,000 participants at the Forum of 100, which is made up of important personalities from French-speaking Switzerland.
Referring to the failures of the single fund before the people in 2007 and 2014, the Vaud native said that the new initiative must be more comprehensible so that “people clearly understand the implications for them”, as was the case when the vote on the 13th AHV pension was won.
The contours of this new initiative are “currently being discussed”, continued the member of the Council of States and President of the Swiss Federation of Trade Unions (SGB). However, he had already indicated that, in his opinion, this public fund should not be national, but should be “based on cantonal systems”.
Good, I’m glad to hear that.
"the new initiative must be more comprehensible so that “people clearly understand the implications for them”
yeah, yeah, the classic. Everytime the populace votes against the initiators, it’s because they’re too dumb to understand 
There have been occasions even the government dared to use that as an excuse for it’s failure!
Which proves regarding hospitals working hard on making extra money: Nothing changed.
Only the suregeries have fix prices now (which is a start).
No idea where you’re coming from, there’s not a single you in that post.
Outpatients cost less, ceteris paribus, so the incentives should favor outpatient over inpatient.
However at this point, the cantons must finance the hospitals by at least 50%, so many an inpatient treatment might be less costly for the insurance (even though it’s more expensive), which is why the insurance might/will(tend to) push for inpatient instead.
That’s where the initiative comes in as the burden will change to 50/50 in both cases, for insurance and canton (aka the public). As a result the insurance is driven by the same incentives as the public, and that’s picking the overall least costly procedure.
At least that’s the aim.
Where do you see the 50/50 in future?
It is now close to 50/50. In future all costs (inpatients, outpatients and care) will be put together and from that total, the cantons will cover 26.9%
The three little cicles is now, the bigger circle would be after the reform.
It would be clearer to know what we’re talking about if we had numbers (for example of a year) and if they’d give procentage on the small circles like they do on the big one. Guess this graph came from the pro side.
The particular ratio is secondary for the point I made above, which is that the proposed shares are the same for all three sectors and no longer incentivise any one.
No actually it doesn’t prove anything other than it’s anecdotal recollections.
