@J Will Doctors also happen to be one of the few professions where your boss actually has the exact same qualifications as you. The majority of doctor's "bosses" are in fact doctors themselves who have taken administrative roles. When you have a market where your own are your bread and butter you want to regulate it heavily.
Bill Miller well of course doctors need to be paid, but the problem is they and the equipment and drugs they use are so expensive that it increases it in places with more doctors, or specialists, in other industrialized countries, they are usually paid 100 000 $ less than there counterparts in USA but still live life with plenty of opinions and buying power. Its ultimately down to costs and the prices charged and that its no transparency so you cant find better places, cheaper places to get your services.
Well, keeping the pre Obamacare-style healthcare doesn't either really. People just blindly believe in the free market and overlook the faults and problems it has caused, which does tend to outweigh the "benefits" it supposedly has. Obamacare entirely didn't fix the problem, but pre Obamacare health basically caused it.
One of the worst problems is that the medical care is completely opaque price wise. You don't know how much you're paying until you get the bill. Free markets require pricing transparency so that the consumer can "vote" with their money. If it's cheaper elsewhere they can go elsewhere. You don't have that at all in the US health care "system".
@@brandondriver1377 But that's because those aren't necessary procedures for living, they're 'optional' , that's why prices went down, people could choose not to get the operations without, you know, dying. But for procedures that are necessary to live, you aren't in a position that allows you to choose, it doesn't matter what the price is, demand will never go down, so medical institutions can simply decide what prices all of them will use, and they'll never run out of 'clients'. You simply can't compare health care, or any other mandatory comodities for that matter, with microwaves and phones
Having done billing I can say our complex, bloated medical billing “system” is also a huge, costly burden. Not to mention bloated hospital administrations & unions.
A bit too oversimplified. Doctors are less than 8% of total health care costs AND their rate of pay has not kept up with inflation. It is the rest of medical care costs that have increased.
The market value determines the pay. The government is much too slow to follow the market value. Now you have either overpaid doctors and tax dollars flying out the window at record speeds, or underpaid doctors who quit their jobs to become private businesses. Luckily government also makes being a private business a pain in the ass
Something happened around the 1970s or 1980s where the government also started forcing insurance companies to cover routine care. That certainly made the problem much, much worse, but I never hear anyone talk about it.
I always thought health insurance was silly. Wasn't it supposed to be an insurance? Why is it used for everything? If I want health insurance just in case, then I have to cough up some serious dough because they expect me to be a frequent flier. TBH I'd prefer the occasional snake oil salesman over our current situation.
The video's full of shit. Most western countries have medicare for all and it works. Yes stuff is more expensive but everybody still has access to it and I'd rather pay a bit more for healthcare than potentially die because I couldn't afford treatment, which would still happen even if the prices went down a bit. The problem with obama care isn't that it ensures people, it's that it doesn't ensure everybody.
I am going to school for physical therapy and then my intro class we learned that when Obama care was an acted the regulations and paperwork or so difficult a lot of the mom-and-pop physical therapy clinics Had to merge with much bigger clinics because they couldn’t handle the burden and the paperwork. That means less competition so that means fewer options at higher prices we also learned that when Medicaid and Medicare happened that created a shortage of doctors and increased prices because now people were going to the doctor for things they weren’t normally going for. .
"But in the UK..." We have awful, ineffective and slow healthcare that costs us an absurd amount in taxes, in 100 days the NHS spends Russia's yearly military budget.
I've seen people say "Almost every other country has free public healthcare !!" and, coming from France, I can tell you that it's barely viable. We've been in debt for the last 20 years because we spend more on social programs than what we can put in. This debt is projected to be reimbursed by *2033*. And even then, we still need insurance for other related care. I have a shitty vision and need glasses, like my father. Eye care is not covered by social security for us, so we have to pay another insurance on top of the higher taxes we have to provide for all the other programs. Sure, being able to get surgery if needed without having to worry about going into debt is nice, but that's also the case for most of the US. The problems you have with your healthcare could easily be solved with less government intervention. Abolish the quota of doctor per year, it's also a problem here and is totally nonsensical.
One of the major problems with how we argue about healthcare is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The government is entangled in everything, but we never talk wholesale about how in control they are of every detail of medical care.
In Canada we have universal healthcare every year 63,000 people die waiting for medical treatment compared to 45,000 who die because they can't afford healthcare. So Canada with 1/9th the population has 50% more preventable deaths if there was just better access.
One problem: TVs, phones, refrigerators, etc. are all elastic goods in a somewhat competitive market. Healthcare is inelastic and an oligopolistic market. Prices aren't necessarily driven down as they are with other goods.
They are in Lasik and tons of other elective procedures. They are virtually across the board in dental care, including emergency care. They are in veterinary medicine. I'd utterly disagree with the notion that health care is an "inelastic" good. The whole idea is a misnomer to begin with, and in the areas we allow prices to work in health care, quality of goods improves and prices go down.
@Foundation for Economic Education I disagree with your characterization of elasticity. Firstly, it's important to note that under a market system, an entity will work in its own self interests in order to maximize its profits. Suppose that a coffee shop raised its prices. It follows that the coffee shop would lose customers, and would therefore be incentivized to lower prices to attract customers. But this is because people have the option to stop buying coffee from that shop and likely buy their coffee from another shop. The ability of a consumer to choose a product that is actually beneficial for them is heavily dependent on the amount of competition in the market as well as the time and leisure they may have to make these decisions. When someone needs urgent medical care, they do not necessarily have the luxury of boycotting their nearby clinic for raising prices, as they are bounded by time, proximity, and other similar factors. This gives more room for exploitation within inelastic markets, as companies in such markets are not nearly as burdened by the same consequences for manipulative practices as the aforementioned coffee shop. To your examples, the urgency for which people would need Lasik or dental care is substantially lower than, say, for a heart surgery or appendix removal. I'll look more into what you said about emergency care, though I am quite skeptical of that being the case.
@@Dhruvbala 1) People can make all sorts of preemptive decisions about emergency situations. 2) People can appoint others to make important decisions on their behalf (including insurance agents and doctors if they wish) to make sound decisions on their behalf in emergency situations. 3) The *vast* majority of health care situations are not emergencies or even life or death. They are overwhelmingly routine care, planned visits to specialists, surgeries that are scheduled weeks or months in advance, and so on. 4) The reason people don't do much if this now is not because it's impossible, but because it is often illegal and because there is zero incentive to make these kinds of decisions as a consumer when a third party is paying for everything and you don't even know what price anything you're buying is to begin with. You have no incentive to weigh trade offs and make these kinds of decisions, and no way to do it even if you wanted to in most situations. I have been studying and debating the economics of this issue specifically for many years, and I will say again: I completely reject the notion of inelasticity in this industry. It's not inelastic. We have just created a regulatory environment that produces innumerable problems that make it easy to think otherwise.
@@FEEonline 1 & 2.) In a scenario where somebody has a heart attack or needs an immediate appendix removal surgery, then no level of planning can compensate for the time constraints of physically travelling to someplace they can afford. Also this argument does not work on a systemic level. A healthcare system that relies on the skill of individuals in tactically maneuvering through multiple exploitative forces is probably not a very good system. 3.) This doesn’t refute my argument. A majority of emergency calls being non-urgent doesn’t imply that it isn’t important for affordable urgent care to be available to the populace. Also, our private system often disincentivizes working class individuals from seeking care for preventable illnesses earlier on (since they cannot afford it), leading to a greater risk of urgent situations. 4.) I don’t understand what you mean when you say that you “reject the notion of inelasticity in this industry.” If you’re arguing that american healthcare is not an inelastic industry, then that is verifiably false. Healthcare in america is by definition an inelastic good. Price inelasticity is a mathematical measurement of the derivative of quantity demanded with respect to change in price for a particular product or service (i.e. the sensitivity of quantity demanded to changes in price). A good is elastic if and only if its absolute price elasticity is at least 1. The average price elasticity of demand for healthcare is approximately -0.5 (even closer to zero by some estimates). If you’re arguing that the increase in american healthcare prices was caused by government intervention, then you need more justification for that claim. In your video, you showed a correlation between the implementation of medicare/medicaid and increase in prices. But correlation does not necessarily imply causation. When it comes to healthcare there are many other factors to consider, including corporate lobbying and profit incentive. Furthermore, even under the assumption that government intervention is directly responsible for increasing healthcare prices, that still doesn’t imply that deregulation would necessarily drive down prices. Suppose that medicare and medicaid were repealed and all of the proposals you make were immediately passed. Even then, the tyrannical corporations that control the healthcare industry wouldn’t magically vanish. How would you ensure that competition actually increases and thus drives down prices? By imposing even more regulation (likely including price floors) in order to enable smaller healthcare providers to compete?
@@Dhruvbala there's a lot to deal with here. Probably too much for a YT reply, but.... You're wrong about 1 & 2 to a large extent, insofar as people can - and very much do - prepare for all kinds of eventualities. Working with insurance companies makes this even more effective, given that an individual could (especially if they were allowed to buy insurance that was interstate or international and stayed with them wherever they happen to be, in the way car insurance is) retain coverage that has a pre-selected list of doctors and hospitals that balance a person's wishes. For example, we could easily choose hospitals that meet our price preferences, or which have access to networks of information about our medical histories on file, and so on. This does not take an "individual" doing all the leg work any more than every individual does all the legwork themselves when they buy a house or a car, or when they make any number of other equally complex decisions about goods & services that they have no specific expertise in. I don't know enough about legal services to choose "the best" lawyer. I don't know enough about cars to pick "the best" mechanic. I don't know which moving companies are the most reliable. I don't know which colleges are the best, or which employers pay the most, etc. But what I can do is rely on a large number of other people's experiences and reviews, often collected by reputable entitles that report on these kinds of things and offer comparisons. We already have lots of services that compare prices and services for all sorts of things -- from car insurance, to computers, to phones, to travel agencies, to airlines and hotels, to legal services, and on and on. You're tacitly assuming that these decisions both have to be made in the middle of an emergency, and that the individual making the decision must do so in a vacuum of information -- but neither of those things is true. And if an individual doesn't want to be involved in the selection process, then they can do what everybody does now and let an ambulance take them to the nearest location regardless of price or quality. This is all extremely *possible*. As I said, the reason we don't do it is because of regulation, not any limit of practicality. Next... "3" absolutely refutes your argument. You also missed my point. I said that the vast majority of people's interaction with health care is not only "non-urgent", it's also not an emergency. There's an immense range of health care that doesn't even fit the kind of scenario you set up as the basis of your claim that people can't make these decisions. So even if I accepted your argument that someone who had a heart attack could not have ever made any of his or her preferences known in advance, and must just take whatever health care services are provided in that moment, the fact is that that describes only a very small percentage of health care. All the rest of it could - even by your own definition - be subject to competition and price discrimination. As for "4", I mean exactly what I said. People use more or less of health care services all the time, depending on all sorts of factors -- very much including price. You can see this when people actually talk to their doctors about the pros and cons of different treatments (which occasionally includes some discussion of price). You can see it with elective procedures. You can see it with health care services that aren't covered by insurance. You can see it with (as I said) dental care. People weigh trade offs in this arena all the time and use more or less of the good based on its availability, cost, and the relative value they place on whatever it is. They just don't do this *nearly* as much as they do with every other kind of good or service because prices are mostly not transparent or even known to them -- which, yes, is a product of regulation and a product of shifting the payment for health care to third parties (ie. insurance companies and the government). You cannot make any mathematical claim about price inelasticity in this arena because there is no free price system to begin with. Prices are directly controlled by the government, hospitals, and insurance companies, and the actual user of the services rarely even knows what the true cost is. But prices are signals that tell people incredibly valuable information about the relative supply of goods & services, and without that information, nobody makes knowledgeable decisions about consumption and production. If everything is free, they use a lot of it. If there's not enough, then people pay in wait times and shortages. We can't talk about inelasticity unless prices actually fluctuate and people's behavior doesn't change... but prices in health care aren't allowed to function the way every other kind of price is in a market economy... So that's a pointless argument to begin with. If you take consumer choice out of the equation as a result of policy and you destroy price signals, you can't even begin to address the question. Ultimately, you're just assuming your premise. The government has wrecked most of what makes a "market" in the health care industry, so it doesn't function like other markets do. That's an issue with government, not some magical aspect of health care that makes it different than other goods and services. As for the point about government being responsible for the high cost of health care... oh my, yes. So much yes. Start here: www.jstor.org/stable/23486008?seq=1 Then go here: fee.org/resources/fee-s-essential-guide-to-health-care/ fee.org/articles/why-health-care-is-so-expensive-and-how-to-fix-it/ fee.org/articles/3-ways-regulation-makes-health-care-expensive/ fee.org/articles/government-makes-healthcare-worse-and-more-expensive/ fee.org/articles/imagine-if-we-paid-for-food-like-we-do-healthcare/ fee.org/articles/the-pernicious-impact-of-government-intervention-in-healthcare-captured-in-a-chart/
I will say this. My uncle was in stage 4 cancer before Obama Care. His monthly costs out of the pocket were about 500$ for his treatments. Right after Obama Care went into effect his costs went up to 2,000$ a month for the same treatments. He ended up taking 1 to many pain pills and passed out while sitting cross legged and about 50 pounds overweight. Even if he wasn't overweight though he still would have asphyxiated in that position. Don't believe me try sitting cross legged and then lean over with your arms in your lap. It's a lot more difficult to breathe
"If the people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.
42% of medical research in the US is publicly funded. BTW America spends more money than anyone in healthcare, of course including what the government spends in universal healthcare.
Because medical companies earn money by having a product to sell, they invest in research to make that product. Which why even if Europe has a "better" health care system, they wouldn't have it without the US.
@@Stuff857 ...but if the US wasn't there, Logically someone/somewhere else would get the investment for medical research. Capitalism is like evolution, if there is a niche to exploit something will move in to fill it. The US is the best place for medical research RN, but if it wasnt...someone else would be.
Give any other country US budget and see what they can do with it. Best regards from a country with 5 million people and jackshit for natural resources outside trees.
And you also have states with Certificate of Need laws, which is even worse than limiting how many doctors can get training to accept Medicaid and Medicare.
Certificate of needs insures that resources are geared to the level of need. You build two hospitals when only one is needed, means poor healthcare because neither one will have enough income to fullly staff it's operations or to purchase needed resources. It's not like competing gas stations on a corner.
@@SandfordSmythe If there's not enough business one will shut down, let the free market operate on its own. Overregulation hurts everyone except the well established businesses at the top (who also lobby for regulation like this).
@@SandfordSmythe And who gets to decide what services are "needed?" Shouldn't the people using those services decide? Imagine if phone companies required "certificates of need." Or car companies. Or pizza shops. Or ISPs.
@@jfangm Healthcare needs are common enough statistics. Usually only a certain % of the population require MRI's per year. And MRI are very expensive. Having two MRI machines means that the facilities will be having their budgets drained at the expense of other services and have a reduction in its quality of care. This quality of care is not always noticeable by the general public.And this status can become permanent in both facilities.More referrals to pay off and use the machine may be encouraged and unnecessary costs to the public will occur. Part of that will be born by government money. This is not like competing gas stations, where gasoline is fixed known quality and the worse damage done is an owner losing his shirt.
@@SandfordSmythe You are making the assumption that need will be split evenly between them, when that is not true. One facility will receive more patients than the other, be it due to cost, quality, or proximity. Low demand and high supply lead to lower costs, as providers compete fiercely for what little marketshare is available. All certificates of need do is artificial limit competition, keep prices high, and give existing providers control over who can enter the market. Again, how do you OBJECTIVELY determine if another hospital is "needed?"
"We need socialized Healthcare since the free market has failed us. We have the most expensive system in the world!!" "Exactly what part of our Healthcare system resembles a free market? It's *absurdly* over-regulated and anti-capitalist"
Heavily reduce the amount of regulations imposed on healthcare services, and increase incentives to compete. Doing so will naturally drive prices down and quality upwards. Why haven't we done this yet?
@@Enter_channel_name exactly. The sheer number of people that don’t have an iota of common sense and instead point to Scandinavia (even though it’s an entirely different story), is exactly why healthcare system is the way it is.
@@Enter_channel_name I live in Denmark and healthcare is "Free" here. We pay so much in taxes to support all the government provided "benefits". The only reason we can keep this circus running, is because we have a relative free marked with less regulations compared to for example the US. If Denmark reduced the public sector and the wellfare state, it would become soooo damn rich. If the US tries to copy our healtcare system, I'm sure your economy will crash...
Incentives to compete wouldn't work. All the health insurance companies communicate, and they also are in the pocket of the people who make the laws. It would all just result in the same situation we are already in. If not worse because you're loosening the leash on them by alleviating regulations.
I had to have an expensive surgery. Because I saved up for it and paid in cash, in advance, I got a H-U-G-E discount, because my surgeon didn't have to employ all the staff he usually did to get paid by insurance or the Government!
@@marcooosbibendorsht1334 So he could have stolen from the tax payers in the Netherland? Sure, but I think he chose the more ethical way of paying for a service
Cool, so all people that need expensive surgeries should just save up their money. And if they don't have the ability to save up money then they can just not get the surgery and die, or get the surgery and go bankrupt. Yay America! Freedom is amazing!!!
@@jonathanpalmquist4894 But we don't have so much economic freedom in America, especially when it comes to healthcare, and that's precisely the problem.
Grognak The Destroyer But we do have freedom! It’s called “access”. Us Americans have ACCESS to the absolute best healthcare in the world, just like we have amazing access to Ferrari’s and Lamborghini’s 👍
the problem is rampid corruption and officials stealing their funds. the singlepayer idea isn't the problem, but the host of a parasite that eats itself through several institutions.
Carlos Galvez, I'm a med student in Brazil, and here we work on the public healthcare system while in med school. Things are... difficult. Primary care is a mess. You need a consult ? Let's hope you can wait 6 months for it. Oh, you got the consult with your primary care physician, but now you need to follow up with an specialist, like... a pneumologist or cardiologist... more 6 months. Now the specialists needs some exams to diagnose you. Simple exams you can get with 1 month. But if's a little more complex, more 6 months. Then, you get your diagnosis, and need a procedure to fix it. If it's just medicine, then fine, you get right away (if it's not a high cost medicine, because if it's not on the list of the public health care, them you need to pay it, or get a lawyer to make the goverment pay it for you). If you need a surgery, or a complex procedure... more time on the wait list. On public hospitals, you see people crowded in beds and chairs on the hallways, waiting rooms filled with angry people, and storage rooms with shortage of supplies. Sometimes even human organs are lost because of the bad management. It's not all bad, some things works pretty good, like our vacine system, hiv treatment and trauma care. But cases where a disease could be resolved, but results in a bad outcome because of the delay is more commom than the goverment likes to admit.
@Alexander Knight.. yeah Brazil might suck ass ( I havent been but I will take your word for it) but its not because universal healthcare is bad. And on a side note the US has overthrown many democratically elected governments in Latin America
Funny, because where I am from, with government health care aid, when I broke my arm in less than 2 hours I had been put in plaster, explained what had happened and where, and only paid 40-100 dollars for it, Quick, efficient, cheap
You didn't only pay 40-100 for it. You (and/or somebody else in your country) paid a whole lot more for it. The rest was just hidden in the form of significantly higher taxes.
@@Roark86 oh boo hoo I have to pay taxes and in return me and the rest of my country don't bankrupt ourselves when we stub our toes, How awful, it's not like America has incredibly high taxes for its trillion dollar military
@Sean Terrance new Zealand, universal healthcare but low military spending means that we have pretty much the same taxes as the US but really cheap healthcare
I'm not a doctor, but I have an office job in a medical facility and I can tell you that the system that has resulted from all these factors is even more bizarre than this video makes it seem.
Soviet Solanum more corporate profits does not automatically equal more money and more jobs. It’s up to each individual company how they use the money. Most make no changes because they want to maximize their profit and others will only make a few hires that were already needed for the company anyway or will give one time bonuses. And given the downward trend of the economy in the past two months. (The DOW Jones dropped like 800 points recently!) it looks like these tax cuts may not have been all they were cracked up to be. Like how GM is laying people off
Soviet Solanum I agree that the tariffs are the main part of why the dow is down but I think there are also lots of small contributing factors other than Trump’s mismanagement. My point with gm was that they’re saving millions of dollars and yet they choose to cut the less profitable factories and that’s going to hurt thousands of families. If you’ve saved millions of dollars from paying less taxes you should be ok with breaking even with your factories since if you eliminate those factories thousands of lives are ruined for the foreseeable future. You do see the irony here right? Why is your profile pic a hammer and sickle if you support free trade? I’m no socialist but that seems weird to me 😂
CharlieZColt you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. The US govt has been bankrupt since 1933. And has had to borrow money from the federal reserve in order to run the country and pay for things like war and social services etc. when that money is used up we hit the debt ceiling and the govt is forced to raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money. All this borrowed money is owed back with interest. This is where all your federal income tax goes. This is also why the national debt is 22 trillion.
As a truck driver I have one or two insurance companies to choose from. Usually just one. Its cost me about $50 - $75 a week. If I had 100 insurance companies competing for my business my premiums would be about a $10 a week. But the government only let's you have access to maybe one or two insurance companies in your state.
It also didn't hurt that the American Medical Association made the 100,000 doctor "recommendation" while donating large sums of cash to political campaigns knowing, full well, that the government-mandated limit would keep costs, vis-a-vis salaries, high.
The US is simply to big for government owned healthcare to work. You need a smaller population and a smaller country, like in the West. The NHS in the UK started to crumble immediately because we were under pressure from America to back them up in Korea. Sadly, Winston Churchill was our PM, and he made the decision to 'help' America by privatising eye care and dental care and blowing all of the money on sending British ships to Korea. The fact is, politicians run the country based on the political beliefs of their voters. Churchill was an elitist, he hated social democracy and libertarianism and he was extremely privileged, to the point where the money spent on him made his wealthy household to be considered a 'poor' upper class family (despite multiple members of his family being very high ranking). Therefore he was willing to sacrifice the NHS because he and his allies didn't like the idea of it. But worst of all is the management of the NHS, which isn't linked to the government. The people in this country have blamed the government for the worsening state of the NHS because corrupt people are able to hide amongst the mostly wonderful NHS employees. The fact is that socialist principles rely on the people in socialist organisation to not be horrid, corrupt people, but socialist organisations are very easy to corrupt. Now when they do work, nothing is better than them, but they need constant monitoring and *private competition* to keep them on their toes.
This is why we need a healthcare system like Germany, it’s “government” healthcare is hundreds of competing not-for-profit companies providing healthcare instead of the government. And there’s also lots of private insurance to choose from. The healthcare system in Germany is also not based on your employment, so there was more competition
Even though some of those countries either are tourist traps and schools or are in need of work in higher end hospitals which value their dedication and skill practiced over years, one doctor over seas could be proficient in over 10 different types of medical fields
How come? It's seems better to pay a few more taxes for a free Healthcare system for everyone than is it for Healthcare to be controlled by a free market which can be manipulated to force consumers to pay large amounts of money's for Healthcare just for them
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 I will agree that the government is blame for this current situation, but l would not say it's as simple as getting rid of the government. I would say it's better for the government to slowly center it's economy towards the common individual and their needs rather than supporting the upper class as it does currently, since even if we got rid of the government somehow, it's not gonna stop other power with high amounts of power like the upper class to take over and abuse the "free market". It's harder to regulate a individual with a high amount of power than a system with a high amount of power.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 I don't see that since healthcare is privatized and we still have issues with it. Also the free market can be abused by individuals, since if that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be any big monopolies that crushes small businesses from being able to grow. It is true that nobody can force anyone or stop anyone from doing anything , but they're should be stronger regulations to prevent abuse of these systems since you can't always depend on someone to not do that
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 True, they do protect and even create their monopolies if necessary but they also attempt to prevent them as well. Also big monopolies don't really need the government to function if there's non governmental barriers to entry
People don't have the option to opt out of healthcare, Seamus, so the prices are always going to be high. If a sandwhich place is selling it's wares at too high a price, people try the new soup places. When the hospital is too highly priced ... they go to a vet??? Hospitals and health insurance companies have consumers life in their hands, what incentive do they have to lower prices or provide better services when theres no need to compete?
Stephen Furbank Think about your reasoning for a second. Take food for example. People don't have the option to not eat, but that doesn't mean farmers can charge whatever they like for food.
Dean Cutler, if the soup place charges too high, I buy a try the new sandwhich place. If I have diabetes, I need insulin. There are enough options including dozens of countries and companies providing food. The US healthcare system has virtually no competition.
If you want to suggest how to make the healthcare market place more competitive, then I'm all ears, but right now there's no incentive to provide better care at a lower price.
It's not true that US healthcare has zero competition, but if you want to make it more competitive, the solution is simple. Get the government out of the industry. It's very highly regulated, which makes competition difficult. The fact that a diabetic absolutely needs insulin to survive doesn't mean that a producer can charge whatever they want for it, as long as they aren't the only one producing. Like my example of food, you will die without it, but if one source is too expensive you'll just look elsewhere.
Then how come we saw prices going up during the Bush years, when there was basically no regulation and huge tax cuts. Why have none of the major health insurance providers cover emergency ambulances or pre-existing conditions for affordable prices ... because there's so few health insurance companies that control the market who find it profitable to do so. While we're on the subject of government influence, medicare and medicaid cut the the two biggest gambles for health insurance companies out of the inurance market, (some of) the poor and the elderly. This should theoretically bring the cost down but people need medicine and its far more profitable to charge whatever they want. Health insurance companies make almost as much as oil companies without producing anything, by minimising care and maximising pricing.
The fact that they put a limit on how many doctors can be trained in the US, made extra certifications, and won't allow foreign doctors all serves one purpose: to restrict the supply of doctors, and keep prices high. The same thing happens in many industries. You put roadblocks to stop people from competing and you can charge higher prices. Why do you think cosmetologists need more training than police officers in a lot of states? They might cite something about safety, but the real reason is to put up a barrier against people trying to compete.
Want a funny true story. My wife’s uncle was one of the first to learn and perform heart surgery in South America and has trained in multiple countries and is brought to the states to teach medical doctors at hospitals various techniques, can’t practices medicine here or perform surgeries even though he’s been doing it for decades. He’s retired now but still trains and innovates with other doctors.
Very insightful. But The one thing this video skips over is the fact that government also subsidizes health insurance companies due to the fact that premiums given to health insurance companies are tax deductible but direct health expenditures are not
Notice how this video didn’t care to mention why other countries that have some form of single payer healthcare have substantially lower cost for care and medicine than what Americans pays. How interesting.
@@mudlarkcacophony3115 By them do you mean other countries? I am not sure exactly what you are asking but I feel this article will answer whatever questions you have. www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019#:~:text=Data%3A%20OECD%20Health%20Statistics%202019.&text=In%202018%2C%20the%20U.S.%20spent,%2C%20Switzerland%2C%20spent%2012.2%20percent.
@DakiloSlayer 28 Can you try and be less specific with your statements? Using "most" and just generalizing "elective surgeries" isn't exactly cutting it
@DakiloSlayer 28 I'd be surprised if you were able to name a single country (not even just single payer healthcare countries) that has outlawed elective surgeries. Most single payer systems don't include elective surgery, but do allow you to pay for it yourself or buy insurance to cover it in the future. Keep in mind, while you might have to wait longer you're still paying less than you would in the US. Also, if you need surgery to alleviate joint damage/pain, that's not an elective surgery.
@@TMG-Germany First, getting a PhD is an expensive process but not getting a BS or even a MS in comparison with not just a BS and a MD but also 4 to 6 years of additional training. Second, one of the biggest problems in medicine is that people are getting unneeded procedures and tests that drive up the price of medicine. And these tests are driven by patients as much as by doctors I am trying harder as I get more experienced to not order excessive tests or treatments that do not really benefit the patient.
Allowing more doctors to be trained and allowing foreign doctors to more easily work in the US seems like the better system not getting rid of all government involvement.
JayzOned C Government involvement is what drove up the costs in the first place. *Government is literally the reason foreign doctors aren’t allowed to work in the US*
We need true price discovery in health care and health insurance. Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount (at the state level, veterans at federal level) that they could use to purchase health insurance.
Italy is considered a "poor" European country and yet it has a far higher life expectancy compared to the US. In fact I know of a lot of Americans that came to my country just to get something treated on Italian taxpayers money (because even foreigners are covered)
why is there such a recent surge of people commenting on this video with "this is propaganda" or "this is stupid" with no arguments are they all bots or what?
I usually agree with most of the stuff here, but I think this gets it at least partially wrong. The free market only works when both supplier & consumer have negotiating power. When a supplier offers a product at an unreasonable price, or simply offers an inferior product, a consumer with negotiating power has the ability to simply not buy that product. When we're talking about health care, that will never be the situation, because in many cases, people's lives are on the line. Worse, if you're already in a life threatening situation, you can't go shopping around for healthcare providers, because without government regulation, healthcare providers universally choose to disqualify potential policy holders based on "pre-existing conditions" -- so you're basically stuck with whatever provider you have at whatever prices they think you should pay. That's a breakdown of capitalism. A good analogy would be if your house was on fire & the fire department came by. If they were run by the free market, you would simply have to pay whatever they decided you should pay in that situation, because you just don't have any other option. Personally, I think a more reasonable solution for healthcare looks something like this: Firstly, medicare & medicaid should absolutely be abolished. They've proven to be disproportionately expensive, complicated, & unfair when compared to their actual benefits. Replace that with a much simpler, unconditional, & probably cheaper UBI system & single payer healthcare. You can couple that with lifting the need for government training of doctors & remove the cap of number of new doctors per year. Imho a system like this would not only reduce needless & inefficient government complexities, but it would also provide much better results than either a perfect free market healthcare system, or the modern neoliberal obamacare model. Plus it would solve tangential problems, like the fact that certain medicare programs actually disincentivize unemployed people from attaining work, as once they lose their benefits, they'll actually make less money working than they would lying around.
Saying you shouldn't have to have a plan for an emergency until you get seriously hurt is like saying you shouldn't have to have food in your kitchen until you're starving with one foot in the grave.
When I worked at a hospital old people would come in with the same issue a couple times a week. They would receive the treatments. Medicare will not pay the bill because they came back in 30 days. I would watch people take an ambulance as a taxi. drug addicts came in with no insurance just trying to get high. People using made up social security numbers. People treating ERs like primary care physicians. All these people have to be treated because they government said so.
Hhhmm no discussion of inelastic goods (health care) vs elastic goods (tvs and all the items they listed). No discussion of monopolistic action (free market doctors, medication) . So much for basic Economics 101. If you guys only looked at health care of just about every other developed country in the world. You'd probably see that the US has more in common with developing countries than developed countries when it comes to health care. Which is still an insult to many developing countries who have better health care than the USA.
Mark Plain maybe because our government sorta fucked us on this one. That's the point. But hey, you can say healthcare sucks, but we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world. That's kinda nice.
Huh? You do realize that most citizens in developed countries get private healthcare? Public healthcare sucks everywhere you go. The quality sucks, it only covers basic healthcare, and you have to wait for very long periods of time to go to the doctor. When it comes to healthcare, you can only have two of the following three: quality, affordability, or universality. And a couple things about monopolies. First, a monopoly cannot exist for more than a short period of time without government intervention. Second, monopolies are actually a good thing. An existing monopoly must provide a quality service at the lowest price available. Yes, that monopoly can jack up their prices as soon as they eliminate competition, but when that happens, it creates an incentive for entrepreneurs and businessmen to start their own businesses with lower prices. That creates competition and the monopoly is eliminated. Third, the government is the biggest monopoly of all. They have a monopoly on power and force. So I'm afraid that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Health care is an elastic good. People frequently avoid getting professional medical care for small injuries because they asses the cost and decide they want other things more. The more costs increase, the more this happens.
It's totally inelastic. That's why laser eye surgery keeps getting cheaper and cheaper... oh wait... And if it was inelastic, doesn't that stand to reason that prices would stay CONSISTENT instead of RISING? You totally didn't think this through, did you?
+TheRisky9 Different procedures are going to have different levels of elasticity. The demand for Laser eye surgery to remove the need to wear glasses is obviously going to be different than the demand to get treated for a gunshot wound. Also, Inelastic demand does not mean that prices stay consistent rather it means that prices will rise because consumers are not as price sensitive.
UK Alternate view: (More of a dump/opinion as opposed to an argument against the points made in this video) UK has the reverse situation, with private companies impeding on effective public healthcare. This isn't all bad mind you, such as doctors practices (which are mostly privately owned) can be made more efficient by effective business practice, reducing patient time and reliance on government funding. That was more of a quick fact. Our public healthcare is great, but it's major issue is being too top heavy i.e. Large number of inefficient office staff. Yes, prices of medicine and front line labour can be high, but the amount of bloat and wasted money at the office level is disgusting. A major one in the past decade is the attempt to implement a standardised system to store patient records across trusts. Couldn't be done because the government can't do that sort of implementation correctly. Private business would have done this like a dream. Here's the kicker though, a business' aim to is provide a valued services at an effective cost to make a profit. What's the NHS' aim? To provide effective medical care for the population. Clear difference being about the cost/profit involved. I know what I would prefer. When the chips are down for a company, what would you want them to focus on? I'm not fully sure which is more important/effective. The NHS is so damn good it sets the standard for large scale medical organisations. I haven't checked (so inform me if it's incorrect) but there isn't an private organisation in the world that can compare to it in terms of medical care (though that is due to it's goal of care > profit) There is a thought dump for anyone. Use it to reinforce your own opinion or as cannon fodder to dump your own.
The NHS' aim is to please politicians. They do it by being the middlemen for the biggest voter bribery scheme in the history of man. Wish the bribed voters would finally understand that the amount of money they're throwing could buy them a vastly superior care under a Capitalist system
"Here's the kicker though, a business' aim to is provide a valued services at an effective cost to make a profit. What's the NHS' aim? To provide effective medical care for the population. Clear difference being about the cost/profit involved. I know what I would prefer. When the chips are down for a company, what would you want them to focus on?" The NHS's aim is not to provide effective medical care anymore than it is for the company. It's to preserve their own standard of living. That's _why_ it's so top heavy. There are no consequences for waste or failure, so waste and failure are perpetuated. The difference is that in a free market system, waste and failure do have consequences _because another company can out price you._ And that drives the company out of business, thereby diminishing the standard of living of those in that company. _They_ actually feel some pain from failure or from stagnation, while the other company doing better is rewarded. There is no system in the world that works when it depends on altruism. People are not naturally altruistic. That's the beauty of the free market: it harnesses self interest in a way that rewards benefiting others. Is it perfect? No. Does it lead to utopia? No. But it produces the best outcomes we've observed. America's problem is that it no longer actually works that way. The federal government has passed so many laws and regulations and created so many agencies to control medical care that it _can't_ be done efficiently anymore.
BladeOfLight16 your not wrong in what your saying about the government having made to many laws and regulations and agencies to control them, and that they need to roll back everything and start over. This time using Germany health care system model that allow free choice of where to get services, sets the price of what tretments costs across the country, and have efficiently made a id card that contains all your medical data history so you can go to whatever hospital you want in the USA and they easy have your history pluss your insurance information. A national health care database system that all hospitals use to retrieve and update patients data and insurance information and patients can change or update some of its information and insurance information if its wrong from a web site service. Germanys model is the best of both worlds and make sure everyone gets the care they need and also allow for competition between insurance companies and hospitals for customers driving quality up and maybe prices down, but remember never up the government sets the max that can be charged for different treatments and drugs. Creating competition but remove the coalition or workng together to ramp up prices.
@@maa1649 "sets the price of what [treatments] costs across the country" is antithetical to "allow for competition." It also implies that introducing new treatments would require a ridiculous bureaucratic process, which will grind innovation to a halt. That is not a good idea. Even worse, price controls have the exact opposite effect on prices: they skyrocket because supply drops below demand. Just look at housing prices in places with rent control. America's system _already_ effectively has price controls, anyway, since Medicare unilaterally determines the "allowed amount" for everything and is the monopoly insurer of the group that needs the most care. It's one of the major reasons we have skyrocketing prices already. A free market is the only system empirically observed to drives prices down without hampering availability, but it takes time, time that some people don't have. Nevertheless, I consider it a grave evil to steal a better future from our children to preserve ourselves today.
This 100%. The NHS is flawed, but fundementally it ideaological is for the people, not for profits. So if both systems worked effectively, it is obvious which is better.
Government is about half the health insurance market with Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. This is why the health insurance market is not functioning like a normal market in any other industry.
Health care kinda sucks everywhere. I encourage everyone who can to embrace preventative health practices and become responsible for their own health. Relying on the system is a pretty dangerous thing to do. The health system profits the sicker everyone is. If you can try and find those who are heros for health, not people who only address symptoms. Things like diet, sleep, exercise, hydration, breathing, pooping, gut health, are key. That being said sometimes people need the medical system and i am glad for those it actually helps. Wishing you all great health and wellness.
Hospitals have something called a charge master. It's super inflated prices charged to insurance companies. I mean, 1000x the cost of equipment. A standard neck brace is a couple bucks, but you're charged hundreds for it. This is not acceptable in a field where you can't shop around.
I've heard that, ironically, it's way better if you just straight up tell the hospital that you're uninsured. They charge you based off a completely different price sheet. It's all a racket to fleece the insurance companies when they get involved.
I do appreciate your idealism, but unfortunately in the real world deregulation just raises prices. You've probably seen the ads for learning to be a medical assistant etc. This was to flood the market with this profession so that people could get away with paying them a lower salary. Without regulation health care prices would skyrocket, insurance prices would skyrocket, and of course insurance companies would go back to denying coverages to people with preexisting conditions.
Combining this with the way Fraternities of Mutual aid were dismantled, which I learned about recently, I'm just that much more infuriated by how our very high quality medical industry generates absurdly inflated prices.
Employer funded insurance is crazy to me. Why would you want your enployer to have anything at all to do with your health? Even from the other end, I have employed people and can only think of 1 reason to want anything at all to do with their healthcare... $$$ Instead of just paying people their wage if I can reduce that by $3k and offer a package of insurance "worth" $4k but because of a bulk deal with an insurance company I get their policy for $2k then I make extra. I hate all insurance, every dollar paid to every person, from CEO to janitor at the office is a dollar NOT spent on actual health.
The thing about all those things you list at 1:20... is that you (1) are able to check the pricing of those goods beforehand and (2) you are able to choose which product to buy based on that decision. When someone collapses from a heart attack and needs an ambulance to take him to the nearest ER, that individual can’t choose the ambulance company to transport them or the hospital they will end up at, nor do they know how much those things will cost. Can you imagine making those informed decisions in the back of an ambulance?
For anyone who found this video or arguments like this convincing, ask yourself this one question: Why should people’s healthcare have a profit incentive tied to it?
@@jmd9402 Do you have any evidence for this? I see no reason why people should be making a profit off of something like medicine. It costs more for the average joe and thrusts people into debt way too often for it to be viable. I see where you're coming from but every argument you make just isn't up to par. The main thing that changed my mind about this was when Bernie went on Joe Rogan. You should look it up.
@John Doe Why would I provide you with a nursery home for free? Because I can afford it, and you voted me into political power so that I could help you have a better life.
you seem to have forgotten the demand curve for healthcare. you got the supply curve down pat. more money for healthcare equals more supply. less money equals less supply. however, the demand curve for health care doesn't work that way. in economic terms, demand for healthcare is inelastic. that is, it varies very little depending on cost. or to put it another way, people aren't going to line up around the block just because the local clinic is having a two for one sale on colonoscopies. nor will they turn away just because common medications double in price. the demand for healthcare is going to be pretty constant regardless of price. the result is that there is always going to be a major push towards monopolies. the pharmaceutical industry is an excellent example of this. dozens (hundreds) of essential medications are going up in price leveraging monopoly power to maintain those prices. it's nice to think that deregulation will solve the problem, but the regulations exist for a reason. without them the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry would descend into fraud and hucksterism and end up looking like the dietary supplement business (unless you really do think a drug made from an animal that has no brain will be good for your brain).
It's funny how you come up with these arbitrary reasons why we have to regulate pharmaceuticals while OTC medications have great competition at a great price
No government involved leads to monopolies. Government involvement done wrong leads to them installing a monopoly. We need a balance of government regulation towards privatized businesses that are life essentials. Idk how we would, but that's my 2¢. I understand if you disagree
I would make the argument that monopolies are helpful. They can only become (and stay as) monopolies if they continuously provide the highest quality material at the lowest cost. If a monopolizing business jacks up its prices, other businesses will have incentive to pop up so as to steal away customers with lower prices. I feel like monopolies are only hated because they inspire greed.
Monopolies cannot exist by definition without government support. A lot of people think they can because they point to laws protecting large corporations with those laws are enforced by government regulation. Hence remove the government from that and they cannot monopolize. Look at telephones look at Internet etc. Right now we have several parts of this country with really bad Internet or data caps. Government regulation is preventing competitive markets from taking that over lowering prices and giving us better Internet. Look at APS electricity services. That’s the biggest one protected by the government
The government is the biggest monopoly of all. They have a monopoly on power and force. And like everyone else said, monopolies cannot exist for more than a short time without government intervention and subsidization.
Considering healthcare is cheaper in other western nations this dose t make sense. The us government just fucked up. Healthcare doesn’t work in fee market. If I have a heart attack I will need that treatment irrespective of the costs. Cosmetic surgery like eye correction I can go to where ever I want when I want.
Well, government has jacked it up completely , but the original problem was the creation of insurance. Before insurance, how much a doctor charged was set by how much the average patient could afford, which wasn't really much. Once insurance was created, it spread the cost across all insured regardless of whether they used the services of the doctor or not. Doctors realized that they could then increase how much they charged to the amount that the 'collective' could afford, which is a far greater amount. I'm not sure if it was a conscious effort to increase the price or not, but it happened. THEN the government totally fucked it all up in its entirety, as government is want to do...
@@FEEonline Around 40% of Americans can't afford a minor medical emergency. So I don't think my opinion is unpopular among Americans. Also, Franklin D Roosevelt suggested ideas like universal healthcare back in the 1930s. It's not like he was some sort of radical commie, or entitled millenial.
so basically more doctors (increased supply) will help lower prices by catching up to higher demand (more people) guys its basic economics cmon i learned this in 9th grade
I'm missing exactly HOW government insurance programs raise the cost of insurance. I believe in privatized insurance, so I'm moreso asking to bolster my argument in a discussion on the topic. In some European countries, insurance is completely government controlled, and they have very low costs of health care. Is it more about having either one or the other fully cover health care, rather than having both private and government health care at the same time?
So you're telling me health is a commodity to be bought and sold? What the fuck is a private company doing in the healthcare sector, get those bastards out of there. EVERYONE has a right to health, EVEN if they can't afford to pay. And if everyone pays with a tax contribution, then thats fine. Greetings from Germany, where everybody has a guaranteed healthcare and its cheap.
@John Doe _"So you're telling me the government should have more incentive to steal money from me directly and then use it nefariously"_ I am telling you that YOU should have more control (voting) on how much taxes you pay and where those taxes go. I am also telling you that the amount of money the government takes from you in taxes is lower than the amount of money that your boss makes through your work but doesn't pay you - the government at least gives back, your boss doesn't. Capitalists are worse thieves than any government.
I cant wait to go bankrupt under private healthcare cause I dont have insurance because I was born with a preexisting condition and cant afford to pay for medical costs out of pocket
@@Jack-sq6xb So what about evolution? Shouldnt preexisting conditions one is born with lower the chances of survival? The cure you fight with makes the future dependent. Yyyyep
Derederi dude are you a psychopath?Someone was born with a shit condition so we developed something to help them. Now you withhold it because EvOLuTIOn. If you cant comprend how fucked that is then you shouldn’t have healthcare. Yeah people used to die due to weak teeth we shouldn’t have dentists because EvoLUTioN
Britain has socialized Health Care called the National Health Service since 1948. It works and has freely provided necessary surgeries for me (left lung) and my parents.
As a medical student from a developed Western European country who is currently preparing to take the licensing tests to work in the USA, I can assure you that they should still exist. They are way more challenging than any certification in my country, and I've learned a lot just preparing for them. After all, we want the most competent doctors
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Hospitals already uphold stricter criteria than the Medical Board. Basically, after you get your license from the Medical Board, and you apply to an internship at a hospital, they may still reject you even though you are licensed. Every year there are a lot of licensed doctors who are not able to get an internship spot
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Not necessarily, the government demands that you pass some exams in order to get the license, but the hospitals, when given several candidates, can use the exam grades among other factors in order to choose. If the hospital believes that no applicant is a good fit, then no one gets the spot (or if the only “admissible” candidates prefer other hospitals). So while the licensing (passing the exam) is mostly useless, the exam itself is quite useful
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 But yes, in practice, no one is excluded due to being unable to get a license: if those candidates would apply, no hospital would consider taking them
They do spend less but they definitely don't get more. Also the most inefficient system isn't a socialised one, it's a mix of private and public. However completely private is definitely more efficient than completely public
@@malachymoreland7417 Many "socialized" healthcare systems _are_ partially privately run and are still far more efficient than the US. Germany, for example, basically has the ACA on steroids and it achieves comparable results to other, more nationalized systems.
@@malachymoreland7417 What evidence is there that an all-private system would be most efficient? To my knowledge, such a system has never existed in modern times.
That’s becuse 1 many contrys such as Canada,France and the uk have a lot less pepole in the USA. Canada has 36 million pepole and the USA has over 300 million pepole. so compareing those 2 contrys is like apples to oranges. Allso “get more out of helthcare” Umm yeah no another resion is becuse they deliver a lower quality of care. I actuly have a rend on discord from Canada and he has siad that there still useing windows 95 computers and another frend that has to wait weeks for simple medicateion. not only that there are many Canadians that come to the USA for our helthcare becuse the wait times are very short outbound 90 minuets wile the wait times in Canada are months. in fact many Canadians that visited amercia for our helthcare have siad to not use nationalized helthacare. In fact the only good aspects of there helthcare is that medcateion from a privet seller is cheeper than from the USA. so plz stop with your amercain privlage
@@josephlisowski6414 How can china provide half decent public healthcare to a population of nearly 1.4 billion, the gap between regional and city is noticeable but the system in china works (Note I am not saying china's is great, but using it as a example that you can have a large population with public health, I personally think the PRC is pretty bad.)
I agree that the US Governent kinda screwed up but keeping the Goverment conpletly out? That is not going to work. There is the problem that Private Insurances are a big problem too. They wanted discounts of the Prices wich where reasonable but the Hospitals couldnt afford it so they drove up prices to give Insurance Companies a discount from that. There is a system used in EU countries where the Goverment sets how much you can charge for what. There is also Universal Healthcare wich works out BECAUSE the Goverment controls the prices at Hospitals and Clinics.
It's called competition, you're only going to participate in a transaction if you approve of that transaction. There's never a problem with what a private insurance company does because if you don't like then you can swap insurances and if you think they're all bad then open up your own insurance agency!
Hey so Seamus said around the 1 minute mark that we started requiring doctors to get extra schooling, training, and licensure beyond medical school. I'm really just thinking out loud here, so I apologize if this gets confusing. I spoke to tge head of a law school once, and he told me that most pre-law students are wasting their time getting a a degree in history, philosophy, or poly-sci. He said they'd be better off acing the BAR and getting an incredible score on their LSAT and spending their time getting involved in their community and interning at a law firm instead of getting a college degree. So why do pre-med students need to get a bachelor's degree? My advisor told me explicitly to major in anything BUT biology for a better chance at getting accepted into a med school by standing out from the crowd. So it's not like they're actually getting prepped to be a doctor before med school. So why don't we send doctors straight to med school?
Because regulations. Personally, I don't even think we need med school outside of specializations. Doctors could be trained in hybrid internships/schooling.
My wife and I both worked for the same company that provided health care insurance. Never paid any medical bills. Obama took office and screwed it all up. Despite double coverage we got a hugh deductible and had to pay out of pocket. It sucks...
Well still technically not free, you're paying into a community "insurance" pool to cover healthcare cost as they arise. Not a bad idea at all for small scale communities. The Amish do the same if I recall. Along with funding pretty much all of their public services independent of local and federal governments.
It doesn't. First, it is far from "free". The costs are paid in considerably higher taxes, lower rates of economic growth, lower levels of innovation, and - rather importantly - longer wait times for care. Secondly, nearly every "universal" system is supplemented by private insurance, which many/most citizens (depending on the country) also pay for in addition to their taxes to compensate for the limited care available from the government-run systems. It's also worth noting that over the last decade or so most of the European health care systems have been suffering major solvency problems which have resulted in budget cuts and further restrictions. www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service.html They also rely heavily on technology and techniques produced in the US... Which is a part of why we pay more overall. www.brookings.edu/research/the-global-burden-of-medical-innovation/ Without the US developing new medicines, the rest of the world would suffer substantially and that rarely gets factored in to this conversation. This is, of course, not to say the US system is "better", but it has different kinds of problems. It's more expensive, its bureaucracies are cumbersome and complicated, and it's a product of decades of one intervention after the next creating layers of confusing and contradictory rules. However... Where it does well is in the detection and treatment of major illnesses like cancer, and on the actual availability of specialists and specialized treatments. www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/practice-management/news/in-the-journals/%7Bf958e84b-6d0e-48cd-8f46-05911f4d31ec%7D/us-cancer-survival-rates-remain-among-highest-in-world In truth, this whole issue is much more complicated than a 3-4 minute cartoon could ever hope to explore, but the notion that the "rest of the world" has single payer systems that are cost and downside-free while the US system is all bad is simply false. What we argue is that the US could continue to benefit from what we do well and seriously lower the costs to consumers if we actually allowed markets and free price systems to work.
@@FEEonline I try to hear out both sides. This study shows medicare for all would save 5.1 trillion over the next 10 years, or even the koch funded one that shows it saves 2 trillion, just from switching from the current healthcare system and applying the taxes shown in the article. www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/11/30/depth-analysis-team-umass-amherst-economists-shows-viability-medicare-all Continuing business health care premiums, but with a cut of 8 percent relative to existing spending per worker. Businesses that have been providing coverage for their employees would thereby see their health care costs fall by between about 8-13 percent. A 3.75 percent sales tax on non-necessities, which includes exemptions for spending on necessities such as food and beverages consumed at home, housing and utilities, education and non-profits. The researchers include a 3.75 percent income tax credit for families insured by Medicaid. A net worth tax of 0.38 percent, with an exemption for the first $1 million in net worth. The researchers state that this tax would therefore apply to only the wealthiest 12 percent of U.S. households. Taxing long-term capital gains as ordinary income. Those dont seem like considerably higher tax rates, the private healthcare would still remain for those who could afford it and dont wanna wait as long. But for those who cant, it is better to wait 9 or even 12 hours, than No healthcare at all.
@@Nirv2267 that's not what the "Koch" study (Mercatus Center) said. At all. "As The Washington Post's fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted, some individuals, including Sen. Sanders himself, claimed Dr. Blahous’s paper proved M4A would save the country $2 trillion. Those claims, according to Kessler, went too far. In Kessler’s words, critics “cannot seize on one cherry-picked fact without acknowledging the broader implications of Blahous’s research.” They warranted, in Kessler’s view, a “Three Pinocchios” rating (you can read more about what that rating means and The Fact Checker’s methodology on their site). Indeed, just a few days after the study was released, Dr. Blahous wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All. But that decline, relative to current projections, relies on an assumption that (M4A) would immediately and dramatically cut provider payment rates by roughly 40 percent.” In other words, as noted in both TheWashington Post’s fact check and Dr. Blahous’s op-ed, the savings estimates only reflect a particular aspect of the methodology of the study. Dr. Blahous adopted the most generous cost-saving assumptions made by M4A in order to more fairly analyze the specific proposal, but he also notes in several places throughout the paper that those assumptions may be unreasonable. In the fourth sentence of the paper’s abstract, Dr. Blahous wrote “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates…”" www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/medicare-all-32-trillion-new-costs-or-2-trillion-savings In other words, the assumptions you have to make to get to *any* savings are so ludicrous that they are well outside the bounds of reality, and if you actually use realistic expectations, the costs will be far, far more than estimated.
@@Nirv2267 The other study is by an outfit literally run by Bernie Sanders' wife. I would have to look into it more closely, but let's be honest about how gigantic a red flag that is.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
It's scary there's a cap of doctors allow to graduate each year.
Actually, I think it's a "special training" that qualifies you to work in the US as a doctor, rather than anything to do with degrees or education.
There's not. There's only a cap on how many spots can receive Medicare funding.
@J Will Doctors also happen to be one of the few professions where your boss actually has the exact same qualifications as you. The majority of doctor's "bosses" are in fact doctors themselves who have taken administrative roles. When you have a market where your own are your bread and butter you want to regulate it heavily.
It has been shown that medical expenses increase with the number of doctors in an area.
Bill Miller well of course doctors need to be paid, but the problem is they and the equipment and drugs they use are so expensive that it increases it in places with more doctors, or specialists, in other industrialized countries, they are usually paid 100 000 $ less than there counterparts in USA but still live life with plenty of opinions and buying power. Its ultimately down to costs and the prices charged and that its no transparency so you cant find better places, cheaper places to get your services.
"Won't Obamacare solve the problem?"
Lady, the act was like 900 pages long, not even Obama knows what problems Obamacare creates or solves!
The sad part is, those kinds of bill are small by today's standards.
Well, keeping the pre Obamacare-style healthcare doesn't either really. People just blindly believe in the free market and overlook the faults and problems it has caused, which does tend to outweigh the "benefits" it supposedly has. Obamacare entirely didn't fix the problem, but pre Obamacare health basically caused it.
@@AdmiralofU2 we did not have free market healthcare before Obama-care.
But they had to pass it. After all,
"We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." - speaker of the house
"We need to pass the bill to find out whats in it" Galaxy brain pelosi
One of the worst problems is that the medical care is completely opaque price wise. You don't know how much you're paying until you get the bill. Free markets require pricing transparency so that the consumer can "vote" with their money. If it's cheaper elsewhere they can go elsewhere. You don't have that at all in the US health care "system".
Problem is that you can't do comparative shopping while you are dieing
@@swatboy763 People immediately dying accounts for what percentage of all patients? Use your noggin
@@swatboy763
not every illness will kill you. OP is right in that it's crazy you can't compare prices for most medical goods and services.
The places where you DO have price transparency (Lasik and Eye care) the prices have plummeted in the past decade.
@@brandondriver1377 But that's because those aren't necessary procedures for living, they're 'optional' , that's why prices went down, people could choose not to get the operations without, you know, dying. But for procedures that are necessary to live, you aren't in a position that allows you to choose, it doesn't matter what the price is, demand will never go down, so medical institutions can simply decide what prices all of them will use, and they'll never run out of 'clients'. You simply can't compare health care, or any other mandatory comodities for that matter, with microwaves and phones
So let me get this straight. . .government. . . is the problem.
Mind blown
Bad government is the problem, just like bad corporations are the problem.
Government should be abolished, and we should all be anarchists.
Congrats for falling into propaganda for childrem
I wish my dad understood that. :(
Zacnie prawisz
Childrem.
"The most terrifying sentence is: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'" Ronald Regan
But ronald reagan started deregulation didnt he.
Nate Nembhard started a phase of deregulation is more accurate ik
But how is it scary that the government says its reducing its control
And then he went on to more than double the size of gov't. LOL
Astronut128
But he was right
Incoming missile. please seek shelter.
all of Hawaii for half an hour.
Having done billing I can say our complex, bloated medical billing “system” is also a huge, costly burden. Not to mention bloated hospital administrations & unions.
A bit too oversimplified. Doctors are less than 8% of total health care costs AND their rate of pay has not kept up with inflation. It is the rest of medical care costs that have increased.
Inflation is a separate issue but yes this is a bit oversimplified. However it’s an 8 minute animation so take it with a grain of salt.
Administration, bureaucracy, and insurance related business costs have all added to the cost without giving docs a raise.
The market value determines the pay.
The government is much too slow to follow the market value.
Now you have either overpaid doctors and tax dollars flying out the window at record speeds, or underpaid doctors who quit their jobs to become private businesses. Luckily government also makes being a private business a pain in the ass
Christian Libertarian the hospitals over price things. For example and IV bag costs $1 but hospitals charge over $100 for it
@@theluckyone3212 Did you watch the video? It explains why
Something happened around the 1970s or 1980s where the government also started forcing insurance companies to cover routine care. That certainly made the problem much, much worse, but I never hear anyone talk about it.
I always thought health insurance was silly. Wasn't it supposed to be an insurance? Why is it used for everything? If I want health insurance just in case, then I have to cough up some serious dough because they expect me to be a frequent flier. TBH I'd prefer the occasional snake oil salesman over our current situation.
@@MrPicklesAndTea It used to be that way a long, long time ago. Like in the 50s or before.
“If we get the government out...”
That solves so many problems.
Anarchy or true democracy helps
@@stormerkromy988 true democracy yes anarchy no.
@@ye3505 It is built on moral and trust, no head leaders and not raging death fires and guns. That's not anarchy that's total collapse
@@stormerkromy988 in a perfect world but this one aint.
Most but not all.
I actually do appreciate a video that intelligently picks apart the problems of a system rather than bashing it because "IT's ObAMa"
OOOOOBAAAAAMAAAAAA
obamaaaaaaaaaaa
@ALLAN LOUIS JEUNE Obama
Obama Obama
Obama is black
The video's full of shit. Most western countries have medicare for all and it works. Yes stuff is more expensive but everybody still has access to it and I'd rather pay a bit more for healthcare than potentially die because I couldn't afford treatment, which would still happen even if the prices went down a bit. The problem with obama care isn't that it ensures people, it's that it doesn't ensure everybody.
I am going to school for physical therapy and then my intro class we learned that when Obama care was an acted the regulations and paperwork or so difficult a lot of the mom-and-pop physical therapy clinics Had to merge with much bigger clinics because they couldn’t handle the burden and the paperwork. That means less competition so that means fewer options at higher prices we also learned that when Medicaid and Medicare happened that created a shortage of doctors and increased prices because now people were going to the doctor for things they weren’t normally going for. .
I love that the first three medical stands just continue to look mad at the fourth one.
"But in the UK..."
We have awful, ineffective and slow healthcare that costs us an absurd amount in taxes, in 100 days the NHS spends Russia's yearly military budget.
I've seen people say "Almost every other country has free public healthcare !!" and, coming from France, I can tell you that it's barely viable. We've been in debt for the last 20 years because we spend more on social programs than what we can put in. This debt is projected to be reimbursed by *2033*. And even then, we still need insurance for other related care. I have a shitty vision and need glasses, like my father. Eye care is not covered by social security for us, so we have to pay another insurance on top of the higher taxes we have to provide for all the other programs. Sure, being able to get surgery if needed without having to worry about going into debt is nice, but that's also the case for most of the US. The problems you have with your healthcare could easily be solved with less government intervention. Abolish the quota of doctor per year, it's also a problem here and is totally nonsensical.
One of the major problems with how we argue about healthcare is that this is only the tip of the iceberg. The government is entangled in everything, but we never talk wholesale about how in control they are of every detail of medical care.
In Canada we have universal healthcare every year 63,000 people die waiting for medical treatment compared to 45,000 who die because they can't afford healthcare. So Canada with 1/9th the population has 50% more preventable deaths if there was just better access.
US: Human lives are important.
Also US: Healthcare will put you into poverty and possibly prison.
And who’s at fault for all that?
Emperor Alvis It's called "Freedom"
Mahatma Christ The IV
Literally the opposite. Like could not be any more polar opposite. It's the fault of the State entirely. End of story
Emperor Alvis do you know for what this "..." is used?
Mahatma Christ The IV - There is no freedom in US healthcare. The government is far too involved
One problem: TVs, phones, refrigerators, etc. are all elastic goods in a somewhat competitive market. Healthcare is inelastic and an oligopolistic market. Prices aren't necessarily driven down as they are with other goods.
They are in Lasik and tons of other elective procedures. They are virtually across the board in dental care, including emergency care. They are in veterinary medicine.
I'd utterly disagree with the notion that health care is an "inelastic" good. The whole idea is a misnomer to begin with, and in the areas we allow prices to work in health care, quality of goods improves and prices go down.
@Foundation for Economic Education
I disagree with your characterization of elasticity.
Firstly, it's important to note that under a market system, an entity will work in its own self interests in order to maximize its profits. Suppose that a coffee shop raised its prices. It follows that the coffee shop would lose customers, and would therefore be incentivized to lower prices to attract customers.
But this is because people have the option to stop buying coffee from that shop and likely buy their coffee from another shop. The ability of a consumer to choose a product that is actually beneficial for them is heavily dependent on the amount of competition in the market as well as the time and leisure they may have to make these decisions.
When someone needs urgent medical care, they do not necessarily have the luxury of boycotting their nearby clinic for raising prices, as they are bounded by time, proximity, and other similar factors. This gives more room for exploitation within inelastic markets, as companies in such markets are not nearly as burdened by the same consequences for manipulative practices as the aforementioned coffee shop.
To your examples, the urgency for which people would need Lasik or dental care is substantially lower than, say, for a heart surgery or appendix removal. I'll look more into what you said about emergency care, though I am quite skeptical of that being the case.
@@Dhruvbala 1) People can make all sorts of preemptive decisions about emergency situations.
2) People can appoint others to make important decisions on their behalf (including insurance agents and doctors if they wish) to make sound decisions on their behalf in emergency situations.
3) The *vast* majority of health care situations are not emergencies or even life or death. They are overwhelmingly routine care, planned visits to specialists, surgeries that are scheduled weeks or months in advance, and so on.
4) The reason people don't do much if this now is not because it's impossible, but because it is often illegal and because there is zero incentive to make these kinds of decisions as a consumer when a third party is paying for everything and you don't even know what price anything you're buying is to begin with. You have no incentive to weigh trade offs and make these kinds of decisions, and no way to do it even if you wanted to in most situations.
I have been studying and debating the economics of this issue specifically for many years, and I will say again: I completely reject the notion of inelasticity in this industry.
It's not inelastic. We have just created a regulatory environment that produces innumerable problems that make it easy to think otherwise.
@@FEEonline
1 & 2.) In a scenario where somebody has a heart attack or needs an immediate appendix removal surgery, then no level of planning can compensate for the time constraints of physically travelling to someplace they can afford. Also this argument does not work on a systemic level. A healthcare system that relies on the skill of individuals in tactically maneuvering through multiple exploitative forces is probably not a very good system.
3.) This doesn’t refute my argument. A majority of emergency calls being non-urgent doesn’t imply that it isn’t important for affordable urgent care to be available to the populace. Also, our private system often disincentivizes working class individuals from seeking care for preventable illnesses earlier on (since they cannot afford it), leading to a greater risk of urgent situations.
4.) I don’t understand what you mean when you say that you “reject the notion of inelasticity in this industry.” If you’re arguing that american healthcare is not an inelastic industry, then that is verifiably false. Healthcare in america is by definition an inelastic good. Price inelasticity is a mathematical measurement of the derivative of quantity demanded with respect to change in price for a particular product or service (i.e. the sensitivity of quantity demanded to changes in price). A good is elastic if and only if its absolute price elasticity is at least 1. The average price elasticity of demand for healthcare is approximately -0.5 (even closer to zero by some estimates).
If you’re arguing that the increase in american healthcare prices was caused by government intervention, then you need more justification for that claim. In your video, you showed a correlation between the implementation of medicare/medicaid and increase in prices. But correlation does not necessarily imply causation. When it comes to healthcare there are many other factors to consider, including corporate lobbying and profit incentive.
Furthermore, even under the assumption that government intervention is directly responsible for increasing healthcare prices, that still doesn’t imply that deregulation would necessarily drive down prices. Suppose that medicare and medicaid were repealed and all of the proposals you make were immediately passed. Even then, the tyrannical corporations that control the healthcare industry wouldn’t magically vanish. How would you ensure that competition actually increases and thus drives down prices? By imposing even more regulation (likely including price floors) in order to enable smaller healthcare providers to compete?
@@Dhruvbala there's a lot to deal with here. Probably too much for a YT reply, but....
You're wrong about 1 & 2 to a large extent, insofar as people can - and very much do - prepare for all kinds of eventualities. Working with insurance companies makes this even more effective, given that an individual could (especially if they were allowed to buy insurance that was interstate or international and stayed with them wherever they happen to be, in the way car insurance is) retain coverage that has a pre-selected list of doctors and hospitals that balance a person's wishes. For example, we could easily choose hospitals that meet our price preferences, or which have access to networks of information about our medical histories on file, and so on. This does not take an "individual" doing all the leg work any more than every individual does all the legwork themselves when they buy a house or a car, or when they make any number of other equally complex decisions about goods & services that they have no specific expertise in.
I don't know enough about legal services to choose "the best" lawyer. I don't know enough about cars to pick "the best" mechanic. I don't know which moving companies are the most reliable. I don't know which colleges are the best, or which employers pay the most, etc.
But what I can do is rely on a large number of other people's experiences and reviews, often collected by reputable entitles that report on these kinds of things and offer comparisons. We already have lots of services that compare prices and services for all sorts of things -- from car insurance, to computers, to phones, to travel agencies, to airlines and hotels, to legal services, and on and on.
You're tacitly assuming that these decisions both have to be made in the middle of an emergency, and that the individual making the decision must do so in a vacuum of information -- but neither of those things is true. And if an individual doesn't want to be involved in the selection process, then they can do what everybody does now and let an ambulance take them to the nearest location regardless of price or quality.
This is all extremely *possible*. As I said, the reason we don't do it is because of regulation, not any limit of practicality.
Next...
"3" absolutely refutes your argument. You also missed my point. I said that the vast majority of people's interaction with health care is not only "non-urgent", it's also not an emergency. There's an immense range of health care that doesn't even fit the kind of scenario you set up as the basis of your claim that people can't make these decisions. So even if I accepted your argument that someone who had a heart attack could not have ever made any of his or her preferences known in advance, and must just take whatever health care services are provided in that moment, the fact is that that describes only a very small percentage of health care. All the rest of it could - even by your own definition - be subject to competition and price discrimination.
As for "4", I mean exactly what I said.
People use more or less of health care services all the time, depending on all sorts of factors -- very much including price. You can see this when people actually talk to their doctors about the pros and cons of different treatments (which occasionally includes some discussion of price). You can see it with elective procedures. You can see it with health care services that aren't covered by insurance. You can see it with (as I said) dental care.
People weigh trade offs in this arena all the time and use more or less of the good based on its availability, cost, and the relative value they place on whatever it is.
They just don't do this *nearly* as much as they do with every other kind of good or service because prices are mostly not transparent or even known to them -- which, yes, is a product of regulation and a product of shifting the payment for health care to third parties (ie. insurance companies and the government).
You cannot make any mathematical claim about price inelasticity in this arena because there is no free price system to begin with. Prices are directly controlled by the government, hospitals, and insurance companies, and the actual user of the services rarely even knows what the true cost is. But prices are signals that tell people incredibly valuable information about the relative supply of goods & services, and without that information, nobody makes knowledgeable decisions about consumption and production.
If everything is free, they use a lot of it. If there's not enough, then people pay in wait times and shortages.
We can't talk about inelasticity unless prices actually fluctuate and people's behavior doesn't change... but prices in health care aren't allowed to function the way every other kind of price is in a market economy... So that's a pointless argument to begin with. If you take consumer choice out of the equation as a result of policy and you destroy price signals, you can't even begin to address the question. Ultimately, you're just assuming your premise. The government has wrecked most of what makes a "market" in the health care industry, so it doesn't function like other markets do. That's an issue with government, not some magical aspect of health care that makes it different than other goods and services.
As for the point about government being responsible for the high cost of health care... oh my, yes. So much yes.
Start here:
www.jstor.org/stable/23486008?seq=1
Then go here:
fee.org/resources/fee-s-essential-guide-to-health-care/
fee.org/articles/why-health-care-is-so-expensive-and-how-to-fix-it/
fee.org/articles/3-ways-regulation-makes-health-care-expensive/
fee.org/articles/government-makes-healthcare-worse-and-more-expensive/
fee.org/articles/imagine-if-we-paid-for-food-like-we-do-healthcare/
fee.org/articles/the-pernicious-impact-of-government-intervention-in-healthcare-captured-in-a-chart/
I will say this. My uncle was in stage 4 cancer before Obama Care. His monthly costs out of the pocket were about 500$ for his treatments. Right after Obama Care went into effect his costs went up to 2,000$ a month for the same treatments. He ended up taking 1 to many pain pills and passed out while sitting cross legged and about 50 pounds overweight. Even if he wasn't overweight though he still would have asphyxiated in that position. Don't believe me try sitting cross legged and then lean over with your arms in your lap. It's a lot more difficult to breathe
"If the people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." Thomas Jefferson.
Nice quote, I'll try to remember it
Oof
Wise words from a slave owner... zzz
@@traviscook3990 I'm well aware of that. Doesn't mean he was wrong.
@@exoticcreature3059 lol private corporations are slowly poisoning Americans, without Medicare there would be seniors dying in the streets
I'd like to see "free" health care for 328 million people and contribute to 40% of the worlds medical research
42% of medical research in the US is publicly funded. BTW America spends more money than anyone in healthcare, of course including what the government spends in universal healthcare.
Because medical companies earn money by having a product to sell, they invest in research to make that product. Which why even if Europe has a "better" health care system, they wouldn't have it without the US.
@@Stuff857 ...but if the US wasn't there, Logically someone/somewhere else would get the investment for medical research. Capitalism is like evolution, if there is a niche to exploit something will move in to fill it. The US is the best place for medical research RN, but if it wasnt...someone else would be.
Give any other country US budget and see what they can do with it. Best regards from a country with 5 million people and jackshit for natural resources outside trees.
And you also have states with Certificate of Need laws, which is even worse than limiting how many doctors can get training to accept Medicaid and Medicare.
Certificate of needs insures that resources are geared to the level of need. You build two hospitals when only one is needed, means poor healthcare because neither one will have enough income to fullly staff it's operations or to purchase needed resources. It's not like competing gas stations on a corner.
@@SandfordSmythe If there's not enough business one will shut down, let the free market operate on its own. Overregulation hurts everyone except the well established businesses at the top (who also lobby for regulation like this).
@@SandfordSmythe
And who gets to decide what services are "needed?" Shouldn't the people using those services decide? Imagine if phone companies required "certificates of need." Or car companies. Or pizza shops. Or ISPs.
@@jfangm Healthcare needs are common enough statistics. Usually only a certain % of the population require MRI's per year. And MRI are very expensive. Having two MRI machines means that the facilities will be having their budgets drained at the expense of other services and have a reduction in its quality of care. This quality of care is not always noticeable by the general public.And this status can become permanent in both facilities.More referrals to pay off and use the machine may be encouraged and unnecessary costs to the public will occur. Part of that will be born by government money. This is not like competing gas stations, where gasoline is fixed known quality and the worse damage done is an owner losing his shirt.
@@SandfordSmythe
You are making the assumption that need will be split evenly between them, when that is not true. One facility will receive more patients than the other, be it due to cost, quality, or proximity. Low demand and high supply lead to lower costs, as providers compete fiercely for what little marketshare is available. All certificates of need do is artificial limit competition, keep prices high, and give existing providers control over who can enter the market. Again, how do you OBJECTIVELY determine if another hospital is "needed?"
"We need socialized Healthcare since the free market has failed us. We have the most expensive system in the world!!"
"Exactly what part of our Healthcare system resembles a free market? It's *absurdly* over-regulated and anti-capitalist"
My mom was a doctor from Canada so when she moved she had to do even more work to get a license
Heavily reduce the amount of regulations imposed on healthcare services, and increase incentives to compete. Doing so will naturally drive prices down and quality upwards. Why haven't we done this yet?
@@Enter_channel_name exactly. The sheer number of people that don’t have an iota of common sense and instead point to Scandinavia (even though it’s an entirely different story), is exactly why healthcare system is the way it is.
@@BharatChandran I agree. Also Scandinavia being used as an example for socialism working has been debunked.
@@Enter_channel_name I live in Denmark and healthcare is "Free" here. We pay so much in taxes to support all the government provided "benefits". The only reason we can keep this circus running, is because we have a relative free marked with less regulations compared to for example the US. If Denmark reduced the public sector and the wellfare state, it would become soooo damn rich. If the US tries to copy our healtcare system, I'm sure your economy will crash...
The US didn't do it because of big pharma lobbying, the rest of the world had their government put a cap on prices of medicine.
Incentives to compete wouldn't work. All the health insurance companies communicate, and they also are in the pocket of the people who make the laws. It would all just result in the same situation we are already in. If not worse because you're loosening the leash on them by alleviating regulations.
I had to have an expensive surgery. Because I saved up for it and paid in cash, in advance, I got a H-U-G-E discount, because my surgeon didn't have to employ all the staff he usually did to get paid by insurance or the Government!
Marcus Badenhorst right because doctors definitely work for free in the Netherlands.
@@marcooosbibendorsht1334 So he could have stolen from the tax payers in the Netherland? Sure, but I think he chose the more ethical way of paying for a service
Cool, so all people that need expensive surgeries should just save up their money. And if they don't have the ability to save up money then they can just not get the surgery and die, or get the surgery and go bankrupt. Yay America! Freedom is amazing!!!
@@jonathanpalmquist4894 But we don't have so much economic freedom in America, especially when it comes to healthcare, and that's precisely the problem.
Grognak The Destroyer But we do have freedom! It’s called “access”. Us Americans have ACCESS to the absolute best healthcare in the world, just like we have amazing access to Ferrari’s and Lamborghini’s 👍
great video, i live on brazil, so all health care come from the government, so its ok
except that is bad
Why If i may ask you do you find universal healthcare a bad thing?
Alexander Knight that's why I'm asking in the first place?
the problem is rampid corruption and officials stealing their funds.
the singlepayer idea isn't the problem, but the host of a parasite that eats itself through several institutions.
Carlos Galvez, I'm a med student in Brazil, and here we work on the public healthcare system while in med school.
Things are... difficult. Primary care is a mess. You need a consult ? Let's hope you can wait 6 months for it. Oh, you got the consult with your primary care physician, but now you need to follow up with an specialist, like... a pneumologist or cardiologist... more 6 months. Now the specialists needs some exams to diagnose you. Simple exams you can get with 1 month. But if's a little more complex, more 6 months.
Then, you get your diagnosis, and need a procedure to fix it. If it's just medicine, then fine, you get right away (if it's not a high cost medicine, because if it's not on the list of the public health care, them you need to pay it, or get a lawyer to make the goverment pay it for you). If you need a surgery, or a complex procedure... more time on the wait list.
On public hospitals, you see people crowded in beds and chairs on the hallways, waiting rooms filled with angry people, and storage rooms with shortage of supplies. Sometimes even human organs are lost because of the bad management.
It's not all bad, some things works pretty good, like our vacine system, hiv treatment and trauma care. But cases where a disease could be resolved, but results in a bad outcome because of the delay is more commom than the goverment likes to admit.
@Alexander Knight.. yeah Brazil might suck ass ( I havent been but I will take your word for it) but its not because universal healthcare is bad.
And on a side note the US has overthrown many democratically elected governments in Latin America
Funny, because where I am from, with government health care aid, when I broke my arm in less than 2 hours I had been put in plaster, explained what had happened and where, and only paid 40-100 dollars for it,
Quick, efficient, cheap
hey thats COMMUNISM dam radical liberal get outta here
You didn't only pay 40-100 for it. You (and/or somebody else in your country) paid a whole lot more for it. The rest was just hidden in the form of significantly higher taxes.
@@Roark86 oh boo hoo I have to pay taxes and in return me and the rest of my country don't bankrupt ourselves when we stub our toes,
How awful, it's not like America has incredibly high taxes for its trillion dollar military
@Sean Terrance new Zealand, universal healthcare but low military spending means that we have pretty much the same taxes as the US but really cheap healthcare
@bill davis what the fuck does diversity have anything to do with healthcare?
I'm not a doctor, but I have an office job in a medical facility and I can tell you that the system that has resulted from all these factors is even more bizarre than this video makes it seem.
$20 trillion national debt proves that subsidies, entitlements & safety nets shouldn't be in the hands of the federal government. #20Trillon
You clearly have no regard for history that debt is from Reagan spending during the Cold War and for the war against terror!
Soviet Solanum more corporate profits does not automatically equal more money and more jobs. It’s up to each individual company how they use the money. Most make no changes because they want to maximize their profit and others will only make a few hires that were already needed for the company anyway or will give one time bonuses. And given the downward trend of the economy in the past two months. (The DOW Jones dropped like 800 points recently!) it looks like these tax cuts may not have been all they were cracked up to be. Like how GM is laying people off
Soviet Solanum I agree that the tariffs are the main part of why the dow is down but I think there are also lots of small contributing factors other than Trump’s mismanagement. My point with gm was that they’re saving millions of dollars and yet they choose to cut the less profitable factories and that’s going to hurt thousands of families. If you’ve saved millions of dollars from paying less taxes you should be ok with breaking even with your factories since if you eliminate those factories thousands of lives are ruined for the foreseeable future. You do see the irony here right? Why is your profile pic a hammer and sickle if you support free trade? I’m no socialist but that seems weird to me 😂
We have been waiting for trickle down economics to work for about 30 years. Maybe its time to try something else, dont you think?
CharlieZColt you clearly have no clue what you’re talking about. The US govt has been bankrupt since 1933. And has had to borrow money from the federal reserve in order to run the country and pay for things like war and social services etc. when that money is used up we hit the debt ceiling and the govt is forced to raise the debt ceiling and borrow more money. All this borrowed money is owed back with interest. This is where all your federal income tax goes. This is also why the national debt is 22 trillion.
As a truck driver I have one or two insurance companies to choose from. Usually just one. Its cost me about $50 - $75 a week. If I had 100 insurance companies competing for my business my premiums would be about a $10 a week. But the government only let's you have access to maybe one or two insurance companies in your state.
You forogot one thing: Malpratice lawsuits.
In the meantime, Direct Primary Care doctors are a great way to keep your healthcare costs down if you can afford it.
It also didn't hurt that the American Medical Association made the 100,000 doctor "recommendation" while donating large sums of cash to political campaigns knowing, full well, that the government-mandated limit would keep costs, vis-a-vis salaries, high.
The US is simply to big for government owned healthcare to work. You need a smaller population and a smaller country, like in the West. The NHS in the UK started to crumble immediately because we were under pressure from America to back them up in Korea. Sadly, Winston Churchill was our PM, and he made the decision to 'help' America by privatising eye care and dental care and blowing all of the money on sending British ships to Korea. The fact is, politicians run the country based on the political beliefs of their voters. Churchill was an elitist, he hated social democracy and libertarianism and he was extremely privileged, to the point where the money spent on him made his wealthy household to be considered a 'poor' upper class family (despite multiple members of his family being very high ranking). Therefore he was willing to sacrifice the NHS because he and his allies didn't like the idea of it. But worst of all is the management of the NHS, which isn't linked to the government. The people in this country have blamed the government for the worsening state of the NHS because corrupt people are able to hide amongst the mostly wonderful NHS employees. The fact is that socialist principles rely on the people in socialist organisation to not be horrid, corrupt people, but socialist organisations are very easy to corrupt. Now when they do work, nothing is better than them, but they need constant monitoring and *private competition* to keep them on their toes.
This is why we need a healthcare system like Germany, it’s “government” healthcare is hundreds of competing not-for-profit companies providing healthcare instead of the government. And there’s also lots of private insurance to choose from. The healthcare system in Germany is also not based on your employment, so there was more competition
How do not for profit companies compete? what incentive could there possibly be? profit is the whole reason for competition in business.
@@zeehero7280 They get most of their funding from compulsory donations
"Not-for-profit"
Hah, good joke.
Even though some of those countries either are tourist traps and schools or are in need of work in higher end hospitals which value their dedication and skill practiced over years, one doctor over seas could be proficient in over 10 different types of medical fields
People who are commenting “BuT oThEr CoUnTriEs HaVe fReE hEaLtHcaRe” aren’t getting the picture
How come? It's seems better to pay a few more taxes for a free Healthcare system for everyone than is it for Healthcare to be controlled by a free market which can be manipulated to force consumers to pay large amounts of money's for Healthcare just for them
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 I will agree that the government is blame for this current situation, but l would not say it's as simple as getting rid of the government. I would say it's better for the government to slowly center it's economy towards the common individual and their needs rather than supporting the upper class as it does currently, since even if we got rid of the government somehow, it's not gonna stop other power with high amounts of power like the upper class to take over and abuse the "free market". It's harder to regulate a individual with a high amount of power than a system with a high amount of power.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 I don't see that since healthcare is privatized and we still have issues with it. Also the free market can be abused by individuals, since if that wasn't the case then there wouldn't be any big monopolies that crushes small businesses from being able to grow. It is true that nobody can force anyone or stop anyone from doing anything , but they're should be stronger regulations to prevent abuse of these systems since you can't always depend on someone to not do that
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 True, they do protect and even create their monopolies if necessary but they also attempt to prevent them as well. Also big monopolies don't really need the government to function if there's non governmental barriers to entry
The government made it terrible...who.would.have.thought.
There's all these people pushing for free healthcare I'm like ummmm isn't that what got us into this in the first place?
People don't have the option to opt out of healthcare, Seamus, so the prices are always going to be high. If a sandwhich place is selling it's wares at too high a price, people try the new soup places. When the hospital is too highly priced ... they go to a vet??? Hospitals and health insurance companies have consumers life in their hands, what incentive do they have to lower prices or provide better services when theres no need to compete?
Stephen Furbank Think about your reasoning for a second. Take food for example. People don't have the option to not eat, but that doesn't mean farmers can charge whatever they like for food.
Dean Cutler, if the soup place charges too high, I buy a try the new sandwhich place. If I have diabetes, I need insulin. There are enough options including dozens of countries and companies providing food. The US healthcare system has virtually no competition.
If you want to suggest how to make the healthcare market place more competitive, then I'm all ears, but right now there's no incentive to provide better care at a lower price.
It's not true that US healthcare has zero competition, but if you want to make it more competitive, the solution is simple. Get the government out of the industry. It's very highly regulated, which makes competition difficult.
The fact that a diabetic absolutely needs insulin to survive doesn't mean that a producer can charge whatever they want for it, as long as they aren't the only one producing. Like my example of food, you will die without it, but if one source is too expensive you'll just look elsewhere.
Then how come we saw prices going up during the Bush years, when there was basically no regulation and huge tax cuts. Why have none of the major health insurance providers cover emergency ambulances or pre-existing conditions for affordable prices ... because there's so few health insurance companies that control the market who find it profitable to do so.
While we're on the subject of government influence, medicare and medicaid cut the the two biggest gambles for health insurance companies out of the inurance market, (some of) the poor and the elderly. This should theoretically bring the cost down but people need medicine and its far more profitable to charge whatever they want. Health insurance companies make almost as much as oil companies without producing anything, by minimising care and maximising pricing.
The fact that they put a limit on how many doctors can be trained in the US, made extra certifications, and won't allow foreign doctors all serves one purpose: to restrict the supply of doctors, and keep prices high.
The same thing happens in many industries. You put roadblocks to stop people from competing and you can charge higher prices. Why do you think cosmetologists need more training than police officers in a lot of states? They might cite something about safety, but the real reason is to put up a barrier against people trying to compete.
Want a funny true story. My wife’s uncle was one of the first to learn and perform heart surgery in South America and has trained in multiple countries and is brought to the states to teach medical doctors at hospitals various techniques, can’t practices medicine here or perform surgeries even though he’s been doing it for decades. He’s retired now but still trains and innovates with other doctors.
Independent doctors charge like $100 - $25 per month subscriptions for their services at any available time.
Very insightful. But The one thing this video skips over is the fact that government also subsidizes health insurance companies due to the fact that premiums given to health insurance companies are tax deductible but direct health expenditures are not
Notice how this video didn’t care to mention why other countries that have some form of single payer healthcare have substantially lower cost for care and medicine than what Americans pays. How interesting.
name them if you know them
@@mudlarkcacophony3115 By them do you mean other countries? I am not sure exactly what you are asking but I feel this article will answer whatever questions you have. www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/us-health-care-global-perspective-2019#:~:text=Data%3A%20OECD%20Health%20Statistics%202019.&text=In%202018%2C%20the%20U.S.%20spent,%2C%20Switzerland%2C%20spent%2012.2%20percent.
@@mudlarkcacophony3115 Literally every single other first world country has better care and less cost.
@DakiloSlayer 28 Can you try and be
less specific with your statements? Using "most" and just generalizing "elective surgeries" isn't exactly cutting it
@DakiloSlayer 28 I'd be surprised if you were able to name a single country (not even just single payer healthcare countries) that has outlawed elective surgeries. Most single payer systems don't include elective surgery, but do allow you to pay for it yourself or buy insurance to cover it in the future. Keep in mind, while you might have to wait longer you're still paying less than you would in the US. Also, if you need surgery to alleviate joint damage/pain, that's not an elective surgery.
Medical pricing is ridiculous. There's no other part of my life where I agree to pay for something without knowing how much it's going to cost.
it is expensive for a reason; it is expensive to train doctors to a high standard.
@@rlkinnard Well, it is also expensive to train mechanical engineers.
Or robotics.
And yet the prices for products are dropping...
@@TMG-Germany First, getting a PhD is an expensive process but not getting a BS or even a MS in comparison with not just a BS and a MD but also 4 to 6 years of additional training.
Second, one of the biggest problems in medicine is that people are getting unneeded procedures and tests that drive up the price of medicine. And these tests are driven by patients as much as by doctors
I am trying harder as I get more experienced to not order excessive tests or treatments that do not really benefit the patient.
@@TMG-Germany and by the way, engineers are well paid.
Allowing more doctors to be trained and allowing foreign doctors to more easily work in the US seems like the better system not getting rid of all government involvement.
JayzOned C but it's the government that limits them. Can't get through the gate if the gatekeeper repels you
Currently they're actually trying to make even harder for international medical graduates to work in the US.
+Ace Gunso -- So write your congressman and get him to change that. It's not rocket surgery.
JayzOned C those two things you mentioned AEE government jnvolvement
JayzOned C Government involvement is what drove up the costs in the first place. *Government is literally the reason foreign doctors aren’t allowed to work in the US*
Yeah, what will fix the prices created by big government is BIGGER government!! Yeah!!!!
i know i type it like 7 years later, but isnt medicare in singapurian version better?
This was excellent. From your friends at Against Crony Capitalism
@Red Matter This is a common misunderstanding on your behalf. Crony capitalism is distinct.
@Red Matter bruh most owners who inherited business don’t run it they probably own it
We need true price discovery in health care and health insurance.
Obamacare, Medicaid, Medicare and VA hospitals should be phased out. People under these programs and those who are financially below the poverty level should be given a yearly amount (at the state level, veterans at federal level) that they could use to purchase health insurance.
Isn't that what Obamacare does? Single payer system is way more cost effective, than just subsidizing health insurance.
dont forget that the poverty line in the usa is still a fairly good quality of life as its higher than most countries
@@jascrandom9855
It isn't more cost effective. Hence why Canada and England are spiraling towards bankruptcy.
@@jfangm Is this a sarcastic comment?
@@jascrandom9855
No, it is an objective fact. England and Canada are struggling to remain solvent due to their public healthcare systems.
EU laughing
Expensive?? Where????
Sometimes they even pay you more than what you paid for your meds
Alejandro Zarzuelo wait i have seen you somewhere....
Man that’s makes some good sense, *not realizing that there is high taxes and wait time due to free health care*
Most Europeans pay less tax than Americans lol
Kudelia yeah well the socialist ones aren’t one of them.
Italy is considered a "poor" European country and yet it has a far higher life expectancy compared to the US. In fact I know of a lot of Americans that came to my country just to get something treated on Italian taxpayers money (because even foreigners are covered)
why is there such a recent surge of people commenting on this video with "this is propaganda" or "this is stupid" with no arguments
are they all bots or what?
health insurance should be an open market like car insurance. Hundreds of companies and options. Not Obama's anointed FOUR COMPANIES
I usually agree with most of the stuff here, but I think this gets it at least partially wrong.
The free market only works when both supplier & consumer have negotiating power. When a supplier offers a product at an unreasonable price, or simply offers an inferior product, a consumer with negotiating power has the ability to simply not buy that product.
When we're talking about health care, that will never be the situation, because in many cases, people's lives are on the line. Worse, if you're already in a life threatening situation, you can't go shopping around for healthcare providers, because without government regulation, healthcare providers universally choose to disqualify potential policy holders based on "pre-existing conditions" -- so you're basically stuck with whatever provider you have at whatever prices they think you should pay. That's a breakdown of capitalism.
A good analogy would be if your house was on fire & the fire department came by. If they were run by the free market, you would simply have to pay whatever they decided you should pay in that situation, because you just don't have any other option.
Personally, I think a more reasonable solution for healthcare looks something like this:
Firstly, medicare & medicaid should absolutely be abolished. They've proven to be disproportionately expensive, complicated, & unfair when compared to their actual benefits. Replace that with a much simpler, unconditional, & probably cheaper UBI system & single payer healthcare. You can couple that with lifting the need for government training of doctors & remove the cap of number of new doctors per year.
Imho a system like this would not only reduce needless & inefficient government complexities, but it would also provide much better results than either a perfect free market healthcare system, or the modern neoliberal obamacare model. Plus it would solve tangential problems, like the fact that certain medicare programs actually disincentivize unemployed people from attaining work, as once they lose their benefits, they'll actually make less money working than they would lying around.
Saying you shouldn't have to have a plan for an emergency until you get seriously hurt is like saying you shouldn't have to have food in your kitchen until you're starving with one foot in the grave.
keeping greedy government out of a lot of things is a great solution
*Laughs in european free healthcare system*
Sure jorge
“Free”
@@earthwax7946 Tax paid. Something we accept.
@@Rosebakker5242 Yeah. We Americans already pay taxes so idk what the big deal with adding a few taxes to pay for free Healthcare system for everyone
@@locochavo4560 they're in cripling debt
When I worked at a hospital old people would come in with the same issue a couple times a week. They would receive the treatments. Medicare will not pay the bill because they came back in 30 days. I would watch people take an ambulance as a taxi. drug addicts came in with no insurance just trying to get high. People using made up social security numbers. People treating ERs like primary care physicians. All these people have to be treated because they government said so.
Hmm..The government controls healthcare..but can’t provide affordable healthcare..then what is it controlling for?.
Hhhmm no discussion of inelastic goods (health care) vs elastic goods (tvs and all the items they listed). No discussion of monopolistic action (free market doctors, medication) . So much for basic Economics 101. If you guys only looked at health care of just about every other developed country in the world. You'd probably see that the US has more in common with developing countries than developed countries when it comes to health care. Which is still an insult to many developing countries who have better health care than the USA.
Mark Plain maybe because our government sorta fucked us on this one. That's the point. But hey, you can say healthcare sucks, but we have the highest cancer survival rate in the world. That's kinda nice.
Huh? You do realize that most citizens in developed countries get private healthcare? Public healthcare sucks everywhere you go. The quality sucks, it only covers basic healthcare, and you have to wait for very long periods of time to go to the doctor. When it comes to healthcare, you can only have two of the following three: quality, affordability, or universality.
And a couple things about monopolies. First, a monopoly cannot exist for more than a short period of time without government intervention. Second, monopolies are actually a good thing. An existing monopoly must provide a quality service at the lowest price available. Yes, that monopoly can jack up their prices as soon as they eliminate competition, but when that happens, it creates an incentive for entrepreneurs and businessmen to start their own businesses with lower prices. That creates competition and the monopoly is eliminated. Third, the government is the biggest monopoly of all. They have a monopoly on power and force.
So I'm afraid that you don't really know what you're talking about.
Health care is an elastic good. People frequently avoid getting professional medical care for small injuries because they asses the cost and decide they want other things more. The more costs increase, the more this happens.
It's totally inelastic. That's why laser eye surgery keeps getting cheaper and cheaper... oh wait...
And if it was inelastic, doesn't that stand to reason that prices would stay CONSISTENT instead of RISING? You totally didn't think this through, did you?
+TheRisky9
Different procedures are going to have different levels of elasticity. The demand for Laser eye surgery to remove the need to wear glasses is obviously going to be different than the demand to get treated for a gunshot wound.
Also, Inelastic demand does not mean that prices stay consistent rather it means that prices will rise because consumers are not as price sensitive.
UK Alternate view: (More of a dump/opinion as opposed to an argument against the points made in this video)
UK has the reverse situation, with private companies impeding on effective public healthcare. This isn't all bad mind you, such as doctors practices (which are mostly privately owned) can be made more efficient by effective business practice, reducing patient time and reliance on government funding.
That was more of a quick fact. Our public healthcare is great, but it's major issue is being too top heavy i.e. Large number of inefficient office staff. Yes, prices of medicine and front line labour can be high, but the amount of bloat and wasted money at the office level is disgusting. A major one in the past decade is the attempt to implement a standardised system to store patient records across trusts. Couldn't be done because the government can't do that sort of implementation correctly. Private business would have done this like a dream.
Here's the kicker though, a business' aim to is provide a valued services at an effective cost to make a profit. What's the NHS' aim? To provide effective medical care for the population. Clear difference being about the cost/profit involved. I know what I would prefer. When the chips are down for a company, what would you want them to focus on?
I'm not fully sure which is more important/effective. The NHS is so damn good it sets the standard for large scale medical organisations. I haven't checked (so inform me if it's incorrect) but there isn't an private organisation in the world that can compare to it in terms of medical care (though that is due to it's goal of care > profit)
There is a thought dump for anyone. Use it to reinforce your own opinion or as cannon fodder to dump your own.
The NHS' aim is to please politicians. They do it by being the middlemen for the biggest voter bribery scheme in the history of man.
Wish the bribed voters would finally understand that the amount of money they're throwing could buy them a vastly superior care under a Capitalist system
"Here's the kicker though, a business' aim to is provide a valued services at an effective cost to make a profit. What's the NHS' aim? To provide effective medical care for the population. Clear difference being about the cost/profit involved. I know what I would prefer. When the chips are down for a company, what would you want them to focus on?"
The NHS's aim is not to provide effective medical care anymore than it is for the company. It's to preserve their own standard of living. That's _why_ it's so top heavy. There are no consequences for waste or failure, so waste and failure are perpetuated.
The difference is that in a free market system, waste and failure do have consequences _because another company can out price you._ And that drives the company out of business, thereby diminishing the standard of living of those in that company. _They_ actually feel some pain from failure or from stagnation, while the other company doing better is rewarded.
There is no system in the world that works when it depends on altruism. People are not naturally altruistic. That's the beauty of the free market: it harnesses self interest in a way that rewards benefiting others. Is it perfect? No. Does it lead to utopia? No. But it produces the best outcomes we've observed.
America's problem is that it no longer actually works that way. The federal government has passed so many laws and regulations and created so many agencies to control medical care that it _can't_ be done efficiently anymore.
BladeOfLight16 your not wrong in what your saying about the government having made to many laws and regulations and agencies to control them, and that they need to roll back everything and start over.
This time using Germany health care system model that allow free choice of where to get services, sets the price of what tretments costs across the country, and have efficiently made a id card that contains all your medical data history so you can go to whatever hospital you want in the USA and they easy have your history pluss your insurance information. A national health care database system that all hospitals use to retrieve and update patients data and insurance information and patients can change or update some of its information and insurance information if its wrong from a web site service.
Germanys model is the best of both worlds and make sure everyone gets the care they need and also allow for competition between insurance companies and hospitals for customers driving quality up and maybe prices down, but remember never up the government sets the max that can be charged for different treatments and drugs.
Creating competition but remove the coalition or workng together to ramp up prices.
@@maa1649 "sets the price of what [treatments] costs across the country" is antithetical to "allow for competition." It also implies that introducing new treatments would require a ridiculous bureaucratic process, which will grind innovation to a halt. That is not a good idea. Even worse, price controls have the exact opposite effect on prices: they skyrocket because supply drops below demand. Just look at housing prices in places with rent control. America's system _already_ effectively has price controls, anyway, since Medicare unilaterally determines the "allowed amount" for everything and is the monopoly insurer of the group that needs the most care. It's one of the major reasons we have skyrocketing prices already. A free market is the only system empirically observed to drives prices down without hampering availability, but it takes time, time that some people don't have. Nevertheless, I consider it a grave evil to steal a better future from our children to preserve ourselves today.
This 100%.
The NHS is flawed, but fundementally it ideaological is for the people, not for profits. So if both systems worked effectively, it is obvious which is better.
Government is about half the health insurance market with Medicare, Medicaid and the VA. This is why the health insurance market is not functioning like a normal market in any other industry.
I am willing to bet 100 monopoly money that big businesses had a hand in all of this.
Health care kinda sucks everywhere. I encourage everyone who can to embrace preventative health practices and become responsible for their own health. Relying on the system is a pretty dangerous thing to do. The health system profits the sicker everyone is. If you can try and find those who are heros for health, not people who only address symptoms. Things like diet, sleep, exercise, hydration, breathing, pooping, gut health, are key. That being said sometimes people need the medical system and i am glad for those it actually helps. Wishing you all great health and wellness.
So you take government regulation out of healthcare. Could it be a possibility for pharmaceutical companies to be even more direct with lobbying?
That why government has to shrink.
How can pharmaceutical companies lobby if the govt. has no power to give favors in the first place?
@@AnimMouse lmao ok
Hospitals have something called a charge master. It's super inflated prices charged to insurance companies. I mean, 1000x the cost of equipment. A standard neck brace is a couple bucks, but you're charged hundreds for it. This is not acceptable in a field where you can't shop around.
I've heard that, ironically, it's way better if you just straight up tell the hospital that you're uninsured. They charge you based off a completely different price sheet. It's all a racket to fleece the insurance companies when they get involved.
I do appreciate your idealism, but unfortunately in the real world deregulation just raises prices. You've probably seen the ads for learning to be a medical assistant etc. This was to flood the market with this profession so that people could get away with paying them a lower salary. Without regulation health care prices would skyrocket, insurance prices would skyrocket, and of course insurance companies would go back to denying coverages to people with preexisting conditions.
How does deregulation raises prices if the point of deregulation is competition?
@@AnimMouse the companies can raise their prices without external pressure
Combining this with the way Fraternities of Mutual aid were dismantled, which I learned about recently, I'm just that much more infuriated by how our very high quality medical industry generates absurdly inflated prices.
Got any good titles I read up on. I ran into the Fraternity clinics awhile back and what to read up on their practice model more
Employer funded insurance is crazy to me. Why would you want your enployer to have anything at all to do with your health? Even from the other end, I have employed people and can only think of 1 reason to want anything at all to do with their healthcare... $$$
Instead of just paying people their wage if I can reduce that by $3k and offer a package of insurance "worth" $4k but because of a bulk deal with an insurance company I get their policy for $2k then I make extra. I hate all insurance, every dollar paid to every person, from CEO to janitor at the office is a dollar NOT spent on actual health.
This guy doesn't know crap
That's why I get all my dental work done in Reynosa, Mexico.
1:54
Wait, that's illegal
The thing about all those things you list at 1:20... is that you (1) are able to check the pricing of those goods beforehand and (2) you are able to choose which product to buy based on that decision. When someone collapses from a heart attack and needs an ambulance to take him to the nearest ER, that individual can’t choose the ambulance company to transport them or the hospital they will end up at, nor do they know how much those things will cost. Can you imagine making those informed decisions in the back of an ambulance?
Wow, that was pretty enlightening, thanks seamus
For anyone who found this video or arguments like this convincing, ask yourself this one question: Why should people’s healthcare have a profit incentive tied to it?
@@jmd9402 Yes you can. Make enough money to keep the lights on and don't take profit.
@@jmd9402 Did you hear what I said? Ever heard of a non-profit organization?
@@jmd9402 How is that related to what I have just proposed?
@@jmd9402 Do you have any evidence for this? I see no reason why people should be making a profit off of something like medicine. It costs more for the average joe and thrusts people into debt way too often for it to be viable. I see where you're coming from but every argument you make just isn't up to par. The main thing that changed my mind about this was when Bernie went on Joe Rogan. You should look it up.
@John Doe Why would I provide you with a nursery home for free? Because I can afford it, and you voted me into political power so that I could help you have a better life.
you seem to have forgotten the demand curve for healthcare.
you got the supply curve down pat. more money for healthcare equals more supply. less money equals less supply.
however, the demand curve for health care doesn't work that way. in economic terms, demand for healthcare is inelastic. that is, it varies very little depending on cost.
or to put it another way, people aren't going to line up around the block just because the local clinic is having a two for one sale on colonoscopies. nor will they turn away just because common medications double in price. the demand for healthcare is going to be pretty constant regardless of price. the result is that there is always going to be a major push towards monopolies.
the pharmaceutical industry is an excellent example of this. dozens (hundreds) of essential medications are going up in price leveraging monopoly power to maintain those prices.
it's nice to think that deregulation will solve the problem, but the regulations exist for a reason. without them the pharmaceutical and healthcare industry would descend into fraud and hucksterism and end up looking like the dietary supplement business (unless you really do think a drug made from an animal that has no brain will be good for your brain).
It's funny how you come up with these arbitrary reasons why we have to regulate pharmaceuticals while OTC medications have great competition at a great price
No government involved leads to monopolies. Government involvement done wrong leads to them installing a monopoly. We need a balance of government regulation towards privatized businesses that are life essentials. Idk how we would, but that's my 2¢. I understand if you disagree
I would make the argument that monopolies are helpful. They can only become (and stay as) monopolies if they continuously provide the highest quality material at the lowest cost. If a monopolizing business jacks up its prices, other businesses will have incentive to pop up so as to steal away customers with lower prices. I feel like monopolies are only hated because they inspire greed.
monopolies do not exist without government intervention for more than a short time.
Monopolies cannot exist by definition without government support. A lot of people think they can because they point to laws protecting large corporations with those laws are enforced by government regulation. Hence remove the government from that and they cannot monopolize. Look at telephones look at Internet etc. Right now we have several parts of this country with really bad Internet or data caps. Government regulation is preventing competitive markets from taking that over lowering prices and giving us better Internet. Look at APS electricity services. That’s the biggest one protected by the government
The government is the biggest monopoly of all. They have a monopoly on power and force. And like everyone else said, monopolies cannot exist for more than a short time without government intervention and subsidization.
N B correction: if they continuously provide what people think is the highest quality material at the lowest cost.
Considering healthcare is cheaper in other western nations this dose t make sense. The us government just fucked up.
Healthcare doesn’t work in fee market.
If I have a heart attack I will need that treatment irrespective of the costs. Cosmetic surgery like eye correction I can go to where ever I want when I want.
Well, government has jacked it up completely , but the original problem was the creation of insurance. Before insurance, how much a doctor charged was set by how much the average patient could afford, which wasn't really much. Once insurance was created, it spread the cost across all insured regardless of whether they used the services of the doctor or not. Doctors realized that they could then increase how much they charged to the amount that the 'collective' could afford, which is a far greater amount. I'm not sure if it was a conscious effort to increase the price or not, but it happened.
THEN the government totally fucked it all up in its entirety, as government is want to do...
Lol
I'm in France, my last hospital bill was around 30€. Thanks socialised Healthcare
@Red Matter or they're the price you pay for *failing* to build a civilized society.
The rest of the western world is facepalming over America's healthcare system. Living in Norway is pretty great.
@@charlesthorndike2702 and once again, this video is *criticizing* the US system. Just not in the direction you want it to.
@@FEEonline
Around 40% of Americans can't afford a minor medical emergency. So I don't think my opinion is unpopular among Americans.
Also, Franklin D Roosevelt suggested ideas like universal healthcare back in the 1930s. It's not like he was some sort of radical commie, or entitled millenial.
@@charlesthorndike2702 FDR is a big part of why we have the problems we have now.
so basically more doctors (increased supply) will help lower prices by catching up to higher demand (more people)
guys its basic economics cmon i learned this in 9th grade
Imagine, letting market forces dictate prices instead of big insurance companies!
I'm missing exactly HOW government insurance programs raise the cost of insurance. I believe in privatized insurance, so I'm moreso asking to bolster my argument in a discussion on the topic.
In some European countries, insurance is completely government controlled, and they have very low costs of health care.
Is it more about having either one or the other fully cover health care, rather than having both private and government health care at the same time?
I am LOVING all the salty, ignorant "bUt MuH sOcIaLiSm" tears.
Nice! Simple + straightforward + Seamus = success
So you’re telling me that the government just makes things worse when they’re doing something they shouldn’t be in?
So you're telling me health is a commodity to be bought and sold? What the fuck is a private company doing in the healthcare sector, get those bastards out of there. EVERYONE has a right to health, EVEN if they can't afford to pay. And if everyone pays with a tax contribution, then thats fine.
Greetings from Germany, where everybody has a guaranteed healthcare and its cheap.
@John Doe _"So you're telling me the government should have more incentive to steal money from me directly and then use it nefariously"_ I am telling you that YOU should have more control (voting) on how much taxes you pay and where those taxes go.
I am also telling you that the amount of money the government takes from you in taxes is lower than the amount of money that your boss makes through your work but doesn't pay you - the government at least gives back, your boss doesn't.
Capitalists are worse thieves than any government.
I can't wait until we experience the sheer joy of waiting two years for a hip replacement under the socialized People's Health....yay...
I cant wait to go bankrupt under private healthcare cause I dont have insurance because I was born with a preexisting condition and cant afford to pay for medical costs out of pocket
@@Jack-sq6xb So what about evolution? Shouldnt preexisting conditions one is born with lower the chances of survival? The cure you fight with makes the future dependent.
Yyyyep
Derederi dude are you a psychopath?Someone was born with a shit condition so we developed something to help them. Now you withhold it because EvOLuTIOn. If you cant comprend how fucked that is then you shouldn’t have healthcare.
Yeah people used to die due to weak teeth we shouldn’t have dentists because EvoLUTioN
@@Jack-sq6xb Thought you guys "Fucking Love Science".
Britain has socialized Health Care called the National Health Service since 1948. It works and has freely provided necessary surgeries for me (left lung) and my parents.
As a medical student from a developed Western European country who is currently preparing to take the licensing tests to work in the USA, I can assure you that they should still exist. They are way more challenging than any certification in my country, and I've learned a lot just preparing for them. After all, we want the most competent doctors
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Hospitals already uphold stricter criteria than the Medical Board. Basically, after you get your license from the Medical Board, and you apply to an internship at a hospital, they may still reject you even though you are licensed. Every year there are a lot of licensed doctors who are not able to get an internship spot
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 Not necessarily, the government demands that you pass some exams in order to get the license, but the hospitals, when given several candidates, can use the exam grades among other factors in order to choose. If the hospital believes that no applicant is a good fit, then no one gets the spot (or if the only “admissible” candidates prefer other hospitals). So while the licensing (passing the exam) is mostly useless, the exam itself is quite useful
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 But yes, in practice, no one is excluded due to being unable to get a license: if those candidates would apply, no hospital would consider taking them
This makes so much sense. Why can't we get more people to understand these facts based on basic ecnomics?
Explain how every country with socialized medicine spends less and gets more out of healthcare than the US.
They do spend less but they definitely don't get more. Also the most inefficient system isn't a socialised one, it's a mix of private and public. However completely private is definitely more efficient than completely public
@@malachymoreland7417 Many "socialized" healthcare systems _are_ partially privately run and are still far more efficient than the US. Germany, for example, basically has the ACA on steroids and it achieves comparable results to other, more nationalized systems.
@@malachymoreland7417 What evidence is there that an all-private system would be most efficient? To my knowledge, such a system has never existed in modern times.
That’s becuse 1 many contrys such as Canada,France and the uk have a lot less pepole in the USA. Canada has 36 million pepole and the USA has over 300 million pepole. so compareing those 2 contrys is like apples to oranges. Allso “get more out of helthcare” Umm yeah no another resion is becuse they deliver a lower quality of care. I actuly have a rend on discord from Canada and he has siad that there still useing windows 95 computers and another frend that has to wait weeks for simple medicateion. not only that there are many Canadians that come to the USA for our helthcare becuse the wait times are very short outbound 90 minuets wile the wait times in Canada are months. in fact many Canadians that visited amercia for our helthcare have siad to not use nationalized helthacare. In fact the only good aspects of there helthcare is that medcateion from a privet seller is cheeper than from the USA. so plz stop with your amercain privlage
@@josephlisowski6414 How can china provide half decent public healthcare to a population of nearly 1.4 billion, the gap between regional and city is noticeable but the system in china works (Note I am not saying china's is great, but using it as a example that you can have a large population with public health, I personally think the PRC is pretty bad.)
I agree that the US Governent kinda screwed up but keeping the Goverment conpletly out? That is not going to work. There is the problem that Private Insurances are a big problem too. They wanted discounts of the Prices wich where reasonable but the Hospitals couldnt afford it so they drove up prices to give Insurance Companies a discount from that. There is a system used in EU countries where the Goverment sets how much you can charge for what. There is also Universal Healthcare wich works out BECAUSE the Goverment controls the prices at Hospitals and Clinics.
Where is this though ?
It's called competition, you're only going to participate in a transaction if you approve of that transaction. There's never a problem with what a private insurance company does because if you don't like then you can swap insurances and if you think they're all bad then open up your own insurance agency!
Or we could have universal health care like every other developed country.
And be five feet deep into social security debt, yay !
Hey so Seamus said around the 1 minute mark that we started requiring doctors to get extra schooling, training, and licensure beyond medical school.
I'm really just thinking out loud here, so I apologize if this gets confusing. I spoke to tge head of a law school once, and he told me that most pre-law students are wasting their time getting a a degree in history, philosophy, or poly-sci. He said they'd be better off acing the BAR and getting an incredible score on their LSAT and spending their time getting involved in their community and interning at a law firm instead of getting a college degree.
So why do pre-med students need to get a bachelor's degree? My advisor told me explicitly to major in anything BUT biology for a better chance at getting accepted into a med school by standing out from the crowd. So it's not like they're actually getting prepped to be a doctor before med school.
So why don't we send doctors straight to med school?
Because regulations. Personally, I don't even think we need med school outside of specializations. Doctors could be trained in hybrid internships/schooling.
My wife and I both worked for the same company that provided health care insurance. Never paid any medical bills. Obama took office and screwed it all up.
Despite double coverage we got a hugh deductible and
had to pay out of pocket. It sucks...
I’m so glad that I’m part of a percentage who doesn’t have to worry about healthcare prices sense I get it for free.
Free? You mean "paid through taxes". Unless you're young/poor enough to not pay taxes?
Actually “free” means Alaskan native healthcare, worked and owned by our people. That’s why I believe it’s separate.
@@pedropradacarciofi2517 I wasn’t countering anything in the video, just a blurb of native healthcare.
Well still technically not free, you're paying into a community "insurance" pool to cover healthcare cost as they arise. Not a bad idea at all for small scale communities. The Amish do the same if I recall. Along with funding pretty much all of their public services independent of local and federal governments.
@@DraKKar360 youd be right, exept that was one of our agreements with the goverment for mistreatment of our people, so we get goverment funds for it
Why does free healthcare work in literally every other developed country then?
It doesn't.
First, it is far from "free". The costs are paid in considerably higher taxes, lower rates of economic growth, lower levels of innovation, and - rather importantly - longer wait times for care.
Secondly, nearly every "universal" system is supplemented by private insurance, which many/most citizens (depending on the country) also pay for in addition to their taxes to compensate for the limited care available from the government-run systems.
It's also worth noting that over the last decade or so most of the European health care systems have been suffering major solvency problems which have resulted in budget cuts and further restrictions.
www.nytimes.com/2018/01/03/world/europe/uk-national-health-service.html
They also rely heavily on technology and techniques produced in the US... Which is a part of why we pay more overall.
www.brookings.edu/research/the-global-burden-of-medical-innovation/
Without the US developing new medicines, the rest of the world would suffer substantially and that rarely gets factored in to this conversation.
This is, of course, not to say the US system is "better", but it has different kinds of problems. It's more expensive, its bureaucracies are cumbersome and complicated, and it's a product of decades of one intervention after the next creating layers of confusing and contradictory rules. However... Where it does well is in the detection and treatment of major illnesses like cancer, and on the actual availability of specialists and specialized treatments.
www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/practice-management/news/in-the-journals/%7Bf958e84b-6d0e-48cd-8f46-05911f4d31ec%7D/us-cancer-survival-rates-remain-among-highest-in-world
In truth, this whole issue is much more complicated than a 3-4 minute cartoon could ever hope to explore, but the notion that the "rest of the world" has single payer systems that are cost and downside-free while the US system is all bad is simply false.
What we argue is that the US could continue to benefit from what we do well and seriously lower the costs to consumers if we actually allowed markets and free price systems to work.
@@FEEonline I try to hear out both sides. This study shows medicare for all would save 5.1 trillion over the next 10 years, or even the koch funded one that shows it saves 2 trillion, just from switching from the current healthcare system and applying the taxes shown in the article. www.commondreams.org/newswire/2018/11/30/depth-analysis-team-umass-amherst-economists-shows-viability-medicare-all
Continuing business health care premiums, but with a cut of 8 percent relative to existing spending per worker. Businesses that have been providing coverage for their employees would thereby see their health care costs fall by between about 8-13 percent.
A 3.75 percent sales tax on non-necessities, which includes exemptions for spending on necessities such as food and beverages consumed at home, housing and utilities, education and non-profits. The researchers include a 3.75 percent income tax credit for families insured by Medicaid.
A net worth tax of 0.38 percent, with an exemption for the first $1 million in net worth. The researchers state that this tax would therefore apply to only the wealthiest 12 percent of U.S. households.
Taxing long-term capital gains as ordinary income.
Those dont seem like considerably higher tax rates, the private healthcare would still remain for those who could afford it and dont wanna wait as long. But for those who cant, it is better to wait 9 or even 12 hours, than No healthcare at all.
@@Nirv2267 that's not what the "Koch" study (Mercatus Center) said.
At all.
"As The Washington Post's fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted, some individuals, including Sen. Sanders himself, claimed Dr. Blahous’s paper proved M4A would save the country $2 trillion.
Those claims, according to Kessler, went too far. In Kessler’s words, critics “cannot seize on one cherry-picked fact without acknowledging the broader implications of Blahous’s research.” They warranted, in Kessler’s view, a “Three Pinocchios” rating (you can read more about what that rating means and The Fact Checker’s methodology on their site).
Indeed, just a few days after the study was released, Dr. Blahous wrote in The Wall Street Journal that “Some have seized on a scenario in my estimates showing a slight decline in projected total public and private health expenditures under Medicare for All. But that decline, relative to current projections, relies on an assumption that (M4A) would immediately and dramatically cut provider payment rates by roughly 40 percent.”
In other words, as noted in both TheWashington Post’s fact check and Dr. Blahous’s op-ed, the savings estimates only reflect a particular aspect of the methodology of the study. Dr. Blahous adopted the most generous cost-saving assumptions made by M4A in order to more fairly analyze the specific proposal, but he also notes in several places throughout the paper that those assumptions may be unreasonable.
In the fourth sentence of the paper’s abstract, Dr. Blahous wrote “It is likely that the actual cost of M4A would be substantially greater than these estimates…”"
www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/medicare-all-32-trillion-new-costs-or-2-trillion-savings
In other words, the assumptions you have to make to get to *any* savings are so ludicrous that they are well outside the bounds of reality, and if you actually use realistic expectations, the costs will be far, far more than estimated.
@@FEEonline im not refering to the koch study here, im refering to a more recent study which i linked that found it to save 5.1 trillion.
@@Nirv2267 The other study is by an outfit literally run by Bernie Sanders' wife. I would have to look into it more closely, but let's be honest about how gigantic a red flag that is.
Also they increased the prices so insurance companies can say they got a discount
Back when Seamus made good content