My wife is from Latvia and have all our healthcare needs met when we visit Latvia every year. When we tell people this they always say, "Oh, they must have socialized medicine there!" No! They actually have a relatively free market for healthcare. Clean modern private clinics to choose from, you pay out of pocket, but because most people in Latvia are uninsured, prices are very low because clinics/doctors compete for their business. I wish it were that way in the U.S. too.
In that case than most people wouldn’t have health insurance. I took a sociology of medicine class. What are the things that I discovered is that of all of the industrialize high income nations in the world we have among the worst health outcomes. One of the reasons for this is that Healthcare is so expensive. An example of this is that we have the highest amount of MRIs, CAT scans, and PET scans per capita in the world. For example, many doctors have a CAT scan and an MRI or a PET scan in their office. An MRI machine can run anywhere from 150 K to over $1 million. That’s an awful lot of money for a doctors office. And although the technology is very much the same as it was 20 years ago, there have been new configurations. Such as open MRI for people who feel claustrophobic. Speaking of claustrophobia I personally feel that most people shouldn’t feel that claustrophobic. I speak as someone who was locked in the closet all day. A small cramped closet, was little airflow, and I got over that. Another reason that Healthcare could be so expensive is hospital cost. Staying in a hospital is an extremely expensive proposition. There is little competition for hospitals, in terms of vendors to provide services. For example, and janitorial staff needed to clean hospitals, has to have some specialized training. The training is provided on the job. But there will be agencies that staff these that have exclusive contracts with hospitals, instead of hospitals being able to compete for this. These can be signed into law that a hospital or all hospitals in a particular state can only go to a particular company for Staffing. That means that hospitals are not able to compete for Staffing and that gets passed on to the patient. Those are just some examples of why Healthcare is so expensive. And the reason that this works is because Healthcare is something that we all need this is it like pizza? Why are you don’t need pizza but people want pizza. Of course pizzas expensive to four more than it needs to be in theory but it’s the ovens that cost so much.
I learned the reason why men had to buy things like maternity care and other women's care was because it wouldn't be "fair" to women otherwise. If men have lower medical costs they are more appealing to employers. Since we cannot have anything that benefits men and hinders women, the new plan was set up to hinder men and benefit women. After all, it's only fair, right?
Not only must all pizzas have 70 toppings, but every pizza maker needs to fill out 12 forms for each pizza verifying the chain of custody for each and every ingredient. But trust me: this is for your own good.
@@andrewlankford9634 It's not. Terrible weather, the people are jerks, there's nothing to do, and Mormons are everywhere. I've lived here my entire life and I don't recommend it to anyone. Everyone should stay away, drive around or fly by. Especially those coming from coastal states. They should all go to Utah. ;)
Health insurance as it exists today should not exist. I don't use my car insurance to pay for oil changes or to have my tires rotated - if I did, you could guarantee these things would cost a whole hell of a lot more than they do right now. I don't want health insurance - I want to contract with a doctor on a voluntary basis when and if I require their services. If, by some chance, I should become worried about being afflicted by some health condition in the future - I want to contract with an insurance company willing to provide that coverage voluntarily because that's their business model...and yes - conditions for coverage are acceptable if the insurance company and I agree on them up front. ReasonTV is generally awesome - but this misses the finer point - "insurance" isn't insurance - it's a pre-paid medical services scam.
Italy is quite famous for having large socialist and communist groups. In fact, the former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro was killed by a Communist terrorist organization known as the Red Brigade.
Anytime a government, any government, mandates the citizenry to purchase something, the cost of that something goes up. Likewise, there's no more volunteerism involved in the transaction. Anytime the government, any government, mandates something, the government is allowed to enforce it by punishment of death. The punishment of death applies to anything and everything the government requires people to do or pay. Don't believe me, try resisting leaving your house after the IRS commandeer it for not paying taxes. The government will send people with guns to your house to remove you from it. If you refuse to leave, they will kill you. You don't want to stop for the law enforcement officer flashing his lights behind you, don't. They will follow you and eventually catch you. If you continue to recess, they will shoot you. Make no mistake, anytime there is a law on the books, the law can be enforced with the death penalty. Overwhelming majority of people understand that the speeding ticket is not worth their life. So they stop at the traffic stop and eventually pay the ticket. However, it doesn't change the fact that if you resist, the law enforcement are going to shoot you.
Timothy Holt so you're saying if you don't follow laws you will get fined, and eventually arrested, if necessary because you resist with force? Oh my god, that sounds terrible. Let's move to a state where that doesn't happen!!!
Glad to see Remy cover this. Mandates increase costs. What good does requiring smoking cessation coverage, mammograms, substance abuse counseling, chiropracter, etc do for a person who doesn't use them? Good video!
It would be great if you got to choose what your health care covered. But we already know from history that absent a government mandate some things just don't get covered because they aren't profitable enough. So without the mandate there would be things you wouldn't be allowed to choose to have covered. That was the purpose of the mandate, to make sure the people that needed coverage for certain things would be able to choose a plan that offered them.
And how's that working out for everyone? Has it lead to all Americans having their healthcare needs met? Or has it made healthcare unaffordable for most?
This doesn't just even things out like you may think - this is actually throwing unnecessary money at prostate exams inflating those prices. I can weigh the risk of getting prostate problems and pay for insurance according to how much I feel is right. This will keep those procedure prices in check, as the insurance company's pool of money for prostate exams will more reflect those who might run into that problem down the road. Same goes for all coverage not just men/women issues.
"The problem isn't mandates per-se" I agree. If health insurance covered everything your doctor prescribed, and the only difference is the financial aspects of the plan, then co-pay and deductibles should provide the incentives necessary to hold cost down.
The GDP was around 193.6 billion under Hoover. It went down 12% in 1930 under Hoover and it dropped another 23% to 58.7 during his Presidency. It only went down 4% after Roosevelt started his emergency measures to save the economy, where you immediately began to see a turn around. In FDRs first year of office, the GDP grew by an enormous amount.
Hoover had a Quaker upbringing and believed in private charities. He said the US couldn't "legislate its way out of the depression," and that the fundamental business of the country was sound and lack of confidence was "foolish." He told the Chamber of Commerce that the US had already passed the worst in 1930. When a group of bishops warned him about the accelerating decline, he said: "Gentleman, you have come 60 days too late. The depression is over." He turned to community leaders for needs
Context is important. In 1930 Detroit turned out 2 million fewer cars than the year before; cities were suffering massive unemployment; and more than 25,000 businesses failed (a record). Hoover's response urged congress to spend $150 million for public works and asked the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply and discount rates fell to under 2 percent. All of the responsibility for the health of the nation was left with the corporate boards who felt the economy was "fundamentally sound."
There is a difference between being forced to absorb the costs from someone else, and voluntarily participating in a health insurance plan knowing that prices are at risk of going up. All mandates- hysterectomy, prostate, breast exams, drug rehab- alter the dynamic of voluntarily negotiating the spread of costs.
Private investment in industry was also brought back to its pre-Depression levels BEFORE WW II even began; NBER business cycle show "that the GNP experienced annual growth rates in the 10% range between 1933 and 41..." (Romer). And 1933-41 was generally a period of economic growth with rising employment in manufacturing (Bernanke).
The funny thing about this is the quote about the helicopter drop actually comes from Milton Friedman, who was a Libertarian. Bernanke was paraphrasing a Libertarian, in other words, and Libertarians apparently are unaware of this. _ Bernanke was a scholar on the Great Depression whereas Robert Lucas is from the Chicago school of economics, which is fading into irrelevancy even in mainstream economics.
Freedom from the entanglements of the government is what every American aspires to. This approach to Universal Healthcare has been so bad that we may end up with one provider named Medi-Plus. A government control and ran with mandates and protection for pre existing conditions. For those who can provide more thru their private pay will still end up better. The US government is the worse player on protecting cost. I watched many states as their AHC soared way out of control.
If the point of insurance is about "socializing" risk, then the question we should be asking ourselves is "why does the insurance industry even exist?" How did we get to a place where we agree to cover the losses of the riskiest and least responsible members of society? I would contend that the growth of insurance coincides historically with increasing periods of government intervention and continuous debasement of the currency, which drives up costs and erodes savings, respectively.
The numbers are real and Roosevelt's reputation is safe. And Hoover presided over a deflationary environment. He asked union leaders NOT to ask for wage increases or to strike. Businesses respond by firing workers, and in 1930 factory payrolls plunged 35. Under Roosevelt after tax personal income, consumer spending etc. surpassed their 1929 levels. See: "Believe it Or Not! The 1930s Was a Technologically Progressive."
When he established the PECE, it wasn't allowed to offer a penny for relief and attempted to stave off demands for a dole. He only capitulated when the pressure from progressives in both parties were too great with programs like the ERCA and 1.5 billion for income-producing public works. But, at Hoover's behest, "federal officials administered the law so stingily that the tens of thousands of jobs the country had promises never were created." (Hebert Hoover, American President series.)
Thanks for the link. Overall public-sector employment did indeed shrink from 2009-2011, at least according to Gallup polling. The Gallup poll shows that state and local governments have cut their workforces, while the federal workforce increased dramatically from 2009-2010, then fell back near its former levels in 2011. Public-sector spending, however, has increased radically. That might be more relevant than employment when we're talking about "public sector growth."
If I pay for an insurance policy for that only covers serious expenses, that money still becomes part of the pool to cover all policies offered by that company. If someone else also wants insurance to cover ordinary doctor visits, they should pay more, because they are using more services. The problem with mandates is they force me to pay a higher proportion relative to what I am likely to use, because the company is forced to take on more risk with less ability to charge those people more.
In a free market, if there's a problem, there's money to be made by addressing it. If there's a problem of transparency, customer service or "fairness," a merchant will seek to acquire customers by improving the situation. It will happen gradually and possibly in fits and starts, but it will occur and spread. I'm looking to change cell service now, and I think it's amazing I can get unlimited talk/text/web for less than I was paying three years ago for just LIMITED talk.
The interesting thing about this argument is that it is undermined by the example chosen. chances are that, all things remaining the same, your mother's health care costs would go up, at least in the short term especially for female specific things. Mandated coverage is a state countermeasure to a state action side effect specifically the workplace insurance subsidies in at least two ways; skyrocketing the prices on individual policies and decoupling price by deducting it from ever rising taxes.
You are incorrect. The Federal Reserve actually tightened the money supply leading up to the crash, not loosened it. Hoover attempted to cut spending and raise taxes in order to "balance the budget." He believed it was essential to balance the budget in order forestall a run on gold reserves. Hoover actually ran a budget surplus in the fiscal year 1930, and cut spending in the fiscal year 1933. Taxes fell from 77% in 1920 and 1921 to 24% in 1929, the year the Great Depression began.
furthermore, someone who developed a condition would not fall under the preexisting condition problem many face because many people develop conditions WHILE insured, which would need to be covered if the contract included something like cancer treatment. You would develop cancer while insured rather than develop cancer, seek insurance coverage and then be denied because of pre-existing cancer. The company would have to provide reimbursement or be in breech of contract, actionable in court.
Back in the 1950s, before government intervention, people could join mutual aid societies for their health care coverage, paying a single day's wages for a full year's coverage. At 50 weeks a year times 5 days a work week, that's 1/250th or 0.4% of your pay, without any of the hoops you have to jump through today.
Sorry to reply twice, but I really must mention that Latvia does have a "Public Option". The quality is so extremely poor that people avoid it at all costs, which is a good thing because it doesn't interfere with the private healthcare market. If the U.S. gets a public option, I just know people will demand it be top quality to where costs will be out of proportion to service, it will all be subsidized and whatever resemblance to private healthcare we still have in the U.S. will disappear.
It’s about understanding the can of worms known as Certificate of Need …that was rolled out by the Feds over 40yrs ago …then retracted …but with some states choosing to keep it …it dictates how hospital construction, licensed professionals, and therapeutic technology is doled out regarding city planning matrixes and budgeting and first responder retirement packages
FDR pulled the US out of the depression, took us off the failed gold standard, and, contrary to popular belief, the 30s was a period of technological innovation. Bank failures, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the gold standard, inequality caused the great depression and FDRs actions reversed it. Like markets? he saved 'em. We coasted on the conditions FDR created and 30 years of neoliberal economics have failed us while Japan, china, etc. properly regulate their system.
Insurance companies have failed to provide coverage? Uhh, so what exactly do they do? Insurance does not equal health care. The only reason most people carry insurance, is because care is too expensive. So the real point is the bloated cost of care. Governments have been meddling in the health-care and health insurance markets for decades, and the costs have only risen, and care has faltered.
No, a higher minimum wage creates higher unemployment, particularly amongst the young and unskilled. The Davis-Bacon act essentially established a union level minimum wage for all federally funded projects; the goal was not to keep the purchasing power high for the workers, but to keep black labor out of competition. Even today blacks suffer from disproportionally high unemployment.
Cole and Ohanian summarized points that I've already proven to be false. To show the New Deal failed, you'd have to show that the growth in aggregate demand that was stimulated by New Deal policies was counterproductive; in other words, you'd have to show growth would have happened faster without it. But this is unreasonable, to quote Romer: "these rates of growth are spectacular, even for an economy pulling out of a severe recession."
You don't get it... its ok most people don't. Those who have very high risk of chronic illness and who will probably need expensive surgery soon DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT. That's why we all have to buy insurance when we are young and healthy to broaden the risk pool. Its why we have medicare. No insurance company would cover someone who is 80 years old at any price. Their monthy premium would be 20K/month to make it profitable... and they just don't have that kind of cash.
If the govt. had dumped the excess farm products onto the market it would only have hurt the farmers the govt was trying to save. The market (clearly) failed in the Great depression and rather than having food prices drop 80% and have the farmers out of business, Roosevelt started emergency programs to combat the depression.
But if people saw the true cost of a dr visit they are more inclined to find cheaper prices which forces doctors to compete for patients/customers. This idea of competition as well as other things will help drive down prices making HC more affordable to more people. To those who STILL can't afford it, a much smaller percentage than we have now, there will still be charity care, and other types of government support for the time being to transition out.
There is no federal law that prevents health insurance across state lines. It is a business decision that the health insurance co's make based on a lot of factors, like the regulations in the states they choose to operate. It is no different than any other insurance company. And why would you want to buy a insurance policy for a out of state co's if all health care providers were "out of network"?
My point is, by having everyone pay for everything, the price of it all goes down. Kind of like how a mass-produced item is cheaper than a handmade one because secondary costs are spread wider. The cost for an MRI machine is cheaper spread over 1000 uses than 100, right? Since cost per procedure for many specific, everyday procedures is higher in the US than anywhere else in the world for many procedures, something to address that helps everyone.
"But if people saw the true cost of a dr visit they are more inclined to find cheaper prices" OK, here is some real life data: My family doctor does not deal with insurance co's... he charges $85 for a std visit. No co-pay I have a ENT who chages $270 for a visit, insurance pays $105 and I pay $25 co-pay. I ask him what he ends up with after the billing service get their cut... $75 My out of pocket $85 or $25? Insurance sys cost: $105 or $0 (out of network). What would you do?
This is a little misleading regarding Acupuncture coverage in Florida. The state mandates states that if a carrier covers acupuncture, they must also consider an Acupuncturist in the same as a physician.
But you said "if you look at private v. public sector growth you would see that public sector was growing at that rate at the expense of the private sector" Yet in reality its the opposite. Every portion of the private sector is posting growth, the public sector was the only one to shrink last year. Though one of the reasons why the market exploded after WW2 was because millions of public servants (soldiers and factory workers) spent their government checks on houses and new businesses.
We only see the best doctors because when you do not rely on insurance companies or the government, WE get to choose our doctors. And if we have a problem we can switch doctors/clinics. We've established a great relationship with our doctors. I'm sure there must be bad doctors as there are in any country, but if they're treated like a business, they will go out of business. We've certainly had a mixed experience with doctors here in the U.S. the times we had to submit to healthcare in the U.S.
The huge problem with the US system is an unholy marriage of the private and public sector where profit motives in both insurance and service providers are allowed to run rampant. You can't fix this by targeting "unnecessary" operations.
You're already paying insurance monthly/yearly or your employer is covering a portion of it, the true prices are no reflected. If the insurance company says it will only cover x amount there is no reason the doctor will ever charge a lower value than x even if s/he could and still profit because they are guaranteed it by insurance companies and contracts. Back before all of the intervention, preventive care visits were affordable and insurance followed the individual despite job transfers.
The real point is that the market has given insurance companies to opportunity to provide coverage for decades, and insurance companies have failed. Since insurance companies have failed, they've pretty much left consumers no choice; if you want health insurance, the govt has to hold a proverbial gun to their head. I'd prefer a National Health Insurance method myself, but that got killed by lobbyists on behalf of profiteering corporations, so what are we left with?
Hmm, interesting video but actually I think it ia a good thing to include mandatory coverage for many things. Otherwise, people with disabilities would have to pay more, while also generally having reduced earning potential. Mandating everyone to carry disability coverage, for example, evens things out
This is one of the problems. We're stuck in this box of thinking we have to have ONE system for the entire country. And then our size works against us. There is no reason a community of people within the U.S. can't have access to what a little country like Latvia has. We should be free to pursue markets as large or as small as we wish and not have to take part in one giant one-size-fits-all system.
If you do your research, and find out what the health care insurance requirements are from the state insurance commissioners, they are not as silly as Reason TV wants you to believe. You can argue that state mandates are wrong, but what are you going to do if all the insurance co's excludes a drug or procedure that your doctor is telling you is necessary? Why should the insurance co's get between me and my doctor? No one can predict their future medical needs.
Is there such a thing as health insurance in this country? The only options I've been presented with are managed care where the so-called ins company tells you which doctors you'll see, and how much you'll pay. How many of us with car insurance pay co-pays every time we have our tires rotated or oil-changed?
As for this "burning grain" and "stealing gold" nonsense. When Roosevelt took office, farm prices had dropped 60%. Under Hoover, the Grain Stabilization Corporation stopping buying surpluses and dumped millions of bushels on the market, driving the price of wheat much lower. It suffered losses $345 million and cotton slumped to 4 1/2 cents a pound. Roosevelt provided subsidies to farmers and to keep them in business he had some crops destroyed.
If you look at the overhead of insurance, the total system cost is much higher then what either of my doctors are willing to accept. However, my cost is lower with insurance. As long as we as a nation have to compete in a world market, these type of system is putting us at a competitive disadvantage. The free market just doesn't work for medical expenses... IT NEVER HAS.
mandating extra coverage doesn't drive up insurance prices, insurance companies drive up insurance prices! If everyone has a similar plan: i.e. a man has to pay into insurance that covers femine birth control, than he is paying into a zero risk benefit for the IC. Because of the ratio of claims to plans, this "extra" coverage should reflect the risk benefit: virtually nothing.
More people paying for a product isn't the same as more people consuming a product. While, yes, healthcare depends mostly on man-hours, to say there is no economy of scale in a service industry that depends on numerous pieces of multi-million dollar equipment is incorrect. A restaurant is a service industry, but it's going to feel the cost if beef suddenly doubles in price.
the difference is that obamacare forces insurance companies to pay for general health care which means that the idea that the cost will go down because more people are in the insurance revenue stream is negated by the fact that those new people will also be a draw on the system because of tge pre-existing condition mandate and the coverage for incidentals like the contraceptives debacle. it's not going to be cheaper and it's also unconstitutional.
not only that, but new drugs are more expensive because they have to go through several trials of testing. These trials are necessary and very expensive, blaming greed and trying to force drug companies to charge lower prices would halt medical advancements as drug companies (except for a few minorities) are in fact constantly under a threat of bankruptcy if their new drug fails any of 3 series of test.
Poor method:"the estimates of the number of unemployed was to estimate how many private-sector jobs would have to be created to reemploy all those who were unemployed as well as those who were employed on federal government work-relief programs. These data were used in constructing his unemployment rate estimates. Since World War II the BLS does not count as unemployed those employed in any type of government relief programs, so the rates are not consistent with those reported since the 1930s."
The idea that mandates are the reason US healthcare is costly is just laughable. Most of the devolved world has mandatory coverage for everything, via universal healthcare, but the US pay a lot more for healthcare then anywhere else in the world and we don't get better care. I am not claiming universal healthcare well make healthcare cheap, just that mandatory coverage is not the reason we pay so much for healthcare.
If a product is mandated for everyone to buy: if I were an insurance company I'd be an idiot NOT to take advantage of it and raise costs as high as possible. This mandated pool + high risk individuals in the U.S. = rising costs on everyone because of our horrid diet, murder rates, car accident rates to a point we would run out of money.
Paul doesn't understand real vs. relative. For average American wages 1.50 would have wiped out a full hours wage for the average American. Today, with an average of $17 dollars, even with gas at its peak of $4, you could buy 4 gallons for that same dollar.
From the time FDR took office to 1937, GDP grew by 63%. In 1933, GDP only dopped 4% as FDR stopped the worst of the crisis. Under FDR, the GDP in 1934 grew by 17% to 66 billion. It grew another 11% to 73.3 billion in 1935. In 1936, it grew 14%. That is one of the strongest turn-arounds in American history. _ What do you think the numbers should be? And the unemployment methodology you employ doesn't count govt. programs. Employing those, FDR decreased the unemployment rate every year, expt 37
This is a decent argument, but it is vague on one key area: HOW MUCH do mandates drive up the cost of insurance? They obviously do, but if they are only driving up the cost 5%, then what accounts for the remaining vast majority of the discrepancy between what we pay in the US for healthcare and what others in the rest of the world pay? What if mandates only drive up the cost 2%? Would they still matter in economic terms as much as this video implies?
If there isn't a company offering the insurance coverage you want, sounds like someone can start their own company to fill that niche at a price of course. Your theory is highly unlikely if health insurance was not mandated and people could buy across state lines.
Coverage should be as minimal or broad as each individual is willing to choose. If you think you might at some point be at risk for needing drug rehab or a heart transplant, you should enroll in the coverage now. I don't consider myself to be at risk of heart disease, but I consider it wise to pay for that coverage just in case. Drug rehab, on the other hand, I will pass on. You don't get to expect free care after you avoided insurance. That's bullshit.
I have a similar problem with pizza places. I'm allergic to tomatoes (they cause me to toss my cookies),and I live off of bread and cheese. Given those facts,they still try to charge me for extra cheese to make up for the no sauce! Now,why should I pay you extra for some cheese to make up for/substitute what what I'm allergic to when you won't give me a NO SAUCE discount that's equivalent to the price of an extra topping? Answer:YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO MORE $ FROM ME FOR A DAMN CHEESE PIZZA!
You are arguing theory, but in practice, it doesn't work the way you think. Insurance co often deny coverage for what they assume is a per-existing condition with the assumption that it would take so long to litigate the any breach of contract action, that the patient would be dead before any court date. They have a economic incentive to act that way. I know that is not the way it "should" work... But the real world does not always work the way the text books describe.
DR saw a turn around within the first 100 days of his presidency, as I've shown. Three years later, the economy DOUBLED its GDP growth rate. The economy grew every single year under his presidency and by 1937 the depression was pretty much over and the economy only into a recession. Official sources place the end of the depression in 1939. english*illinois*edu / maps / depression / about*htm So tell me, how did he prolong the depression?
The point of education was the we clearly can give "universal" services without getting "rid of the entire constitution". And the US was never great at testing for international ranking of education, we started testing back in 1964 where we ranked 11th of 12 in math. Nearly 50 years late was are 25th of 34, is that better or worse? Hard to say, but the US was not number one in 1980 when the department of education stated, and we are not number one now, but it seem hard to blame the fed.
You Americans just don't get it. Here in Australia, we have universal healthcare for every single person, no ifs or buts. On top of that, I also have a full comprehensive private healthcare policy which only costs me $1500 per year. I only have the private policy so I can chose which hospital I go to if I ever need to. Because everyone in the country is covered by universal care, private health insurers have to compete vigorously to get customers, so we don't have to pay $1500 per month (lol, c
But again, every single part of the private sector grew over the span of the past year. When we look at the economics of one sector, we don't look at exclusively big or small firms but every business in America that composes it. The only sector that has had a net job loss was the public sector
What do you think of my Socratic interviewing, for instance - Congressman Gerald Connolly finds himself arguing that people are not forced to pay taxes in an interview on redistribution of wealth. He also claims that farm subsidies are not redistribution of wealth.
As for cost of consumption being zero, seeing as how the cost for the most expensive consumption (emergency room visits) IS currently zero, I can't imagine giving people the opportunity to prevent that with lower cost forms of consumption (e.g. GP visits) will make it worse.
It's all a matter of definition - the definition of the word "forced". The fundamental assumption that you are making by using that word is that forcing people to do things is bad in and of itself. The bad connotation is as much a part of the definition and meaning of the word as its dictionary meaning. In fact, if I was to define the word "forced" literally in this context, I would define it as - "making someone else do something that they don't want to do, for an evil end".
The Great Depression was still world wide and it was worse in other countries than in the United States. And the countries that avoided the Great Depression entirely were the ones who went off the Gold Standard first were the ones who were able to avoid the great depression. _ Leading up to the depression, there was a decrease in the money supply: 1933 -5.09 % 1932 -10.30 % 1931 -8.94 %, in other words, the countries that avoided the GD did the OPPOSITE of what conservatives suggest.
My point was about the incoherence of the conservative position. I believe full employment could have been achieved without the US entering WWII. Consumer spending, private investment, matched or exceeded its 1929 levels by 1936. Here are the growth rates, showing the failure of neoliberalism. Average OECD real GDP growth: 1700-1820 - 0.2% 1820-1913 - 1.2% 1919-1940 - 1.9% 1950-1973 - 4.9% 1973-1981 - 1.3% Foundations of International Economics: Post-Keynesian Perspectives
Have you ever shopped for health insurance? What if none of the health insurance companies offer you the coverage you want? Not a problem.... just declare bankruptcy if you come down with something they chose not to cover. Is that what you call "insurance"?
My wife is from Latvia and have all our healthcare needs met when we visit Latvia every year. When we tell people this they always say, "Oh, they must have socialized medicine there!" No! They actually have a relatively free market for healthcare. Clean modern private clinics to choose from, you pay out of pocket, but because most people in Latvia are uninsured, prices are very low because clinics/doctors compete for their business. I wish it were that way in the U.S. too.
In that case than most people wouldn’t have health insurance. I took a sociology of medicine class. What are the things that I discovered is that of all of the industrialize high income nations in the world we have among the worst health outcomes. One of the reasons for this is that Healthcare is so expensive. An example of this is that we have the highest amount of MRIs, CAT scans, and PET scans per capita in the world. For example, many doctors have a CAT scan and an MRI or a PET scan in their office. An MRI machine can run anywhere from 150 K to over $1 million. That’s an awful lot of money for a doctors office. And although the technology is very much the same as it was 20 years ago, there have been new configurations. Such as open MRI for people who feel claustrophobic. Speaking of claustrophobia I personally feel that most people shouldn’t feel that claustrophobic. I speak as someone who was locked in the closet all day. A small cramped closet, was little airflow, and I got over that. Another reason that Healthcare could be so expensive is hospital cost. Staying in a hospital is an extremely expensive proposition. There is little competition for hospitals, in terms of vendors to provide services. For example, and janitorial staff needed to clean hospitals, has to have some specialized training. The training is provided on the job. But there will be agencies that staff these that have exclusive contracts with hospitals, instead of hospitals being able to compete for this. These can be signed into law that a hospital or all hospitals in a particular state can only go to a particular company for Staffing. That means that hospitals are not able to compete for Staffing and that gets passed on to the patient. Those are just some examples of why Healthcare is so expensive. And the reason that this works is because Healthcare is something that we all need this is it like pizza? Why are you don’t need pizza but people want pizza. Of course pizzas expensive to four more than it needs to be in theory but it’s the ovens that cost so much.
I learned the reason why men had to buy things like maternity care and other women's care was because it wouldn't be "fair" to women otherwise. If men have lower medical costs they are more appealing to employers. Since we cannot have anything that benefits men and hinders women, the new plan was set up to hinder men and benefit women. After all, it's only fair, right?
Men pay more for auto and life insurance? Why is the fair word only used when women get the short end?
Most women dont need hysterectomies but all men should cover it? seems fair
formerevolutionist Well it might make sense. Men or women, we are all of the same species
a b So you're saying that the policies forcing women to pay for Viagra are also just?
Life ain't fair
But 70 things are why the cable industry is doing so well!
Not only must all pizzas have 70 toppings, but every pizza maker needs to fill out 12 forms for each pizza verifying the chain of custody for each and every ingredient. But trust me: this is for your own good.
Way to go Idaho!
Idaho sounds like a cool place to be. Wonder if there's a catch.
@@andrewlankford9634 they shoot your dogs and kids when you sell a shotgun to a deputy.
@@andrewlankford9634 It's not. Terrible weather, the people are jerks, there's nothing to do, and Mormons are everywhere. I've lived here my entire life and I don't recommend it to anyone. Everyone should stay away, drive around or fly by. Especially those coming from coastal states. They should all go to Utah. ;)
Health insurance as it exists today should not exist. I don't use my car insurance to pay for oil changes or to have my tires rotated - if I did, you could guarantee these things would cost a whole hell of a lot more than they do right now.
I don't want health insurance - I want to contract with a doctor on a voluntary basis when and if I require their services. If, by some chance, I should become worried about being afflicted by some health condition in the future - I want to contract with an insurance company willing to provide that coverage voluntarily because that's their business model...and yes - conditions for coverage are acceptable if the insurance company and I agree on them up front.
ReasonTV is generally awesome - but this misses the finer point - "insurance" isn't insurance - it's a pre-paid medical services scam.
Yup, they did a video on this and doctors trying to leave the system
👌
when my family left italy to be free that's amore, when they arrived here they found that socialists are abound that's not so amore...
Italy is quite famous for having large socialist and communist groups. In fact, the former Italian prime minister Aldo Moro was killed by a Communist terrorist organization known as the Red Brigade.
"When your wife's birthing zone's, like an empty calzone, that's amore!" EVERYBODY!
Remy would you stop fucking around and just run for office somewhere?
Anytime a government, any government, mandates the citizenry to purchase something, the cost of that something goes up. Likewise, there's no more volunteerism involved in the transaction. Anytime the government, any government, mandates something, the government is allowed to enforce it by punishment of death.
The punishment of death applies to anything and everything the government requires people to do or pay.
Don't believe me, try resisting leaving your house after the IRS commandeer it for not paying taxes. The government will send people with guns to your house to remove you from it. If you refuse to leave, they will kill you.
You don't want to stop for the law enforcement officer flashing his lights behind you, don't. They will follow you and eventually catch you. If you continue to recess, they will shoot you.
Make no mistake, anytime there is a law on the books, the law can be enforced with the death penalty.
Overwhelming majority of people understand that the speeding ticket is not worth their life. So they stop at the traffic stop and eventually pay the ticket. However, it doesn't change the fact that if you resist, the law enforcement are going to shoot you.
Where you will DIE.. The order of the Factors does not change the Result.
Timothy Holt so you're saying if you don't follow laws you will get fined, and eventually arrested, if necessary because you resist with force?
Oh my god, that sounds terrible. Let's move to a state where that doesn't happen!!!
@@brovahkiin4302 which one
Well this is just stupid
Massage Therapy coverage, does that cover Oriental Masseuse places?
40 dislikes- Sensitive Italians? :P
UncleSiam does my plan cover happy endings?
zawar0081 I'd elect to have it but it shouldn't be mandated :)
zawar0081 I think it'd be hilarious if a bunch of government money got spent on hookers, maybe then they'd repeal Obamacare
Sensitive? Why would you even say that?😭😭😭
I dont know how many times I've watched the video but this noise at 1:24 makes me giggle every time :D
Glad to see Remy cover this. Mandates increase costs. What good does requiring smoking cessation coverage, mammograms, substance abuse counseling, chiropracter, etc do for a person who doesn't use them? Good video!
It’s weird hearing Remy’s speaking voice :)
It would be great if you got to choose what your health care covered. But we already know from history that absent a government mandate some things just don't get covered because they aren't profitable enough. So without the mandate there would be things you wouldn't be allowed to choose to have covered. That was the purpose of the mandate, to make sure the people that needed coverage for certain things would be able to choose a plan that offered them.
And how's that working out for everyone? Has it lead to all Americans having their healthcare needs met? Or has it made healthcare unaffordable for most?
This doesn't just even things out like you may think - this is actually throwing unnecessary money at prostate exams inflating those prices. I can weigh the risk of getting prostate problems and pay for insurance according to how much I feel is right. This will keep those procedure prices in check, as the insurance company's pool of money for prostate exams will more reflect those who might run into that problem down the road. Same goes for all coverage not just men/women issues.
I love all of Remy's work
"The problem isn't mandates per-se"
I agree. If health insurance covered everything your doctor prescribed, and the only difference is the financial aspects of the plan, then co-pay and deductibles should provide the incentives necessary to hold cost down.
Remy: you are breaking down political and policy conflicts into easy small pieces, keep it up please. Great Job ya Basha.
The GDP was around 193.6 billion under Hoover. It went down 12% in 1930 under Hoover and it dropped another 23% to 58.7 during his Presidency. It only went down 4% after Roosevelt started his emergency measures to save the economy, where you immediately began to see a turn around. In FDRs first year of office, the GDP grew by an enormous amount.
Hoover had a Quaker upbringing and believed in private charities. He said the US couldn't "legislate its way out of the depression," and that the fundamental business of the country was sound and lack of confidence was "foolish." He told the Chamber of Commerce that the US had already passed the worst in 1930. When a group of bishops warned him about the accelerating decline, he said: "Gentleman, you have come 60 days too late. The depression is over." He turned to community leaders for needs
Context is important. In 1930 Detroit turned out 2 million fewer cars than the year before; cities were suffering massive unemployment; and more than 25,000 businesses failed (a record). Hoover's response urged congress to spend $150 million for public works and asked the Federal Reserve to expand the money supply and discount rates fell to under 2 percent. All of the responsibility for the health of the nation was left with the corporate boards who felt the economy was "fundamentally sound."
There is a difference between being forced to absorb the costs from someone else, and voluntarily participating in a health insurance plan knowing that prices are at risk of going up. All mandates- hysterectomy, prostate, breast exams, drug rehab- alter the dynamic of voluntarily negotiating the spread of costs.
Private investment in industry was also brought back to its pre-Depression levels BEFORE WW II even began; NBER business cycle show "that the GNP experienced annual growth rates in the 10% range between 1933 and 41..." (Romer). And 1933-41 was generally a period of economic growth with rising employment in manufacturing (Bernanke).
The funny thing about this is the quote about the helicopter drop actually comes from Milton Friedman, who was a Libertarian. Bernanke was paraphrasing a Libertarian, in other words, and Libertarians apparently are unaware of this.
_
Bernanke was a scholar on the Great Depression whereas Robert Lucas is from the Chicago school of economics, which is fading into irrelevancy even in mainstream economics.
Gotta love Remy! You are awesome!☺
36 dislikes? How can people disagree with this?
Freedom from the entanglements of the government is what every American aspires to. This approach to Universal Healthcare has been so bad that we may end up with one provider named Medi-Plus. A government control and ran with mandates and protection for pre existing conditions. For those who can provide more thru their private pay will still end up better. The US government is the worse player on protecting cost. I watched many states as their AHC soared way out of control.
I'd sure love some acupuncture on my pizza!
If the point of insurance is about "socializing" risk, then the question we should be asking ourselves is "why does the insurance industry even exist?" How did we get to a place where we agree to cover the losses of the riskiest and least responsible members of society? I would contend that the growth of insurance coincides historically with increasing periods of government intervention and continuous debasement of the currency, which drives up costs and erodes savings, respectively.
The numbers are real and Roosevelt's reputation is safe. And Hoover presided over a deflationary environment. He asked union leaders NOT to ask for wage increases or to strike. Businesses respond by firing workers, and in 1930 factory payrolls plunged 35. Under Roosevelt after tax personal income, consumer spending etc. surpassed their 1929 levels. See: "Believe it Or Not! The 1930s Was a Technologically Progressive."
When he established the PECE, it wasn't allowed to offer a penny for relief and attempted to stave off demands for a dole. He only capitulated when the pressure from progressives in both parties were too great with programs like the ERCA and 1.5 billion for income-producing public works. But, at Hoover's behest, "federal officials administered the law so stingily that the tens of thousands of jobs the country had promises never were created." (Hebert Hoover, American President series.)
Thanks for the link. Overall public-sector employment did indeed shrink from 2009-2011, at least according to Gallup polling. The Gallup poll shows that state and local governments have cut their workforces, while the federal workforce increased dramatically from 2009-2010, then fell back near its former levels in 2011.
Public-sector spending, however, has increased radically. That might be more relevant than employment when we're talking about "public sector growth."
If I pay for an insurance policy for that only covers serious expenses, that money still becomes part of the pool to cover all policies offered by that company. If someone else also wants insurance to cover ordinary doctor visits, they should pay more, because they are using more services. The problem with mandates is they force me to pay a higher proportion relative to what I am likely to use, because the company is forced to take on more risk with less ability to charge those people more.
In a free market, if there's a problem, there's money to be made by addressing it.
If there's a problem of transparency, customer service or "fairness," a merchant will seek to acquire customers by improving the situation. It will happen gradually and possibly in fits and starts, but it will occur and spread.
I'm looking to change cell service now, and I think it's amazing I can get unlimited talk/text/web for less than I was paying three years ago for just LIMITED talk.
The interesting thing about this argument is that it is undermined by the example chosen. chances are that, all things remaining the same, your mother's health care costs would go up, at least in the short term especially for female specific things. Mandated coverage is a state countermeasure to a state action side effect specifically the workplace insurance subsidies in at least two ways; skyrocketing the prices on individual policies and decoupling price by deducting it from ever rising taxes.
You are incorrect. The Federal Reserve actually tightened the money supply leading up to the crash, not loosened it. Hoover attempted to cut spending and raise taxes in order to "balance the budget." He believed it was essential to balance the budget in order forestall a run on gold reserves. Hoover actually ran a budget surplus in the fiscal year 1930, and cut spending in the fiscal year 1933. Taxes fell from 77% in 1920 and 1921 to 24% in 1929, the year the Great Depression began.
great analogy!
When an eel bites your arm and it does you much harm, that's a Moray.
furthermore, someone who developed a condition would not fall under the preexisting condition problem many face because many people develop conditions WHILE insured, which would need to be covered if the contract included something like cancer treatment. You would develop cancer while insured rather than develop cancer, seek insurance coverage and then be denied because of pre-existing cancer. The company would have to provide reimbursement or be in breech of contract, actionable in court.
Back in the 1950s, before government intervention, people could join mutual aid societies for their health care coverage, paying a single day's wages for a full year's coverage. At 50 weeks a year times 5 days a work week, that's 1/250th or 0.4% of your pay, without any of the hoops you have to jump through today.
The huge sea insect kicking it on top of the pizza at 0:45. Genius.
Excellent analogy. Very informative. Thanks.
Sorry to reply twice, but I really must mention that Latvia does have a "Public Option". The quality is so extremely poor that people avoid it at all costs, which is a good thing because it doesn't interfere with the private healthcare market. If the U.S. gets a public option, I just know people will demand it be top quality to where costs will be out of proportion to service, it will all be subsidized and whatever resemblance to private healthcare we still have in the U.S. will disappear.
It’s about understanding the can of worms known as Certificate of Need …that was rolled out by the Feds over 40yrs ago …then retracted …but with some states choosing to keep it …it dictates how hospital construction, licensed professionals, and therapeutic technology is doled out regarding city planning matrixes and budgeting and first responder retirement packages
FDR pulled the US out of the depression, took us off the failed gold standard, and, contrary to popular belief, the 30s was a period of technological innovation. Bank failures, the increasing gap between the rich and the poor, the gold standard, inequality caused the great depression and FDRs actions reversed it. Like markets? he saved 'em. We coasted on the conditions FDR created and 30 years of neoliberal economics have failed us while Japan, china, etc. properly regulate their system.
Insurance companies have failed to provide coverage? Uhh, so what exactly do they do? Insurance does not equal health care. The only reason most people carry insurance, is because care is too expensive. So the real point is the bloated cost of care. Governments have been meddling in the health-care and health insurance markets for decades, and the costs have only risen, and care has faltered.
No, a higher minimum wage creates higher unemployment, particularly amongst the young and unskilled. The Davis-Bacon act essentially established a union level minimum wage for all federally funded projects; the goal was not to keep the purchasing power high for the workers, but to keep black labor out of competition. Even today blacks suffer from disproportionally high unemployment.
Great commercial for the Final 4 & Super Bowl.
Cole and Ohanian summarized points that I've already proven to be false. To show the New Deal failed, you'd have to show that the growth in aggregate demand that was stimulated by New Deal policies was counterproductive; in other words, you'd have to show growth would have happened faster without it. But this is unreasonable, to quote Romer: "these rates of growth are spectacular, even for an economy pulling out of a severe recession."
You don't get it... its ok most people don't. Those who have very high risk of chronic illness and who will probably need expensive surgery soon DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR IT. That's why we all have to buy insurance when we are young and healthy to broaden the risk pool. Its why we have medicare. No insurance company would cover someone who is 80 years old at any price. Their monthy premium would be 20K/month to make it profitable... and they just don't have that kind of cash.
A Remy I haven't seen!!
If the govt. had dumped the excess farm products onto the market it would only have hurt the farmers the govt was trying to save. The market (clearly) failed in the Great depression and rather than having food prices drop 80% and have the farmers out of business, Roosevelt started emergency programs to combat the depression.
But if people saw the true cost of a dr visit they are more inclined to find cheaper prices which forces doctors to compete for patients/customers. This idea of competition as well as other things will help drive down prices making HC more affordable to more people. To those who STILL can't afford it, a much smaller percentage than we have now, there will still be charity care, and other types of government support for the time being to transition out.
There is no federal law that prevents health insurance across state lines.
It is a business decision that the health insurance co's make based on a lot of factors, like the regulations in the states they choose to operate. It is no different than any other insurance company.
And why would you want to buy a insurance policy for a out of state co's if all health care providers were "out of network"?
My point is, by having everyone pay for everything, the price of it all goes down. Kind of like how a mass-produced item is cheaper than a handmade one because secondary costs are spread wider. The cost for an MRI machine is cheaper spread over 1000 uses than 100, right? Since cost per procedure for many specific, everyday procedures is higher in the US than anywhere else in the world for many procedures, something to address that helps everyone.
"But if people saw the true cost of a dr visit they are more inclined to find cheaper prices"
OK, here is some real life data:
My family doctor does not deal with insurance co's... he charges $85 for a std visit. No co-pay
I have a ENT who chages $270 for a visit, insurance pays $105 and I pay $25 co-pay. I ask him what he ends up with after the billing service get their cut... $75
My out of pocket $85 or $25?
Insurance sys cost: $105 or $0 (out of network).
What would you do?
This is a little misleading regarding Acupuncture coverage in Florida. The state mandates states that if a carrier covers acupuncture, they must also consider an Acupuncturist in the same as a physician.
Now I want pizza
But you said "if you look at private v. public sector growth you would see that public sector was growing at that rate at the expense of the private sector"
Yet in reality its the opposite. Every portion of the private sector is posting growth, the public sector was the only one to shrink last year.
Though one of the reasons why the market exploded after WW2 was because millions of public servants (soldiers and factory workers) spent their government checks on houses and new businesses.
We only see the best doctors because when you do not rely on insurance companies or the government, WE get to choose our doctors. And if we have a problem we can switch doctors/clinics. We've established a great relationship with our doctors. I'm sure there must be bad doctors as there are in any country, but if they're treated like a business, they will go out of business. We've certainly had a mixed experience with doctors here in the U.S. the times we had to submit to healthcare in the U.S.
The huge problem with the US system is an unholy marriage of the private and public sector where profit motives in both insurance and service providers are allowed to run rampant. You can't fix this by targeting "unnecessary" operations.
Remy has the best job in the world.
You're already paying insurance monthly/yearly or your employer is covering a portion of it, the true prices are no reflected. If the insurance company says it will only cover x amount there is no reason the doctor will ever charge a lower value than x even if s/he could and still profit because they are guaranteed it by insurance companies and contracts. Back before all of the intervention, preventive care visits were affordable and insurance followed the individual despite job transfers.
The real point is that the market has given insurance companies to opportunity to provide coverage for decades, and insurance companies have failed. Since insurance companies have failed, they've pretty much left consumers no choice; if you want health insurance, the govt has to hold a proverbial gun to their head. I'd prefer a National Health Insurance method myself, but that got killed by lobbyists on behalf of profiteering corporations, so what are we left with?
Hmm, interesting video but actually I think it ia a good thing to include mandatory coverage for many things. Otherwise, people with disabilities would have to pay more, while also generally having reduced earning potential. Mandating everyone to carry disability coverage, for example, evens things out
This is one of the problems. We're stuck in this box of thinking we have to have ONE system for the entire country. And then our size works against us. There is no reason a community of people within the U.S. can't have access to what a little country like Latvia has. We should be free to pursue markets as large or as small as we wish and not have to take part in one giant one-size-fits-all system.
If you do your research, and find out what the health care insurance requirements are from the state insurance commissioners, they are not as silly as Reason TV wants you to believe.
You can argue that state mandates are wrong, but what are you going to do if all the insurance co's excludes a drug or procedure that your doctor is telling you is necessary?
Why should the insurance co's get between me and my doctor?
No one can predict their future medical needs.
Is there such a thing as health insurance in this country? The only options I've been presented with are managed care where the so-called ins company tells you which doctors you'll see, and how much you'll pay. How many of us with car insurance pay co-pays every time we have our tires rotated or oil-changed?
As for this "burning grain" and "stealing gold" nonsense. When Roosevelt took office, farm prices had dropped 60%. Under Hoover, the Grain Stabilization Corporation stopping buying surpluses and dumped millions of bushels on the market, driving the price of wheat much lower. It suffered losses $345 million and cotton slumped to 4 1/2 cents a pound. Roosevelt provided subsidies to farmers and to keep them in business he had some crops destroyed.
If you look at the overhead of insurance, the total system cost is much higher then what either of my doctors are willing to accept. However, my cost is lower with insurance.
As long as we as a nation have to compete in a world market, these type of system is putting us at a competitive disadvantage. The free market just doesn't work for medical expenses... IT NEVER HAS.
mandating extra coverage doesn't drive up insurance prices, insurance companies drive up insurance prices! If everyone has a similar plan: i.e. a man has to pay into insurance that covers femine birth control, than he is paying into a zero risk benefit for the IC. Because of the ratio of claims to plans, this "extra" coverage should reflect the risk benefit: virtually nothing.
More people paying for a product isn't the same as more people consuming a product. While, yes, healthcare depends mostly on man-hours, to say there is no economy of scale in a service industry that depends on numerous pieces of multi-million dollar equipment is incorrect. A restaurant is a service industry, but it's going to feel the cost if beef suddenly doubles in price.
the difference is that obamacare forces insurance companies to pay for general health care which means that the idea that the cost will go down because more people are in the insurance revenue stream is negated by the fact that those new people will also be a draw on the system because of tge pre-existing condition mandate and the coverage for incidentals like the contraceptives debacle. it's not going to be cheaper and it's also unconstitutional.
not only that, but new drugs are more expensive because they have to go through several trials of testing. These trials are necessary and very expensive, blaming greed and trying to force drug companies to charge lower prices would halt medical advancements as drug companies (except for a few minorities) are in fact constantly under a threat of bankruptcy if their new drug fails any of 3 series of test.
Poor method:"the estimates of the number of unemployed was to estimate how many private-sector jobs would have to be created to reemploy all those who were unemployed as well as those who were employed on federal government work-relief programs. These data were used in constructing his unemployment rate estimates. Since World War II the BLS does not count as unemployed those employed in any type of government relief programs, so the rates are not consistent with those reported since the 1930s."
The idea that mandates are the reason US healthcare is costly is just laughable. Most of the devolved world has mandatory coverage for everything, via universal healthcare, but the US pay a lot more for healthcare then anywhere else in the world and we don't get better care. I am not claiming universal healthcare well make healthcare cheap, just that mandatory coverage is not the reason we pay so much for healthcare.
Go Remy!!!! :D
SEE EMTALA. Hospitals are required by current law to treat patients whether they can pay for it or not.
If a product is mandated for everyone to buy: if I were an insurance company I'd be an idiot NOT to take advantage of it and raise costs as high as possible. This mandated pool + high risk individuals in the U.S. = rising costs on everyone because of our horrid diet, murder rates, car accident rates to a point we would run out of money.
Paul doesn't understand real vs. relative. For average American wages 1.50 would have wiped out a full hours wage for the average American. Today, with an average of $17 dollars, even with gas at its peak of $4, you could buy 4 gallons for that same dollar.
From the time FDR took office to 1937, GDP grew by 63%. In 1933, GDP only dopped 4% as FDR stopped the worst of the crisis. Under FDR, the GDP in 1934 grew by 17% to 66 billion. It grew another 11% to 73.3 billion in 1935. In 1936, it grew 14%. That is one of the strongest turn-arounds in American history.
_
What do you think the numbers should be? And the unemployment methodology you employ doesn't count govt. programs. Employing those, FDR decreased the unemployment rate every year, expt 37
This is a decent argument, but it is vague on one key area: HOW MUCH do mandates drive up the cost of insurance? They obviously do, but if they are only driving up the cost 5%, then what accounts for the remaining vast majority of the discrepancy between what we pay in the US for healthcare and what others in the rest of the world pay? What if mandates only drive up the cost 2%? Would they still matter in economic terms as much as this video implies?
If there isn't a company offering the insurance coverage you want, sounds like someone can start their own company to fill that niche at a price of course. Your theory is highly unlikely if health insurance was not mandated and people could buy across state lines.
That was an awesome video! Thanks so much.
Coverage should be as minimal or broad as each individual is willing to choose. If you think you might at some point be at risk for needing drug rehab or a heart transplant, you should enroll in the coverage now. I don't consider myself to be at risk of heart disease, but I consider it wise to pay for that coverage just in case. Drug rehab, on the other hand, I will pass on. You don't get to expect free care after you avoided insurance. That's bullshit.
Remy 4 prez
I have a similar problem with pizza places.
I'm allergic to tomatoes (they cause me to toss my cookies),and I live off of bread and cheese.
Given those facts,they still try to charge me for extra cheese to make up for the no sauce!
Now,why should I pay you extra for some cheese to make up for/substitute what what I'm allergic to when you won't give me a NO SAUCE discount that's equivalent to the price of an extra topping?
Answer:YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO MORE $ FROM ME FOR A DAMN CHEESE PIZZA!
You are arguing theory, but in practice, it doesn't work the way you think.
Insurance co often deny coverage for what they assume is a per-existing condition with the assumption that it would take so long to litigate the any breach of contract action, that the patient would be dead before any court date. They have a economic incentive to act that way.
I know that is not the way it "should" work... But the real world does not always work the way the text books describe.
DR saw a turn around within the first 100 days of his presidency, as I've shown. Three years later, the economy DOUBLED its GDP growth rate. The economy grew every single year under his presidency and by 1937 the depression was pretty much over and the economy only into a recession. Official sources place the end of the depression in 1939.
english*illinois*edu / maps / depression / about*htm
So tell me, how did he prolong the depression?
When seeing something like this, I always wonder in what does this make sense to anyone? Why would anyone say it's a good thing?
The point of education was the we clearly can give "universal" services without getting
"rid of the entire constitution". And the US was never great at testing for international ranking of education, we started testing back in 1964 where we ranked 11th of 12 in math. Nearly 50 years late was are 25th of 34, is that better or worse? Hard to say, but the US was not number one in 1980 when the department of education stated, and we are not number one now, but it seem hard to blame the fed.
You Americans just don't get it. Here in Australia, we have universal healthcare for every single person, no ifs or buts. On top of that, I also have a full comprehensive private healthcare policy which only costs me $1500 per year. I only have the private policy so I can chose which hospital I go to if I ever need to. Because everyone in the country is covered by universal care, private health insurers have to compete vigorously to get customers, so we don't have to pay $1500 per month (lol, c
But again, every single part of the private sector grew over the span of the past year. When we look at the economics of one sector, we don't look at exclusively big or small firms but every business in America that composes it. The only sector that has had a net job loss was the public sector
What do you think of my Socratic interviewing, for instance - Congressman Gerald Connolly finds himself arguing that people are not forced to pay taxes in an interview on redistribution of wealth. He also claims that farm subsidies are not redistribution of wealth.
As for cost of consumption being zero, seeing as how the cost for the most expensive consumption (emergency room visits) IS currently zero, I can't imagine giving people the opportunity to prevent that with lower cost forms of consumption (e.g. GP visits) will make it worse.
It's all a matter of definition - the definition of the word "forced". The fundamental assumption that you are making by using that word is that forcing people to do things is bad in and of itself. The bad connotation is as much a part of the definition and meaning of the word as its dictionary meaning. In fact, if I was to define the word "forced" literally in this context, I would define it as - "making someone else do something that they don't want to do, for an evil end".
The Great Depression was still world wide and it was worse in other countries than in the United States. And the countries that avoided the Great Depression entirely were the ones who went off the Gold Standard first were the ones who were able to avoid the great depression.
_
Leading up to the depression, there was a decrease in the money supply:
1933 -5.09 %
1932 -10.30 %
1931 -8.94 %,
in other words, the countries that avoided the GD did the OPPOSITE of what conservatives suggest.
My point was about the incoherence of the conservative position. I believe full employment could have been achieved without the US entering WWII. Consumer spending, private investment, matched or exceeded its 1929 levels by 1936. Here are the growth rates, showing the failure of neoliberalism.
Average OECD real GDP growth:
1700-1820 - 0.2%
1820-1913 - 1.2%
1919-1940 - 1.9%
1950-1973 - 4.9%
1973-1981 - 1.3%
Foundations of International Economics: Post-Keynesian Perspectives
Have you ever shopped for health insurance?
What if none of the health insurance companies offer you the coverage you want?
Not a problem.... just declare bankruptcy if you come down with something they chose not to cover.
Is that what you call "insurance"?