For the past few days we’ve been bombarded with the news that Massachusetts painted itself red on Tuesday. Equally unavoidable were the countless interpretations of what it all means. Yes, Democrats lost their super-majority, but why? Perhaps the most ironic explanation was victor Scott Brown’s. In a strange twist of an argument we’ve mainly been hearing from uneducated Tea Partiers, he said Massachusetts voters have theirs, and for the rest of the country to go get its own. Fascinating.

Brown’s argument is basically that Massachusetts has declared healthcare a right, but for the rest of the country it’s a privilege that the state won’t support. Interestingly, Congressional healthcare legislation does still treat healthcare as a privilege (a very complicated one), not a right. That’s why, as THR reader Cherokee Girl pointed out, this election result is actually a blessing. Instead of a 60-vote bill that caters to special interests and representatives’ personal whimsy, Congress may be forced to submit a real healthcare reform bill through the 51-vote reconciliation process.

Let’s face it: real reform is contentious; it invokes fear of change and bad behavior that needs to be called out for what it is. That’s because the result is revolutionary change, meaning a rapid sea-change in the accepted natural order of things. It doesn’t mean a gradual phase-in of consumer protections and eventual healthcare coverage available to most, but real, affordable access to quality care available on day one. If people are still confused about what healthcare reform is supposed to accomplish, it’s because the value statement got lost in the politics.

This kind of change doesn’t come from tinkering around the edges and playing budget games without bothering industry powerhouses. Switzerland discovered this when it decided in 1994 that healthcare should be a right. LAMal, its current system of compulsory, affordable and non-discriminatory coverage, provided by true non-profit insurers with prescription drug prices set by the government, came with high political stakes.

Similar to the typical US reaction, capitalistic Swiss folks thought the idea of government-run healthcare available to anyone and required of all was oppressive. They only agreed if subsidies were provided in exchange for required coverage. Even then, Swiss healthcare reform squeaked by with a 51-49 vote. Today, the Swiss wouldn’t change their system for the world. In addition to required benefits, residents have access to numerous supplemental policies that cover every possible service. Premiums vary only by age, not income. Doctors are the highest-paid in Europe. Until this year it was also the most expensive health system in Europe (France now holds that title), but residents feel their higher costs bring higher quality.

How did Switzerland get to its smoothly running socialized insurance system of today? This capitalistic nation started with the end goal in mind: affordable access to quality care. It then built a system around that goal, compromising only slightly to lobbyist pressures. The US has so far taken the opposite approach of putting special interests first and trying to insert into legislation some minor concessions to the supposed end goal. That’s how we got to where we are today.

Real healthcare reform requires putting patients first. It’s divisive and ground-breaking. Most of all, it requires reconciliation, not concessions. It’s time for the real healthcare reform to step forward.

Read more about LAMal, Switzerland’s socialized insurance system, in an interview excerpt from Sick Around the World.

Photo Credit: Matt Honan

©2010 Actively Fused LLC                       blogsurfer.us