Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Medicare For All: What Does it Actually Mean?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 мар 2019
- Medicare for All has become wildly popular among Democrats running for office these days. But what does that mean exactly? It's complicated, if you can believe that. Does this include universal coverage? What happens to employer-based insurance? We take a close look at some of the questions surrounding this issue.
Related HCT episodes:
1. Medicare for All and Administrative Costs: • Medicare for All and A...
2. Medicare for All Could Save $2 Trillion: • Medicare for All Could...
Resources Used in this Video
Public Opinion on Single-Payer, National Health Plans, and Expanding Access to Medicare Coverage - Kaiser Family Foundation: www.kff.org/slideshow/public-...
Further Reading:
Build Your Own ‘Medicare for All’ Plan. Beware: There Are Tough Choices - www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...
We read Democrats’ 9 plans for expanding health care. Here’s how they work - www.vox.com/2018/12/13/181030...
The Uninsured Rate Has Soared Under Trump - Maybe - www.motherjones.com/kevin-dru...
If Obamacare Exits, Some May Need to Rethink Early Retirement - www.nytimes.com/2017/02/27/up...
The Astonishingly High Administrative Costs of U.S. Health Care - www.nytimes.com/2018/07/16/up...
With Sickest Patients, Cost Sharing Comes at a Price - www.nytimes.com/2015/05/05/up...
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Suicide Rates and Insi...
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen - Art Director
Meredith Danko - Social Media
#medicare #m4a
FYI we've got a bunch of links in the description for further reading and watching!
Healthcare Triage good but government spending has not been funded by taxes since FDR took us off the gold standard. Floating currencies don’t use taxes to spend - only to check inflation. Medicare for all single payer is deflationary.
There are things which your calculations do not take into account, meaning universal healthcare would not cost more than the current private insurance system.
Corporate profits, executive pay, ADVERTISING, shareholder dividends, insurance agent commissions.
Combine that with the savings of treating serious conditions sooner, controlling chronic conditions to prevent them from becoming critical. Currently, insurance companies refuse chronic or preventative treatment. Then, when the patient becomes disabled or critically ill, they get passed off to Medicare/Medicaid.
I wrote a 3 part series on this and could still add to it.
issuesunite.com/how-universal-healthcare-is-the-best-system-pt-i/
issuesunite.com/how-universal-healthcare-is-best-pt-ii/
issuesunite.com/how-universal-healthcare-is-best-pt-iii/
+
@@abqmalenurse that's utter nonsense. Even including profits and administrative costs, private is cheaper than Medicare on a per patient basis. Also HTC has already had a segment on how preventative medicine isn't a money saver (though it also isn't a bad thing). The calculations for "savings" not only take these into account but miscount government administrative costs by displaying them as a percentage of total spending rather than administrative spending per patient. Not to mention that most analyses leave out other administrative costs that Medicare actually incurs in collecting and administering.
@peter collins because the US government uniquely sucks more than the others. How do you explain the fact that US healthcare wasn't expensive before the government got involved? Where is the evidence of other countries making their healthcare cheaper than it was before with government intervention? I've asked this dozens of times and gotten zero replies, let alone any evidence of government actually reducing the cost of healthcare.
The studies are already in and show massive increases in government spending to achieve a universal system. At a best case scenario this saves over projected increases with our current system (not cheaper than now, just cheaper than the projected increases with a halfway system), and that is with a reduction of reimbursement to providers of 40%, which itself is insane.
No, I don't underestimate it. You miscalculate the administrative costs of Medicare. Read up:
mises.org/wire/medicare-all-administrative-costs-are-much-higher-you-think
I zoned out when you focused on employer-based insurance, as if we are stuck in the 20th century. The connection between health insurance and employment was always questionable, but now it is visibly out of line with the economy of independent contractors and multiple jobs.
Nobody even has good employer based healthcare unless they're already making A LOT OF FR*CKIN MONEY!
@@Ki-lr6ub ...and if they are making a lot of money, they don't have a problem covering their bills EVEN w/o health insurance
I have found when I have had an employer who "OFFERS" a health insurance plan that the pay is not sufficient to utilize the plan. In Bill Clinton's 1st term he changed the law for employer coverage from provide to offer.
Healthcare has been spiraling downward since. And few noticed that he implemented this law change. And here we are.
Definitely! Another issue is that employer based healthcare is subject to constant change. We should be consistently covered for everything, especially if we will be saving money by instead paying nothing but slightly more in taxes. No more medical bills, no more co-pays, no more deductibles. And everything will be covered.
@@Ki-lr6ub get a union job. They have terrific healthcare.
It barbaric that America let's some of its citizens go without health care while it's the wealthiest nation in the world!
That is what private charity is for....employer provided insurance.
We've seen what bureaucrat ran healthcare has done for people..Nothing. That's why families need to take the extra step and move away from government ran healthcare.
It's exactly because America doesn't let their government ruin such a big part of the economy that America is so rich so...
@@germankenway what good is being wealthy if you let your citizens die
dennis you should of said it’s you goofed up
Medicare is a single payer. An expansion of health insurance is NOT "Medicare for All." Medicare for All would mean getting private insurance out of the primary care business.
Good
Yea dont forget there is supplemental care in most plans, so private could still exist in form of cosmetics, homeopathy, chiropractors, and CBD. But what you said is correct primaty care is thankfully taken care of.
YOUR IDIOTS....YOU KNOW ZERO ANOUT ECONOMICS....YOU WOULD IN BRIEF TIME HALF NOTHING......THERES NOT ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR IT THEY WOUKD F....K YOU WITH TAXES.....YOU LUNATICS ITS A LIE....AND FOR YOUR INFO IT'S NOT PRIVATE INSURANCE..IT IS INSURANCE PAID FOR BY THE GOVERNMENT...WITH ONLY SMALL PAYMENTS TO DOCTORS....WHY THE HELL YOU THINK THERE ARE VERY FEW DOCTORS THAT PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDICARE, MEDICAID PROGRAM... LACK OF THOSE LITTLE THINGS LIKE DOLLARS....IT ALSO WOULD ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT YOU NEED AND DON'T NEED. ..YOU REALLY SHOULD EDUCATE YOURSELVES AND SEE HOW OTHER COUNTRIES WITH THIS TYPE OF MEDICAL....NOT SO GREAT....STOP BUYING INTO THE SOCIALIST LIES.........BECAUSE YOU SHOW JUST HOW STUPUD YOU ARE....
@@scherylcrouch3056 scheryl please stop yelling, it's very rude. Now get your boomer ass of the internet. The rest of the modern world has some kind of universal healthcare plan payed by tax dollars. We pay double the average the other western countries pay. Socalism will win! ✊🏻✊🏼✊🏽✊🏾✊🏿 theres power in the union!
homo michigander anarchosaurus YOUR FUCKING STUPID....UNEDUCATED.....HAVE NO IDEA....HOW IT REALLY WORKS AND IT'S NOT FREE... I HOPE YOU NEVER VOTE, YOUR TO STUPID,....LET ME GUESS YOUR FLUNKED MATHEMATIS, ECONOMICS AND HAVE NEVER TRAVELED NOR STUDIED HOW OTHER COUNTRIES FREE HEALTHCARE REALLY WORKS.....STFU....UNTIL YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR SAYING
I pay almost 150 every 2 weeks and its the cheapest plan under Aetna with my job. Just for me and my daughter. THATS EXPENSIVE and i have a 8,000 deductiable
DH -- I worked for 50 years paying in every payday so when I retired I would have that RETIREMENT benefit. While I worked I PAID for my insurance ! So you’re special and want what me and millions and others paid 45 to 50 years and earned it. Free , free , free is all people want theses days especially Democrats. By the way I still work at 70 years old so I can take care of my own needs. Also I’m a paraplegic since infancy and have NEVER received any social benefits which I’ve always qualified for. Why ? Because I have pride.
@@1951RKP Not free, free, free. You are simply uneducated on this issue and so therefore, you should avoid talking down to people as though you are some type of know it all authority figure on this particular topic. The truth is the United States of America's healthcare system RANKS LAST among all the DEVELOPED NATIONS in the entire world. WE RANK LAST. Our healthcare system is run by greed, incompetence, and more greed. When you have a healthcare system that has a primary focus for basically all parties involved to make sure they make the most amount of profit possible for their shareholders....guess what?!?!?!? That means that actual health of the patients in that healthcare system (us, the American people) end up becoming NOT THE PRIORITY. ANY HEALTHCARE SYSTEM that operates WITHOUT THE PRIMARY GOAL BEING THE BEST/MOST OPTIMAL HEALTH and WELL BEING OF THE COUNTRY'S CITIZENS/POPULATION...is utterly NONSENSICAL. Go get yourself caught up to speed and quit being so rude.
@@1951RKP Nobody cares boomer. Let young people decide what they want for their future. In all other rich countries universal healthcare has been implemented already, and people in those countries don't work less than you.
@Anthony Landowski lol that's not a thing Anthony
@@1951RKP riiiiiight
I always thought medicare for all meant medicare... for all. Seems pretty self-explanatory to me.
Thank you. Medicare = Health care program. For all = For all.
The brilliant people on the internet are campaigning for a M4A bill that someone named Medicare for All, but don't see why these things get confusing.
If a person wants to make the Medicare program available to everyone, that translates to....
Medicare for All.
@@zeric_ the problem is just trying to figure out what the new government plan will exactly cover. In fact, we haven't got anything on that
@@samt3412 What do you mean? The legislation has been around for years with an updated version released 2019, explaining EXACTLY what it would cover (everything). www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text
@@samt3412 see Medicare and take away the need for supplemental insurance and add dental care, vision, hearing aids, and Home Health Care.
abaabaaba It isn’t. Bernie Sanders plan is way better than our current Medicare system.
Thank you media does a crapy job talking about this.
I’m Russian, we have single-payer system, and we have 13% income tax. We have incredible access and super low costs. But I can’t say that we have very good quality.
You forgot 5% healthcare tax... Russia has a flat 5% tax for health insurance that pays for it, which is very low.
It is good here in Spain, so It depends of how the country manages it
thats because you dont have very good quality. And 13% in income tax is still substantial
@@skven No it isn't
@@begetasama7209 it's always in the top ten of best health care systems
People care about a “choice” of doctor or hospital. Almost nobody gives a flying fart what “choice” of plan they get. They just want a plan with full coverage.
Exactly, and do I give a crap if wealthy whiners want to pick their doctor by paying some additional premium? NO.
If we go universal, then ALL DOCTOR'S ARE IN THE PROGRAM.
@Luís Andrade You mean the ones that retire?
If the ENTIRE USA is on MEDICARE FOR ALL, exactly who ELSE would any doctor work for?
Sure, Bill Gates, etc. can hire his full time physician to follow him around.
But the point is, if the COUNTRY is on medicare for all, then essentially ALL DOCTORS WHO WANT TO EARN A LIVING IN THE USA ARE TOO.
The absolute minimum, and I mean absolute, is a public option that anyone can buy into. Just lowering the eligibility age of Medicare to 50 would actually be WORSE than doing nothing at all. Part of the problem in the policy fight right now is old people covered under Medicare who love it but worry expanding it to everyone would lower their own standard of care. We do not need another 15 years worth of people lumped onto the "I got mine, fuck you" basket.
Kaiser health compares the cost+coverage of Sanders Med4All vs a Public Option buy in which is overviewed here-see this vid. "Comparing Bernie's Medicare4All VS a Standard Public Option HC Plan- Be aware that the Public Option is a decade old Obama era solution that allows the private insurance companies to compete with a Public option plan.It will lead to to the insurance companies trying to get rid of this competition by lobbying to weaken it to having poorer coverage.Also it won't have the same big group negotiating power on prices due to not all Americans being in the plan.Also will have less ppl defending it from attacks(rich have the option of private plan)
No. If I voted for someone that said everyone and then they decided to compromise and do 50 or over. I will 100% vote against them next election. This is not negotiable. Everyone Pays taxes to it. Everyone gets it. Were not talking about public option nonsense on roads, fire fighters, police, military spending, education, social security are we? No were not. If were opening the Public option door then I want a public option on all government spending because I want my money back.
@@drewzimmerman7722 What if there were a private option for only civil servants and the richest Americans, but the government plan would still cover the vast majority? For me that's the key: any government-administered insurance plan just needs to cover at least 80% of Americans in order to have enough market power to bring down costs. Look at Germany's system, that's how it works.
For the record, when it comes to education and social security, there are undoubtedly private options; the rich send their kids to private schools and use private investments to build a safety net and retire on. Obviously, the vast majority still use the public system.
@@ashevillecat The existence of investments and private schools is irrelevant, rich people pay into them all the same.
@@ach3456 you didn't understand my proposal
since we already pay for it... it already comes out of our pay check. it makes sense that we should be able to use it.
Direction ....no what you are paying for is the current seniors. Not yourself.and by the by, Medicare is rapidly going bankrupt and will soon be out of money. But let’s put more people on it ! We’ll end up with shit care for all.
To a point but I've payed in personally over $36,000 into Medicare system just to qualify for it when I retire. Draw back they don't help you if you known PROPERTY. You gotta rent pretty much.
@@LL-lj1kq That is a myth medicare actually has a surplus.
You pay the original way, if this every got into law, the govt would have to triple that amount at least, some flunky would tell you what's covered and what's not. You have a genetic disease, get fixed! Don't want that in gene pool
All the naysayers should read the damn bill, and look at the profit margins and lobbying expenses of the insurance companies. This is a no brainer. Some of you are so brainwashed by the damn TV and your own fear that you will let the greedy take your neighbors money and say to yourself, "I'm glad it's not me getting screwed!"... Your turn is coming unless you stand up and care for your neighbors. I know it's scary to fight for what is right. But ask the generations who fought for workers rights, or the right to vote, or for representation, or liberty and justice for all... Stand with us and help us build a world that works for all of us and not just the greedy charlitains at the top who kick us down and convince us to fight each other for scraps.
My main issue with this 'Medicare for All' policy is that no politician ever talks about the bloated bureaucratic mess that is the healthcare system and by extension the educational system and where I feel most of the money goes instead of hospitals and schools. I would like to see that addressed first because to me it seems politicians just want to pump more money into the system instead of addressing the main culprit for a substantial increase in healthcare and educational costs.
Look at this previous video of healthcare triage about medicare & administrative costs: m.ruclips.net/video/J4zx8LRBB-Y/видео.html I’m from the Netherlands and we don’t have medicare for all, but something that resembles it very closely and is indeed universal and way more affordable than the healthcare system of the U.S. I think people like Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren should really study our healthcare systems (U.K., Germany, France, Scandinavian countries, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Spain & other countries with universal healthcare and copy the good things of every system and leave out the bad things). And I advise you not to listen to people that say you guys pay so much because you innovate the most, because that’s bollocks! It’s a lot of overhead costs and greedy executives and greedy pharmaceutical companies, most of the important pharmaceutical & (bio)medical research is done with money from the NIH (public funding) -> look at this hearing if you don’t believe me: m.ruclips.net/video/S8dBuj69yPM/видео.html
Medicare for all actually does address this, at least Bernie's version. Every US citizen would be on the same healthcare plan so you wouldn't really need hospital administration/bureaucracy to negotiate insurance coverage. You would also replace all the separate bureaucracies at each individual insurance company with a single centralized system. That is one of the main reasons it would be cheaper than our current system.
You want to know what's bloated: health insurance industry CEOs $18 million annual salaries. We don't need these middlemen.
@@romaneeploeg4645 you cannot be so naive to believe that the NIH actually funds substantial amounts of the innovation. Yes, most drug's research was funded TO SOME EXTENT, by NIH, but the pharmaceutical companies still overwhelmingly fund it. And yes, ours is more expensive because we innovate the most. America innovates at least as much as the rest of the world COMBINED.
Getting rid of those roadblocks is literally a part of Bernie's Medicare for all plan.
I find it amazing that people can be convinced its a bad idea to try and cover everyones healthcare.
They do it by appealing to the selfishness of individuals.
We have it in place in most European countries. Although it is not perfect, atleast we do not have to worry about the cost of getting sick. It is bad economics to force people to think about medical costs as they will will tend to be frugal to prevent unprepared costs. I truly hope US will be able to cease the absurdity of pharmaceutical companies beneffiting from the lower class people of America.
I'm in the UK. We get outdated drugs they know are less effective because they are cheaper, it takes months to get into the doctor (I'm currently waiting 5 months to see an ear doctor and that's if it's not pushed back again update- i got a letter and it was pushed back again till Oct. that will be 11 months I’ll be waiting!), the facilities are outdated, and most of the doctors are imported from India and other east asian countries because they don't pay the doctors here well. Service from a rationed government ran healthcare system like NHS will never compare to the advanced system of the US. Every advanced test is hard to get approved and many times isn't. Not to mention you can't get sick on the weekends because there are not government ran clinics open on the weekends to see doctors. Better to get what you pay for and if healthcare is important for you then save and make it a priority so you can afford it when you need it.
@@lawrencebrookman2373 americans literally cant even get that. Also, Bernie's plan is not the same as NHS. It's more robust and covers more.
@@queenrayne1338 Bernie's plan is to raise taxes on the middle class (he's already admitted that). I say instead of raising tax rate for someone making $10/hr or $20,000+ per year from 12% to say 20% which is $1,600/yr tax increase they could use that to pay for private insurance and payments and get the best care instead of rationed care. You CAN NOT have a government ran healthcare system without rationing....period. All of the DNC and RNC both say his plan is not affordable and will double the national debt. I don't see bankrupting a country as helping its citizens
It would be great if the richest country in the world if we would catch up to the rest of the world since we spend twice as much with worse outcomes. Too bad we have the most deaths of citizens because of lack of health care. Not to mention our number one reason for bankruptcy is health care
Exactly! I can't imagine what excuses could keep this horrible system going.
are you really this clueless that you believe all of that propaganda?
Begeta Sama it’s not propaganda, US is amongst the richest countries with the highest infant mortality. But I’m sure people will find a way to blame it on the mothers or babies, even 😂
The problem with these videos about the ideas for health care insurance is, when they are talking about the increased taxes, all (including you) don't emphasize that there would be no premiums paid. Nor do any that I have seen actually compare the real cost per person in these instances - how much premiums vs. how much taxes per person.
I don't know about anyone else, but I felt more confused at the end of the video than when it began.
About what?
@@skyblue9991 "The medicare for all" part.
I am starting to feel that we all are going to get scammed from it
@@killertruth186 Not going to happen. Medicare for All is the best thing that could ever happen to this country. The fact that both the left and the right's corrupt politicians are against it should tell you that this is a piece of legislation that works for the people. I know this stuff forward and backwards... if you have questions about the proposal, feel free to ask...
@@skyblue9991 How do you know that wouldn't happen? The title is misleading all by itself.
@@killertruth186 The title tells you exactly what it does. It provides full coverage healthcare to ALL. How is that misleading?
Future dentist here - this channel's content is brilliant & eye-opening, thank you!
You should check out: PNHP.org
Can you do a video on the Israeli health care system and how it compares to other national/universal health care systems?
Thank you for your extensive research! It's very helpful and the links make it easy to further educate yourself!
Thank you for your work & dedication to education, Aaron & team, & to Sam & the patrons for keeping the lights on. I'll support Patreon when I can.
1 problem I've experienced with company insurance was my costs. It was less expensive to pay sliding scale at health clinic than my part of premiums, co-pays & scripts.
cindy hatch. While true. It’s not much help if you need major tests, surgery, hospital and specialist. A health clinic is for basic care.
This is how you define Medicare For All: HR 1384. That's what we are backing. It means no premiums, co-pays nor deductibles. No networks, you get to pick your doctor. No sign-up period, you are automatically enrolled when you are born and covered for everything until you die. No costing out of the system. Currently the government pays the private insurance companies the difference between what they charge you in the exchange and what they'd charge you out of the exchange. In 2019 that came to $373 BILLION. That is what they are getting on top of the $1 TRILLION profit they rake in every year. By 2026 the government will be paying out $1 TRILLION a year to the private insurance cartel. If the government cannot afford Medicare For All how in the hell can they afford to pay the private insurance companies hundred of billions a year? Who is paying for that? We are with our lives.
The truth of the matter is the US is monetarily sovereign. That's a fact. It can never run out of the dollars it alone is allowed to issue nor can it ever be forced into bankruptcy like we can. Economists, such as Dr. Stephanie Kelton, Warren Mosler, Bill Mitchell and others have stated that transitioning to a single-payer system from the selective system we now have will be a deflationary event. While the new system will be able to absorb some of the workers from the insurance companies, it will not be able to put all of them to work due to the efficiencies of a single-payer system over one where you have to deal with multiple insurance companies. That means less overhead for hospitals and doctor offices. It also means no new taxes because that is not warranted in deflationary times. Doctors will spend little or no time arguing with a nurse over the phone whether or not you really need the test he/she ordered. It lets doctors be doctors and do what they are meant to do which is take care of you.
The health insurance companies are trying to down play the benefits of HR 1384 and can you blame them? They see the hand writing on the wall. Their reign of terror will come to an end. They are responsible for well over 70,000 deaths a year. They are the reason medical debt is still the #1 reason people declare bankruptcy and often times lose everything they own. How many thousands of people are living on the streets because of them? Why aren't these issues ever discussed in videos like this one?
I urge everyone to read HR 1384. It is clear in what it will cover and how it will be implemented. Can you imagine a world where if you get sick you can just go see your doctor without worry about how you are going to pay for it? Or whether or not that emergency room visit will cost you your house? Or being able to fill your prescriptions without first taking out a loan? I can. It's called Medicare For All and it is totally possible. Accept no compromise.
www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1384/text
I believe that in this day and age health care should be a right and not a privilege just for those who can afford it. In a nation that spends trillions of public dollars on political wars that have no public benefit (no, making you feel tough is not a benefit) taking some of that money and guaranteeing health care for all citizens is not only the moral thing to do but cost effective. If you can afford private health insurance there would be nothing stopping you.
Just because corrupt politicians spend billions of dollars on wars, that doesn’t mean we should spend hundreds of TRILLIONS of dollars on a “Medicare-for-all” system.
I mean, where does the spending spree end????? Pretty soon, no one is going to be able to afford anything, because we’re going to all be taxed at 80%.
The government needs to be CUT, and then costs for everything will go down. It doesn’t need to be made larger.
Thank you for explaining!
Choice in the private insurance market, whether at the individual or employer level, is largely an illusion, as neither employers nor the ACA marketplace tend to offer more than a handful of choices, and even fewer that offer adequate coverage without prohibitive co-insurance/deductibles.
Title says Medicare but thumbnail says Medicaid
Thanks for letting us know! It is now fixed :) -mark
Subscribed! Is there a way you can do a video about Andrew yangs health plan
why? he's dropped out.
Thanks for presenting the information clearly. Although I'm not yet sold on the idea of single payer healthcare, I like seeking out content that makes me more informed about the pros and cons.
just ask literally anyone from any other developed country
@@computerscientist5953 Almost everyone I know from other developed countries hates their corresponding healthcare system
Check out Wendell Potter, former insurance executive turned healthcare advocate. This interview with him is very informative:
ruclips.net/video/zvPkiKIXWG8/видео.html
Also, Physicians for a National Health Program:
PNHP.org
U didn’t talk about Pramila Japayal House’s Version of MedicareForAll.
The "official" healthcare ad for medicare for all. They forgot that Bernie wrote the bill and ignore that Jayapal's is better than his.
Thanks! This really helped.
Thank you, for just explaining and not politicizing!
that is why i love this channel.
FYI we've got a bunch of links in the description for further reading and watching! @RoRo Zorro
@RoRo Zorro Actually I'm really pro socialized medicine! But there are different systems, for example both the Japanese and French system are rated among the best systems in the world, but they don't operate the same. The focus of the video, yes I re-watched it, was this point. Maybe if you had opened your ears, and listened to the video; you'd know that!
@@jamesmitchell2704 Zorro is right, there are inconsistencies in this video, and makes conclusions based on assumptions that are wrong. You cannot claim that private insurance sometimes covers some things that Medicare does not. That is idiotic and misleading! If you implement a public option, it MUST be done under a EVERYTHING IS COVERED policy, otherwise it is not a real medical system. This guy is throwing in subtle propaganda so that people don't think on fixing the root cause and calling for the right solution, which is UNIVERSAL coverage. Any other overloading on the meaning of UNIVERSAL is not accepted.
dr ciri just talked about this too. great topic
Hey I'm in debate team and this really helps any chance you know what a contingent is?
Choice is such a bad argument. Yes, we all want the choice to have a limited physician network, useless out of network coverages, high deductibles, co-pays, all before paying obscenely priced premiums, have our employers change our insurnace policies at their leisure, remain at a crappy job just for health insurance, spending obscene amounts of time fighting with an insurance company to get them to pay, or approve a doctors treatments. If that's what employer sponsored choice insurance gets us, then let's just keep the status quo. Yes, this is sarcasm.
1.) We need a system that if you find yourself between jobs, you are covered and don't have to pay inflated COBRA payments that you cannot afford.
2.) I have avoided going to the doctor many times over the years because I didn't want to or couldn't make the deductible or waited for the calendar year to lapse so the payments would apply to the next full year since it wouldn't help with the current one. This is very bad policy.
3.) The worse case scenario that is rarely covered in discussions: Network Vs Out of Network.... So I'm sick, really sick and a family member calls an ambulance to take me to the hospital, the family member and the EMTs don't bother to call ahead to the insurance company to find out which hospital to send me to and deliver me to the Out of Network on in my area that happens to be: 1) closer to my present location and 2) the hospital the ambulance company is contracted to deliver people. Many people get socked with the bills that they then have to spend an inordinate amount of time negotiating with the insurance company and the hospital to get the fees down but usually have to pay much more than the Network rate.
4.) Similar to #3 but you are out of state or country.
There is a lot more issues.
If the insurance companies can decides they don't want to pay even though it's supposed to be covered.
Some insurance forces you to have a specific doctor.
Some insurance companies will change their plans and you are shit out of luck if their new plan is worse.
The insurance companies do not have to have updated registry's so you can have to call dozens of doctors or your doctors office will have to do that wasting everyone's time.
A doctor you like can no longer be covered at any point.
A medicine you have to take can have it's price change drastically via insurance and they can change if they cover it at all.
Insurance companies can decide that they will stop or never at all cover certain tests at their digression.
Also the one that was the best was I went to an insured hospital and someone out of network did the procedure inside of a hospital in network, the insurance company refused to pay it. They refused to pay it so I ended up having to settle it and pay $500 which was half of what they wanted.
How much would it cost per person on average ?
I'm on the right, and I would support a medicare buy-in, but it kind of doesn't matter so long as we still encourage bad behavior via our patent laws.
The reason I don't support sanders' plan (or plans like it) is because I have little doubt that our government will actually negotiate properly on my behalf. Our government regularly supports corporations over people, and I highly doubt that will change under sanders' plan. You might as well call it corporatism for all.
Please discuss the thing that would make all these plans better, giving medicare and medicaid the ability to negotiate prices down through economies of scale that come with creating an artificial market like in every other civilized nation. Also I think you or John Greene has discussed the problem that 2-3 % of good paying jobs are middle men for the medical industrial complex and these jobs would just vanish in a single payer system while a public option and giving medicare the ability to negotiate down prices would cause a slow reduction in those workers that would just not be replaced.
I think many Americans are not adequately protected from sickness by their current plan. I believe that even just allowing medicare to negotiate prices with pharmaceutical companies would lower costs from their current points. Medicare for all without this negotiating power would not lower prices the same way.
Is this the same medicare that they have been saying is running out of money quickly? Is this the same medicare that Congress keeps borrowing money out of for other things? Health insurance does not necessarily mean health care. If you are struggling to pay for the co-pays, premiums, and out of pocket maximums, you really can't afford it at all. And if the government takes it over, it will be a question of higher taxes. A lot higher.
Dr. Carroll mentioned that a fully-funded universal care system means we would have to DOUBLE the total Federal tax burden to pay for it. Yikes!
This is a hugely disingenuous tactic. Assuming that is true (and I've never heard that figure but I'll take it in good faith). To double the amount of taxes does not automatically mean that everyone pays double in taxes. Ideally you take most of that money from those who can afford to pay I.e. the rich and corporations. The ACA was funded by levying extra taxes on the rich. The US already has insanely low taxes when you account for loopholes and deductions. Sometimes the effective tax rate on corporations and super rich people is like 50% lower than the advertised rate. You could start by closing some of those loopholes. That would raise a lot of money on its own.
Medicaid comes out of Medicare and yes it is and also all the money they give to them so call dreamers and for illegals to get stuff comes out if it and ss and all them they are holding in them centers that came cross the boarder the money comes from there and ss to pay to keep them here and give them health care
Unfortunately, the simplest answer would be to take government influence out of the healthcare industry.
You can complain and disagree all you like. Nothing stops the fact that healthcare costs have skyrocketed since the Obamacare fiasco.
Most drug jumpers wouldn't complain about this, because their knockoff anti-depressants are covered in full by the "would be" government aid. Whereas anyone with genuine health issues faced a tremendous spike in cost.
I guess everyone is quick to forget all the news stories, articles etc that came out during Obama's reign of terror.
Small news channels were almost constantly running a piece on our elderly, disabled and even veterans not being able to gain access to or even afford basic healthcare.
In other words, this impacted the middle class much worse than it did the poor. But they still pushed it.
Getting to my point, taking out government money from the medical field would force competition between smaller family practices vs big hospitals and big pharma.
One of the biggest impacts would be in the psychological industry which currently runs a status quo on getting patients on some form of medication. They will not even acknowledge mental conditions that are not covered under Medicaid/Medicare.
Which is why it's fairly known that if you pay your own way, chances of recovery actually become a factor. Whereas, if you have government health insurance, chances of recovery are ZERO. They are not financially backed to help you actually get better. If anything they do their best to keep you coming back! Weekly therapist visits anyone? With no real tools to actually help you out.
In contrast, I struck out on my own and recovered from severe depression, anxiety and PTSD (I had a lot of violent images from my past) within 2 months of self actualization. Therapists do not even touch this realm of emotional awareness.
Then you've got hospitals which can freely charge you $40,000 to have a baby because they dock every single little thing you do, use or interact with in any way. Even if you don't physically touch it. It just has to be in the room.
They charge you for a replacement bed! How about that toilet paper huh? And maybe even that paper gown that is a complete embarrassment!
Do you know why they do this? Because they can! Because they know the government is good for it. So they tack on any and every single thing they can. The government can't investigate all of them after all. Some will even double charge!
Were this to occur on a bill you were responsible for, or that an employer were responsible for, you can BET those practices would stop almost immediately! No one would put up with that!
So by proxy, the method they use to bill individual people would enforce an already reduced cost immediately or within a VERY short timeframe.
Then there's the fact that there are local competitors now. Most hospitals see government funding, while many family practices do not or even refuse it.
Without government health insurance, it forces larger corporations to compete with local practices as they can offer lower costs and a more personal experience. Leaving the paternity ward to be the last remaining wing of any hospital untouched for a while. As more funding goes into smaller practices, those practices offer more and more services including a maternity ward or delivery room.
Within 6 months, base medical practitioners would offer similar services and cost substantial less than a hospital.
These are both extreme blows to big pharma as hospital costs are forced down, because no one is going to pay for something they didn't use.
Second impact would be from medications, as no one is going to pay for treatment if it isn't working or making anything better.
This puts a vast amount of control in the hands of the consumer and lessens unnecessary procedures. Which inevitably impacts a large amount of individual debt as well as our national debt. Effectively making life better for Americans.
Say no to Government Funded Healthcare
Your taxes will go up but you won't have to pay your health insurance bills, co-pays, or deductibles. We will be paying less per person overall and be saving money as a country. Plus, you have the added security of if anything happens to your health, you won't lose your job, lose your insurance, and go bankrupt. Millions of Americans are uninsured. It will insure everyone and everyone will be paying less. Healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have the security of not having to worry about, especially if it's cheaper.
Most of those people who _love_ their employer based insurance really haven't used it yet.
TheZeroScape let then have a surgery and they will hate it of have to pay from a medication that cost 5000 a bottle of 30 pill monthly
Most people advocating for government healthcare haven't used or paid for it. What's your point?
TheZeroScape first of all where the fuck u get those statistics and second the point is that u don’t use it if you don’t need it but when u need it you don’t have to delay treatment and incur in bigger expenses by not getting treatment fast
Dorian Michel Armenteros Sanchez imagine the cost it take to not get treated at all because they couldn’t afford the cost of surgery. People literally can be turned away (even people WITH insurance) from treatment until their stomachs explode because they can’t afford it.
"Healthcare is too expensive, we need the government to intervene!
"
"But government intervention is what made healthcare so expensive in the first place
"
...
"Healthcare should be free!"
Please explain how government intervention caused increased costs.
Medicare for All is Sander's bill. Now there is no question about it.
How will these plans keep down cost? will they allow medicare to bargain with providers and pharmeceuticals over price?
They definitly should! Other countries, including mine (the Netherlands), do and it makes it way more affordable! And a lot of the research in pharmaceutical drug development if payed by public money (NIH) -> m.ruclips.net/video/S8dBuj69yPM/видео.html
Bernie's plan definitely includes price negotiation, not sure about the others. Hopefully they will cover that next week.
This is generally my objection. Medicare first needs to low the cost of care, mostly by bargain with it's size, which the current Federal government prohibited it's self from negotiating lower prescription drug prices. If we can get the cost of medicare and medicaid down by 15%, we could cover everyone with medicare at a much lower cost then we are paying currently, and it should be something we all want.
Splasmt99:
"In single-payer systems (and how Medicare works right now), the government negotiates a fee schedule with healthcare practitioners. This is an essential component to controlling costs.
See this explanation from healthcare economist Uwe Reinhardt on the benefits of having one price negotiator (the government):
“[P]rices for identical products or services in the U.S. tend to be, on average, twice or more than the prices of the same products and services paid in other countries…. Prices are high here because the payment side of the health system is so fragmented that few payers have sufficient market power to bargain for lower prices.”
In a single-payer system, the government can use its leverage to negotiate more reasonable prices for basic medical services.
It also serves to incentivize doctors that choose to practice in fields where help is needed the most - primary care, family medicine, and pediatrics. An expanded system has the added benefit of giving Medicare for All more negotiating power when purchasing pharmaceuticals and medical devices."
Source: feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-healthcare/
@@PornIsHate A multi-payer system with a government-administered statutory plan that covers the vast majority (at least 5/6) of Americans would also have enough market power to negotiate reasonable prices. Look at Germany's system and let me know what you think about it.
Amazing that when we talk about healthcare “coverage” no one mentions how we need:
- more doctors (~100,000 short right now because the AMA uses schooling, licensing, and Medicare funding to keep the number of residencies at a minimum)
-more drug companies
-more insurance companies
-more insurance PLANS
-more cash only doctors
-more doctors with their own monthly memberships (already happening where I live in Georgia)
-cheaper medical supplies for hospitals (they’re stuck buying from GPO’s that have a monopoly on the supply chain)
-less employee provided health insurance and government health insurance which are demand subsidies that drive the price up for everyone else
But no.....apparently the only thing we have a shortage of is yet another government bill that’s gonna squeeze us all into one big government health insurance plan. *Spare me from these do-gooders!!!!!!*
It means cheaper health Care over all but excruciatingly long wait times like you see in Canada. You'll have to pay for private health care for shorter wait times if it gets amended
I went to a medical facility for a stingray sting today. The wait was LONG...
Every country rations healthcare but in the US we do it based off money. Whereas other countries like Sweden and Denmark do it based off need.
WRONG. More republican lies. Get the facts, because the overall picture in Canada is better than the US:
www.factcheck.org/2007/12/comparing-health-care-in-canada-to-the-us/
And it's not just cheaper. Currently 500,000 people go bankrupt each and every year in this country. That's a pretty damn abysmal lottery ticket that everyone gets forced to play... All that ENDS if we can makeover healthcare here finally.
Employer-based insurance is obviously a terrible idea with 50 million people out of work and a global pandemic. Medicare for All is needed now!
Here’s the main problem with which policy to use: People are torn between choosing a healthcare system that both keeps employee based insurance and offers a public option OR just having a really good public option with minimal or non-existent private market. My preference is for the latter as that would actually end up making healthcare more affordable for all in the long run. Additionally, it’s not so much that employer based insurance is bad as much as it gives immense power to lobbyists, pharma companies, and illicits high administrative costs. The concern is that staunch conservatives and even some democrats are afraid that this kind of plan would never pass into law while the former would have a much better chance. We need to fix bad politics, not good policies. Nevertheless, America is finally steeping in a good direction.
I got as far as the use of the word "choice" which is a demonstrably false adjective when describing the American employer based healthcare system.
Why not? They already stole SS anyway. Make em use those funds to pay for it. They're not supposed to touch it in the first place. At least by the initial design...😕
I like how you speak Dr. Aaron Carroll 🙌🏾 🫡
Choice is an illusion in our current healthcare market. Your employer choose them for you and even you you like it, you'll lose it every year and it might be different next time
I like: universal coverage for accidents, allowing medicare to compete in the free market for those who dont qualify for free coverage, cost reduction legislation (reduce the cost of Tylenol in an ER for example).
Have a person who codes the problem and urgency to avoid waste. Ins companies scrutinize everyone esp those who really need the care in order not to pay .
people not working don't pay taxes well hurt taxpayers. the more you make the higher your taxes are or taxes on all that are working are the same don't know. people out their well find a way to compensate.
Most employers would prefer relief from the responsibility of providing coverage. It's both an expense and a hassle.
Yes, they have to have people on staff to do the ANNUAL ENROLLMENT, have to keep up with all the LAW CHANGES, have to negotiate for PLANS in an EVER CHANGING SEA OF FORMS THAT ARE DIFFERENT FROM COMPANY TO COMPANY.
When you tally it up and consider it ALL, it is INCREDIBLE HOW MUCH WASTE IS IN THE SYSTEM.
All those BOARDS OF DIRECTORS, CONSULTANTS, LAWYERS, CEOs, RESPONDING TO LAW CHANGES, MYRIAD FORMS CREATED UNIQUE TO EACH COMPANY, DECENTRALIZED COMPUTER SYSTEMS, etc. etc. etc.
And that doesn't even speak to 4,000 lobbyists and $600 MILLION spent annually lobbying for the industry.
It all needs to END, and even JFK new it:
ruclips.net/video/MQQhr9BcaaA/видео.html
medicare for all
Never!
Now how did medication cost so much, instead of taxing more. We lower the price. Put price limits.
The thing about choice is wrong, most Americans don't care about their choice in health care provider but rather in their doctor
The insurance companies are the problem and so is the AMA who has always lobbied against healthcare reform. The insurance companies are an unnecessary middle man and need to be broken up.
United health care
Screws the hell out
Of seniors bendover.
Jim Feaster Not just seniors. I cant even use my UHC to cover medications because my deductible is well over $5,000. I have required medication every month & end up paying around $3000 out of pocket for dr appts. and medication, and my coverage never kicks in. My insurance was NEVER this bad before the ACA! It screwed everyone over.
22.5% of US population is under medicaid (poor people who are at much higher risk than the average american) and only 17% of health spending goes to medicaid. Thus a more costly per capita (due to 0 copay, 0 deductible etc) of medicaid vs medicare (which still has limited coverage and copays and deductibles), is still cheaper than the average health cost.
logically speaking, we would pay 5.5% less. and this is not even considering medicaid is most often sponsored by 3rd party which takes a cut.
the new plan however (bernie's plan) has nothing to do with medicare or medicaid as we know it currently. the only CPT codes that exist would be ones which are covered, pricing would be transparant and go under reforms to make them fair for healthcare workers as well as affordable for the country.
coverage would expand under the new plan, there would be a lot less paper work and checking for eligability, further bringing down costs in administration as well as hospitals and doctor's offices spending time and man power on billing, eligibility and benefit checking etc.
as a doctor running my own clinic, I would say the cost savings would be well over 10%, and In-network providers would actually make more as big insurance will not be able to bully doctors into going in-network for 1/4th the pay because if u don't go in-network, they restrict patient flow by placing a ridiculous multi-thousand dollar deductible.
the amount of money to be saved on regular visits, preventative and maintainance care would be very high. I fully support a universal healthcare system in the USA. I've paid for hundreds of patient treatments out of my own pocket because I seen the injustice of many insurance companies and I didn't want to ruin lives or take from people who already don't have enough. I work long hours and struggle because of this and still have hundreds of thousands in student debt. Universal Healthcare would net me more on a per-patient average despite getting paid less than some of those rare super top elite insurance plans (literally 1/100), thus I would be able to actually get paid for every patient I see. Getting paid for work you do... that's the dream... its 2019 in the richest country in the world and the dream is to get paid for work you already done, after a decade of schooling. how ridiculous is that?
Thank you for speaking in support of universal healthcare. You might want to check out Physicians for a National Health Program:
pnhp.org/
"Medicare for All" is the Only Way to Battle Insurance Greed
pnhp.org/news/medicare-for-all-is-the-only-way-to-battle-insurance-greed/
Why Emergency Physicians Should Support Single Payer
ruclips.net/video/e2PHbhYTwiU/видео.html,
Single payer is much efficient and that is why most countries have. The public option won't be good enough. What is the point to have a private insurance if public option is good enough?
How does universality increase cost? Shouldn't it have the opposite effect since many more healthy people would be insured thus decreasing the average spending per user?
and the fact is that Medicare, the MODEL for starting to build a Medicare for All, the reality is, they can't even NEGOTIATE PRICING. Surely a result of having LOBBYISTS spending our healthcare dollars to sway politicians, just like the NRA.
So simply imagine two things to see how costs will CERTAINLY go DOWN:
a. we CAN and DO negotiate for best prices,
b. in the LARGEST PURCHASE OF HEALTHCARE IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD: for the ENTIRE USA AT ONCE.
Even doctors are in favor:
thehill.com/policy/healthcare/482437-doctors-group-breaks-from-health-care-industry-with-support-for-medicare
That's 154,000 medical professionals...
It’s so unbelievable to me that Europeans have had universal healthcare for literally decades and it’s almost 2020 and Americans still don’t have healthcare as a right. It’s the most disgusting thing you can think of that we put private health insurance profits over the health of our citizens. Americas lack of universal healthcare is to be blamed on market failures. That’s right free markets don’t always work.
It should not raise our taxes if you take from the military budget and working class taxes would remain the same.
Greetings from Cascadia ....that’s a great idea ! China and North Korea applaud your military cut down plan. What a dolt.
I already pay $60.00 a week out of my checks and I'm not on it.
I've payed enough already.
@@LL-lj1kq Our military is still 25 times bigger than Russia and China's combined! I think we can afford it you dolt!
That not going to happen
There is no reason why any reform of health care can not work with the system we already have, preserving the legacy of the Affordable Care Act, and what people already know and use.
It is very hard to provide universal coverage in the US without doing much more to cut the cost of pharmaceuticals and care. We need some kind of negotiated prices.
We don't need to negotiate prices, we need to dictate prices. With a single payer, the health care monopolies will not have any choice but to sell at the price offered.
Then innovation and advanced medicine/cures will go rapidly down. You can't pay people peanuts and expect a 1st class medical system. People are motivated by money. Just human nature.
@@truthteller4442 Except that every other country in the world pays lower prices.
@@truthteller4442 Your point would make a lot of sense, if the US were paying half of what the rest of the world pays, but given that they are doing far better than us in health outcomes, and paying half of what we pay, your doctrinaire talking point fall flat on its face suffering a massive stroke. The greed centered system we use does not promote innovation, it promotes, fraud, manipulation of patent law and price gouging. What you are saying we need is more Martin Scarellis
that's one of the clear conmponents in plans like Bernie's: start allowing Medicare to NEGOTIATE PRICES, something they CANNOT DO NOW.
My biggest issue is the quality of the health care service?
If your 65 and over based on Social security. Some people have to pay out of their SS and pay for a Medicare supplement. How much of the medical bill will be paid by Medicare for all and what kind of deductibles will there be? Sounds like we would be stuck with the bill.
The most frustrating thing about Healthcare for me right now is how complicated it is. This year I turned 26, changed jobs... Like 4 times? Moved to a different state, and decided to start therapy. When my most recent employer's insurance questionnaire asks a question like "how much are you likely to spend on Healthcare this year?" so I can pay into an HSA, it just pisses me the fuck off. I don't know. You won't even tell me if I can use this plan to help cover my mental health expenses up front. What's the difference between specialty medication and conventional and why are the costs so different? What the hell is coinsurance and again and I... You know what? Fuck it, I'm not gambling on the HSA. UGH..
I don't need this anxiety in my life. The market is designed to make me pay as much as possible while getting as little as possible, and a huge part of that is obscuring what I even have access to with needlessly complicated and confusing plans. Fuck that. Give everyone access to whatever care they need, and tell the Elon Musks of the country to stop making shitty meme songs and pay for it.
Medicare for all, same plan for everyone, eat the rich.
Just talk to a broker. In the same way you would go to a tax guy. That’s what they get paid for.
@@truthteller4442 In the same vein, why in the fuck are taxes so complicated. Also, who in the fuck has a "tax guy?"
Someone is throwing shades
Ya know, it would kinda nice to not die because you have insurance!
I was originally for the ACA as a stepping stone for M4A. But the ACA was so bad, there's no way M4A would work.
ACA ≠ Madicare-for-all, at least the version where we all get Medicare as is now. However, it should've been closer to MedicAid Advantage but what's done is done.
So bad that it added millions of people having insurance?
Or so bad, that it prevented denials of coverage for preexisting conditions?
Trust me, that's why it has to be for EVERYONE. When EVERYONE gets their coverage there, people will finally get off their lazy asses and elect politicians that will make it work.
It's like our public schools. When the rich don't have to go there with their kids, they started falling apart. But in France, they have few private schools, and so the meal programs there look like gourmet meals to us, but the kicker is they cost no more than we spend.
true story.
Not to get to political but I would be all for a national healthcare system if there are serious policies that come with it to force people to get healthier. All those other countries everyone likes to bring up because of their system don't have the obesity and overall unhealthy culture we do. It's abhorrent to expect people to pay a larger tax bill to give people who smoke 2pks of cigarettes, drink 5 sodas, eat a gallon of ice cream and a 1lb pk of bacon per day health insurance.
People with very unhealthy lifestyles are not the norm and most still pay their taxes. And they die early so in the end, they save money in healthcare services and retirement entitlements.
But anyway, back to the first sentence, in the USA due to the really expensive care, predatory insurance, high co-pays and many people uninsured, the rates of primary care visits are alarmingly low compared to other OECD countries. Americans will avoid the doctor because they are afraid of the medical bill. And then their illness evolves and becomes worse. Then those people have to get more expensive care, quite often in an emergency department.
IMO, with a medicare for all type program, the federal and state governments should create a network of primary care centers (private or public) and reference people periodically to those, (blood tests, cancer screenings, etc...).
@@johnny_eth over an average life span obese individuals spend 42% more on health related issues compared to individuals who are not necessarily healthy but just at a weight considered healthy. That 42% isn't because of the actual cost of care it's because of the amount of care needed for conditions they would not have otherwise. So compared to an individual considered healthy not just at a healthy weight that number will definitely climb to the 65%-75%. So if people just stayed at a healthy weight then you could shave off 42% of what it will cost. If you implement policies forcing people to do that plus stop smoking and moderate exercise then the cost is easily reduced more making it much more affordable and the tax burden much less. these are factors that no one takes into consideration when they love the point of other countries with national systems. They also fail to mention how all those countries are now struggling as their population becomes less healthy due to influences from the United States and being able to pay and continue level of care.
The UK has very high rates of obesity and smoking, and we have a fully socialised healthcare system. (i.e. You don't buy government insurance - it's just free.)
And we don't pay more in taxes, either! :) The US and UK governments spend roughly the same amount of tax money per capita on healthcare. But then Americans have to pay for insurance on top of what they've already paid in taxes. You guys are essentially paying twice, which sucks. :/
Biggest question not covered here is how this would affect reimbursement rates and in turn doctors' pay and the financial health of hospitals. Medicate usually pays less than private insurance. Will quality of care be maintained? Will we be able to attract enough young people to become healthcare professionals and fill the doctor shortage?
I cant imagine everybody in my city going to see government doctors and hospital.....be a disaster
Guess you were never in the army. They have the best facilities ask trump.
Jason Ruggles good luck!
You are throwing a straw man out there.
Interesting that the Culinary Union wants to keep its Private Health Insurance Plan while complaining that costs are rising annually. It bears repeating that a major factor in the rising costs of your Private Health Insurance Plans is because they are private. Private plans must, repeat that, must make profit for the shareholders. Take the profit out of the plan, and prices come way down. Move to universal publicly funded health insurance programs where there is ONE payer and that payer is NOT FOR PROFIT because the payer is the Ministry of Health department of the government. Take the profit out of health insurance and costs come way down. You already have it in Medicare. There are no shareholders in a publicly funded health insurance plan like Medicare in the USA and like the Canadian Provincial Health Insurance Plans. Canada does not have a single national health care plan, but rather a national health insurance program, which is achieved by a series of thirteen interlocking provincial and territorial health insurance plans, The federal government funds each province / territory to deliver health services all of which share certain common features and basic standards of coverage outlined in the Canada Health Act (CHA) notably, hospital care for inpatients and outpatients including medical/surgical services, accomodation, food, supplies, and primary care by community physicians, nurse practioners, and public health departments. Long term care is partly funded by this program, and no one who needs it and meets the admission is turned away.
Universal Medicare is NOT the end to private health insurance, in fact most Canadians have supplementary health insurance for dental, pharmacy, allied health services like physio, massage, etc delivered by Regulated Health Professionals. There is an abundance of evidence that a publicly funded health insurance program is significantly less costly to administer. And because everyone is covered for basic preventative, supportive, and restorative services, the outcomes of population health and productivity are greatly enhanced. So you keep your supplementary health insurance part of your plan with your insurance company, but the most expensive components, hospital and doctor care are covered under your expanded Medicare. How you pay will change. Your insurance premiums will come way down. And your taxes will go up somewhat. BUT because there is no profit to be paid to shareholders, the costs are way less and that is where the real savings are. It bears repeating. The more health services that can be provided in a NOT FOR PROFIT single payer plan, the lower cost of the services.
Best wishes on expanding your social safety net from a Canadian snowbird and alumni of the Canadian Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto.
we have to us on medicare now have to pay regardless we can't stop the government
A little more clearer of what you are trying to say is:
Our Medicare premium cost comes out of our SS pay each month. You cannot opt out or STOP that, it is mandatory, whether you have a supplement plan or not. Those wishing for 'Medicare for all' should know ALL of the Medicare stuff! Like no dental coverage: no eye coverage: no hearing coverage: if you want any of those you will HAVE to purchase a supplemental plan for it!! You younger people better wise up NOW before it is too damned late! THE government wants total control of our lives on everything possible. WE THE PEOPLE are suppose to be the ones in control of the government, not the other way around.
Analogy...Say if you work to make $1,000 a month and get 10% tax, but if you make $1,001 the government would tax you 20%. Unless the pay was substantially higher than $1,000 would YOU have any desire to make more just to get less on your check? You always hear people say I don't want to work overtime because they take half in taxes. I never heard a person say once I want to work overtime so the government can collect more taxes to pay for more social programs like medicare-for-all. Everybody wants free stuff but they don't want to pay for it in taxes. I believe everybody wants free health care if it was truly free.
Joe L that extra 10% would only apply to that $1. That is how tax brackets work.
Happy to live in Germany 😊
These explanations work better with little animated symbols and logos, just saying technical words and bullet point layouts still doesn't go through and retain to me
Medicare=For-All is an easy solution to an unresolved problem. The framework and process is already in place and just needs expansion.
However, it's not as comprehensive as a full national health care system which essentially turns the entire medical industry into a non-profit government agency. Meaning all medical workers would be government employees and training would be paid by the government in exchange for long tern service.
Medicare-For-All just substitutes basic insurance coverage companies with a government agency.
Medicare all for me is a first aid kit
Physicians for a National Health Program
👍
I have only one question? Why hasn't it been challenged under the constitutionality of it? Making it for the AGE of 65 and older violates the rights of those under 65. Last I checked it us unconstitutional to discriminate against Age.
Over 65 is considered a disability.
I would also like a refund for all of the medical insurance premiums that I paid through the years. Then free housing. Free college. Universal basic income. And not some stupid amount like a $1,000 a month, but something like $10,000 a month. I also would like a free car. And, just for my mental health, free concert tickets for all of the shows of my choice. Don’t forget about free Medicare for my dogs! They’re my children. One question, just exactly who will pay for all of this?
For the U.S., I think the German model would work best as the best transition to a universal healthcare system. It would take advantage of the private insurance company structures already in place while heavily regulating the industry for overhead, pricing, and coverage, lowering costs and keeping a modicum of choice and competition. Preferrably, it would also reduce employer-based coverage, which ends up keeping people at unhappy and unproductive jobs for longer than necessary.
Jordan Our insurers are heavily regulated and that is partially why it is so expensive. When the gov't forced insurers to accept all people regardless of preexisting conditions, it groups more high risk individuals into the insurance pool. When the high risk members outnumber low risk members, everyone ends up paying more to offset the high costs consumed by the high-risk members. If you are not able to charge the high-risk members more everyone is worse off, and low-risk people will be less likely to even purchase insurance.
@@kutie216 Blah blah blah... oh boy, talk about attacking the symptoms and not the root cause under a full-capitalist mindset. I guess you are OK with people having a chronic condition, or cancer being charged triple on top of their suffering? Do you call yourself a human being? Do you really love your money so much that you don't want to pay a bit more in taxes so that huge problem we have in this country is fixed once and for all? By the way, by having a national insurance pool and not partitioning it into many smaller pools to please your free-market (which you will never participate in, this is for the fuckers that own the industry), that immensely larger pool would reduce the risk overall and costs would be much lower.
kuba2ve So would we include the 30 million illegals here currently? Germany doesn't have nearly the same size population as we do, and same goes for the rest of the countries with nationalized health care. I am a human and I do have a heart. when my stepdad has stage 4 colon cancer and my grandma has stage 3 endometrial cancer (they both do now) I want to help them and not all of the other sick people. We ALL have our own health issues, etc., but we should NOT be forced to pay for others healthcare. Have you ever looked at who pays the most taxes? The top 20% of the population pays for 84% of income tax revenue. How will we even afford to tax them more without seeing the negative effects of taxation? They will have less incentive to work and will have no desire to continue making a high income. We cannot force the top 20% to fund America's healthcare. Btw, health insurance is NOT healthcare.
kuba2ve My family does pays a lot of money for healthcare like everyone else. I spend around $2500-3000 a year on myself, and my insurance still never kicks in. If we actually had a free market in health insurance it would not be this way. The government changed the way insurance works and as a result it negatively effected everyone except those who have all of their care paid for by the gov't, or simply those who never pay back their debt to the healthcare system. Why are our prices so high? Because we have to pay for the people that NEVER pay for their care by using and abusing the ER and emergency medical systems for minor illnesses. Should we be made to pay for a current smoker with lung cancer? Should we pay for a 1000 lb person who became a 1000 lbs on food stamps? Should we really continue to subsidize bad behavior? Should we also just continue paying for illegal immigrants to use our ERs at doctors offices? The answer to those questions is no. It is not our job. I love people and I empathize with them, but it is not my job to pay for them. If we stopped trying to nationalize healthcare, and instead took away some unnecessary regulation, we would see lower costs. A
Mercatus report estimated medicare for all would cost anywhere from $32.6- $60 trillion over 10 years. Keep in mind in FY 2017 federal expenditures were $3.98 trillion (total) and FY 2018 $4.11 Trillion.
Our welfare programs grow every year taking up a larger portion of federal expenditures. How will we afford welfare AND medicare for all? Will we just end the military? Because that will only give you $500 million extra. Its 100% not plausible unless you just happen to be sitting on trillions of dollars and want to be extremely philanthropic.
@@kutie216 Yes, I would, because illegals are also human beings and probably are doing jobs that you will never ever do. They contribute to the economy, and part of their reason being here is that industry illegally benefits from them by exploiting them as second class citizens. The population argument is totally incoherent and is a fallacy. Do you know the elementary school concept of proportionality, right? We are a bigger nation, therefore have bigger revenue, and proportionally is the same. Europe as a whole could be considered a US sized country, yet all those countries each have someone universal coverage separately administered. You could claim that centralizing administration implies even more savings if something similar were to be done in USA. You don't help other people, you simply contribute to a national pool so that the risks are shared and everyone, including YOU and your relatives benefit from it. By removing the profit factor from it, you stop the conflicting interest that have caused the pharma and insurance industry to raise prices and exploit you to a level not seen anywhere else in the world. If the top 20% pays for most income tax revenue so be it. Did you hear that people in Denmark don't want to work because they have high taxes? What kind of logic is that? Do you think a multimillionaire will stop having an incentive because he has to pay a little bit more? That is the kind of crap that the ultra right puts in people's mind to confuse them and keep the status quo. Yes, I want Health Insurance to stop and instead have a National Pool that pays for regulated healthcare, because the purpose of healthcare is to FIX the problem with someone's health and not try to steal money from the sick in the most ingenuous ways possible, by limiting coverage, creating hidden clauses, and causing the big mess we are in.
Private coverage maintains the way it is and the way it is just props up the insurance and pharmacetical companies which sucks case closed.
How will healthcare for all, universal healthcare, single payer healthcare, Medicare for all, (whatever you want to call it) keep costs down I wonder?
a. eliminating the world's highest adminstrative costs to administer healthcare.
b. taking the for profit out of the equation: every health insurer today has STOCKHOLDER'S, and they expect a PROFIT. M4A doesn't have stockholders as a single payer.
c. M4A needs to (FINALLY) be given the ability to NEGOTIATE PRICES, something Medicare CANNOT do TODAY.
All these things can add up to savings, EVEN IF we can't get it perfect right out the door....
B Miller If no one can profit from being a doctor, no one will become a doctor.
Also, let’s let the people getting healthcare negotiate prices before M4A.
@@orppranator5230 - who said they don't get to profit??? You perhaps misunderstand the difference between a INSURER AS A MIDDLEMAN PROFITING, and the SERVICE PROVIDER EARNING A JUST AND REASONABLE PROFIT.
We still need doctor's, and happy to have them earn a reasonable income for their investment in medical school.
What we don't need is the entire insurance industry, and the profits that go to the shareholders of these companies, AFTER they've dumped TONS of money into lobbyists to maintain the status quo.
the "people getting healthcare" DON'T negotiate prices today. They don't know how to, and they don't have the POWER TO DO SO as a SINGLE BUYER.
Try that just buying TIRES. Get them to cut the price and let me know how it goes. But if the USA as a WHOLE BOUGHT TIRES, we could all get them for at LEAST 30% off.
FOR EVERYONE.
Simple economics. Buying in BULK.
@@orppranator5230 Doctors still make money in Canada, Sweden and Japan. It's still a massively respected and well-paying career in every other developed nation.
In fact, you have more doctors moving *from* the US to Canada than the opposite.
We will get care, w medical care, hopefully good wo waiting in long lines like the military patients.
Medicare for all.
Where do you get the money? Here is an answer:
The Special Inspector General for TARP summary of the bailout says that the total commitment of government is $16.8 trillion dollars with the $4.6 trillion already paid out to banks. On September 16, 2019, the Federal Reserve dump 56 billion each day into the big 4 banks. about 1 trillion dollars so far print it out to give Citi, Chase, Wells Fargo and Bank of America. Goldman Sachs.
Why not get the Federal Reserve TARP cover the medicare for all the way they dump welfare money into the banks!
What’s the point of cost sharing if they don’t publish prices? Regardless of any other reforms , healthcare providers must first publish prices.
the first step toward that is actually having the power to negotiate prices. Something Medicare currently is NOT allowed to do.
This is HUGE. So under single payer, there clearly needs to be a negotiation for all services, and set prices with just market rates based on locale (i.e. San Francisco costs will be higher than rural Iowa).
Just cancel all insurance, give us what Congress has!!!
Obamacare, stay up with the news.
@@SandfordSmythe what does that mean?? Congress does not have obamacare
@@anniesshenanigans3815 Per Senator Grassley's amendment to the original bill. He didn't want to deal with populist accusations.
Here's an idea: Instead of even more than 60 cent of every dollar going to unjust war and ending life maybe 60 cents of a dollar going to saving life is a better deal for me and my neighbourhood.
You got that right! And they're wars for greedy old men anyway.
It means 22,000,000,000,000 dollars in debt
Your avi and your comment match so perfectly
Affordable care act was a joke people that couldn't afford insurance got penalized bye taking money from someone without money
Medicare for all - trillions
College debt relieve - trillions
Green new deal - trillions
While these plans do sound appealing let’s be realistic.
We are already paying trillions for wars so why not
Travis Green Awesome answer lets keep on making the mistakes of the past two decades. Let’s force people on a government run healthcare. Let’s pay for people’s useless gender studies degree, Let’s force you to purchase an electric car within 10 years.
Good luck with that pal.
Let's DO be realistic:
a. Medicare for all:
1. cutting the HIGHEST administrative costs in the WORLD for our healthcare WILL reduce our costs significantly.
2. 500,000 people go bankrupt each and every year under the current system. That ends with universal healthcare.
3. Medicare isn't allowed to negotiate prices. This needs to CHANGE so that we can negotiate with pharmaceutical and healthcare providers to reduce costs. You can NOTHING less than when you BUY IN VOLUME. Buying for the USA AS A WHOLE will be the largest purchase ever in HISTORY and easily command reduced prices.
4. you misunderstand that COSTING TRILLIONS something can still SAVE TRILLIONS. Our healthcare industry is HUGE, so understand it's not HOW MUCH IT COSTS, it's how much it SAVES to go to a single payer system.
b. Eliminate college debt
1. Millenials are severely behind the curve as any statistics show: savings, home ownership. Eliminating this debt will allow them to SAVE, putting money into the stock market for GROWTH. It will also allow them to SPEND and buy things for their home, stimulating the economy and MAKING JOBS. "what goes around comes around"
2. Free college education can move our country back to competing in the world in advanced industries where we have FALLEN BEHIND. SMART PEOPLE INNOVATE, which creates growth, jobs, and prosperity, which drives our economy.
c. Green new deal
1. We've already lost MILLIONS of species, and ocean life is facing huge damage. As stewards of our world sometimes we have to SUCK IT UP and stop abusing the landscape and species we share this world with. It's like RECYCLING: it's an inconvenience, but we have to do it.
2.the future is Electric. We need to embrace that and move on from old technologies, just like we did with getting rid of dial telephones and moved to cellular technology. It's NO different from myriad industrial changes we have faced and gone through. And people complained about them just the same:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_obsolete_technology
We have to start from somewhere
Americans always talk about Americans first... until it’s about their health 🤦♀️