I found this channel way back in the day when I was looking up the impact of the affordable care act, and to go nearly full circle with this is awesome and nostalgic! So awesome to have seen this channel grow so much.
I still find it bizarre that the US has so many people against socialised healthcare. The NHS over here is far from perfect, but I'd take any day over what seems like a lottery roll on whether your insurance will pay out on removing your appendix.
It's because we have politicians and political commentators routinely telling us the horror stories from countries with socialized medicine or socialized insurance. Rarely do we get a chance to talk to the people who actually live in such countries and see what their average experience is like, and people certainly don't do research into it themselves (whether due to laziness, lack of time, or not knowing where to look). But yeah, from what I hear, people in countries with socialized medical costs are much more satisfied overall with their health care than people in the U.S. are with their own.
The NHS was ranked as the worst healthcare system in the developed world by the OECD just last year, maybe now you understand why some of us aren't warming up to it. www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-uk-now-has-one-of-the-worst-healthcare-systems-in-the-developed-world-according-to-oecd-report-a6721401.html www.oecd.org/health/health-at-a-glance-19991312.htm
That's because our Government is trying to turn our system into the US one because it makes them more money. So they've gutted the NHS hoping it will collapse and they can increase profits in hospitals and cut coverage.
I want the US to adopt an "Agreement on Internal Trade". The Tenth Amendment kills economies of scale which would reduce prices. I'm all for States Rights but the poor should not have to suffer financially for it.
Okay, but if they do that they also have to require that all 50 states impose regulations equal or greater than the currently most restrictive state; otherwise you will have all corporations relocating to whatever state has the most lax regulations and they will abuse consumers.
Yeah, the states even being autonomous is very silly. They are no longer separate countries it is well past time to abolish their sovereignty, they have not really had it for more than 200 years anyway. States having different laws does nothing but cause trouble for citizens.
that's because you are a sheep who believes the Federal Government can always be trusted to do what is best for you. The states need to be granted MORE autonomy, not less. Individual state regulation over insurance doesn't cause serious interference anyway because most states adopt NAIC Model Regulations but they do reserve the right to make adjustments for that state's individual purposes and in fact they do make adjustments.
It's been a while since I've shopped for insurance. From what I remember, I really liked the Health Savings Plans but the minimum premiums were too high and you MUST spend the saved money OR YOU LOSE THE MONEY YOU SAVED every year. "POOF!" That right there turns me off to HSPs. I'll save my money in a regular bank, tyvm. Right now I have a grandfather'd plan that is somewhat cheap. But I do worry it's too cheap / low quality. I don't think I have a way of testing that without getting sick. I am curious about the healthcare.gov sign-ups. If I sign-up just to investigate my options, will that get reported and cause my existing coverage to be scrutinized or canceled if it doesn't conform to existing regulations?
If the insurance doesn't have any doctor in your state why would you buy it at all?! The insurers will have to find doctors in your state if they want your money!
Because *most* people don't buy their own insurance, the company they work for does. I know at one point, I was the first telecommuter in the company I worked for. The health insurance they provided for their employees was pretty good, but the nearest in-network doctor was a 10 hour drive away for me. So my choices were: forego health insurance (and this was before the ACA, and I could not find a private insurer willing to sell me a policy), buy the HMO plan and have low-cost health care just a day's drive away, or buy the much more expensive PPO plan, and have them cover 30-50% of what local doctors charged (since they were all out-of-network, and therefore didn't fall under normal co-payments) Add in to this, at least one doctor I went to charged insurance-covered patients more, partially because they could, partially because of the huge sink of time and effort they had to put in if they ever wanted to get paid. So for that doctor at least, using my insurance ended up being *more* expensive, out-of-pocket, than just paying cash and pretending I wasn't covered.
I really appreciate the research-based information given on Healthcare triage. is there anywhere I can find videos or podcast about Mental Health with a similar format?
Vaibhav Gupta I think he talked twice about it in HT live. He thinks it is low risk but glasses are nothing negative to him, so he wouldn't want to do it.
6:59 - If my memory of that Bitter Pill essay in Time serves me, I think the idea is that insurance cos should get info on what a provider's actual costs are and what other insurers pay, which helps whenever it comes time to re-negotiate their price contracts (basically making the chargemasters public). You're still locked into whatever your insurance co provides, but your insurance co is less likely to get shafted by the providers, and some of that savings gets passed on to you.
Well, Clinton's is okay. The trade off is higher spending, but with the effects of higher amounts insured people and lower out-of-pocket spending. I wouldn't call Trump's plan a disaster, but it's pretty bad. Trump's has some good ideas, but with terrible implications and effects that favor the rich and hurt people who have gotten insurance through the ACA.
Its ultimately a question of whether or not its worth the 75B. Frankly, I think improving our healthcare system (namely by making it more accessible) will help the economy. Sick people can't be productive.
Clinton wants to socialize costs, Trump wants to privatize costs. People usually don't see the "cost" of taxes better than direct costs of an unsubsidized service, so they think it's better. It must be said that socializing medical costs is better for poor people, but Trump's "cover" is that he will bring jobs back.
Regarding building networks of providers for plans, how does the potential for building nationwide networks differ from the current system of building state/local networks?
With regards to health insurance tax deductibility (Trump point #3) aren't payments made through an HSA account on health insurance premiums tax deductible already? I feel this is already in place for people with HSA accounts.
Thanks for your straight ahead comments. I don't mean to be partisan but it seems like a choice between forward and backward. Hope we can learn to work together to improve healthcare for all of us!
"In the interests of not offending all the half literate racists on this channel, I'm keeping my politics out of this video." Come on son. We're all educated adults here.
no.... I just like to point out that the republican party supports a man whose ideas are happily endorsed by the KKK. Nope. Pay no attention to the racism behind the curtain.
DaedricSheep Hey, moron, the pro-ISIS group The Nation of Islam supported Obama. Guess he's pro-jihad. Guilt by association is a tactic only acceptable for mental midgets like you.
Per the Canadian Government the average wait time for a heart cath that is urgently needed is 14 days. At the facility where I work it is 90 minutes after ED admission! Do you want to wait 14 days or 90 minutes???
"telling states they can not make their own decisions" By allowing states to make those decisions you are telling people that they can not make their own decisions. This is 100% of the problem in health care in this country. Taking the choices out of the hands of the people who are affected and putting those choices into the hands of politically motivated and ignorant politicians. (in this case ignorant of the needs and desires of the hundreds of millions of people) Neither Trump nor Clinton is going to address this problem but I would at least like to see this addressed here. Why is the question never asked about why health insurance covers day to day maintenance? Why is the fact that prices are never available to consumers never addressed? Why is it possible for lasic and plastic surgery (which is largely not covered by insurance) to steadily drop in price while the rest of the health care industry costs more and more every year. Can we have a discussion about the benefits of the Oklahoma Surgery Center's model of pricing?
"She will allow Americans to import drugs from aboard." The competition will drive prices down. Now lets to that with telemedicine and online education and many expensive problems are solved.
There is no trade off in the broader context of policies when it comes to increasing the deficit. Trumps overall plan increases the deficit by many multiple times more... but it just so happens that someone who basically wants to cut most national spending on healthcare would have a less expensive healthcare policy specifically.
Good question. IIRC, Trump's collective proposals are projected to increase the national debt by several trillions of dollars. And Clinton's proposals leave her adding billions in the end.
John Green on Vlogbrothers did some videos on his own. The end of the most recent has what you are looking for. I don't remember the numbers but basically Trumps plan will increase the Deficit by a lot more than Hillary. Both plan will increase the deficit, though. Hillary will spend way more money than Trump but Trump will cut off more revenue than Hillary would spend. All in all Trump will increase the deficit by cutting taxes and not cutting enough other stuff. Trump's increase is far greater than Hillary's increase to the deficit which would involve a lot of spending and slightly increasing revenue.
Trump's tax plan is projected to increase national debt by such a large margin that it overshadows pretty much every other number that might be thrown around. www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full The projected increase is 80% of GDP by 2036, which would be several trillion over the course of his presidency. Honestly, it seems unlikely that he'd be able to get most of his proposals past congress, so I don't know how it would balance out IRL, but in theory, one would have to work hard at just coming up with a plan that accumulates more debt than Trump's.
Lord Caelvanir As a millennial, basically. My issue with Hillary's policies in general is that they seem to pay lip service to what people want to hear, without offering any realistic idea as to how shes going to accomplish it. That's my concern with her.
Oh, millennials will get free healthcare, when they all get drafted to fight a needless war with the Russians. Then they're going to get the GI Bill for college too! See, provoking WWIII and a nuclear holocaust is awesome for the millennials... That survive, aren't entirely crippled, or mentally fucked by PTSD.
+2639theboss Honestly, I find it to be the exact same way with Trump. Both healthcare plans offer trade offs one will add 88.5 billion dollars to the deficit; the other will take 20.5 million people's insurance away. But you look at it from the larger context and look at trumps tax plan its projected that he will add somewhere in the trillions of dollars to the deficit, whereas Clinton's taxplan will do considerably less (I can't give number specifics there is an awesome vlogbrother's episode on this though). He also is saying he will defeat ISIS with some "amazing" strategy that he conveniently can't divulge to anyone because it rely's on the "element of surprise". Then there is the wall which cost a ridiculous amount of money and none of which will be given by mexico so says its president. He say's everything is going to work out great but he doesn't seem to have any realistic idea as to how it will go down. Sure Hillary's plan seems like a pipe dream as well but I only say that because of how divided our country is right now. Conservatives will resist any policy change Hillary wants to put forth. Donald on the other hand, his plans just seem ludicrous and divisive. I'm not attacking your concern, I actually find it totally legitimate, this is just my counter argument.
Re: point #2, the real way that other nations reduce the cost of copays and deductibles without increasing premiums is by controlling what can be charges for drugs or care. Without cost control measures in place, we are always going to be screwed.
Thank you for explaining the problems with the belief that removing state regulation of health insurance will not produce better, cheaper health insurance. It's a zombie idea that won't die despite the fact that states that have allowed out of state insurance plans haven't seen any increase in competition.
I don't have this problem because I have a good job now with alright Medical but in the state of Tennessee we had a medicate called tenncare and it was but because of Obamacare TennCare was a great program and it really helped out a lot of families including my own and it really doesn't cost that much because Tennessee managed it very well but our state had to shut it down. if Obamacare were repealed are Medicaid will come back also it made my own premiums go up and the people that have worked for my company for a long time since Obamacare really screwed us over
I think that this video demonstrates the underlying conflict between the conservative and liberal approaches to insurance. Conservatives want to keeps costs down through facilitating direct accountability to consumers on the part of providers by letting consumers spend their own money directly, saving insurance for bigger emergencies. Liberals want to ensure higher standards of care by negotiation between providers and insurers, which only works when everyone is insured. One thing is certain: right now we're seeing the downsides of both and the befits of neither.
nebod bnu tuld because the rest of the industrialised world fucking does it? I mean, for god's sakes even Ghana has a system called NHIS (National Health Insurance Service) If I break my leg or end up in a car accident, I can expect an ambulance and immediate admission into a hospital and not wake up thinking how I'll bankrupt myself. If my elderly grandfather is diagnosed with cancer he doesn't have to drain all of his savings and sell his house to die slowly and painfully. Also, it makes financial sense. Consider how even with a very limited amount of government involvement in your healthcare system, you lot still spend more tax dollars per person than the British, the French or the Germans for worse healthcare outcomes. And that's just tax dollars. In total, you lot spend roughly twice as much as any other country on healthcare, and you don't even get better outcomes for it To deny or bankrupt a sick man because of lack of means is uncivilised, unfair and economically unsound. This isn't something you as a consumer have much of a choice over. You don't choose to break a leg, be diagnosed with cancer or be born with a serious medical condition, and you have very little negotiating power with those who'll provide the service to let you live. A government's role is to solve market failures and your healthcare system is a definite market failure. Your epipen situation is a perfect example of what's wrong with it
Vectored Thrust So it is not immoral to bankrupt a homeless man because he cant pay for a roof over his head. It's called trade, you pay for your services, and doesn't make others pay for it. Something is not moral just because others do it. E.g, slavery wasn't moral just because it was commonplace.
Hallslys So you don't even try to deny the fact that the state is a Mafia like enterprice. Tbh, you're almost making it sound more like enlightened despotism. As long as the ruler can keep on ruling, and the money keeps on rolling in.
Thank God that they do not run he country. They run he Government. The President only runs the executive branch of the Government. I want higher deductibles.
if you are super rich have all your bills paid own more than one house and car plane yacht business travel the world anytime you want never go hungry can donate tons of money to great charities buy designer clothing no mortgages or student loans to pay, then you should be able to pay a little more in taxes so that people can have affordable healthcare
The trade off in this video is basically the trade off for every conservative and liberal position, with the liberal way you have better outcomes than you would have had if you did not interfere however that better outcome has debt tied along with it. With the conservative position you deal with your problems by basically doing nothing and letting the problems grow, but in the end you still are not in debt. There comes a point where the liberal position is unsustainable due to the debt far outgrowing your GDP. However in a conservative scenario you have no debt but have all these problems that are fucking up everyone's lives to a large degree. The only real answer is to keep your Debt to GDP ratio at a steady level and if cuts are deeply necessary then the time for suffering is also necessary. The world can not be perfect.
I can't afford to pay Obama care health insurance, and I don't want health care coverage. I should not be taxed for not being willing or able to buy something.
You have a slide that claims the RAND corporation and The Commonwealth Fund are both nonpartisan. The RAND corporation's CEO Michael D. Rich graduated from UC Berkeley, an extremely liberal university, and is most noted for his publications dealing with Islam and the Middle East. Meanwhile The Commonwealth Fund is run by David Blumenthal, a man who was appointed to be the National Health Information Technology Coordinator for the Obama administration. You and I have a very different definition of nonpartisan. I enjoy your videos on health and medical issues, but when you try to hide your obvious political and social bias, I find your efforts lacking. All this information took me less than 10 minutes to research on my own using Google. Unfortunately I am forced to unsubscribe from your channel. I would do the same for any other channel claiming to provide unbiased information in such a poor fashion such as this.
I can't wait to see the calm, rational, and reasonable comments in this comment section.
I really like how the term "dumpster fire" has caught on.
It's a wonderful phrase, and tickles me every time I hear it. Well, until it's overused, then it won't be fun anymore.
^^^ Until that day, though... Everything is dumpster fires.
This guy. Lol contradicting himself along the way.. and you completely failed by the way to be unbiased 😂😂.
I found this channel way back in the day when I was looking up the impact of the affordable care act, and to go nearly full circle with this is awesome and nostalgic! So awesome to have seen this channel grow so much.
I still find it bizarre that the US has so many people against socialised healthcare. The NHS over here is far from perfect, but I'd take any day over what seems like a lottery roll on whether your insurance will pay out on removing your appendix.
It's because we have politicians and political commentators routinely telling us the horror stories from countries with socialized medicine or socialized insurance. Rarely do we get a chance to talk to the people who actually live in such countries and see what their average experience is like, and people certainly don't do research into it themselves (whether due to laziness, lack of time, or not knowing where to look). But yeah, from what I hear, people in countries with socialized medical costs are much more satisfied overall with their health care than people in the U.S. are with their own.
The NHS was ranked as the worst healthcare system in the developed world by the OECD just last year, maybe now you understand why some of us aren't warming up to it.
www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/nhs-uk-now-has-one-of-the-worst-healthcare-systems-in-the-developed-world-according-to-oecd-report-a6721401.html
www.oecd.org/health/health-at-a-glance-19991312.htm
That's because our Government is trying to turn our system into the US one because it makes them more money. So they've gutted the NHS hoping it will collapse and they can increase profits in hospitals and cut coverage.
Dorjan24 citation needed.
Chris Lewis indeed.
I still want a single payer system.
I want the US to adopt an "Agreement on Internal Trade". The Tenth Amendment kills economies of scale which would reduce prices. I'm all for States Rights but the poor should not have to suffer financially for it.
The U.S. even having states still makes no sense, we are a single country now.
Okay, but if they do that they also have to require that all 50 states impose regulations equal or greater than the currently most restrictive state; otherwise you will have all corporations relocating to whatever state has the most lax regulations and they will abuse consumers.
Yeah, the states even being autonomous is very silly.
They are no longer separate countries it is well past time to abolish their sovereignty, they have not really had it for more than 200 years anyway.
States having different laws does nothing but cause trouble for citizens.
that's because you are a sheep who believes the Federal Government can always be trusted to do what is best for you. The states need to be granted MORE autonomy, not less. Individual state regulation over insurance doesn't cause serious interference anyway because most states adopt NAIC Model Regulations but they do reserve the right to make adjustments for that state's individual purposes and in fact they do make adjustments.
This and CGP in the same day! It must be Christmastober.
haha :P
now we need vlogbros :D
even grade A under A made a hill video
lets wait for his Trump video lols :P
I find it funny how so many unrelated channels share soo many of the same viewers. :P
Well, to be fair, healthcare triage and vlogbrothers have always had close links together (i.e. vlogbrothers reference healthcare triage often). :D
yeah fair enough.
You folks are doing a phenomenal job with this. Good work.
+
+
+
+
+
Great overview. Thanks for putting this together!
+
It's been a while since I've shopped for insurance. From what I remember, I really liked the Health Savings Plans but the minimum premiums were too high and you MUST spend the saved money OR YOU LOSE THE MONEY YOU SAVED every year. "POOF!" That right there turns me off to HSPs. I'll save my money in a regular bank, tyvm.
Right now I have a grandfather'd plan that is somewhat cheap. But I do worry it's too cheap / low quality. I don't think I have a way of testing that without getting sick.
I am curious about the healthcare.gov sign-ups. If I sign-up just to investigate my options, will that get reported and cause my existing coverage to be scrutinized or canceled if it doesn't conform to existing regulations?
I love all your video - please don't ever stop making them
If the insurance doesn't have any doctor in your state why would you buy it at all?! The insurers will have to find doctors in your state if they want your money!
Because *most* people don't buy their own insurance, the company they work for does. I know at one point, I was the first telecommuter in the company I worked for. The health insurance they provided for their employees was pretty good, but the nearest in-network doctor was a 10 hour drive away for me. So my choices were: forego health insurance (and this was before the ACA, and I could not find a private insurer willing to sell me a policy), buy the HMO plan and have low-cost health care just a day's drive away, or buy the much more expensive PPO plan, and have them cover 30-50% of what local doctors charged (since they were all out-of-network, and therefore didn't fall under normal co-payments)
Add in to this, at least one doctor I went to charged insurance-covered patients more, partially because they could, partially because of the huge sink of time and effort they had to put in if they ever wanted to get paid. So for that doctor at least, using my insurance ended up being *more* expensive, out-of-pocket, than just paying cash and pretending I wasn't covered.
You'd be shocked how many people don't read the details of their insurance plans before buying them.
would love to hear more about 3rd party candidates
I really appreciate the research-based information given on Healthcare triage. is there anywhere I can find videos or podcast about Mental Health with a similar format?
Please make a video about LASIK and PKR myopia correction techniques.
Edit: you can talk about it on Healthcare Triage Live.
+
+
they didn't talk about it on live show.
does anyone know how to communicate with them?
Vaibhav Gupta I think he talked twice about it in HT live. He thinks it is low risk but glasses are nothing negative to him, so he wouldn't want to do it.
Doping1234 he talked about it? yesterday?
6:59 - If my memory of that Bitter Pill essay in Time serves me, I think the idea is that insurance cos should get info on what a provider's actual costs are and what other insurers pay, which helps whenever it comes time to re-negotiate their price contracts (basically making the chargemasters public). You're still locked into whatever your insurance co provides, but your insurance co is less likely to get shafted by the providers, and some of that savings gets passed on to you.
Basically neither plan is good, but Donald Trump's is an absolute disaster.
Well, Clinton's is okay. The trade off is higher spending, but with the effects of higher amounts insured people and lower out-of-pocket spending.
I wouldn't call Trump's plan a disaster, but it's pretty bad. Trump's has some good ideas, but with terrible implications and effects that favor the rich and hurt people who have gotten insurance through the ACA.
Both plans have some good things but also some horrible things.
Its ultimately a question of whether or not its worth the 75B. Frankly, I think improving our healthcare system (namely by making it more accessible) will help the economy. Sick people can't be productive.
Clinton wants to socialize costs, Trump wants to privatize costs. People usually don't see the "cost" of taxes better than direct costs of an unsubsidized service, so they think it's better.
It must be said that socializing medical costs is better for poor people, but Trump's "cover" is that he will bring jobs back.
It may be a disaster, but it'll cost us 17 times less.
Clearly, the coin flip was rigged...
Yes, but only because reality has a far left bias.
I see what you did there... :) funny comment!
Regarding building networks of providers for plans, how does the potential for building nationwide networks differ from the current system of building state/local networks?
Thank you!
With regards to health insurance tax deductibility (Trump point #3) aren't payments made through an HSA account on health insurance premiums tax deductible already? I feel this is already in place for people with HSA accounts.
Thanks for your straight ahead comments. I don't mean to be partisan but it seems like a choice between forward and backward. Hope we can learn to work together to improve healthcare for all of us!
Well the ACA is a failed system for once so expanding on that is already a bad idea.
TYPO: Hilary Clinton #8 you said "have access to safe and legal abortion" but on the screen it says "have access to save and legal abortion"
Oh hey, #2 is correct now
didn't you already upload this?
He fixed the slide at 4:58. In the first video, it was slide 3 for both 2 and 3.
Ko Eun Yoo He deleted the first one and uploaded it again.
This actually wasn't as biased as I expected it to be. Good job.
oh brother...
6:57 "I don't know what Trump wants here." He probably just wants to look/sound good.
The deficit increase quoted ignores: the tax plans associated, and the deficit as a % of GDP.
Yeah, on this specific item Trump comes out cheaper. But in their entire proposed budget, Hillary's impact on the deficit wins by a landslide.
Particularly when you consider that deficit only matters as a percentage of GDP, yeah.
"In the interests of not offending all the half literate racists on this channel, I'm keeping my politics out of this video."
Come on son. We're all educated adults here.
Trump supporters are not racist, for fuck's sake.
Diana, the Inorganic Vegan
Not all Trump supporters but a lot...
Based Trill
No. The left just loves to exaggerate the specter of racism to stay relevant.
no.... I just like to point out that the republican party supports a man whose ideas are happily endorsed by the KKK. Nope. Pay no attention to the racism behind the curtain.
DaedricSheep
Hey, moron, the pro-ISIS group The Nation of Islam supported Obama. Guess he's pro-jihad.
Guilt by association is a tactic only acceptable for mental midgets like you.
Per the Canadian Government the average wait time for a heart cath that is urgently needed is 14 days. At the facility where I work it is 90 minutes after ED admission! Do you want to wait 14 days or 90 minutes???
that's average, the more serious the need, the faster the care, often faster than 90 minutes
IT's obvious who the doc is supporting.
"telling states they can not make their own decisions"
By allowing states to make those decisions you are telling people that they can not make their own decisions. This is 100% of the problem in health care in this country. Taking the choices out of the hands of the people who are affected and putting those choices into the hands of politically motivated and ignorant politicians. (in this case ignorant of the needs and desires of the hundreds of millions of people)
Neither Trump nor Clinton is going to address this problem but I would at least like to see this addressed here. Why is the question never asked about why health insurance covers day to day maintenance? Why is the fact that prices are never available to consumers never addressed? Why is it possible for lasic and plastic surgery (which is largely not covered by insurance) to steadily drop in price while the rest of the health care industry costs more and more every year.
Can we have a discussion about the benefits of the Oklahoma Surgery Center's model of pricing?
DAMN!!11! That projected increased deficit though. What the ef?!
"She will allow Americans to import drugs from aboard." The competition will drive prices down. Now lets to that with telemedicine and online education and many expensive problems are solved.
There is no trade off in the broader context of policies when it comes to increasing the deficit. Trumps overall plan increases the deficit by many multiple times more... but it just so happens that someone who basically wants to cut most national spending on healthcare would have a less expensive healthcare policy specifically.
you've done very well at hiding your bias, thank you
I find it hilarious how conservatives in USA are against any form of public help, while in my country it's the exact opposite.
How much do the 20 vs. 90 billion dollars affect the overall debt increases under all Trump vs. Clinton policy proposals?
Good question.
IIRC, Trump's collective proposals are projected to increase the national debt by several trillions of dollars.
And Clinton's proposals leave her adding billions in the end.
John Green on Vlogbrothers did some videos on his own. The end of the most recent has what you are looking for. I don't remember the numbers but basically Trumps plan will increase the Deficit by a lot more than Hillary. Both plan will increase the deficit, though. Hillary will spend way more money than Trump but Trump will cut off more revenue than Hillary would spend.
All in all Trump will increase the deficit by cutting taxes and not cutting enough other stuff. Trump's increase is far greater than Hillary's increase to the deficit which would involve a lot of spending and slightly increasing revenue.
Trump's tax plan is projected to increase national debt by such a large margin that it overshadows pretty much every other number that might be thrown around.
www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/analysis-donald-trumps-tax-plan/full
The projected increase is 80% of GDP by 2036, which would be several trillion over the course of his presidency. Honestly, it seems unlikely that he'd be able to get most of his proposals past congress, so I don't know how it would balance out IRL, but in theory, one would have to work hard at just coming up with a plan that accumulates more debt than Trump's.
The numbers people are looking for (source: VlogBrothers): Clinton's plans add $200billion to the deficit, Trump's adds $5.4 trillion.
Rory O'Kane Deficit or debt? Just wondering
Clinton's platform sounds like it is basically reading off a list saying "what to say get millennials to vote for me".
And fix your healthcare system at the same time.
Kenadian2006 I'd go further than Clinton.
EDIT: I'm really glad I found this channel.
Lord Caelvanir As a millennial, basically. My issue with Hillary's policies in general is that they seem to pay lip service to what people want to hear, without offering any realistic idea as to how shes going to accomplish it. That's my concern with her.
Oh, millennials will get free healthcare, when they all get drafted to fight a needless war with the Russians. Then they're going to get the GI Bill for college too! See, provoking WWIII and a nuclear holocaust is awesome for the millennials... That survive, aren't entirely crippled, or mentally fucked by PTSD.
+2639theboss
Honestly, I find it to be the exact same way with Trump. Both healthcare plans offer trade offs one will add 88.5 billion dollars to the deficit; the other will take 20.5 million people's insurance away. But you look at it from the larger context and look at trumps tax plan its projected that he will add somewhere in the trillions of dollars to the deficit, whereas Clinton's taxplan will do considerably less (I can't give number specifics there is an awesome vlogbrother's episode on this though). He also is saying he will defeat ISIS with some "amazing" strategy that he conveniently can't divulge to anyone because it rely's on the "element of surprise". Then there is the wall which cost a ridiculous amount of money and none of which will be given by mexico so says its president. He say's everything is going to work out great but he doesn't seem to have any realistic idea as to how it will go down.
Sure Hillary's plan seems like a pipe dream as well but I only say that because of how divided our country is right now. Conservatives will resist any policy change Hillary wants to put forth. Donald on the other hand, his plans just seem ludicrous and divisive.
I'm not attacking your concern, I actually find it totally legitimate, this is just my counter argument.
unfortunately even though I agree with what your saying I still think the video feels heavily biased...
I live in Europe. I pay income tax I pay all taxes. I pay for health insurance (full) and when I need to go to the dentist I still need to pay for it
Nice
missed the trumpster fire joke
What about Bernie Sanders?
Re: point #2, the real way that other nations reduce the cost of copays and deductibles without increasing premiums is by controlling what can be charges for drugs or care. Without cost control measures in place, we are always going to be screwed.
Thank you for explaining the problems with the belief that removing state regulation of health insurance will not produce better, cheaper health insurance. It's a zombie idea that won't die despite the fact that states that have allowed out of state insurance plans haven't seen any increase in competition.
I don't have this problem because I have a good job now with alright Medical but in the state of Tennessee we had a medicate called tenncare and it was but because of Obamacare TennCare was a great program and it really helped out a lot of families including my own and it really doesn't cost that much because Tennessee managed it very well but our state had to shut it down. if Obamacare were repealed are Medicaid will come back also it made my own premiums go up and the people that have worked for my company for a long time since Obamacare really screwed us over
I think that this video demonstrates the underlying conflict between the conservative and liberal approaches to insurance. Conservatives want to keeps costs down through facilitating direct accountability to consumers on the part of providers by letting consumers spend their own money directly, saving insurance for bigger emergencies. Liberals want to ensure higher standards of care by negotiation between providers and insurers, which only works when everyone is insured.
One thing is certain: right now we're seeing the downsides of both and the befits of neither.
The day one of the people running for president has a plan for FREE healthcare is the day i vote
Okay, I'm about dubious about that use of 'adverse selection' argument. Considering you didn't even define adverse selection correctly.
How come people have gotten it into their minds that taking care of your health is something for which the government should be responsible?
nebod bnu tuld because the rest of the industrialised world fucking does it? I mean, for god's sakes even Ghana has a system called NHIS (National Health Insurance Service)
If I break my leg or end up in a car accident, I can expect an ambulance and immediate admission into a hospital and not wake up thinking how I'll bankrupt myself. If my elderly grandfather is diagnosed with cancer he doesn't have to drain all of his savings and sell his house to die slowly and painfully.
Also, it makes financial sense. Consider how even with a very limited amount of government involvement in your healthcare system, you lot still spend more tax dollars per person than the British, the French or the Germans for worse healthcare outcomes. And that's just tax dollars. In total, you lot spend roughly twice as much as any other country on healthcare, and you don't even get better outcomes for it
To deny or bankrupt a sick man because of lack of means is uncivilised, unfair and economically unsound. This isn't something you as a consumer have much of a choice over. You don't choose to break a leg, be diagnosed with cancer or be born with a serious medical condition, and you have very little negotiating power with those who'll provide the service to let you live. A government's role is to solve market failures and your healthcare system is a definite market failure. Your epipen situation is a perfect example of what's wrong with it
Simple. Healthy people pay taxes. Sick people don't. Provide care that keeps your citizens happy, and you'll recieve more taxes in return.
Vectored Thrust So it is not immoral to bankrupt a homeless man because he cant pay for a roof over his head. It's called trade, you pay for your services, and doesn't make others pay for it.
Something is not moral just because others do it. E.g, slavery wasn't moral just because it was commonplace.
Hallslys So you don't even try to deny the fact that the state is a Mafia like enterprice. Tbh, you're almost making it sound more like enlightened despotism. As long as the ruler can keep on ruling, and the money keeps on rolling in.
What i am saying is that it makes economic sense.
The Poor are screwed.
or we could have had Bernie and Single Payer...which almost everyone loves.
God Healthcare is confusing!!!
COPY GERMANY OR AUSTRALIA. OH MY GOD ITS SO EASY.
for trump's number 5, just give me a damn range. lowest to highest with an average price.... it's not difficult. other industries do it all the time
Thank God that they do not run he country. They run he Government. The President only runs the executive branch of the Government. I want higher deductibles.
I would take Clinton's plan any day over Trump's plan.
Clinton got a blue background and Trump a red one? This is messing with my mind.
PWBERRETT why? Red is the color of the conservative party and blue is the color of the Democratic party
if you are super rich have all your bills paid own more than one house and car plane yacht business travel the world anytime you want never go hungry can donate tons of money to great charities buy designer clothing no mortgages or student loans to pay, then you should be able to pay a little more in taxes so that people can have affordable healthcare
The trade off in this video is basically the trade off for every conservative and liberal position, with the liberal way you have better outcomes than you would have had if you did not interfere however that better outcome has debt tied along with it. With the conservative position you deal with your problems by basically doing nothing and letting the problems grow, but in the end you still are not in debt. There comes a point where the liberal position is unsustainable due to the debt far outgrowing your GDP. However in a conservative scenario you have no debt but have all these problems that are fucking up everyone's lives to a large degree. The only real answer is to keep your Debt to GDP ratio at a steady level and if cuts are deeply necessary then the time for suffering is also necessary. The world can not be perfect.
I can't afford to pay Obama care health insurance, and I don't want health care coverage. I should not be taxed for not being willing or able to buy something.
Haha "by random coin flip, Hillary won", well... count me surprised! :P
marijuana is the big elephant 🐘 in the room when it comes to health care right now.
by random coinflip hillary goes first
lulz
Bernie sander
First
Like... Seventh!
You have a slide that claims the RAND corporation and The Commonwealth Fund are both nonpartisan. The RAND corporation's CEO Michael D. Rich graduated from UC Berkeley, an extremely liberal university, and is most noted for his publications dealing with Islam and the Middle East. Meanwhile The Commonwealth Fund is run by David Blumenthal, a man who was appointed to be the National Health Information Technology Coordinator for the Obama administration. You and I have a very different definition of nonpartisan. I enjoy your videos on health and medical issues, but when you try to hide your obvious political and social bias, I find your efforts lacking.
All this information took me less than 10 minutes to research on my own using Google. Unfortunately I am forced to unsubscribe from your channel. I would do the same for any other channel claiming to provide unbiased information in such a poor fashion such as this.
second
Completely biased here lol. Started off well I guess? And he’s constantly contradicting himself.