I'm from Chile and we have an optional public healthcare system, and most of those regulations apply here. We have taxes on alcohol, soft drinks, tobaco, we have those anti-smoking ads on the boxes of the actual cigarettes, sweets can't have cartoon characters like that tiger for the sugary corn flakes either, etc. Foods with high sugar, calorie, cholesterol or sodium also have to put these black stamps on thei packaging to indicate it. Coke lowered their sugar content fist to get rid of the calories stamp, and then again to get rid of the sugar one. Pepsi got rid of the calories one but kept the sugar one
Sadly the public healthcare system is catastrophically underfunded and reflect the massive wealth inequality that Chile has. Chile has failed in regulating many aspects relating to food industry, especially since high-quality foods are exported to Europe and the US, while the lower standard foods remain in Chile for Chilean consumption. In Chile, people who can afford private healthcare have a relatively decent system. However, people in public healthcare systems... don't. This is mostly due to liberalized reforms under the Pinochet era being mantained in democracy without the dismantling of the shitty structure that made Chile a horrible country to live in. Hence, why I left.
@@GreatRedMenace Frankly it's not too bad. I mean, it's bad, but there's no country on earth where healthcare isn't bad one way or another. Point me to one country where the locals don't think their healthcare is terrible. :P How long has it been since you left, BTW? Your comment about the Pinochet era stuff relating to healthcare talks about being away for a while. Sure, the isapres still exist but the healthcare landscape is nothing like the Pinochet era stuff. Same with the high quality foods being exported, that sounds very... 2006... The local market keeps more of the good fruit and meats now simply because we can pay more. Or just go to the feria, they always have the best stuff if you're willing to sort it out and do everything yourself. As I mentioned in my first post, the food industry has been massively regulated in the last few years, and you might have missed a lot of that. It's certainly much more regulated than in the US. Also it's normal to fin foreign food from Europe here now. And Californian fruit in winter. Things might have changed since you left. In the 30 years I have of memory, Chile's been thoroughly transformed overall. Specially after the 2010 earthquake. Thinking how things were when I was in school I shiver to think it was such a shithole, we needed campaigns against *cholera* of all things. If you've been away for a while maybe you should come visit some time. Hell, you would be suprized by how much immigration we're getting. We're getting loads of haitians and venezuelans and a lot of colombians nowdays, peruvians stopped coming since Peru's doing a lot better now. On the topic at hand, the Chilean healthcare system assumes you'll go for the private sector if you can afford it. The public healthcare system is sort of a safety net. There's also half-public systems which I frankly don't understand the specifics of (seems to be they're handled by the private sector but are heavily controlled by the state, my mom is in one despite being able to afford the fully private system because it's cheapier and has access to some things the fully private one doesn't, but the isapres themselves seem to not like people using these systems). The public healthcare gets you the same quality stuff, but you have to wait much, much longer to get doctors' appointments and there's less access to things like long term treatment and basic things like hospital beds, but this is in great measure because the people in the public system actually go to the doctor much, much more often since it's free, although also doctors prefer working on the private system because they earn more that way which results in doctor shortages in the public system. Also rural medical centers are always public and they're hard to keep functioning so that also lowers the state healthcare system's quality. On the other hand there's things that are reserved for the public system that are better than the ones the private system has access to, like when I was in school I wanted to get my psoriasis treated but I was my dad's healthcare "burden" as it's called and he had the private system so I couldn't get access to the treatment facility that had what I needed. Also in the public system you never have to pay out of pocket, whereas in the private system most doctors will not have an agreement with your specific isapre so you'll have to pay out of pocket and then the isapre will pay you back *some* of it. Edited for paragraphs.
@@GreatRedMenace So you are blaming Pinochet for the current Chilan woes even though Chile is slowing becoming infested by far-leftists that are seeking to open its borders to third worlders in a country that is already a third world country? Your healthcare will be further in danger if its borders aren't tightened.
@@1685Violin Not really on -topic, but as the resident chilean I feel I should explain, so I'll just chime in to say that's not how chilean politics work. Our right and left are not split that way, for us is mostly a matter of public spending and who pays for what and how much companies should be held accountable for things. Meanwhile, discussions that take the front seat in partisan arguments in the US like immigration or gay marriage aren't really partisan in Chile. Sure, there is a skew towards the left being for it and the right being against, but it's not what defines the right and left like up north. Also our borders *are* open, it's very easy to migrate here, it always has been, and no one is arguing to open them more, instead there's been a movement to make it harder to migrate here. Chilean left wingers have been accusing the movement of being made of right wingers, but I have seen no indication that this is the case, if anything, our President, who is of the right wing, has spoken positively about immigration and has stated that it is our duty to take in particularly Venezuelan immigrants as other countries took Chileans in during the Pinochet government. TL,DR, we don't have an anti immigration party.
they already have a foundation of healthy citizens.................................................................................... of course they spend less on healthcare per capita................................................ "ya ok so do it in US" with a foundation of 50% obese citizens.........................................................
@@neuxell The notion that you shouldn't have a better health service, because Americans are more unhealthy is - imo - kinda stupid. If anything, the average health of the average american is more of a reason that the US in in dire need of Health Care reform...
As far as I know, We are pretty right leaning compared to most developed nations in the world. Some people in EU or even Australians or Canadians tell me how some little things we take for granted here in America is just baffling to them. For a few examples, Guns, Cars, Speech, Taxes. Some even go as far to say we are pretty extreme in some cases. But as I see it, we are a big country with alot of people and different states which sort of function like their own country but less nationlike. So, really, it goes to say you can't be too sure if we are more or less left or right. For example California (my home state) seems to lean more on the European-esk side of the spectrum while Alabama is considered Right Wing Extremism.
The thing that was kinda left is out is the fact america already spends 17% of its gdp on health care. More than Japan, Germany, France, Its actually the highest healthcare cost in the world, it's a giant public health pool that could be rebuilt into a nation healthcare system.
@@St.Raptor "Let's do something literally no one else is doing when a working solution has been proven elsewhere, and do something we already tried 80 years ago" - America, always, before doing something that will be disastrous
@@St.Raptor what? American Healthcare quality is incredibly low, esspecially once you comapre it to other countries that spend much less money with a much higher quality of care.
While 17% of GDP may be substantial enough to fund a public system, the point is that redirecting that private spending would require a change in values. Even if the spending was exactly the same, the fact that it would come from taxes instead of wallets would dissuade many voters. I think the salient point of this video is that American individualism poses a large logistical barrier to implementation, regardless of any objective benefits.
@@zacnomore You're right. I'm personally healthy, and we all have an individualist mentality in the US. I am far from happy about anything tax related besides a big return. I hate social security as well. I can't get on board with my money going towards other people, especially when theirs will never go towards me. Government subsidization has also managed to murder private insurance costs, to the point where it's cheaper to just not have it if you're not diabetic or something. I KNOW our politicians will screw public healthcare up too, they'll do something motivated by self interest to screw it up for everyone. It's like trying to treat a horse with a broken leg.
@@ericolens3 Most times in the US when gambling money is used to fund education its just easy way to convince ppl that its going for a good cause and then they can just get same amount of funding that was originally going for education and spend it somewhere else.
I mean, you completely ignore that Americans still spend 21% of there GDP on health already. The money is there, its just being wasted and thrown to the insurance companies executives and shareholders.
Exactly. We could have the French system right now and still have enough money left over to do something great. Let's just propose to have the French system, build three aircraft carriers with the savings, and then invade Antarctica.
@@TemplarOnHigh Shhh! Don't give Uncle Sam ideas to, directly OR indirectly, fund the military complex, it's already morbidly obese! Seriously, though, there are so many things we could do better when it comes to spending here in the States, that it sometimes feels like the only thing we *are* any good at anymore is A: Ignoring problems till they spiral out of control, and somehow still act shocked by it; and B: wasting trillions of dollars on said problems when we could have spent less had we acknowledged it earlier. Healthcare is just the latest issue to check both of these boxes.
so they spend trillions on health yet they still have a 40 percent obese adult population. yeah, america is dumb. you should all just move to europe or japan but not me, im not american
@@johnkop4 It's not really relevant how the money is piped from federal to private. If the US collectively took the $0.21 per $1.00 of GDP and decided to pay a tax of $0.15 per $1.00 - there would be a savings of $0.06 per $1.00. So in aggregate the USA would "find" $1.2T every year.
Could be worse. At least the 1812 overture is about France, and has La Marseillaise as one of its prominent themes. When the video first mentioned Scotland it showed an image of Mordor.
Lets say that Mexico is invaded and gets beefed on by the US. That's like making a documentary about Mexico while blaring the American anthem in the background. Kinda a little maybe not i dunno shrug
That's the most messed up part about healthcare in the US, we still have all those taxes that are justified by a concern for public health yet when it comes to actually providing healthcare suddenly the government doesn't have a stake in our health and it's our responsibility. It's ridiculous.
US government also spends almost as much on healthcare as countries with public healthcare, they just use the money so much worse that it doesn't cover more then small portion of the population.
Obesity is literally an epidemic in the states. I didn’t realize so much living in California as we don’t have it as bad here, but traveling through the south, so many people are fat that morbidly obese is fat and overweight is normal. You would not believe the size of some people. I saw people struggling to fit between in the cash register isle. I saw people who haven’t seen their knees standing up in years. I saw people who, if they were to fall on their back, would be entirely incapable of getting back up like a turtle. Its horrific.
@@thetrollgehasbegun we are actually tied for 10th most unhealthiest countries according to this... Czech Republic has the title with how much they drink and smoke www.mdlinx.com/article/what-s-the-healthiest-country-in-the-world/lfc-3613
@@foreignfat6009 Yeah, that's why it will never happen. Paying for something that benefits people other than yourself is considered to be an Anti-American value in most of the South and Midwest.
@@SRosenberg203 Interesting that you still have socialistic systems in place, like welfara or fire department. "anti-american" my ass honestly, you are just selective as hell
@@spooky-nz9vj "personal responsibility" is considered an American value, many believe that things like public healthcare is the same as giving "handouts". This is reinforced by practically both parties, but its talked about most in the Republican party.
At this point, I'm starting to think Thatcher was single-handedly responsible for everything wrong with the NHS, is the sole cause of income inequality, starting WWII, and putting Oliver Cromwell in power. She's just starting to look like a convenient scapegoat for the Tories, at this point
i only drink it in my dads house house because he always has a ton..I swear i become temporarily addicted to that shit, and i bloat like a pig. I should really stop.
@@Slowcomputerguy i was wrong about mine it actually says 78% but still not 120% unless maybe the can and bottle differ that much either way don't drink it
For sure , lot of medics invented and make in usa are cheaper in france. Nicotinell box 25 dollars...11 euros in france. The beneficits in health are amazing in usa.
but yet it's still awful by comparison. sure you may recieve quality care for a surgery... but you drive home with thousands of dollars to pay even with insurance. It's insanity that this has been normalized in American culture.
Yup, I love my German healthcare. I see so many flaws in it but I wouldn't wanna miss it. Imagine having to start a gofundme page when you need a surgery...
It's not bad really. After my appendectomy and cholecystectomy I had a remaining balance of about $2,100 dollars which I set up monthly payments with the hospital. It's not as scary over here as you think.
@@eckusprosion5166 Brazil is literally a third world country; the only fair comparison is to compare it to another third world country. The only people who need to wait "6 years" for surgery aren't getting it to be treated for a life-threatening cancer or infection.
As an American, it's embarassing that many Americans don't realize that higher taxes would still be less than what they pay for private health insurance while also providing them better care. However , a large portion of Americans are against being part of any system and think people who cannot afford good care don't deserve it because not being wealthy equals laziness. I'm very much supportive of America having a system like even France. The benefits are worth the cost.
Most of us Americans at the bottom don't pay for health insurance, it's literally pointless, but I don't think we would be able to have a system like France, it's just too expensive
@@AmericanValorian France's system is cheaper than the US system. Significantly so, in fact. They spend a smaller percentage of their GDP, and France has a smaller GDP per capita than the US.
It would force the government to stop allowing pharma industry to call any price they want for even the cheapest products. Because otherwise public healthcare would not even be possible - it simply is ridiculous how much you have to pay. I was shocked when I learned how much it even costs to deliver a baby! And that you even have to pay for it in the first place! Government would be forced to regulate costs for medication and treatments and this is like the reason why it probably won't be implemented as the US moved in the complete opposite direction the past few decades, towards extreme levels of capitalism, willingly killing citizens by allowing companies to sell meds at multiple times the price of other countries (Insulin for 300+ US$ per flask? When the production cost for a whole mothrfckng year for one persone is about a third of what is charged per flask?!? But at least it seems like prices are drastically dropping, now that Eli Lilly was forced to make a step via a fake twitter account and logically competitors have to do the same to sell their stock.. But even those drastically reduced prices are two to four times higher than what a patient would have to pay here..!).
A French system simply wouldn't work in the US. You need something decentralised, where each state at least has an illusion of control. But the problem with this approach is that the federal government will lose leverage on pharma companies. That's how we Europeans get dirt-cheap medication. Our governments along with the EU itself leverage their vast political powers over companies to lower their prices significantly. That's also why private insurance(which, contrary to Americans does exist in the EU) is much cheaper here than what Americans pay. This also reduces the financial burden on the taxpayer and the government itself. Cheaper medication and healthcare in general means less money required to fund the entire system. American culture won't allow for this amount of meddling of the government in the economy because, "FREE MARKET! FREEDOM! LITTLE GOVERNMENT!" Especially when healthcare is already such a controversial topic in your country. All in all, I wish your country good luck because the system you currently have is simply unsustainable and will only result in more deaths which sooner or later will require addressing by politicians. Especially when wealth inequality in the US is STILL rising quickly.
@@AmericanValorian its obviously not pointless.. and its not too expencive. you are currently giving that money plus more, away to some coorporations. you identify yourself as being on the bottom. yet you defend a system that makes your life worse at the benefit of some wealthy people. tell me why or how that isnt servile to the umptinth degree.
America first refers to dealing with our economy, stabilizing out politics, and building our strength. Its more of an isolationist idea and I personally support it. Its not that people don't want to help refugees, i would love to. The issue is when people illegally enter the country. I won't change my opinion on that. Simply put, if you illegally enter the country, then you have broken the law and are a criminal. Im not saying every illegal is a bad person, i happen to know a few as well and I have supported them in their attempts to gain vista's and citizenship. We need to reform our immigration services no doubt, but we also need to strengthen our borders. We need to update our screening and streamlining our immigration process.
Also, there are two types of nations. 1.) Small, homogenous "gate downers" these are nations that have been homogenous for generations, have small populations and are more willing to allow foreigners to enter in mass whether it be refugees or otherwise. Second are the gate uppers, these are large melting pots where socialism has no hope of surviving and where the people are far more nationalistic, example the united states. Smaller countries like the Nordic nations and Cuba can long term sustain socialism and in those small groups it works well. But once you scale socialism to the size if the united states or Russia, it becomes inheritly authoritarian in order to suppress the more nationalistic and diverse populace. Simple put, it would be a beaureacratic nightmare trying to implement socialism into such a large country and as proven by Russia, it would require authoritarianism that isn't guaranteed to survive. The people of large diverse nations typically want less government because they see the government as a less present part of their lives.
@@obi-wankenobi6652 'America first refers to dealing with our economy, stabilizing out politics, and building our strength.' How's that been going so far? I mean, the economy has been relatively stable until recently, true, but our politics have only because more destabilized and this nation is the fucking laughing stock of the world.
"Beware, if you install public healthcare, the government might also try to improve your health and increase your food quality" ...And that is apparently a bad thing?
As a Scot, thanks for the clarification that Scotland runs its health service far better than England does. Too often in UK media we hear constant "Scotland bad" stories.
It doesn't. With the administration of the national socialists under the despicable Sturgeon, Scotland as a whole is a damned basket case. NOTHING works North of the border, not even definitions of what a woman is!
I live in the south of England and would move to Scotland in a flash, particularly as there's the chance of an independent Scotland rejoining the EU. Unfortunately, 72 is a bit old to be rebuilding my social life from the ground up, and it's pretty cold and dark north of the border.
As a Canadian, I'm constantly hearing 'scotland tries to help their population, England shuts them down'. Scotland in general seems more appealing than England imo
@Julia___ Sorry miss, I fear your reference points maybe somewhat skewed, thanks to the corrupt English hating SNP, Scotland has the worst performing local services across every sector within the UK. SNP has run Scotland into the ground and it's leadership are all being investigated for corruption.
@skem You get used to it, and then you can't taste anything else so u just keep drinking the same garbage :/ srsl I've talked to ppl who are like "I don't like water, I only drink soda"..... just yikes
most USA states have no power on their own, they'd just get trampled by the big corporations. wallmart and amazon employ more people and have a higher budget than some entire states do.
and some company lobby agianst state laws that hurt the people such as the time kentucky started having community run internet providing this was made illegal for comunnity and small buisness by a push by verizon and comcast
Fun fact: when Denmark regulated fat taxes on their fast food, people went for cheaper and less healthier foods in supermarkets and a year prior the obesity rate increased. not saying federal regulations are bad, just saying that they have to be well thought.
I knew immediately that would have been a problem. I don’t know much about healthcare. But I do know about diet. And banning fat will always lead to worse replacements.
@@OnlyGrafting And now anyone buying said old recipe is paying extra tax to pay straight into the NHS. (haha, at least, thats how its meant to work, but go figure)
@@zeroyuki92 Neither is the right target. The right target is educating people on nutrition and calories in/calories out. A targeted tax is basically only effective as a tax on the poor/uneducated, as they will continue to buy the high sugar content drinks, but will now see their limited resources be diminished even more. It is better to instill healthy lifestyles and teach people to understand the basics of nutrition/weight management so they can live healthier lives. Simply taxing things doesn't change much of anything if the habits aren't dealt with as well.
The NHS has saved mine and my families lives a few times now and we have not had to pay for any hospital visit . The occasional prescription has been cheap and my mother's cancer treatment (2 times ) was quick and free. It's not perfect. It's abused. It's stretched. But the NHS is a wonderful thing , the people within work longer hours than paid for and it's made by the people.
@@rafters9155 according to wikipidea In 2016 yes but would you kindly look at newer sources and discover that Germany and England are equal whit the Germans having a few weeks more and also I wasn't saying that the NHS is bad but that the Americans shouldn't take it as a example. Hope this makes my point clear sorry for any inconvenience. (sorry for any grammar mistakes)
Here in Brasil we have public health care. It’s often flooded and sometimes unreliable when it comes to emergencies and surgeries. However, the private healthcare is way more affordable than in America, and we actually have great subsides and even gratuity for continuous use of medicine, free ambulance, free vaccination. Those systems work very well and I’m really grateful for that. If it wasn’t for the Brazilian public health, I would probably not be able to be fully vaccinated and would have trouble affording continuous Medicine.
You can't count on it for everything, but being able to simply walk for 5-10 minutes to the nearest PSF and see a doctor after waiting for 10-20 minutes at best for no cost (besides taxes) is an incredible privilege.
As an American: I really like the idea of limiting the sugar content of foods, as well as taxing cigarettes and alcohol. Holy cow, thanks for the likes!
Altough Tobacco taxing is really questionable. In Germany the smokers have become less but even our high taxes (cigarettes are being taxed 3 times in Germany btw) dont discourage many. If youre addicted its hard to get off. But the harsher prices reduced new smokers so its a success I guess?
So his whole argument against the French system is that it costs money? And the private insurance alternative... doesn't? America spends like twice as much per person on healthcare lmao
@@nickb2708 yeah I didnt get that part. The problem is clearly not the amount of money sepnt, but how the money is spent. According to another comment with some citations, the US spends about 10,000 per person (I'm assuming annually) and France spends 4,500, yet only France has universal healthcare.
Eh, not really. Nearly every country ball he shows of America is either shooting a gun upwards while screaming "MERICA" or is morbidly obese, which is literally the only two insults Europeans have on the U.S apart from obviously, the healthcare system
@@sulfur_americium2993 while I partially agree with what u said, u make it sound like healthcare, guns, and obesity are the only things worth insulting about the US. One of the biggest reasons why people of other nationalities frequently insult the US is due to their pride, especially when it comes to "freedom", "democracy", and being "the greatest" despite the fact that the US is not even that close to the most democratic country, country with most "freedom", and arguably not the greatest in abt 90% of things. The US was relatively progressive for a long part of its history but now it's very much behind in many aspects despite what many Americans seemingly believe. Also bad presidents are universal but Germany and France, the leaders of the EU, both have very solid presidents overall for their countries at the moment especially when compared to the US.
@@danielchera9214 Also because the US saying 'freedom' most likely means they are going to organise a coup in a third world country(preferably middle east) the minute they think about nationalizing their oil industry. Can't let them not give you the oil am I right?
@@VeryAnonymousTurtle the united states directly pays for 90% of the worlds medical research . Joe biden just approved an additional 200 million to go to the wuhan laboratory in china
You’re literally describing Canadas system. Funding is provided mostly by the federal government, but the provinces run the actual system. Right now things aren’t going very well and it needs some time and energy spent rethinking parts of it, but overall I am happy with how the system is structured.
As some one who does not live in Canada, but who has friends who do, I hear that there is around 1 doctor per 1000 people in more populated areas (at least becquerel) Is this your experience?
Yeah I’d like to have some better healthcare, but the whole “oh it’s easier to assist in your death than it is to treat you long term” thing the government does is not cool
Point of order: French health expenditures are not significantly larger than those of other OECD countries. As per the World Bank, France spent 11.31% of GDP on health, compared to 11.25% in Germany, 10.1% in the Netherlands, or 10.13% of the Euro Area as a whole. In fact, a lot of the problems with the NHS are related to the fact that it is underfunded; UK health expenditures are under 10% of GDP: In case anyone's wondering, the US spends 17.06% of GDP on health, and still has worse outcomes than most Euro Area countries.
Yeah, and I think that's not enough. An extra percentage point of GDP for the NHS would fix many of its issues. That's still in line with the ~10% of GDP that's the average for the Euro Area. Not that I expect the Tories to do any such thing.
there is so many issues with the NHS though. many things like GP offices, emergency serives and operations are horribly miss manageged leading to a waste in the resources. not to mention the awful general health of the UK population and the uneducated puplic in Nutrition, execrise and calorie control. then the government has the ordacity to cut funding further and refuse pay rises to nurses and junior doctors who are keeping everything afloat during the pandemic.
and no universal coverage. We spend the most money per person and still cant get everyone covered. The whole structure of our economy would change. Insurance in the US has to cover a ton of bodily injury. So universal healthcare would change that, meaning companies would have to lower premiums. In just so many areas. It is a racket.
I feel Sanders did a good job explaining how it would work, regarding improving medicare and eventually expanding it to cover all Americans. We already have a system for it in the US, it just doesn't cover everybody yet. But we definitely could learn a lot from the mistakes of other countries. He and other Americans supporting public healthcare have actually given several different detailed ways of implementing it here, but that often gets buried by the arguments. Sanders even said back in 2020 that everyone would pay a tax to pay for the public healthcare.
It could only work if you have a mass cultural agreement from both political parties that we are all responsible for everyone else's health in some marginal or significant form. Americans don't want to care about their neighbor at all. Your health is your sole responsibility. We couldn't get people to agree to wearing a mask and standing six feet away back in 2020 and getting people to agree to taking a vaccine was a nightmare/still is a nightmare/will always be a nightmare. If we couldn't get people to agree to social responsibility there then how the hell could we ever get them to agree to the social responsibility innate in having socialized medicine?
Your idea for the implementation of healthcare in the US is actually how we got it here in Canada. The Province of Saskatchewan introduced Universal Healthcare, other provinces followed, then the Federal Government mandated that provinces yet to adopt the system adopt it.
What a weak mindset! We take a ferry to tallinn, then buss to cheaper baltic countries buy so much alcohol that the we can build a makeshift raft from them and then sail back to home like god intended.
Fun fact: Denmark has an tax on candy and becuase of this many criminals in Denmark smuggle old candy from Sweden to sell it expensive in Denmark, soo candy smugglers exist idk just sounds wierd to me, like imagine a person asking you what you do for a living and you reply, "yeah Ima candysmuggler" like tf
@Zuurker U There are literally no-go zones in The Islamic republic of denmark, burqa wearing ghosts roam the street, and for the U.S., it actually has a better healthcare system than europeans.
@@yuvraj7214 It is better if you are fortunate. For the unfortunate, the systems sucks and only puts you on debt. Also another inescapable fact, some disease like Cancer, which is better to be diagnosed earlier, is indeed diagnosed earlier in European countries than US. Why? Because in the US, people don't want to go to the doctor for a health check-up (especially Middle-low wealth citizen) and waited untill the symptoms got severe, resulting in a late diagnosis, not to mention the following treatment is 2-4 times more expensive than in Europe. The US healthcare system is almost as an incoherent mess as some developing countries and you should really just copied Germany's healthcare system.
@@yuvraj7214 go back to Atlanta, I'm so goddamn tired of theese "freedom loving" americans who think america rules the earth. Jesus Christ why is it last on every fucking poll exept for drug users per capita
Let's all completely ignore the fact that a public healthcare system that is available to *_ALL_* Americans is calculated to cost less than what America is currently paying, shall we?
@@user-uyumo8g44x In 2021, U.S. healthcare spending reached $4.3 trillion, which averages to about $12,900 per person. By comparison, the average cost of healthcare per person in other wealthy countries is only about half as much. Estimates have the average American paying $4,500 more in taxes, with no exclusions, deductibles or supplemental costs from cradle to grave, regardless of income. Public healthcare systems cost less, saves lives, and reduces poverty and crime. Scientific American says Universal Healthcare could have saved as many as 330,000 lives during Covid.
@@Lord.Kiltridge also youre missing the point that wages for medical staff in other developed countries is way lower than in the us. dont get me wrong, i am pro national healthcare but i dont think it would be more affordable for the average us citizen
16-18% of the USA GDP's goes in the healthcare system every year, more than any country in the EU, the problem is not the money but how it is managed. Also, the way Americans live their day to day life is also a big factor, even more, because the US is founded on the idea of individual freedom and responsibility above all, trying to create a system for all where someone pays for others healthcare issues is something very hard to digest for a lot of Americans. As the video suggests the public healthcare issue should start from the state level and convince other states why is a good idea and finally after a few states implement a public healthcare system and if it works it should be tried on a Federal level, not the other way around.
@@tiberiuzabara6891 "someone pays for others healthcare issues is something very hard to digest for a lot of Americans." That attitude is truly selfish and disgusting. Just because some people proudly boast "I can afford MY doctors visits" or " WHY SHOULD I PAY IF I AM NOT SICK?!" ....and are totally happy to watch their fellow CITIZENS, i.e. their own country folk DIE just because they are in a bad financial situation. I am a young healthy fellow who works full time, and I pay approx £80 (100USD$) per week from my salary into the NHS / Health service. I have never been in hospital. I only visit a doctor once a year which is a work physical, so that is is private health care and not counted. I am on no mediation. Yet I don't grudge one single penny of what I put in, because I rest easy knowing, if I am struck down by cancer or lose a limb in some disgusting accident I know, I will be taken care of. Also I know any of my family members will be taken care of. I can sleep well knowing I won't have to bankrupt myself or my family if I get ill. Its called putting some money in for the greater good. I have an uncle that would be dead if we lived in the USA as he has some very particular kind of medication that would be well over $1000 a month under the US system. Yet he pays nothing for it (in Scotland, in England I do believe you pay a token fee of 10$?) Do I resent the fact I pay to keep him alive? No. What about people I don't know? Again no. It is called being a good human being. It is nothing to do with communism or socialism. But each to their own I guess....do Americans object to the amount they spent on military spending? I doubt it.
@@tiberiuzabara6891 Don't worry friend, I am not triggered and I accept there are other ways of thinking on the planet other than my own. I speak two languages and lived in another country that was not my own, so I can appreciate being a guest in certain cultures etc. I just prefer my system to yours, no offence - lets agree to disagree. I just find the idea of denying someone the care they need based on finance abhorrent.
@ 5.4 million actually if you want to get your facts right before making fun of someone. But if everyone pays in what the hell difference does it make? 1 million people or 360, it makes no difference in the scheme of things. P.s. EU has universal healthcare and has a population of 440 million. Population of Russia 144 million. Universal healthcare. Logic would suggest a country like mine has less people ergo is less likely to be able to afford other peoples healthcare is it not? Wouldn't 360 million people clubbing together have more of a chance? Try a difficult argument and be honest, like you just don't want to pay for anyone else. All I know is, and a lot of people in other countries have this in common is : My healthcare isn't tied to my employer. I don't have a plan for healthcare that I will lose if I become unemployed. Or if I have a pre-existing condition. I won't have to pay a dime if I get sick. It is something I don't have to worry about.
@@mikzsmp4552 Imported doctors and nurses. The UK poaches other countries doctors for which they paid an arm and a leg to train. The remaining doctors then fleeces their patients.
I 100% agree with this take. I moved back to the states a few years ago after living abroad for over 15 years since age 12, and I had free healthcare abroad, but I'd say the quality of the service state side is much better, but the cost is ridiculous, and I'm fully aware of the problems with the free healthcare system, and after some research about how healthcare is handled in different countries, I also came to the conclusion that a system more similar to Germany's would work better for the US, as well as putting more responsibility on citizens to be healthy. I haven't been able to drink any soft drinks or eat other junk food since returning cause of how much more sweeter and artificial tasting it all is. The food industry here does require some new regulations imo. I found it pretty much effortless to stay a healthy weight and body fat percentage while living abroad, while state side it's become harder to, and I noticed it within the first few months back.
What everyone always leaves out is the reasons why healthcare in the US is so expensive. Everyone seems to go with the assumption that it's because it's private, without realizing that that makes no sense. Any business only gets more customers by having more accessible prices and payment plans, not the opposite. Unless government is screwing the economy, as it most often does, private-market-forces (competition, consumer choices) will push prices down and quality up over time, and one can just look around himself to see countless examples of that from every single market that exists. So one should really be asking the question: why isn't that happening in the US healthcare market? But that's not a rhetorical question. It really need answers. But of course, no one is even questioning that assumption to begin with, let alone asking that question and proceeding to dig deeper into what is keeping healthcare expensive in the US. And the politicians don't care. They're fighting for their own political interests. It's worth noting that the US gov healthcare spending is already comparable to those in europe. Healthcare in the US is barely private, with so much gov involvement in it. And therein lies the bulk of the issue at hand.
@@skaruts why isn't that happening in the US healthcare market? Cause in other countries you have the option to go on the public healthcare if the prices for private are unappealing. Whereas in America you have to go the private route or deal with hospital costs of thousands which means that as long as one company doesn't lower the price way lower than everyone else. in Europe the private healthcare has to be competitive with the free option while in America private healthcare just has to be better than nothing at all.
@@slowbro7944 no, that's not the reason. Private clinics in europe aren't getting any cheaper over time as a result of a shortage of clientele vs public healthcare. And you're making the mistake of thinking of private healthcare an a single entity**. Government monopolizes things, private markets don't. There should be different healthcare companies competing against each other, unless the government has forced the healthcare market into being one giant monopoly, just like taxis in some European countries, where competition is outright banned (or used to be). Has it? I don't know if that's the case. But I know for sure the US gov is strangling the market. I alluded to that before. ** (However, even when there's only a single company in a market, that company still has to do its best to have accessible prices and keep consumers happy, because unhappy consumers are what makes competitors crop up.)
@@3x157 there are truths in what you're saying, US healthcare is much better than people like to give it credit for. But... you unwittingly pointed out one of the reasons why it's so expensive. When the gov is preventing prices from fluctuating as they should, that prevents markets from adjusting themselves properly, and ends up causing distortions in supply and demand, which result in both shortages and wastefulness, which end up inflating costs. So they're probably not paying what they should, they're most likely paying more than they should. Fixing prices is probably the number one deadly sin in economics...
Something different about the USA is that our Constitution doesn't enumerate "health care" as a federal power or duty. Now, under the Tenth Amendment, any STATE is free to concoct their own system under their own jurisdictional taxation. If one state got it right, other states would quickly beat a path to their door. Ain't no way the clods in DC will ever be able to make it work.
@ALSO-RAN ! you don't now much about Hungery or Orban right? I'm not saying you're uninformated but make some research and you will find out somthing about private companies and Hungary
Being perfectly honest as an American, I knew Europeans had public healthcare that had significant upsides over what we have in the states, but I never had such a clear, concise compare-contrast of the way different countries tackled it. That's a really important step so we can know not just how to approach it, but how *not to.*
@@israel.s.garcia Americans always say “it’ll be free!” No it won’t. We’ll pay our taxes into that system and “making the rich pay” isn’t even the half of it. In fact, they’re going to be a small chunk. All of us will pay higher taxes. I have no problem with implementing functioning government SUBSIDIZED health care, but Americans need to stop lying to themselves about it being free. It’s not free like paying to habe fighter jets isn’t free, that is your tax money
@@dannylojkovic5205 hear hear! I'm so tired of the performance arts. I'm hoping someday we'll be able to get down to brass tacks on at least some important issues.
yet Brazil isn't the best country to compare it with... Brazil is still a third world country by statistics... if you really want to compare it, compare it to the various EU nations that have Universal Healthcare..
@@jasperpluk Brazil it's a developing country, that is why he joined BRICS. Statistics are very tricky, some states like, São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul and Paraná have good statistics, but they fade away when calculating the bigger picture.
This take is very very interesting and I think it bodes true, I personally have diagnosed chronic Pancreatitis and have had it since I was 14, and now that I’m 20, I worry about having to go to the hospital and paying $1500 out of pocket. For me I have a genetic mutation, it’s not because of what I eat and I feel like it should be treated differently to that of someone who willingly chooses to be obese. It’s to the point where I consider going to immigrate to Canada just because I know I’ll have my finances squared away even if I have to spend a week in the hospital. (And before people comment things like “Well it takes a year to see a doctor in Canada because it’s free” I would like to say that in my state, it takes 6 months to see any kind of specialist for my condition, and general doctors who can be seen in a short amount of time have no idea how to help me except to give me ibuprofen which doesn’t help, so it’s not any better here, it’s better over there)
I wish you the very best. My grandmother died of Pancreatic cancer a few years back. It's fucking terrible, and it's best to nip it in the bud. Preventive care is an absolute must, and there's no legitimate excuse for the government neglecting its people of that basic human right.
'my sickness is not my fault' ~every american~ Nothing will change when you guys spend more time hating each other than being kind and caring. The sick are every bit as selfish as the healthy.
6:34 But, aren’t Americans *already* giving a large share of their tax dollars to other people’s healthcare though programs like Medicare and Medicaid? The United States, when you look at combined costs covered by the public and private sectors, has the highest healthcare costs per person in the world, if I am not mistaken.
"Would we be willing to spend 12-15%"? We already spend 27% of the budget, federally, and many of us pay much more directly into our health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, and coinsurances.
The interesting thing is most people don't know this number. If you repeat the 15% figure along with an absolute number (say 500 million) people will go, oh my god that sounds so expensive, we can't afford that. Messaging is everything. Until people become better at messaging and until the media actually hold people to account, it will be very difficult.
"Would the Federal Government be willing to dedicate 12 to 14% of its budget to maintaining a health care system" Buddy, we already do way more than that. Medicare alone is already 14% of the Federal Budget. That's leaving out Medicare (insurance that we all pay into for elderly), the VA system (completely government-owned hospital system for veterans), and private health insurance. We pay way more than any other country on Earth per capita for a health care system that largely fails us.
That's a very good point. Sometimes private services that in theory would be cheaper for government end up being more expensive (VOX has a video on that about the US). For example, in Chile our retirement funds were privatised with a little public pillar to pay for minimum pensions, turns out that the pensions are so miserable that the public pillar drains out the budget so much that we are spending relatively more than in our previous public system previous to the neoliberal reforms.
If a public healthcare system was implemented state by state, it would be veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting to see how/if attitudes in Arizona and Florida about being large retirement communities would change.
I would just devolve in to a bunch of boomer retirees complaining about brown people destroying the US economy and that that's why their healthcare is so expensive.
I just watched it yesterday - a bunch of interviews with retirees on Medicaid - or is it Medicare for the older folks? In either case they were praising the system, to nobody's surprise.
@@LMB222 Older people use Medicare, Medicaid is for people beneath a certain income level. Medicaid is actually an amazing system if you have it and you can find a doctor that accepts it, but only because it's built on the backs of other people who can afford to maintain it through taxes. Medicare has problems, but generally most senior citizen are glad they have it.
They would just travel to the better states to leech off their systems and then go back to live in lower taxed states, and of course those who couldn't afford to do that would suffer.
The NHS itself isn’t a laughing stock, it’s saved countless lives and continues to do brilliant work each and every day. It’s the way it’s run and funded that is the laughing stock
@@Alblaka Hey it's not all bad! Best millitary in the world baby! Someone breaks into a house, they have to question whether the owner has a 12 gauge rocked with freedom slugs. Also government not being able to arrest individuals for speaking out against institutions is pretty awesome
Canadian here, we are stuck between styles. You got me on the candy, we used to have less sweet confectionery, in the British and European styles. Now it’s all made in big factories, catering to the us market, and horribly sweet. Also, I’m forever grateful to have our healthcare, provided as a public service. I’m in my 60’s and self employed. My family, and parents at the end of life, have had excellent care. Without me going bankrupt, or stressing about it.
Our system is only decent compared to the USA. Everything he said about the NHS Applies to us as well. (Just say Mulroney and Cretien instead.) It's just that the American system is a whole league of bad.
I like how americans can tell me with a straight face that they don't want to pay for public healthcare, then immediately pay 20% or more of their paycheck to a private insurance company who makes the most money by cutting corners and finding any excuse possible to avoid providing their services.
I don't agree with it at all bro. Fuck Aetna for trying to take half of my weekly paycheck. I've been an M4A advocate since I first heard about it in 2015.
@@razortheonethelight7303 Do you know why they do that? Because they want to ensure to have strong trade connections. The European market is very profitable for the US and they surely don't want to lose it to Russia. Also, a great part of your military in my country likes to control their drones on the other side of the planet at the Rammstein Airbase. Without Germany's permission to have that US base it would be impossible for US drone pilots to operate in the Middle East because the frequencies aren't able to traverse over such large distances due to the Earth's curvature. So it is very much in the interest of your country to have strong military influence in Europe because it opens the door to operations in the Middle East and places far from direct access. The US doesn't simply have their bases here in order to protect us Europeans. They have their bases here in order to be able to react fast on important events on the African or Asian continent. The protectionist function has greatly declined since the end of the Cold War. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful for that, but nowadays it is just a positive effect that comes with the US having a great interest in having such bases in order to do other stuff in the Middle East for example. And please don't get mad due to all my fellow Europeans because they think so highly of their civic achievements. I mean it's really just a matter of culture that divides us. Some small advice on what to prevent talking about with Europeans because they don't understand how important that is to you: Guns, predatory capitalism (I don't know if you only use it in a bad context, to say that something is bad; I mean with that the system you have in which there is the individual's responsibility to achieve and not so much all of society), individualism, health care, being number one (... its true for many things, but you really shouldn't rub that into the faces of Europeans that much because we get very angry) I hope you've learned something if not then probably because you know better. I know that comments tend to sound rude and very shouty but I hope you see that it was meant with good intention. Have a nice day and definitely don't let you have it ruined due to some random dude on the internet that has to tell you that public health care is the only truth and you're a moron (Just ignore those guys, they don't know any better)
@@razortheonethelight7303 So wrong. The US actually spends MORE tax money on healthcare than most of Europe, it just does it far more inefficiently. Russia also isn't really a threat, France alone has a higher military budget and their own nukes.
it's a bit easier to be a pundit or a scholar than a politician. You have the benefit of being able to think through problems without any constraints of needing a plan of action or facing consequences for getting it wrong.
To be fair, the debate format for primaries in our two-party system doesn’t allow much time for a thoughtful debate on public healthcare or its implementation. That’s more the fault of the debate structure than Bernie himself. Our political system is fueled by soundbites and gotcha questions instead of intellectual debate.
Bernie and some others actually have laid out extensive plans on their websites and manifests, but this was either not out at the time of the video or Kraut didn’t bother to check.
Dabber Mcgee or because Bernie, or other politicians doesn’t have much of an impact in the us regarding that topic. Otherwise, they would have already implement it.
@@xSoulhunterDKx he said that he was specifically refering to the democratic candidates when he said "none of them." If he was refering to only people that have an impact, then he would've been arguing Trump's healthcare plan, which I'm sure you'll agree is rather non-existent and not what he was saying.
I'm quite literally doing research for debate club about a Medicare-for-All act. Barely any of the people in power would be able to handle an ACTUAL debate round that *High Schoolers* do for fun on the weekends. But also, people like Bernie Sanders don't have enough power and unwavering support within our own government to enact policies resembling universal healthcare (keep in mind we have people in congress bringing in snowballs to show that climate change and global warming Aren't Real).
germany - we pay massive amount of taxes, of which a lot of it goes to health care everyone pays them doesnt matter if you earn well or poor, you pay for it but, when you get sick/injured, youre completely covered with the costs and you get paid as if you worked during that time and im completely okay with that
Also we have a functioning welfare system that takes over the insurance costs for the unemployed or people living in poverty. So it's actually not "whether you are rich or poor", there is a line.
Everyone falls ill. Everyone. Immortals don't exist, we all age, we all die. Every single person needs medical care, at some point. The Americanism that "I don't want to pay for someone else's medical bills" is such a farce. Especially now, when employer-tied-healthcare during an economic downturn + a global pandemic means when people need medical access more than ever, they no longer have it. Telling folks they must choose between death and a lifetime of debt - for the sin of being poor and sick. It's a disgusting worldview. The USA medical system is broken.
In Germany, we really don't pay that many taxes. That just often gets misconstrued on the internet. Yes, federal income tax in the US is lower. But US citizens pay their income taxes twice, as almost every state demands its own, 2nd income tax which can add around 15% to the tax burden. There's also a roughtly 5% medicaid tax which doesn't provide any benefit and is pretty much only another income tax. In the end, most low-and middle class employees in the US actually pay more than in Germany.
@@RomanceJones It honestly isn't. It just seems like more because it's all grouped into one big withdrawal. Wheras Americans get their full salaries but then pay half a dozen taxes to half a dozen institutions after the fact and up to one year later... property taxes, federal income, state income, payroll tax, Tangible Personal Property tax, local residential fees. And that doesn't even cover retiremend funds, healthcare or higher education.. all of which are broadly seen as "taxes" by Germans and make up the majority of the German system's income deduction, but have to be sourced (again) separately by Americans. The entire American system is designed to fool people into thinking they have more money than they actually do, it's a debt driven economy that relies on people living beyond their means.
tbh. Really the problem is the food here. There needs to be more regulation I feel like that's pretty fucking obvious. Trust me, I used to work at an ice cream place in the mall.
@@crapwithanopinion2919 from a video i watched a few months ago, they said that energy companies can lie about their caffeine amounts. HOW CAN THEY ALLOW THIS. this honestly looks like the usa is influenced to not update the laws. also why is there guns allowed? and no dont tell me because freedom.
@@NuggetOG the US is a fucking mess. We need a leader like teddy Roosevelt to abolish the monopolies like Amazon and Microsoft. And enact the green new deal. But we're not gonna get that anytime soon. As for guns we need to do what Australia has done and that heavily restrict the availability of firearms and treat them more like a car and less like a toy.
@@crapwithanopinion2919 i dont know that mouch about roosevelt but the gun thing, yeah. also monopolies are gay. and illegal and to clear thing up being gay is not illegal, karen/ any political correct group, its just a joke but monopolies are illegal, thats why governments are the only hing that allow monopolies
public healthcare prioritizes saving the lives of human beings. the current american healthcare prioritizes making a profit off of the lives of human beings.
and it becomes a reinforcing loop. You make money from people being in shit health, so high sugar, high fat, low health standard, low nutrition foods, alcohol, tobacco etc is wicked cheap and widespread
well, that is exactly why there’s always someone in US keep telling you public health care system is evil or communism, those companies surely won’t let anyone touch their cheese
When I went to the Bahamas with my Boy Scout troop the summer before I started high school, the rationale they used for not doing something stupid and getting ourselves hurt was "it costs $15,000 for the helicopter ride to the hospital back in Miami"
I'd rather just die if everybody would say that the healthcare will cost 15000$ for me. LOL, it's wasn't for whole heathcare it was just for a helicopter ride. I bet my ass it would cost a hundred thousand bucks total, or more.
Glad we have a public healthcare system in Australia. There are some odd exclusions (optical/dental/ambulance cover) but for the most part, you can get the care you need and it won't permanently bankrupt you. Both of my kids were born in (or near) a public hospital. The care and education were top notch and it didn't cost us a cent.
In Queensland, ambulance services are paid for via a slight tax on the electricity bills of the state's population. Absolutely, bloody genius. You'd think they'd roll that out everywhere, especially in NSW, of all states! And WA, SA and NT need more heli-ambos. If those states had more solar farms, they'd be able to generate the revenue through grid surplus dividends to fund their ambulance services. Luckily, where I'm based (central coast), I get free dental through my uni as a student. And you do get free optometrist appointments on Medicare. I don't think chiro, cosmetic procedures, or neuro/psychological diagnoses are funded under our healthcare system (I only just managed to get an ASD and ADHD assessment by my NDIS plan coordinator tweaking my funding usage). And even necessary surgeries (I need spinal realignment surgery as I have scoliosis, but it's "only moderate", so they won't significantly subsidise or operate unless it's severe) aren't totally paid for unless it's immediately life threatening. I think you may be a little confused about what our healthcare system provides mate. Take a look at your health insurance policy. That's why you can't access those "exclusions", cause your insurance doesn't cover them. But Medicare certainly does (albeit with a fee and rebate), and so do other insurance companies.
You are dead wrong if you think it didn't cost you a cent. It probably costs you 15-20% of your monthly pay. I don't like this socialist fantasy world pushed in 90% of comments... Video we're commenting was much more balanced and reasonable in its considerations.
@@whitewhitewhite2446 neither the geology nor the government require anyone to lock their doors, although you may wish to on sight of some of the larger spiders.
"America doesn't understand how expensive public healthcare is! France's healthcare is awesome but they spend FIFTEEN PERCENT of their GDP on it!" *america spending 18% of its GDP on private healthcare*
The guys before you said it was 21%, so where do you people get your numbers from? I am convinced the US is spending more than France, I just want to see the source.
At the Congressional Budget Office this graph can be found: www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-04/56324-CBO-2019-budget-infographic.pdfIf you add up the 1.9% and the 3.0% you get a total of 4.9% of gross domestic product spend on Healthcare.
@@Supernichtpatrick You can check the site for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cms.gov which tracks historical health and medical spending as well as projects future spending based on expectations. They list the total in the US for 2018 as $3.6 trillion, which was 17.7% of GDP. The CDC also has historical data on their website as well, which includes 2017 data showing that quantity at $3.5 trillion (17.9% in 2017).
Exactly... The whole cost argument is completely meaningless because the end result is that Americans spend more money on a system that covers less people. Costs also end up stacking up for the people who need healthcare or medication whereas in a nation with public healthcare those costs are shared by everyone, the way it should be. Also medication prices are better negotiated etc. with the pharmaceutical industry.
Great work!! As an argentinean I have tons of complains to our corrupt govs, though having public healthcare and education is something I'll always apreciate, specially after acknowledging how these lack in lots of first world countries.
El otro día fui al hospital y había una silla de ruedas hecha con un armazón de metal y una silla de plástico atornillada ¿? Es una poronga el sistema de salud público en general, por la falta de fondos y la pésima administración (y gigantesca corrupción, como todo lo estatal). Es una lástima cómo la corrupción arruina todo.
And the sugar, fat, tobacco and alcohol taxes. Make it more expensive to be unhealthy. Then reduce import taxes on healthier items like fruit and vegetables.
Considering how much of US politics is (apparently, from what I've observed) influenced by corporate entities, I doubt such a law will ever be passed. Real unfortunate.
@@looking_arround There are special taxes and advert bans on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, and things of the like in the US. They're called Sin Taxes and you usually see them in the south around the more religious communities and states. I don't think I've ever heard of a tax on fat or sugar though. For that, you're usually left on your own to read the nutrition facts on the back of the package.
"Would the US government be willing to allocate 12-15% of its budget to a system like this?" (Frances). Dude the US government is currently allocating 27% of its budget to the government part of its healthcare system. A system that per citizen costs twice as much as Frances, almost three times as much as the UKs and delivers worse results than either. Without even managing something as basic as covering everyone. Thats the problem with comparing places like the UK to France: Both are better and far cheaper than the US setup, and things that are poor by European standards are vastly better than the US setup. And also, you don't pay extra insurance premiums for being fat in the US. Plus, yes Japan has people in good shape and low healthcare costs, the US has an out of shape population and high healthcare costs. The UK also has people almost as unfit as the US, and very low costs. The Nordics have a fit population and very high costs. Theres no correlation.
So, should we just accept that healthcare for all is just a bad idea? I mean it doesnt seem that bad of an idea to bring back healthcare systems like badgercare (wisconsin's old healthcare) aaaand strive for healthcare in states that just cannot do it themselves. My idea of what they will at least attempt is for states that have a better system in place, leave it be and for states that dont... well... I guess they dont have much of a choice.
@@midgetman4206 why is size an argument? European systems work about the same from Iceland with 300k people to Germany with 80+ million. No theory predicts any limit in population.
I could be wrong here, correct me if so, but arent public health care systems in general cheaper since they dont have all those middle men between your insurance payment and your healthcare?
Yeah, but all public system need to be closely monitored or they quickly start trowing money by the windows. They usually don't have much incentive to be efficient with their spending, as it is the government who pay the bill.
You pay the difference in waiting times due to inefficiencies endemic to public services. There's also an argument to be made about medical research being disincentivised through such measures. At least some part of the whole reason european countries can afford to have their systems is because americans basically pay the brunt of the cost of medical research. Also as we need (or rather needed since trump is slowly changing things) to pay way less military upkeep, since we don't have to maintain a status as world hegemon. A lot of the social programs in europe are only possible to the extent that they are implemented, because the US is indirectly bankrolling a lot of it.
No. What?! What are you thinking? There are middle men... tons of them. Even more once you add the beurocracy of a government. You cant add and get less. Are you seriously saying government can do with LESS middlemen than a private business???? HAHAHAHA, dear me... no...
HK-47 Aye, but I do get it, as much as I do love cold and humid weather, it is taxing in the long run. And I loved the sheer amount of deep-fried and sugary stuff (ain‘t healthy but fuck it). My sister in law is from Latvia and has a part Swedish family, the Smôrgastorta on the wedding was fabulous, Swedish cuisine is really something
@Marc T Ah, just found it: www.betterbones.com/bone-nutrition/magnesium/ I knew I wasn't completely crazy. Magnesium is part of the enzymes we use to absorb calcium from our diet and utilize vitamin D. "The enzyme that is required for forming new calcium crystals, alkaline phosphatase, also requires magnesium for activation, and if levels are low, abnormal bone crystal formation can result."
I'm from Brazil, living in the U.S. I always feel divided about this matter. My experience with public health was not great at all. In Brazil, if you have cancer, you have to go to a private hospital bc in the public hospital, it would take months just to get a ct scan or regular visits. I am speaking for experience, but some people might have a different opinion. Here in the U.S. I suffered a small accident in 2019. A simple broken bone, and in a matter of HOURS, I had my surgery, and I was going home! That was new for me. Once in Brazil, I had to go to the hospital bc I was shaking in cold. I would have to wait for over 300 ppl in front of me to have a visit in an emergency room, I went home instead. And note that private hospitals could be expensive everywhere, even in Brazil.
Your experience highlights some of the common pitfalls that can happen with a public health service, and also why private health can seem attractive. I'd maintain that private health can only be attractive if the public option is already messed up or non-existent. Just starting from the basic concept, it's a bit weird having public and private health coexisting in a country in such a major way, and demonstrates some major flaws. You say the wait times for the publicly funded ct scans in Brazil are so long you have to go to a private hospital. Just think about that for a moment, the demand for something as important as a ct scan is so high, that an entire 'for profit' industry is not just allowed, or getting by, but is a huge staple. When that happens with the other major emergency services, we recognise that something is very wrong. Wait times for police are months long? So hire the mercenary contractors. Wait times for the fire department are weeks long? So hire mercenary... firefighters. In those situations, of course the private institutions are attractive than the alternative. When your house is on fire, naturally the private firefighting company is going to look really good compared to a 3 week wait time from the publicly funded one... but the real problem here isn't that people who can afford to choose chose the fast one, the problem is the publicly funded one isn't just as fast. I don't doubt your experiences in Brazil and the US, and I'm sure the US experience felt nice and fast. I'm equally sure that if you had some mercenary firefighters on retainer, you'd call them if you had a housefire. But those aren't nearly as common, and while private security firms exist, they tend to be expensive and very specific in their duties, and not something everyone is expected to deal with. One of the richest men in history lived in ancient Rome, he invented a private firefighting company. He got rich by haggling with people out the front of their burning property, refusing to put it out unless they caved to his really high prices. That only lasted a few years before the Roman empire put a stop to it. Primarily for the public good of not letting the city burn down just because someone wasn't home to haggle with this guy. But for some reason we have allowed the same situation to continue for thousands of years when it comes to health. Maybe because the economic and material effects just aren't as viscerally obvious as a city burning down, but those flow on effects are just as real and deadly. I don't want to ban private healthcare, I don't want to ban private firefighting either. I just think that if an entire for profit industry, that by definition cost multiples times what the public option costs, can happily take up a noticeable amount of the market. It's pretty fucked up. If it took months for firefighters to get to your house in Brazil, but a private firefighting company in the US gets there really fast. That doesn't mean the concept of public firefighters is bad, it means they are horribly underfunded and understaffed.
I LITERALY know people who lives got safed because of public healthcare here in Brasil. Including cancer pacients, which protocol is different. And the private is not as ridiculous expensive as it is in the US. There is no comparison on that matter.
@@oswaldoalbuquerque All members of my family had to pay out of their pockets, and some even had take out loans for that, but good for your family. If that was me, I wouldn't take the risk.
Thing is… the US is not a developing country. Brazil is. It's not an insult, but an explanation why if you get cancer, you die - unless you go to a private company. A country with the wealth of the US should have been able to solve their issues, instead of making them worse.
The NHS aint bad, or shit. Growing up with it with 4 operations, 2 MRI's, dozens of blood and other such tests and I've received great care and I've definitely seen improvement.
tbf the NHS does have issues, though for sure it's better than the us system pound for pound, it's still been savaged by deliberate underfunding by neolibs, sold off, etc we love it & need to remake it, imo.
Yeah, i've had operations and am in hospitals most of the time, NHS isn't shit in terms of the care given etc. If you only look at it from economic and business stand points it probably does look shit. But trust me, those doctors care more than anybody else and the care you are given in an NHS clinic is uncomparable
Agreed, his emphasis on how bad the NHS is very strange. The quality of care is exceptionally high. Where the NHS falls short is in infrastructure and wait times. Small issues often get put on the back-burner and some critical health issues (mental health services in London being a very good example) can have queue times of over a year. This, however, is a funding problem. The points about quotas and management style in the NHS being poor are valid, but what the NHS essentially needs is more money. Austerity is the single biggest issue that has plagued the NHS and Kraut failed to mention it entirely.
Hey its better than the US 👀 Americans hate to pay taxes because most of the money doesn't go to what its supposed to and the rich don't have to pay. I feel as though people would be willing to make the switch if they made a living wage and could verify where the funding is going 👎👎 Its very sad. I visited Denmark at 12 and was bitten by a venomous spider and had to be in the hospital overnight to get an antidote. My mother and I were panicking over the price but the doctor just laughed, said it was free, and they gave us a free lunch. We👏 were 👏 shocked👏 !
4:11 I mean how can you start presenting an idea and the means to achieve it when the debate only goes as far as considering if it is communism or not.
American politics is like a team sport and not actual discussion of viable solutions. If you look at the campaign ads here, it's mostly just berating the other party instead of talking about their own positions. "You won't be safe in Biden's America." "We need to recover from Donald Trump" The above are real quotes from campaign ads
Agreed. He does raise a good point that if they really wanted to create a public healthcare system in the USA they'd need to actually talk about the details beforehand, but he seems to gloss over the fact that this might be caused by the political climate rather than a lack of desire to hammer out said details. It's difficult to have a real discussion about your plans for public healthcare when the opposition seems intent on demonizing the very concept of public healthcare and doesn't even want to take the idea seriously.
Yeah, political debates in my country (Spain) are also a pathetic shitshow 98% of the time. Reduced to the left calling the right corrupt fascists and the right calling the left Spain-hating communists but for what I've seen, American politics... man, they're on a whole other level. I feel like this is happening on many contries, though, both left and right are getting more and more radicalized.
@@normalisboring2831 I tried different restaurants and the American dishes did not compare. One of the things I like to do when traveling to the other side of the pond is trying the McDonalds and experiencing the different menu items and sauces. I did go to a fancy restaurant and tried the carpaccio. OMG that was delicious! Different countries have different specialties. Amsterdam had great sweets and really the only food I enjoyed there was the foreign food. The middle eastern falafel or Asian fried rice dishes there were excellent. I think the dutch in terms of food are known for cold cut sandwiches which was pretty much subway lol.
I am french and I can tell you this video makes huge misconceptions about how our healthcare works. First, it is not organised by the state, it's an independent organism that receives fundings directly from the "Sécurité sociale" (Social security), which is financed by cotisation, not taxes. Taxes are, by definition, administered by the State. Here with the cotisation system, it is administered by workers themself. That's why we say it is socialised. It is not a part of the state budget. I find it extremely misleading to say that we pay huge taxes to get a good health service : we pay a cotisation, and we know exactly where it is going. This is precisely why we don't pay that much. Health expenses is about 10% of what we all pay. Meanwhile in the US, it's about 15%, the service is worse and it is extremely imprevisible. When you think about it, the reason is obvious: there is not someone administering this that wants to make money. It's simply administered by workers. However, our politics are slowly incrementing a capitalistic logic in the hospitals.. So the health workers are have harder and harder schedules, bad revenues etc. Because they are not employed by a capitalist, they are considered useless.
@Samuel Moog It's not it, we are slowly seeing our hospitals faulter through lack of investments and rise in costs (aging population). The LREM or LR models just prefer a reduction in the Sécu's role rather than expanding it's funding. But it is something we will have to chose later in life because in it's current model the system cannot survive in the long run with underinvestment, aging population and needs to balance the budget. While I agree that the Sécu is not "funded by taxes" it sort of is, at the end of the day it's still money taken by the government to fund something, and with the Sécu's deficits being plugged by the state there's an argument to be made that it is taxes just presented differently. Also about that perception I'm not sure most people in France have it, as most people don't understand where the money for their Allocations Familiales comes from..
@@BraceletGrolf a lack of investment due to an increase of global costs and dyfunctionnal structure. the budget cut was a low blow to the public services that had to start implementing a more capitalistic view on its inner management which explains the problems we have with hospitals and such like 10 patients for one or two available medical personal (nothing precise, I say this in order to have an exagerated idea) I'm not sure if they compensate the lowering of the budget with taxes, but it would make sense and I personnaly would be okay to generally pay more taxes for better health and such however, I am also German at the same time, and BOY would I prefer living in France in order to pay less taxes, because if you are just a regular working dude prepare to get your monthly wallet blown and our countrymen tend to believe that not spending a penny on public services or policy is a "too social nationalist thing" I really fear the passivity of the average German more than the activism of the right-winged extremists --> notre système va être réformé c'est sûr et certain. Toutefois je pense que personne en France ne sera prêt à l'abandonner ni à le réduire à une pâle copie: ce serait du suicide social, politique et culturel. Je ne pense pas que nous auront droit à un NHS français. Translation : our system WILL be reformed. That is a certitude. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone in France will be up to abandon our system or to turn it into a shallow shell. This would translate to a political, social and cultural utter suicide. I doubt that we will have a French NHS
So basically you have a double taxation scheme, one which you call "taxes, we can't seem to see where that money goes" and another one, which is "taux cotés, but this one we are kinda aware of where it's going because we spelled it in French". If that even remotely works, I have nothing else to say but, well, I am glad it does!
Something I find quite interesting is that even when you compare to the UK, one of the worse off systems in Europe, it's still ultimately better than that of the US, supposedly. That speaks volumes to how much better most European countries have it by comparison.
The NHS is severley underfunded with proper funding it could be one of the best healthcare systems in the entire world. It needs to be completely re-thought out and be organised much better. The Tories clearly do not care about it.
@@masonchin4705 to be fair, the tories may not care but labour actively fucked it not saying the tories are good, knockoff trump needs gone already but labour and the lib dems have both managed to kill most of their goodwill with the people so I dunno how we get a decent party... fucking nick clegg ruining what could have been an actual party worth supporting.
UK is actually rated in the top half of EU health systems while having a lower cost to the taxpayer than even what US spends to provide its limited public healthcare.. We have big issues that need addressing but it's far from being the worst. Kraut's pushing a narrative that isn't representative of reality. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2018/EHCI-2018-report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQtefYwd7qAhVNa8AKHXhaAdIQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw3_DgziQK29fftCqqw0tmKY
From a outsider perspective, the NHS has improved over the years and is no more as bad as it used to be. This is mostly a political issue now between torries and larbor
The cost of health care in the US is staggering. Claiming that France's system only works because they fund it heavily is misleading. The US spend more of their GDP on health care than France (or pretty much everyone) - a large portion of that being private funding (through insurance). The cost in the US is also much more expensive in part due to the lack of regulation and profit oriented nature of the system. As such funding would not be the issue for the US in the long run and not or those who already have expensive health insurance. The fact remains, that the US is the only industrialized country without a universal health care system and they pay the most (which have not not reflected on the quality of health care).
Is the GDP on healthcare calculated as total value or as per capita? The United States has a much bigger population than France, so the results can vary very largely whether way you compare the difference of fundings on healthcare between the US and France. (I still know that the US sucks in healthcare)
@@wedonteatbears For percentage of GDP Americans spend 18% and France spends a little less than 12%. For cost per person, America spends $10,224 and France spends $4,902.
Unfortunately now that it's 2023 we're seeing what's happening when individual states have a say over what is legal in the public health and it's even more unfortunate that in some states it's even criminalizing healthcare.
First of all, fantastic video. THANK YOU SO MUCH for mentioning the soda ban in New York! As a guy who grew up in New York City at the time, I always bring that up when talking about healthcare with my friends and they just say that im exaggerating. It's really damn annoying.
Hilariously i heard the soda ban actually ended up hurting local grocers because people would rather drive 30mins/1hr outside of the city to buy from a grocer which had their prefered size of soda. Im not 100% if this was specifically new york or another city that implemented this type of control.
The sad thing is, what he's proposing is literally how the US is supposed to work. The Federal government has literally no power to enact a healthcare system constitutionally. It would be illegal. The states, on the other hand, do have that power. What you're literally watching is the communist take over of the US in real time with these unconstitutional programs being proposed by tyrannical politicians who are seeking to destroy America and turn it in to a South American despotic regime (see San Francisco and LA for examples of billionaires living next to squalor in a completely disgusting display of moral decline). Thank god that Hillary didn't win.
@@VACatholic I don't think that's correct that the federal government has no power to create a health care system. They have Veterans hospitals - poorly run, sick soldiers treated as lazy disposable welfare moochers, not as honorable service members. They have Medicare. Obviously, insurance DOESN'T WANT to provide health insurance to elderly people, for obvious reasons. Medicare enables a private insurance market to exist, by removing the cost burden, thereby loosely guaranteeing profits. That's not Communism. Capitalism has ALWAYS had govt subsidies for Capitalists in a mix of direct and indirect ways. No capitalist firms create money .. except banks which are licensed by govt to create infinite money "out of thin air" in the form of credit dollars exchanged for valuable legal contracts. Other than banks, nobody creates dollars except Uncle Sam. We *exchange* Uncle Sam's dollars and compete to earn them .. or speculators win dollars by placing financial wagers, often leveraged financial wagers, so magnified by credit. To eliminate govt spending would be to eliminate capitalism. Hospitals need welfare. Doctors need that welfare. Nurses need that welfare. Medical equipment companies need that welfare. Medical technology companies and software companies need that welfare. Pharma needs that welfare. Many of them need extra long patents, too, which means a partial monopoly. Soviet communism was 100% monopoly, one provider, the State. Partial monopoly is partial communism, but, as I said, capitalism even going back to the 1500s has always been dependent on govt handouts.
@@gg_rider You wrote a lot of text. I'm sorry to say it's wrong. When you can point to the part of the constitution that allows for all of these things you're talking about, let me know. Until then they're unconstitutional. Also the idea that banks create money is just a ridiculous way of looking at the world. Companies create value by creating products. Banks are just institutions meant to facilitate that exchange. Finally your comment on capitalism and communism are too ignorant to correct here. Please do some more research. Capitalism does not need socialism at all. You're just historically wrong. Almost everything you said is a lie.
About the "who pays and what it costs?" USA already spends more money from federal budget per citizen on healthcare than France... And their system is shit and the people still need to pay huge sums for healthcare... It's madness.
Yes but that cost is not shared by everyone and two france is a good example of how a system could be run america if we do it will be a bad example a terrible example the american healthcare system at the current moment is a joke but if we go to a socialized system
@@diamondrg3556 you're not wrong but we still have a health care crisis. I'm not saying I want a shitty universal healthcare platform but something it's need to be done.
Well, for corporations it is. Being unhealthy creates demand. Demand for health care, more demand for unhealthy food that is being overeaten, demand for gym memberships so they don't feel as bad about the problems that are probably coming from elsewhere. Healthy and and satisfied people don't need to pay to just patch up all the problems in their life. Where will the poor corporations find their profits then? And this is why left wing ideas are radical in the US. You let the private corporations, who's sole reason for existance is profit, to have massive influence in politics, society and culture. Naturally they will push for a politics, society and culture that maximises their profit potential, at the cost or exclusion of everything else. The pressure towards unhealthy living habits is not a bug, it's a feature, it helps their bottom line.
@@Hysteresis.Actual The healthcare industry does want people to be unhealthy. But most American corporations would prefer that people be healthy. Most Americans get their healthcare through their employers. So sick people for most corporations --> higher costs --> lower profits.
When something about American politics doesn't make sense, the answer is usually race. White Americans don't want to subsidize healthcare for black Americans. America's experience with Medicare and medicaid didn't help either. They tried public healthcare just for the elderly and the poor. Then as the population aged, that turned out to be more expensive than anything else that the government does. usdebtclock.org/ The economist who designed the program for the elderly actually formulated a theory called the Iron Triangle, which stipulates that there is a 3 way trade off between quality, cost, and access on healthcare. ldi.upenn.edu/news/william-kissick-and-iron-triangle-health-economics So now, because no one talks about the sacrifices that a public healthcare system entails, Americans don't see a way out of the Iron Triangle.
@@Sewblon Most corporations do not use their power to lobby for the issue of healthcare. As higher cost of healthcare may increase their costs, but it also decreases worker bargaining power, overall lowering worker compensation. As unions/employees have to worry about losing their healthcare in addition to just working conditions and pay. If there is any overall advantage to a healthier workforce, it's not enough of a difference for corporations to put their money towards solving the issue. Whereas industries that directly benefit financially from the ill health of Americans do spend money to lobby, and market bad foods/habits. Because for them it's a direct investment that they see monetary returns on. Herein lies the problem, corporations always try to privatise profits and socialise costs. They are not willing to spend money to solve a socialised issue, eg an unhealthy workforce, but they are perfectly happy to cause socialised issues to create private profit for themselves, eg by creating the unhealthy populace so they can be paid to 'address' the problem. In a system where money has so much power, the sources that actually put money towards shaping policy/culture are always the cynical selfish actors, because they have the best returns on investment for the money they put it. While other corporations might have a slight preference for that not happening, they don't actually use their money/power to act on this, because it's a much poorer ROI for them.
It's fine to want everyone to be healthy. It's another thing for the state to compel you to be healthy. Frankly they have no business in my health, or what kind of insurance I want to buy or not buy. F OFF!
Oh God please don't think that. This video is so wrong on so many fundamental levels people here are, rightly, speculating this is produced in association with Healthcare insurance companies.
@@baconsir1159 no. I’m talking about upfront costs for services. In the US I got a bill for an ambulance ride that was $1,100. In the UK the ambulance ride is from what I understand $0 as it’s covered by the NHS. That’s just $1,100 for transportation, no services no medication nothing, just physically fucking moving your body from point A to point B. Sure in England my taxes might be 200-300 higher but I don’t have to worry about a freak accident putting my entire financial situation in a scramble. There are literally people here in the United States that AVOID going to the hospital/doctor even WITH insurance out of fear of ridiculous medical bills. And it’s a legitimate fear because the health system over here is a joke. If you’re rich you’re fine if you’re broke you’re fucked. Sure maybe what’s over in Europe isn’t perfect but I’d sure as hell think something where people can actually use the damn system without being afraid of having their bank accounts emptied is better than what we have now.
@@lipsontajgordongrunk4328 This may sound like a bad idea but if youre an immigrant or turning 18 you should file a form where you want to use public services like healthcare and education, or private ones. Therefore having different tax rates. My worries is thay obviously the richer ones would just choose the other option and make public services shit and underfunded
@@vile1636 If you're talking about minimum wage then you're an absolute imbecile. Minimum wage in the US is literally unlivable. There is no single area in the entirety of the United States where $7.25 an hour is above the poverty threshold. Shit service or not, people should be allowed to at least make a livable wage.
Minor nitpick for France: There is actually no bi-partisan support of our national healthcare system. The more economically-liberal inclined politician (like the current government has of 2019) are more in favor of privatizing has much of the system has possible, making the national system reimburse less % of the cost of any practice / medicine, giving more importance to private company that give extra-coverage (reimburse what the national healthcare don't). It's more subtle than being strictly for or against having a healthcare system, but there is definitely no consensus between the various party.
@@Kraut_the_Parrot and note that the US current setup costs 27 % of their budget. Without covering everyone and while getting worse results than either one.
Positively surprised that a European citizen (or any non-American for that matter) was able to so fully understand and correctly analyse the American political landscape. Was skeptical going into the video, but you made a really great set of arguments. I agree with your conclusion and would go further to say that in fact this is one of the strengths of the American Federal system. But leveraging the immense authorities given to US states we could federally mandate that each find its own, unique solution and allow the voters of each respective state to choose which ever one they are most comfortable with.
This is refreshing. I'm so sick of the mindset that you can just import a culture. "We should do like them!" No, you should research what we do, and from that find a way to make a version that will work for you. If you want our results, it requires more work than simply copy/pasting our system.
@@unclesniffer7166 1. The whole farming sector is heavily subsidized by the EU. This is done on intent, because it is believed to be essential to peace and stability that everybody has access to enough food. 2. The 'Aldi'-principle is very simple: sell a small variety of basic private-label goods in the most unfancy stores and hand the price advantage over to the customer. It is all about cost-cutting in this business. Discounters got so successful over the last 40 years, supermarkets were forced to introduce their own private-labels which will always match the price of Aldi. So if you only buy basic products (milk, eggs, yoghurt, flour, sugar, but also frozen pizza, soups and soap or shampoo) , you will pay the smallest possible ammount of money for food. 3. There are five major retailers (Edeka, Rewe, Aldi, Schwartz (Lidl, Kaufland) and Metro (real)), who together have 80+% market share and you can't walk a mile in a German city without passing by at least three of them. It is really hard for them to gain any extra market share, so there are a lot of "price wars" going on, to get some extra customers. 4. It has been getting better, but in general the Germans aren't willing to spend that much on food. Its a mindset survived since 1945-1954. most germans lived in houses, who were self-feeding for hard times (war). these two WWs made the german state support national food production on a privat level in gardens, even making laws about the vegetables, to secure the most food for their population. In WW1 the lack of food broke the german Reich. oblivious most survivers of these 2.WW remembered the war hungers and had to be convinced to base their food on supermarkets on an over-regional level. today these prizes cant really increase themself, because people would simply go to an other discounter. so they remained on a low position 4. i would like to point out, that walmart had to move out of southkorea and germany in its long sucessfull buisness all ove rthe world, because both national markets paid incredible less money for their food and because walmart were not able to keep up the price-wars in germany or southkorea. for walmart this is oblivious just a "unrelevant small market", but it proofs my point, that germany had incredible cheap food prizes for a good quality, explicit compared to the USA. Japan has a better food quality, but they have a mindset to actual pay for the BEST quality. so the japanese market is more diverse and open and walmart was able to penetrate that system....a bit. it still suffers in huge areas of his normal buisness concept and had to consider the japanese situation on the market to make their buisness work. in germany Lidle and aldi would fill every gab in seconds to get an advance against the other.
@@supertriggerd4959 i agree, that the ppp is problematic, because the Law of One Price and the differences of goods distribution influence the value. But the USA has inside her own border large agrar sectors. it should be extremly easy for the US consumers to buy a high variety of goods with different quality and by that definition automaticly low prices. it should be extremly easy, if the US economy isnt based on exporting agrar goods of bad quality to other nations, if the national population is not able to consum all goods. THIS is the problem. the USA has significant worse food goods, because you import food to the asian and southamerican markets, thereby dont have to follow strict guild lines in these nations and these companies try to brand the same regulations in the US industry to make the export of these goods from the US easier. the national US consumer is thereby burdened with worse becoming standards. This is supported by the republican president Trump and his trade deal with China. A trade deal with the EU would have made a effort for the US agrar sector to make better products to get access to the EU market and thereby higher the food quality in the US. food is a product, that can be preserved in some form and can stay fresh for some time, thereby need less regulations in trade. It is produced nonlinear by weather influences. these factors support the possibility, that bad or long preserved food actual meaned for southamerica or china, get into US supermarkets, because they were not able to reach these foreign markets in time. you can test it by looking at your food quality dropping in the case of a trade war with china. i clearly dont speak about american farmers, because these guys are actual most of the time good, they want to produce better products for americans, they want to higher the quality, but they dont have the money to make the investments for better food quality. they have to get money from buisnesses, who demand a followed rule of quality standards and quality reduction to cut costs. most of the times farmers get pressed into debts by these regulations, because they are designt for non-preserving industry. there are allways some idiots, who want to "work with animals". let them work for 5-10 years in a doomed farm system and produce bad products for cheap money. these buisnesses controll the US food productio and they are the main problem of bad US food quality.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim public healthcare was perfrct or just works. The point is its still better than ours here in the U.S. im a type 1 diabetic and I can tell you I have come close to breaking the bank just to get shit I need to stay breathing. Luckily I have good insurance now but a large majority of peopke here are not so fortunate so my point remains.despite its flaws your healthcare beats ours any day. Update 5/26/2020: haha wow i didn't realize this would get so much attention i havent checked it since i wrote it. Im not gonna read the replies cause theres too many but good day to you all.
One problem in the US is poor life decisions. Not going to college, will mean you like considerably less on average compared to others. Not trying to shit on Blue collars, but if you do try in life, you cn usually like decent money in the US.
@@justintrudeau6599 a problem with that way of thinking is that it ignores or is ignorant *of* key parts of the social landscape of America. Colleges are so expensive we have people putting off *retirement* to pay off their debts. Obviously that's on the more extreme end, but combine the unreasonable levels of debt you're forced into with the lack of guaranteed prospects with which to pay off that massive debt in order to guarantee it would even be worth anything and you've got a problem that you can't just shrug your shoulders and mumble 'personal responsibility' at and expect to be taken seriously. And that is completely ignoring the right wingers constant demonization of higher education as 'liberal brainwashing'.
"Luckily I have good insurance now but a large majority of peopke here are not so fortunate so my point remains.despite its flaws your healthcare beats ours any day." Couple of things you should consider, if you have a moment: 1)Monopsony. If you don't know what that is, it's when the government is the biggest or practically the sole customer of a business. Put simply, if medical equipment is bought chiefly by the government, as it currently is, it's going to be expensive, because the government can afford any price (with your money), which means private business are going to have to raise their prices to stay in business. The cost of equipment affects the price of medical care as a service and commodity. The reason why it's so expensive is *because* of government intervention already; expanding government intervention is only going to make private healthcare affordable exclusively to the rich; as is the case already in Canada and the UK. 2)State lines restricting regions to specific insurers---a corporatist institution, not a capitalist one---also disincentivizes businesses to lower price. Why would they? It's either garbage government healthcare, or what the private insurers are selling, protected by artificial inhibitors on the free market, like a coral of customers with no private alternatives. 3)It's unconstitional. There is no purview granted to the federal government whatsoever to impose or regulate nationalized healthcare. None whatsoever. Not a single solitary clause, Article or Amendment suggests the federal government has any such authority. The State governments, however, can, under the 10th Amendment, but, they shouldn't, because it's immoral to force complete strangers to subsidize your private life.
@@justintrudeau6599 yea except 40% of adult americans have graduated college now which is significantly higher than what it used to be. The issue is a lot more complicated than unskilled workers. It's a combination of a transition to a service industry based economy along with the general societal push for everyone to go to college instead of some people going to trade schools. In fact you are probably more likely to make a more consistent better living if you were to go to trade school instead of college.
Austrian here, we have since de-federalized (? is that a word?) our health insurance but since Austria is tiny and our states are super tiny, it should be a bit more efficient now. I'm pretty happy with and grateful for our healthcare, even though it's not perfect.
@black bear Almost like companies having absolute power over prices allows them to manipulate everything (it is much more complex than that but wanted to make a parody of your comment)
@black bear there is an american video explaining how the american private health care system is more expensive than the european ones. I dont remember the name but you can find it with "american healthcare more expensive than european"
Hi Kraut, My company is a leading provider of clinical insourcing in the UK. We are a private company treating NHS patients in NHS hospitals, when discussing the NHS you missed a few points wildly. Would be happy to discuss in detail the real issues the NHS faces & why it is failing.
You haven’t mentioned an important aspect though: the US spends in health much more than a European countries, in proportion. Still, its life expectancy is remarkably lower and the public health of the society is lower than in European countries. ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure So Americans spend in reality much more money to get a less healthy population. The argument of some democrat candidates has been: let’s stop throwing money at big pharma, large insurances or health businesses, and start putting money towards the health of the society. If they had an “European” system the US would spend a fraction of what they spend now. Also, a healthier population is less expensive for the state anyway: for example a prevalence of obese people means lots of people with a variety of diseases and disabilities that require assistance, not just someone to pay their hospital bill.
@@moosesandmeese969 The FDA's lax regulation on the quality of food increases the perceived exclusivity of what would be considered normal quality products in Europe. This drives up costs when suppliers attempt to replicate food of the standard seen in the UK or in European countries, as they must charge higher prices to compete with suppliers who sacrifice quality in production and preparation for increased revenue through the exploitation of the lack of regulation in order to spend as little possible on aspects of food production and supply that are legally required in countries that legislate more stringently.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Catch Me [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KxwEXXFQMTY/mqdefault.jpg)
I'm from Chile and we have an optional public healthcare system, and most of those regulations apply here. We have taxes on alcohol, soft drinks, tobaco, we have those anti-smoking ads on the boxes of the actual cigarettes, sweets can't have cartoon characters like that tiger for the sugary corn flakes either, etc. Foods with high sugar, calorie, cholesterol or sodium also have to put these black stamps on thei packaging to indicate it. Coke lowered their sugar content fist to get rid of the calories stamp, and then again to get rid of the sugar one. Pepsi got rid of the calories one but kept the sugar one
Sadly the public healthcare system is catastrophically underfunded and reflect the massive wealth inequality that Chile has. Chile has failed in regulating many aspects relating to food industry, especially since high-quality foods are exported to Europe and the US, while the lower standard foods remain in Chile for Chilean consumption.
In Chile, people who can afford private healthcare have a relatively decent system. However, people in public healthcare systems... don't. This is mostly due to liberalized reforms under the Pinochet era being mantained in democracy without the dismantling of the shitty structure that made Chile a horrible country to live in. Hence, why I left.
@@GreatRedMenace Frankly it's not too bad. I mean, it's bad, but there's no country on earth where healthcare isn't bad one way or another. Point me to one country where the locals don't think their healthcare is terrible. :P
How long has it been since you left, BTW? Your comment about the Pinochet era stuff relating to healthcare talks about being away for a while. Sure, the isapres still exist but the healthcare landscape is nothing like the Pinochet era stuff. Same with the high quality foods being exported, that sounds very... 2006... The local market keeps more of the good fruit and meats now simply because we can pay more. Or just go to the feria, they always have the best stuff if you're willing to sort it out and do everything yourself. As I mentioned in my first post, the food industry has been massively regulated in the last few years, and you might have missed a lot of that. It's certainly much more regulated than in the US. Also it's normal to fin foreign food from Europe here now. And Californian fruit in winter.
Things might have changed since you left. In the 30 years I have of memory, Chile's been thoroughly transformed overall. Specially after the 2010 earthquake. Thinking how things were when I was in school I shiver to think it was such a shithole, we needed campaigns against *cholera* of all things. If you've been away for a while maybe you should come visit some time. Hell, you would be suprized by how much immigration we're getting. We're getting loads of haitians and venezuelans and a lot of colombians nowdays, peruvians stopped coming since Peru's doing a lot better now.
On the topic at hand, the Chilean healthcare system assumes you'll go for the private sector if you can afford it. The public healthcare system is sort of a safety net. There's also half-public systems which I frankly don't understand the specifics of (seems to be they're handled by the private sector but are heavily controlled by the state, my mom is in one despite being able to afford the fully private system because it's cheapier and has access to some things the fully private one doesn't, but the isapres themselves seem to not like people using these systems).
The public healthcare gets you the same quality stuff, but you have to wait much, much longer to get doctors' appointments and there's less access to things like long term treatment and basic things like hospital beds, but this is in great measure because the people in the public system actually go to the doctor much, much more often since it's free, although also doctors prefer working on the private system because they earn more that way which results in doctor shortages in the public system. Also rural medical centers are always public and they're hard to keep functioning so that also lowers the state healthcare system's quality.
On the other hand there's things that are reserved for the public system that are better than the ones the private system has access to, like when I was in school I wanted to get my psoriasis treated but I was my dad's healthcare "burden" as it's called and he had the private system so I couldn't get access to the treatment facility that had what I needed. Also in the public system you never have to pay out of pocket, whereas in the private system most doctors will not have an agreement with your specific isapre so you'll have to pay out of pocket and then the isapre will pay you back *some* of it.
Edited for paragraphs.
@@GreatRedMenace So you are blaming Pinochet for the current Chilan woes even though Chile is slowing becoming infested by far-leftists that are seeking to open its borders to third worlders in a country that is already a third world country? Your healthcare will be further in danger if its borders aren't tightened.
@@1685Violin Read again, and re-read it until you understand what I said.
@@1685Violin Not really on -topic, but as the resident chilean I feel I should explain, so I'll just chime in to say that's not how chilean politics work. Our right and left are not split that way, for us is mostly a matter of public spending and who pays for what and how much companies should be held accountable for things. Meanwhile, discussions that take the front seat in partisan arguments in the US like immigration or gay marriage aren't really partisan in Chile. Sure, there is a skew towards the left being for it and the right being against, but it's not what defines the right and left like up north.
Also our borders *are* open, it's very easy to migrate here, it always has been, and no one is arguing to open them more, instead there's been a movement to make it harder to migrate here. Chilean left wingers have been accusing the movement of being made of right wingers, but I have seen no indication that this is the case, if anything, our President, who is of the right wing, has spoken positively about immigration and has stated that it is our duty to take in particularly Venezuelan immigrants as other countries took Chileans in during the Pinochet government.
TL,DR, we don't have an anti immigration party.
It's a bit shocking that the most efficient way to portray countries and their people's traits is by countryballs.
But i mean it works.
I love it.
It's easy to draw.
spheres of influence .o.
why is spain always so angry tho'
And remember: As bloated as France's spending on health care is, their per capita health care expenditure is still only half of that of the US
yea I was about to say
@@sandayyyy Per capita
they already have a foundation of healthy citizens....................................................................................
of course they spend less on healthcare per capita................................................
"ya ok so do it in US"
with a foundation of 50% obese citizens.........................................................
@@neuxell not to be rude, but why the fuck did you put so many dots lol
@@neuxell The notion that you shouldn't have a better health service, because Americans are more unhealthy is - imo - kinda stupid. If anything, the average health of the average american is more of a reason that the US in in dire need of Health Care reform...
whats weird to me is that it's somehow a left wing idea in america while in Europe its centrist or just not as politically charged.
Well remember that protecting the environment has become a partisan idea in the US...
As far as I know, We are pretty right leaning compared to most developed nations in the world. Some people in EU or even Australians or Canadians tell me how some little things we take for granted here in America is just baffling to them. For a few examples, Guns, Cars, Speech, Taxes. Some even go as far to say we are pretty extreme in some cases. But as I see it, we are a big country with alot of people and different states which sort of function like their own country but less nationlike. So, really, it goes to say you can't be too sure if we are more or less left or right. For example California (my home state) seems to lean more on the European-esk side of the spectrum while Alabama is considered Right Wing Extremism.
It's because the right in America has 0 concept of reality, because they get all of their "news" from a single far-right entertainment network.
@@Pikkabuu what the fuck is a pinkocommunists? It sounds like a made up gender. xD
@@kubli365
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinko
The thing that was kinda left is out is the fact america already spends 17% of its gdp on health care. More than Japan, Germany, France, Its actually the highest healthcare cost in the world, it's a giant public health pool that could be rebuilt into a nation healthcare system.
@@St.Raptor "Let's do something literally no one else is doing when a working solution has been proven elsewhere, and do something we already tried 80 years ago" - America, always, before doing something that will be disastrous
@@St.Raptor what? American Healthcare quality is incredibly low, esspecially once you comapre it to other countries that spend much less money with a much higher quality of care.
While 17% of GDP may be substantial enough to fund a public system, the point is that redirecting that private spending would require a change in values.
Even if the spending was exactly the same, the fact that it would come from taxes instead of wallets would dissuade many voters.
I think the salient point of this video is that American individualism poses a large logistical barrier to implementation, regardless of any objective benefits.
@@zacnomore You're right. I'm personally healthy, and we all have an individualist mentality in the US. I am far from happy about anything tax related besides a big return. I hate social security as well. I can't get on board with my money going towards other people, especially when theirs will never go towards me.
Government subsidization has also managed to murder private insurance costs, to the point where it's cheaper to just not have it if you're not diabetic or something. I KNOW our politicians will screw public healthcare up too, they'll do something motivated by self interest to screw it up for everyone.
It's like trying to treat a horse with a broken leg.
@Falcononeniner this mentality is why we have so many homeless and under insured elderly people in the US
3:28 wait so in france you can justify your gambling addiction with 'im helping hospitals'
sounds like a plan
Thousands found a meaning in their lifes.
It's more like you're more likely to need healthcare if you consume alcohol, tobacco and gamble etc. So that's why taxes on these items are increased.
@@antonsundin2974 that is very clever
@@ericolens3 well they say gambling is a tax on the uneducated, so it actually makes a lot of sense
@@ericolens3 Most times in the US when gambling money is used to fund education its just easy way to convince ppl that its going for a good cause and then they can just get same amount of funding that was originally going for education and spend it somewhere else.
I mean, you completely ignore that Americans still spend 21% of there GDP on health already. The money is there, its just being wasted and thrown to the insurance companies executives and shareholders.
Exactly.
We could have the French system right now and still have enough money left over to do something great. Let's just propose to have the French system, build three aircraft carriers with the savings, and then invade Antarctica.
@@TemplarOnHigh Shhh! Don't give Uncle Sam ideas to, directly OR indirectly, fund the military complex, it's already morbidly obese!
Seriously, though, there are so many things we could do better when it comes to spending here in the States, that it sometimes feels like the only thing we *are* any good at anymore is A: Ignoring problems till they spiral out of control, and somehow still act shocked by it; and B: wasting trillions of dollars on said problems when we could have spent less had we acknowledged it earlier.
Healthcare is just the latest issue to check both of these boxes.
can you explain how federal money ends up in private insurance companies?
so they spend trillions on health yet they still have a 40 percent obese adult population.
yeah, america is dumb. you should all just move to europe or japan
but not me, im not american
@@johnkop4 It's not really relevant how the money is piped from federal to private. If the US collectively took the $0.21 per $1.00 of GDP and decided to pay a tax of $0.15 per $1.00 - there would be a savings of $0.06 per $1.00. So in aggregate the USA would "find" $1.2T every year.
1812 overture when talking about France? C'mon don't do them dirty like that
Could be worse. At least the 1812 overture is about France, and has La Marseillaise as one of its prominent themes. When the video first mentioned Scotland it showed an image of Mordor.
@@wizardsuth It's about the french invasion of Russia, wich failed, I think its more like a mocking of the French anthem and France, kinda I guess
Tchaikovsky... Feels Russian, because it is.
I don't think that it is mocking the French anthem so much as using it as the villain.
@@hypothalapotamus5293 yeah you are totally right
Lets say that Mexico is invaded and gets beefed on by the US. That's like making a documentary about Mexico while blaring the American anthem in the background.
Kinda
a little
maybe not
i dunno
shrug
That's the most messed up part about healthcare in the US, we still have all those taxes that are justified by a concern for public health yet when it comes to actually providing healthcare suddenly the government doesn't have a stake in our health and it's our responsibility. It's ridiculous.
US government also spends almost as much on healthcare as countries with public healthcare, they just use the money so much worse that it doesn't cover more then small portion of the population.
Obesity is literally an epidemic in the states. I didn’t realize so much living in California as we don’t have it as bad here, but traveling through the south, so many people are fat that morbidly obese is fat and overweight is normal. You would not believe the size of some people. I saw people struggling to fit between in the cash register isle. I saw people who haven’t seen their knees standing up in years. I saw people who, if they were to fall on their back, would be entirely incapable of getting back up like a turtle. Its horrific.
Yup but it’s great they have the freedom to be fat
BonDad
America is the unhealthiest developed country, this is a scientific fact.
@@thetrollgehasbegun I live in NC, I didn't think it was bad here until I went to Gastonia. It's more common in poor areas generally
@@thetrollgehasbegun we are actually tied for 10th most unhealthiest countries according to this... Czech Republic has the title with how much they drink and smoke www.mdlinx.com/article/what-s-the-healthiest-country-in-the-world/lfc-3613
@@thetrollgehasbegun tank you
"The NHS is one of the worst--"
Now hang on
"--healthcare systems in Europe."
Oh, in Europe. Absolutely, yeah. Carry on.
@Blaire Sovereign Yeah, I am sorry. But it is up to citizens to do it.
@@foreignfat6009 Yeah, that's why it will never happen. Paying for something that benefits people other than yourself is considered to be an Anti-American value in most of the South and Midwest.
@@SRosenberg203 Interesting that you still have socialistic systems in place, like welfara or fire department. "anti-american" my ass honestly, you are just selective as hell
@Blaire Sovereign why
@@spooky-nz9vj "personal responsibility" is considered an American value, many believe that things like public healthcare is the same as giving "handouts". This is reinforced by practically both parties, but its talked about most in the Republican party.
"Things were made worse under the Thatcher administration"
If you took a drink every time you heard that, half of London would be dead.
But the alcohol taxes it would raise would pay off the national debt
And nothing of value would be lost.
@@aaronlaughter6471
Depends what half lol
At this point, I'm starting to think Thatcher was single-handedly responsible for everything wrong with the NHS, is the sole cause of income inequality, starting WWII, and putting Oliver Cromwell in power.
She's just starting to look like a convenient scapegoat for the Tories, at this point
Take Reagan too
Coke in the US is sweeter? Goodness, are the folks over there drinking straight up carbonated syrup?
A coke has 120% of a normal persons daily value of sugar in a single bottle. So yes its like straight up syrup.
i only drink it in my dads house house because he always has a ton..I swear i become temporarily addicted to that shit, and i bloat like a pig. I should really stop.
Slowcomputerguy *looks at back of bottle* 48% still a shitload but not 120%
@@brycescott7895 bottle also says included sugars which is 120 percent daily value. I literally read the bottle.
@@Slowcomputerguy i was wrong about mine it actually says 78% but still not 120% unless maybe the can and bottle differ that much either way don't drink it
I just found out the us spends more percentage of their gdp on Health care than France
yet its still shittier-
For sure , lot of medics invented and make in usa are cheaper in france. Nicotinell box 25 dollars...11 euros in france.
The beneficits in health are amazing in usa.
@@chrisbreizh29 it is reimbursed at 65% too
but yet it's still awful by comparison. sure you may recieve quality care for a surgery... but you drive home with thousands of dollars to pay even with insurance. It's insanity that this has been normalized in American culture.
@@catwiffhat4274 heh nothing like avoiding the hospital so you don't get those sweet sweet bills ;) (this is not funny anymore)
Yup, I love my German healthcare. I see so many flaws in it but I wouldn't wanna miss it. Imagine having to start a gofundme page when you need a surgery...
It's not bad really. After my appendectomy and cholecystectomy I had a remaining balance of about $2,100 dollars which I set up monthly payments with the hospital. It's not as scary over here as you think.
@@eckusprosion5166 I could name maybe a few dozen countries that don't have public healthcare that's worse off than Brazil if you want.
George Sauro lol, it's better to have it free, than 2100 dollars.
Imagime needing a surgery but you have to wait 5 yeara for it
*cries in slovene*
@@eckusprosion5166 Brazil is literally a third world country; the only fair comparison is to compare it to another third world country.
The only people who need to wait "6 years" for surgery aren't getting it to be treated for a life-threatening cancer or infection.
As an American, it's embarassing that many Americans don't realize that higher taxes would still be less than what they pay for private health insurance while also providing them better care. However , a large portion of Americans are against being part of any system and think people who cannot afford good care don't deserve it because not being wealthy equals laziness.
I'm very much supportive of America having a system like even France. The benefits are worth the cost.
Most of us Americans at the bottom don't pay for health insurance, it's literally pointless, but I don't think we would be able to have a system like France, it's just too expensive
@@AmericanValorian France's system is cheaper than the US system. Significantly so, in fact. They spend a smaller percentage of their GDP, and France has a smaller GDP per capita than the US.
It would force the government to stop allowing pharma industry to call any price they want for even the cheapest products. Because otherwise public healthcare would not even be possible - it simply is ridiculous how much you have to pay. I was shocked when I learned how much it even costs to deliver a baby! And that you even have to pay for it in the first place!
Government would be forced to regulate costs for medication and treatments and this is like the reason why it probably won't be implemented as the US moved in the complete opposite direction the past few decades, towards extreme levels of capitalism, willingly killing citizens by allowing companies to sell meds at multiple times the price of other countries (Insulin for 300+ US$ per flask? When the production cost for a whole mothrfckng year for one persone is about a third of what is charged per flask?!? But at least it seems like prices are drastically dropping, now that Eli Lilly was forced to make a step via a fake twitter account and logically competitors have to do the same to sell their stock.. But even those drastically reduced prices are two to four times higher than what a patient would have to pay here..!).
A French system simply wouldn't work in the US. You need something decentralised, where each state at least has an illusion of control. But the problem with this approach is that the federal government will lose leverage on pharma companies. That's how we Europeans get dirt-cheap medication. Our governments along with the EU itself leverage their vast political powers over companies to lower their prices significantly. That's also why private insurance(which, contrary to Americans does exist in the EU) is much cheaper here than what Americans pay. This also reduces the financial burden on the taxpayer and the government itself. Cheaper medication and healthcare in general means less money required to fund the entire system.
American culture won't allow for this amount of meddling of the government in the economy because, "FREE MARKET! FREEDOM! LITTLE GOVERNMENT!" Especially when healthcare is already such a controversial topic in your country.
All in all, I wish your country good luck because the system you currently have is simply unsustainable and will only result in more deaths which sooner or later will require addressing by politicians. Especially when wealth inequality in the US is STILL rising quickly.
@@AmericanValorian its obviously not pointless.. and its not too expencive. you are currently giving that money plus more, away to some coorporations. you identify yourself as being on the bottom. yet you defend a system that makes your life worse at the benefit of some wealthy people. tell me why or how that isnt servile to the umptinth degree.
"We should help these refugees that are suffering."
"No! America first!"
"Okay, let's help our own citizens then."
"No! that's Socialism!"
Man that funny that it hurt
I guess I'll just lay down and die then
America first refers to dealing with our economy, stabilizing out politics, and building our strength. Its more of an isolationist idea and I personally support it. Its not that people don't want to help refugees, i would love to. The issue is when people illegally enter the country. I won't change my opinion on that. Simply put, if you illegally enter the country, then you have broken the law and are a criminal. Im not saying every illegal is a bad person, i happen to know a few as well and I have supported them in their attempts to gain vista's and citizenship. We need to reform our immigration services no doubt, but we also need to strengthen our borders. We need to update our screening and streamlining our immigration process.
Also, there are two types of nations. 1.) Small, homogenous "gate downers" these are nations that have been homogenous for generations, have small populations and are more willing to allow foreigners to enter in mass whether it be refugees or otherwise.
Second are the gate uppers, these are large melting pots where socialism has no hope of surviving and where the people are far more nationalistic, example the united states. Smaller countries like the Nordic nations and Cuba can long term sustain socialism and in those small groups it works well. But once you scale socialism to the size if the united states or Russia, it becomes inheritly authoritarian in order to suppress the more nationalistic and diverse populace. Simple put, it would be a beaureacratic nightmare trying to implement socialism into such a large country and as proven by Russia, it would require authoritarianism that isn't guaranteed to survive. The people of large diverse nations typically want less government because they see the government as a less present part of their lives.
@@obi-wankenobi6652 'America first refers to dealing with our economy, stabilizing out politics, and building our strength.' How's that been going so far? I mean, the economy has been relatively stable until recently, true, but our politics have only because more destabilized and this nation is the fucking laughing stock of the world.
"Beware, if you install public healthcare, the government might also try to improve your health and increase your food quality"
...And that is apparently a bad thing?
People interpret that as "restriction of freedom by big government"
Enough Americans would prefer poisoning their bodies over lightening their wallets.
People here are okay with mentally ill citizens owning automatic weapons and mass shootings practically everyday in the name of rights.
@@TheSpartan3669 but do not dare to reduce a single penny the army gets, that is antipatriotic
"DONT TELL ME HOW TO LIVE MY LIFE"
French person here: Americans pay more for healthcare in their current taxes than we do.
And u apparently get a nurse for it, that's not even in Germany the case.
Probably thinking of medicaid/medicare.
We also take in the same amount of migrants a year as you did when it was called a immigrant crisis
C'est vrai? Je croyais que on payait vrm bcp. Fin genre ma daronne me dit ça mdr
And how much bigger is America than France? We literally don't have enough nurses to assign one to every new mother.
As a Scot, thanks for the clarification that Scotland runs its health service far better than England does. Too often in UK media we hear constant "Scotland bad" stories.
It doesn't. With the administration of the national socialists under the despicable Sturgeon, Scotland as a whole is a damned basket case.
NOTHING works North of the border, not even definitions of what a woman is!
It's a nice story that Scotland's NHS performs better than England's, but one struggles to find data to substantiate this claim
I live in the south of England and would move to Scotland in a flash, particularly as there's the chance of an independent Scotland rejoining the EU. Unfortunately, 72 is a bit old to be rebuilding my social life from the ground up, and it's pretty cold and dark north of the border.
As a Canadian, I'm constantly hearing 'scotland tries to help their population, England shuts them down'. Scotland in general seems more appealing than England imo
@Julia___ Sorry miss, I fear your reference points maybe somewhat skewed, thanks to the corrupt English hating SNP, Scotland has the worst performing local services across every sector within the UK. SNP has run Scotland into the ground and it's leadership are all being investigated for corruption.
I am from Poland and coke is extremely sweet here. I can't imagine how sweet it must be in USA
i tried coke in thailand and it was much sweeter it doesnt taste the same as european coke
I've been to both Poland and US, it's about 1/3 sweeter here? Not by much but you can notice it
@skem You get used to it, and then you can't taste anything else so u just keep drinking the same garbage :/
srsl I've talked to ppl who are like "I don't like water, I only drink soda"..... just yikes
American food is stuffed full of shit that’s horrible for us, Polish Coke is probably way better for you than American food ever will be.
Coke is amazing in the US
1:45 "He believed the public service could be run like a private company despite having no competition"
_gee I've never heard that one before_
*Flashbacks to america sponsoring banana dictatorships*
“Hey, I’ve seen this one!”
the banana republics in a nutshell
The only problem with instituting it on a state-by-state basis is that some states are so deeply in debt, that they are on the verge of bankruptcy.
So would more federal debt be a solution?
@@wilsonciao8286 definitely not.
most USA states have no power on their own, they'd just get trampled by the big corporations. wallmart and amazon employ more people and have a higher budget than some entire states do.
and some company lobby agianst state laws that hurt the people such as the time kentucky started having community run internet providing this was made illegal for comunnity and small buisness by a push by verizon and comcast
@@JewTube001 sure but a lot of US states are more poweful then "powerful" nations in europe and elsewhere
“Nooo! Encouraging healthy eating is discrimination of overweight people!”
This is the kind of thing said by some in America.
Fools really act like only the crazy people live in the US lol. I bet you’re a Brit right?
But it's NOT 'encouragement", it's manipulation and coercion.
F**k collectivization!!!
NO, the govt should not dictate lifestyle.
Take your "healthy encouragement" and shove it!!!
Fun fact: when Denmark regulated fat taxes on their fast food, people went for cheaper and less healthier foods in supermarkets and a year prior the obesity rate increased. not saying federal regulations are bad, just saying that they have to be well thought.
Sugar tax hits Irn Bru
Everyone wants old recipe
Old recipe returns more expensive
Flies off the shelves anyways
Fat is the wrong target. Go for sugar
I knew immediately that would have been a problem. I don’t know much about healthcare. But I do know about diet. And banning fat will always lead to worse replacements.
@@OnlyGrafting And now anyone buying said old recipe is paying extra tax to pay straight into the NHS. (haha, at least, thats how its meant to work, but go figure)
@@zeroyuki92
Neither is the right target. The right target is educating people on nutrition and calories in/calories out. A targeted tax is basically only effective as a tax on the poor/uneducated, as they will continue to buy the high sugar content drinks, but will now see their limited resources be diminished even more.
It is better to instill healthy lifestyles and teach people to understand the basics of nutrition/weight management so they can live healthier lives. Simply taxing things doesn't change much of anything if the habits aren't dealt with as well.
My fav part is just Scotland beating England over the head
69th like
:(
I dont mean to brag but yeah, our NHS is better than Englands
As an Englishman, it was also my favorite part
It's revenge for taking over Scotland
The NHS has saved mine and my families lives a few times now and we have not had to pay for any hospital visit . The occasional prescription has been cheap and my mother's cancer treatment (2 times ) was quick and free.
It's not perfect. It's abused. It's stretched.
But the NHS is a wonderful thing , the people within work longer hours than paid for and it's made by the people.
We just need to increase funding
@@te1327 it really is that simple (apart from brexit issues)
@@rafters9155 No he isn't he's just saying that the NHS isn't up to modern standerts and therefor isn't a good example for Americans
@@rafters9155 A sauer German? xD
@@rafters9155 according to wikipidea In 2016 yes but would you kindly look at newer sources and discover that Germany and England are equal whit the Germans having a few weeks more and also I wasn't saying that the NHS is bad but that the Americans shouldn't take it as a example. Hope this makes my point clear sorry for any inconvenience. (sorry for any grammar mistakes)
Here in Brasil we have public health care. It’s often flooded and sometimes unreliable when it comes to emergencies and surgeries. However, the private healthcare is way more affordable than in America, and we actually have great subsides and even gratuity for continuous use of medicine, free ambulance, free vaccination. Those systems work very well and I’m really grateful for that. If it wasn’t for the Brazilian public health, I would probably not be able to be fully vaccinated and would have trouble affording continuous Medicine.
You can't count on it for everything, but being able to simply walk for 5-10 minutes to the nearest PSF and see a doctor after waiting for 10-20 minutes at best for no cost (besides taxes) is an incredible privilege.
@@Samucrewl Same in Mexico.
As an American: I really like the idea of limiting the sugar content of foods, as well as taxing cigarettes and alcohol.
Holy cow, thanks for the likes!
Altough Tobacco taxing is really questionable.
In Germany the smokers have become less but even our high taxes (cigarettes are being taxed 3 times in Germany btw) dont discourage many. If youre addicted its hard to get off. But the harsher prices reduced new smokers so its a success I guess?
The problem is that untaxed cigarettes and alcohol are a big source of income for organized crime as well as illegal drugs
@@tramachi7027 maybe less people start using them? It will be a dick move to the addicts tho
High taxes on tobacco favours organized crime that offers cigarettes at far lower prices, since they are smuggled in.
wait... you don't?
Thank you, an actual European that doesn’t make fun of our stereotypes and actually genuinely brought something to the table to help us.
So his whole argument against the French system is that it costs money? And the private insurance alternative... doesn't? America spends like twice as much per person on healthcare lmao
@@nickb2708 yeah I didnt get that part. The problem is clearly not the amount of money sepnt, but how the money is spent. According to another comment with some citations, the US spends about 10,000 per person (I'm assuming annually) and France spends 4,500, yet only France has universal healthcare.
Eh, not really. Nearly every country ball he shows of America is either shooting a gun upwards while screaming "MERICA" or is morbidly obese, which is literally the only two insults Europeans have on the U.S apart from obviously, the healthcare system
@@sulfur_americium2993 while I partially agree with what u said, u make it sound like healthcare, guns, and obesity are the only things worth insulting about the US. One of the biggest reasons why people of other nationalities frequently insult the US is due to their pride, especially when it comes to "freedom", "democracy", and being "the greatest" despite the fact that the US is not even that close to the most democratic country, country with most "freedom", and arguably not the greatest in abt 90% of things. The US was relatively progressive for a long part of its history but now it's very much behind in many aspects despite what many Americans seemingly believe. Also bad presidents are universal but Germany and France, the leaders of the EU, both have very solid presidents overall for their countries at the moment especially when compared to the US.
@@danielchera9214 Also because the US saying 'freedom' most likely means they are going to organise a coup in a third world country(preferably middle east) the minute they think about nationalizing their oil industry.
Can't let them not give you the oil am I right?
"Denmark has a tax on fat"
Obese people in the US: *nervous sweating*
yes lol
They'd have to pay millions up front.
@@VeryAnonymousTurtle the united states directly pays for 90% of the worlds medical research . Joe biden just approved an additional 200 million to go to the wuhan laboratory in china
z M pay the world yet American healthcare is the worst
@@Skankhunt-ic2km because we subsidize literally every other country
You’re literally describing Canadas system. Funding is provided mostly by the federal government, but the provinces run the actual system. Right now things aren’t going very well and it needs some time and energy spent rethinking parts of it, but overall I am happy with how the system is structured.
they just need to coerce some more poor people to off themselves, then the system will run smooth as butter!
@@snackoman1577 that’s what the medical assisted suicide protocol being introduced next month is for
As some one who does not live in Canada, but who has friends who do, I hear that there is around 1 doctor per 1000 people in more populated areas (at least becquerel) Is this your experience?
@@flyingpugs3678 I think America is stealing Canada’s brightest doctors (after all they can make way more in America then in Canada).
Yeah I’d like to have some better healthcare, but the whole “oh it’s easier to assist in your death than it is to treat you long term” thing the government does is not cool
Point of order: French health expenditures are not significantly larger than those of other OECD countries. As per the World Bank, France spent 11.31% of GDP on health, compared to 11.25% in Germany, 10.1% in the Netherlands, or 10.13% of the Euro Area as a whole. In fact, a lot of the problems with the NHS are related to the fact that it is underfunded; UK health expenditures are under 10% of GDP:
In case anyone's wondering, the US spends 17.06% of GDP on health, and still has worse outcomes than most Euro Area countries.
Indeed, the UK spends basically half the Percentage of it's GDP than the US.
Yeah, and I think that's not enough. An extra percentage point of GDP for the NHS would fix many of its issues. That's still in line with the ~10% of GDP that's the average for the Euro Area.
Not that I expect the Tories to do any such thing.
there is so many issues with the NHS though. many things like GP offices, emergency serives and operations are horribly miss manageged leading to a waste in the resources. not to mention the awful general health of the UK population and the uneducated puplic in Nutrition, execrise and calorie control. then the government has the ordacity to cut funding further and refuse pay rises to nurses and junior doctors who are keeping everything afloat during the pandemic.
Jochen Träm they won’t but Labour’s cash injection in the 2000s merely resulted in the managerial class getting large pay rises.
and no universal coverage. We spend the most money per person and still cant get everyone covered. The whole structure of our economy would change. Insurance in the US has to cover a ton of bodily injury. So universal healthcare would change that, meaning companies would have to lower premiums. In just so many areas. It is a racket.
Putting "Overture 1812" in the background while talking about the French is a really advanced kind of irony
CHEEEYIIINUHHHHH
Funny to see that most people only memorized that part of our history.
Damn, thanks for pointing out!
I was really expecting it to be a twist, and for him to go on to say something about Russia having a public health care service. But nah
That's La Marseillaise, the french national anthem.
you kinda forgot to add about how Japan's Culture is based on good eating habits.
damn why cant we just be a healthy country. i hate seeing obese mfs ordering 4 cheeseburgers only for themselves
@@mdah7090 because American food is horribly unhealthy
@@Ickguenthrasil Thats because of the poverty in America, and fast food strongholds in every city
Obesity in Japan is 4%.
Obesity in USA is 40%
@@sxxp4392 poverty isn't a main reason people in america are being so fat. It's a small point, to what the main problem is.... the food.
I feel Sanders did a good job explaining how it would work, regarding improving medicare and eventually expanding it to cover all Americans. We already have a system for it in the US, it just doesn't cover everybody yet. But we definitely could learn a lot from the mistakes of other countries.
He and other Americans supporting public healthcare have actually given several different detailed ways of implementing it here, but that often gets buried by the arguments.
Sanders even said back in 2020 that everyone would pay a tax to pay for the public healthcare.
It could only work if you have a mass cultural agreement from both political parties that we are all responsible for everyone else's health in some marginal or significant form. Americans don't want to care about their neighbor at all. Your health is your sole responsibility. We couldn't get people to agree to wearing a mask and standing six feet away back in 2020 and getting people to agree to taking a vaccine was a nightmare/still is a nightmare/will always be a nightmare. If we couldn't get people to agree to social responsibility there then how the hell could we ever get them to agree to the social responsibility innate in having socialized medicine?
@@davidpagan8559 impossible to convince these neolibs
Your idea for the implementation of healthcare in the US is actually how we got it here in Canada. The Province of Saskatchewan introduced Universal Healthcare, other provinces followed, then the Federal Government mandated that provinces yet to adopt the system adopt it.
and as a saskatchewanian i would like to see it expand to encompass dental and pharmaceutical as well but i don't see that happening any time soon.
nigga living in sasquatch town💀💀
Lame
So, a peer pressure approach works.
"Sweden has a very high alcohol tax"
*Laughs in Norwegian who travels across the border to buy cheap alcohol in Sweden*
😊
Exaclty in Norway we have both huge alcohol and sugar taxes
@@erwaldox Americans: Fatphobic!!!
What a weak mindset!
We take a ferry to tallinn, then buss to cheaper baltic countries buy so much alcohol that the we can build a makeshift raft from them and then sail back to home
like god intended.
@@ItsAweeb Ah I spy a Finnish gentleman
Fun fact: Denmark has an tax on candy and becuase of this many criminals in Denmark smuggle old candy from Sweden to sell it expensive in Denmark, soo candy smugglers exist idk just sounds wierd to me, like imagine a person asking you what you do for a living and you reply, "yeah Ima candysmuggler" like tf
@Zuurker U yeah I literally laughed my ass of when I heard of danish candysmugglers on national tv
I like my freedom better than living in the Islamic Republic of Denmark. USA is still the best country for any person to live in.
@Zuurker U There are literally no-go zones in The Islamic republic of denmark, burqa wearing ghosts roam the street, and for the U.S., it actually has a better healthcare system than europeans.
@@yuvraj7214 It is better if you are fortunate. For the unfortunate, the systems sucks and only puts you on debt.
Also another inescapable fact, some disease like Cancer, which is better to be diagnosed earlier, is indeed diagnosed earlier in European countries than US. Why? Because in the US, people don't want to go to the doctor for a health check-up (especially Middle-low wealth citizen) and waited untill the symptoms got severe, resulting in a late diagnosis, not to mention the following treatment is 2-4 times more expensive than in Europe.
The US healthcare system is almost as an incoherent mess as some developing countries and you should really just copied Germany's healthcare system.
@@yuvraj7214 go back to Atlanta, I'm so goddamn tired of theese "freedom loving" americans who think america rules the earth. Jesus Christ why is it last on every fucking poll exept for drug users per capita
Let's all completely ignore the fact that a public healthcare system that is available to *_ALL_* Americans is calculated to cost less than what America is currently paying, shall we?
yes, but what if you compare the MEDIAN cost per citizen
@@user-uyumo8g44x In 2021, U.S. healthcare spending reached $4.3 trillion, which averages to about $12,900 per person. By comparison, the average cost of healthcare per person in other wealthy countries is only about half as much. Estimates have the average American paying $4,500 more in taxes, with no exclusions, deductibles or supplemental costs from cradle to grave, regardless of income. Public healthcare systems cost less, saves lives, and reduces poverty and crime. Scientific American says Universal Healthcare could have saved as many as 330,000 lives during Covid.
@@Lord.Kiltridge do you also have the median cost instead of average cost?
@@Lord.Kiltridge also youre missing the point that wages for medical staff in other developed countries is way lower than in the us. dont get me wrong, i am pro national healthcare but i dont think it would be more affordable for the average us citizen
Why median specifically?
“Are Americans willing to allocate 10 to 15 percent of their annual budget to this kind of healthcare system”
Me: laughs in tank
28% already goes to it so beyond yes
16-18% of the USA GDP's goes in the healthcare system every year, more than any country in the EU, the problem is not the money but how it is managed. Also, the way Americans live their day to day life is also a big factor, even more, because the US is founded on the idea of individual freedom and responsibility above all, trying to create a system for all where someone pays for others healthcare issues is something very hard to digest for a lot of Americans. As the video suggests the public healthcare issue should start from the state level and convince other states why is a good idea and finally after a few states implement a public healthcare system and if it works it should be tried on a Federal level, not the other way around.
@@tiberiuzabara6891 "someone pays for others healthcare issues is something very hard to digest for a lot of Americans." That attitude is truly selfish and disgusting. Just because some people proudly boast "I can afford MY doctors visits" or " WHY SHOULD I PAY IF I AM NOT SICK?!" ....and are totally happy to watch their fellow CITIZENS, i.e. their own country folk DIE just because they are in a bad financial situation. I am a young healthy fellow who works full time, and I pay approx £80 (100USD$) per week from my salary into the NHS / Health service. I have never been in hospital. I only visit a doctor once a year which is a work physical, so that is is private health care and not counted. I am on no mediation. Yet I don't grudge one single penny of what I put in, because I rest easy knowing, if I am struck down by cancer or lose a limb in some disgusting accident I know, I will be taken care of. Also I know any of my family members will be taken care of. I can sleep well knowing I won't have to bankrupt myself or my family if I get ill.
Its called putting some money in for the greater good. I have an uncle that would be dead if we lived in the USA as he has some very particular kind of medication that would be well over $1000 a month under the US system. Yet he pays nothing for it (in Scotland, in England I do believe you pay a token fee of 10$?) Do I resent the fact I pay to keep him alive? No. What about people I don't know? Again no.
It is called being a good human being. It is nothing to do with communism or socialism. But each to their own I guess....do Americans object to the amount they spent on military spending? I doubt it.
@@tiberiuzabara6891 Don't worry friend, I am not triggered and I accept there are other ways of thinking on the planet other than my own. I speak two languages and lived in another country that was not my own, so I can appreciate being a guest in certain cultures etc. I just prefer my system to yours, no offence - lets agree to disagree. I just find the idea of denying someone the care they need based on finance abhorrent.
@ 5.4 million actually if you want to get your facts right before making fun of someone. But if everyone pays in what the hell difference does it make? 1 million people or 360, it makes no difference in the scheme of things. P.s. EU has universal healthcare and has a population of 440 million. Population of Russia 144 million. Universal healthcare. Logic would suggest a country like mine has less people ergo is less likely to be able to afford other peoples healthcare is it not? Wouldn't 360 million people clubbing together have more of a chance? Try a difficult argument and be honest, like you just don't want to pay for anyone else.
All I know is, and a lot of people in other countries have this in common is : My healthcare isn't tied to my employer. I don't have a plan for healthcare that I will lose if I become unemployed. Or if I have a pre-existing condition. I won't have to pay a dime if I get sick.
It is something I don't have to worry about.
I have been a Doctor in the UK since 1982 and this is the best summary of what has happened to the NHS I have heard
Thanks. Doctors are the lifeline of our country👍👍👍👍
And Nurses
@@mikzsmp4552 Imported doctors and nurses. The UK poaches other countries doctors for which they paid an arm and a leg to train. The remaining doctors then fleeces their patients.
shame its the best thing in this hell hole
5:35
Funny thing: I have a friend who lives in Denmark, and I asked him what he thinks of the Swedes. He answered: They visit us to buy cheap booze.
Your Tuborg beer is good stuff, a favourite foreign brand even in countries like Nepal
@@jamiearan I live in Austria, man. I drink Austrian and/or Czech beer.
just like germans with czechia.
Norwegians go to buy booze in Sweden, because it's so much cheaper lol
@@thisguyishisface370 I was about to say that. Norway is tax hell.
I 100% agree with this take.
I moved back to the states a few years ago after living abroad for over 15 years since age 12, and I had free healthcare abroad, but I'd say the quality of the service state side is much better, but the cost is ridiculous, and I'm fully aware of the problems with the free healthcare system, and after some research about how healthcare is handled in different countries, I also came to the conclusion that a system more similar to Germany's would work better for the US, as well as putting more responsibility on citizens to be healthy.
I haven't been able to drink any soft drinks or eat other junk food since returning cause of how much more sweeter and artificial tasting it all is. The food industry here does require some new regulations imo. I found it pretty much effortless to stay a healthy weight and body fat percentage while living abroad, while state side it's become harder to, and I noticed it within the first few months back.
What everyone always leaves out is the reasons why healthcare in the US is so expensive. Everyone seems to go with the assumption that it's because it's private, without realizing that that makes no sense. Any business only gets more customers by having more accessible prices and payment plans, not the opposite.
Unless government is screwing the economy, as it most often does, private-market-forces (competition, consumer choices) will push prices down and quality up over time, and one can just look around himself to see countless examples of that from every single market that exists.
So one should really be asking the question: why isn't that happening in the US healthcare market?
But that's not a rhetorical question. It really need answers. But of course, no one is even questioning that assumption to begin with, let alone asking that question and proceeding to dig deeper into what is keeping healthcare expensive in the US. And the politicians don't care. They're fighting for their own political interests.
It's worth noting that the US gov healthcare spending is already comparable to those in europe. Healthcare in the US is barely private, with so much gov involvement in it. And therein lies the bulk of the issue at hand.
@@skaruts why isn't that happening in the US healthcare market? Cause in other countries you have the option to go on the public healthcare if the prices for private are unappealing. Whereas in America you have to go the private route or deal with hospital costs of thousands which means that as long as one company doesn't lower the price way lower than everyone else.
in Europe the private healthcare has to be competitive with the free option while in America private healthcare just has to be better than nothing at all.
@@slowbro7944 no, that's not the reason. Private clinics in europe aren't getting any cheaper over time as a result of a shortage of clientele vs public healthcare.
And you're making the mistake of thinking of private healthcare an a single entity**. Government monopolizes things, private markets don't. There should be different healthcare companies competing against each other, unless the government has forced the healthcare market into being one giant monopoly, just like taxis in some European countries, where competition is outright banned (or used to be).
Has it?
I don't know if that's the case. But I know for sure the US gov is strangling the market. I alluded to that before.
** (However, even when there's only a single company in a market, that company still has to do its best to have accessible prices and keep consumers happy, because unhappy consumers are what makes competitors crop up.)
@@3x157 there are truths in what you're saying, US healthcare is much better than people like to give it credit for.
But... you unwittingly pointed out one of the reasons why it's so expensive. When the gov is preventing prices from fluctuating as they should, that prevents markets from adjusting themselves properly, and ends up causing distortions in supply and demand, which result in both shortages and wastefulness, which end up inflating costs.
So they're probably not paying what they should, they're most likely paying more than they should.
Fixing prices is probably the number one deadly sin in economics...
Something different about the USA is that our Constitution doesn't enumerate "health care" as a federal power or duty. Now, under the Tenth Amendment, any STATE is free to concoct their own system under their own jurisdictional taxation.
If one state got it right, other states would quickly beat a path to their door. Ain't no way the clods in DC will ever be able to make it work.
"The NHS is one of the worst health care services in Europe."
*laughs in Hungarian*
feels bad man
*Laughs in Greek*
Laughs in Polish
@ALSO-RAN ! you don't now much about Hungery or Orban right? I'm not saying you're uninformated but make some research and you will find out somthing about private companies and Hungary
*Laughs in Russian*
Being perfectly honest as an American, I knew Europeans had public healthcare that had significant upsides over what we have in the states, but I never had such a clear, concise compare-contrast of the way different countries tackled it. That's a really important step so we can know not just how to approach it, but how *not to.*
The most important thing to remember is, nothing is ever free.
@@tylerdurden3722 no one even mentioned the word free lol
Americans are smart. They've chosen what they do for real reasons.
@@israel.s.garcia Americans always say “it’ll be free!” No it won’t. We’ll pay our taxes into that system and “making the rich pay” isn’t even the half of it. In fact, they’re going to be a small chunk. All of us will pay higher taxes. I have no problem with implementing functioning government SUBSIDIZED health care, but Americans need to stop lying to themselves about it being free. It’s not free like paying to habe fighter jets isn’t free, that is your tax money
@@dannylojkovic5205 hear hear! I'm so tired of the performance arts. I'm hoping someday we'll be able to get down to brass tacks on at least some important issues.
Meanwhile in Brazil's Public healthcare: *I waited so long in line that obesity is not a problem anymore!*
sus isn't that much of a shit after all
yet Brazil isn't the best country to compare it with... Brazil is still a third world country by statistics... if you really want to compare it, compare it to the various EU nations that have Universal Healthcare..
@@jasperpluk Brazil it's a developing country, that is why he joined BRICS. Statistics are very tricky, some states like, São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul and Paraná have good statistics, but they fade away when calculating the bigger picture.
I really fancy Brazil, but the crime is the sole reason why I wouldnt want to live there anytime soon.
@@missquprison Oh my sweet summer child, if only the crime rates were the biggest of our problems...
This take is very very interesting and I think it bodes true, I personally have diagnosed chronic Pancreatitis and have had it since I was 14, and now that I’m 20, I worry about having to go to the hospital and paying $1500 out of pocket.
For me I have a genetic mutation, it’s not because of what I eat and I feel like it should be treated differently to that of someone who willingly chooses to be obese. It’s to the point where I consider going to immigrate to Canada just because I know I’ll have my finances squared away even if I have to spend a week in the hospital.
(And before people comment things like “Well it takes a year to see a doctor in Canada because it’s free” I would like to say that in my state, it takes 6 months to see any kind of specialist for my condition, and general doctors who can be seen in a short amount of time have no idea how to help me except to give me ibuprofen which doesn’t help, so it’s not any better here, it’s better over there)
I wish you the very best. My grandmother died of Pancreatic cancer a few years back. It's fucking terrible, and it's best to nip it in the bud. Preventive care is an absolute must, and there's no legitimate excuse for the government neglecting its people of that basic human right.
You realize how much better is "paying 2000 or 5000$" once, than paying 1500 every month? I pay 20% of my income to healthcare fund.
You'll be dead soon, unless you move.
'my sickness is not my fault'
~every american~
Nothing will change when you guys spend more time hating each other than being kind and caring. The sick are every bit as selfish as the healthy.
6:34 But, aren’t Americans *already* giving a large share of their tax dollars to other people’s healthcare though programs like Medicare and Medicaid? The United States, when you look at combined costs covered by the public and private sectors, has the highest healthcare costs per person in the world, if I am not mistaken.
@@oldred890 would you care to give some examples? I'm from Scandinavia and I really don't understand the mindset and politics of the US.
therobotics1r thegreat It seems that he doesn`t know either
@ You do realize that most of us aren't fat, right? And that the *average* person that lives here doesn't *actually* think we know everything?
Medicare and Medicaid isnt available to everyone.
Yeah, it’s like 26% of our budget
"Would we be willing to spend 12-15%"? We already spend 27% of the budget, federally, and many of us pay much more directly into our health insurance premiums, deductibles, copays, and coinsurances.
The interesting thing is most people don't know this number. If you repeat the 15% figure along with an absolute number (say 500 million) people will go, oh my god that sounds so expensive, we can't afford that. Messaging is everything. Until people become better at messaging and until the media actually hold people to account, it will be very difficult.
What I was going to say. You could tell he didn’t really research that deep if he doesn’t know that. I think it’s closer to 18% though.
"Would the Federal Government be willing to dedicate 12 to 14% of its budget to maintaining a health care system"
Buddy, we already do way more than that. Medicare alone is already 14% of the Federal Budget. That's leaving out Medicare (insurance that we all pay into for elderly), the VA system (completely government-owned hospital system for veterans), and private health insurance. We pay way more than any other country on Earth per capita for a health care system that largely fails us.
That's a very good point. Sometimes private services that in theory would be cheaper for government end up being more expensive (VOX has a video on that about the US). For example, in Chile our retirement funds were privatised with a little public pillar to pay for minimum pensions, turns out that the pensions are so miserable that the public pillar drains out the budget so much that we are spending relatively more than in our previous public system previous to the neoliberal reforms.
Us has the best healthcare in the world!!
Bram Bakker *laughs in Swedish*
@@brambakker1939 wat
People go there for care they dont have back home, but its not cheap!😉
Being an American, I had my hesitancies before watching this video. Was pleasantly surprised-great, well thought out video!
If a public healthcare system was implemented state by state, it would be veeeeeeeeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting to see how/if attitudes in Arizona and Florida about being large retirement communities would change.
I would just devolve in to a bunch of boomer retirees complaining about brown people destroying the US economy and that that's why their healthcare is so expensive.
I just watched it yesterday - a bunch of interviews with retirees on Medicaid - or is it Medicare for the older folks?
In either case they were praising the system, to nobody's surprise.
@@LMB222 Older people use Medicare, Medicaid is for people beneath a certain income level. Medicaid is actually an amazing system if you have it and you can find a doctor that accepts it, but only because it's built on the backs of other people who can afford to maintain it through taxes. Medicare has problems, but generally most senior citizen are glad they have it.
They would just travel to the better states to leech off their systems and then go back to live in lower taxed states, and of course those who couldn't afford to do that would suffer.
Most states already have a public healthcare system.
The NHS England may be the laughing stock of public healthcare systems, but I’m still bloody grateful it exists.
I mean, that's kinda the US' motto isn't it? Asking other countries to hold the beer whilst proving that everything can always be made worse.
The NHS itself isn’t a laughing stock, it’s saved countless lives and continues to do brilliant work each and every day. It’s the way it’s run and funded that is the laughing stock
I hear in America you must pay for it.
@@harleyokeefe5193 it has saved countless lives but currently all most all of the Jobs are striking except doctors,teachers in England and police
@@Alblaka Hey it's not all bad! Best millitary in the world baby! Someone breaks into a house, they have to question whether the owner has a 12 gauge rocked with freedom slugs. Also government not being able to arrest individuals for speaking out against institutions is pretty awesome
Unhealthy food: exsists.
Europe: There's gonna be a tax for that.
yes that is good
oversimplified reference
@@mad0131 indeed
Good then
This angered the US, who punished them severely.
Canadian here, we are stuck between styles. You got me on the candy, we used to have less sweet confectionery, in the British and European styles. Now it’s all made in big factories, catering to the us market, and horribly sweet.
Also, I’m forever grateful to have our healthcare, provided as a public service. I’m in my 60’s and self employed. My family, and parents at the end of life, have had excellent care. Without me going bankrupt, or stressing about it.
Our system is only decent compared to the USA. Everything he said about the NHS Applies to us as well. (Just say Mulroney and Cretien instead.) It's just that the American system is a whole league of bad.
Well good for you but for the rest of us stuck paying through the nose in taxes just to sit in line for hours, we aren’t happy
"Some countries, such as the UK, even have a sugar tax"
*Shakes in freedom*
@@stan-du5sw pretty sure this comment was ironic
@@pudy2487 it shouldn't be, im not a libertarian but have you ever had diet pepsi
Well now have it in Poland too.
These fucking leftists, tfu!
lib rights be like
As a UK citizen, I honestly never notice the sugar tax or care for it, don't get too worried about it.
I like how americans can tell me with a straight face that they don't want to pay for public healthcare, then immediately pay 20% or more of their paycheck to a private insurance company who makes the most money by cutting corners and finding any excuse possible to avoid providing their services.
@@razortheonethelight7303 yeah thats really stupid that The us spends all their tax payer money on being the world police
So, just like how the NHS currently does?
I don't agree with it at all bro. Fuck Aetna for trying to take half of my weekly paycheck. I've been an M4A advocate since I first heard about it in 2015.
@@razortheonethelight7303 Do you know why they do that? Because they want to ensure to have strong trade connections. The European market is very profitable for the US and they surely don't want to lose it to Russia. Also, a great part of your military in my country likes to control their drones on the other side of the planet at the Rammstein Airbase. Without Germany's permission to have that US base it would be impossible for US drone pilots to operate in the Middle East because the frequencies aren't able to traverse over such large distances due to the Earth's curvature. So it is very much in the interest of your country to have strong military influence in Europe because it opens the door to operations in the Middle East and places far from direct access. The US doesn't simply have their bases here in order to protect us Europeans. They have their bases here in order to be able to react fast on important events on the African or Asian continent. The protectionist function has greatly declined since the end of the Cold War. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful for that, but nowadays it is just a positive effect that comes with the US having a great interest in having such bases in order to do other stuff in the Middle East for example.
And please don't get mad due to all my fellow Europeans because they think so highly of their civic achievements. I mean it's really just a matter of culture that divides us. Some small advice on what to prevent talking about with Europeans because they don't understand how important that is to you: Guns, predatory capitalism (I don't know if you only use it in a bad context, to say that something is bad; I mean with that the system you have in which there is the individual's responsibility to achieve and not so much all of society), individualism, health care, being number one (... its true for many things, but you really shouldn't rub that into the faces of Europeans that much because we get very angry)
I hope you've learned something if not then probably because you know better. I know that comments tend to sound rude and very shouty but I hope you see that it was meant with good intention. Have a nice day and definitely don't let you have it ruined due to some random dude on the internet that has to tell you that public health care is the only truth and you're a moron (Just ignore those guys, they don't know any better)
@@razortheonethelight7303 So wrong. The US actually spends MORE tax money on healthcare than most of Europe, it just does it far more inefficiently.
Russia also isn't really a threat, France alone has a higher military budget and their own nukes.
when youtubers are better in politics than politicians themselves
No not really, politicians just like to overthink it a bit.
it's a bit easier to be a pundit or a scholar than a politician. You have the benefit of being able to think through problems without any constraints of needing a plan of action or facing consequences for getting it wrong.
Politicians are good at arguing like children. RUclipsrs have an objective view of political topics like this one and can explain and solve it better
Politicians have to be popular to be successful. You don't need to be a good politician to be popular.
It's not the job of politicians to inform people, tbf. Maybe it should be but at present they have no incentive to do that.
As a amarican I'm really glad I found your channel a European prospective on our issues has been very helpful to me
I'll take paying higher taxes over spending $2,000 on an ambulance
$2000!!! Bruh!
That's fucking cheap where do you live?
I think the problem is thought that not everyone would and we need a very large majority to agree.
@@cM-np3no Cheap!! I can live 4 months with that! Ambulances should be free for emergency
wtf brooo
@@oyunlaryolda217 4 months? My housing cost is $2500/month and that's by no means a lot here.
To be fair, the debate format for primaries in our two-party system doesn’t allow much time for a thoughtful debate on public healthcare or its implementation. That’s more the fault of the debate structure than Bernie himself. Our political system is fueled by soundbites and gotcha questions instead of intellectual debate.
Bernie and some others actually have laid out extensive plans on their websites and manifests, but this was either not out at the time of the video or Kraut didn’t bother to check.
Dabber Mcgee or because Bernie, or other politicians doesn’t have much of an impact in the us regarding that topic. Otherwise, they would have already implement it.
@@xSoulhunterDKx he said that he was specifically refering to the democratic candidates when he said "none of them." If he was refering to only people that have an impact, then he would've been arguing Trump's healthcare plan, which I'm sure you'll agree is rather non-existent and not what he was saying.
You know what's amazing? Medical expenses that exceed 7.5% of your AGI are tax deductible
I'm quite literally doing research for debate club about a Medicare-for-All act. Barely any of the people in power would be able to handle an ACTUAL debate round that *High Schoolers* do for fun on the weekends. But also, people like Bernie Sanders don't have enough power and unwavering support within our own government to enact policies resembling universal healthcare (keep in mind we have people in congress bringing in snowballs to show that climate change and global warming Aren't Real).
germany - we pay massive amount of taxes, of which a lot of it goes to health care
everyone pays them
doesnt matter if you earn well or poor, you pay for it
but, when you get sick/injured, youre completely covered with the costs and you get paid as if you worked during that time
and im completely okay with that
Also we have a functioning welfare system that takes over the insurance costs for the unemployed or people living in poverty. So it's actually not "whether you are rich or poor", there is a line.
Everyone falls ill. Everyone. Immortals don't exist, we all age, we all die. Every single person needs medical care, at some point.
The Americanism that "I don't want to pay for someone else's medical bills" is such a farce.
Especially now, when employer-tied-healthcare during an economic downturn + a global pandemic means when people need medical access more than ever, they no longer have it. Telling folks they must choose between death and a lifetime of debt - for the sin of being poor and sick. It's a disgusting worldview. The USA medical system is broken.
In Germany, we really don't pay that many taxes. That just often gets misconstrued on the internet. Yes, federal income tax in the US is lower. But US citizens pay their income taxes twice, as almost every state demands its own, 2nd income tax which can add around 15% to the tax burden. There's also a roughtly 5% medicaid tax which doesn't provide any benefit and is pretty much only another income tax.
In the end, most low-and middle class employees in the US actually pay more than in Germany.
@@komentierer if you think paying over 10 000€ a year of taxes is "not much", I don't know what else to say lol
@@RomanceJones It honestly isn't. It just seems like more because it's all grouped into one big withdrawal. Wheras Americans get their full salaries but then pay half a dozen taxes to half a dozen institutions after the fact and up to one year later... property taxes, federal income, state income, payroll tax, Tangible Personal Property tax, local residential fees.
And that doesn't even cover retiremend funds, healthcare or higher education.. all of which are broadly seen as "taxes" by Germans and make up the majority of the German system's income deduction, but have to be sourced (again) separately by Americans.
The entire American system is designed to fool people into thinking they have more money than they actually do, it's a debt driven economy that relies on people living beyond their means.
"I WANT YOU TO BENCH PRESS" honestly sounds pretty American. I don't see why not.
tbh. Really the problem is the food here. There needs to be more regulation I feel like that's pretty fucking obvious. Trust me, I used to work at an ice cream place in the mall.
@@crapwithanopinion2919 from a video i watched a few months ago, they said that energy companies can lie about their caffeine amounts.
HOW CAN THEY ALLOW THIS. this honestly looks like the usa is influenced to not update the laws.
also why is there guns allowed? and no dont tell me because freedom.
@@NuggetOG the US is a fucking mess. We need a leader like teddy Roosevelt to abolish the monopolies like Amazon and Microsoft. And enact the green new deal. But we're not gonna get that anytime soon. As for guns we need to do what Australia has done and that heavily restrict the availability of firearms and treat them more like a car and less like a toy.
@@crapwithanopinion2919 i dont know that mouch about roosevelt but the gun thing, yeah.
also monopolies are gay. and illegal
and to clear thing up being gay is not illegal, karen/ any political correct group, its just a joke
but monopolies are illegal, thats why governments are the only hing that allow monopolies
@@NuggetOG and our government is the special government that doesn't just let them exist. But pays them to exist.
public healthcare prioritizes saving the lives of human beings. the current american healthcare prioritizes making a profit off of the lives of human beings.
and it becomes a reinforcing loop. You make money from people being in shit health, so high sugar, high fat, low health standard, low nutrition foods, alcohol, tobacco etc is wicked cheap and widespread
This is very true.
well, that is exactly why there’s always someone in US keep telling you public health care system is evil or communism, those companies surely won’t let anyone touch their cheese
'murica. fuck yeah!
@@hikari2hikari2 i t t a k e s o u r f r e e d o m a w a y
When I went to the Bahamas with my Boy Scout troop the summer before I started high school, the rationale they used for not doing something stupid and getting ourselves hurt was "it costs $15,000 for the helicopter ride to the hospital back in Miami"
Bargain
I'd rather just die if everybody would say that the healthcare will cost 15000$ for me. LOL, it's wasn't for whole heathcare it was just for a helicopter ride. I bet my ass it would cost a hundred thousand bucks total, or more.
Glad we have a public healthcare system in Australia. There are some odd exclusions (optical/dental/ambulance cover) but for the most part, you can get the care you need and it won't permanently bankrupt you.
Both of my kids were born in (or near) a public hospital. The care and education were top notch and it didn't cost us a cent.
In Queensland, ambulance services are paid for via a slight tax on the electricity bills of the state's population. Absolutely, bloody genius. You'd think they'd roll that out everywhere, especially in NSW, of all states! And WA, SA and NT need more heli-ambos. If those states had more solar farms, they'd be able to generate the revenue through grid surplus dividends to fund their ambulance services.
Luckily, where I'm based (central coast), I get free dental through my uni as a student. And you do get free optometrist appointments on Medicare. I don't think chiro, cosmetic procedures, or neuro/psychological diagnoses are funded under our healthcare system (I only just managed to get an ASD and ADHD assessment by my NDIS plan coordinator tweaking my funding usage). And even necessary surgeries (I need spinal realignment surgery as I have scoliosis, but it's "only moderate", so they won't significantly subsidise or operate unless it's severe) aren't totally paid for unless it's immediately life threatening.
I think you may be a little confused about what our healthcare system provides mate. Take a look at your health insurance policy. That's why you can't access those "exclusions", cause your insurance doesn't cover them. But Medicare certainly does (albeit with a fee and rebate), and so do other insurance companies.
You are dead wrong if you think it didn't cost you a cent. It probably costs you 15-20% of your monthly pay.
I don't like this socialist fantasy world pushed in 90% of comments... Video we're commenting was much more balanced and reasonable in its considerations.
Your nanny continent requires everyone to lock their car doors. No thanks
@@whitewhitewhite2446 neither the geology nor the government require anyone to lock their doors, although you may wish to on sight of some of the larger spiders.
"America doesn't understand how expensive public healthcare is! France's healthcare is awesome but they spend FIFTEEN PERCENT of their GDP on it!"
*america spending 18% of its GDP on private healthcare*
The guys before you said it was 21%, so where do you people get your numbers from? I am convinced the US is spending more than France, I just want to see the source.
At the Congressional Budget Office this graph can be found: www.cbo.gov/system/files/2020-04/56324-CBO-2019-budget-infographic.pdfIf you add up the 1.9% and the 3.0% you get a total of 4.9% of gross domestic product spend on Healthcare.
@@Supernichtpatrick You can check the site for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cms.gov which tracks historical health and medical spending as well as projects future spending based on expectations. They list the total in the US for 2018 as $3.6 trillion, which was 17.7% of GDP. The CDC also has historical data on their website as well, which includes 2017 data showing that quantity at $3.5 trillion (17.9% in 2017).
Exactly... The whole cost argument is completely meaningless because the end result is that Americans spend more money on a system that covers less people. Costs also end up stacking up for the people who need healthcare or medication whereas in a nation with public healthcare those costs are shared by everyone, the way it should be. Also medication prices are better negotiated etc. with the pharmaceutical industry.
@@i5m1thy almost sounds like a system that is interest in a healthy population rather than a system that is making money of you being sick
Great work!! As an argentinean I have tons of complains to our corrupt govs, though having public healthcare and education is something I'll always apreciate, specially after acknowledging how these lack in lots of first world countries.
Same!
Same in Turkey
Martin sos un capo
Ehhhh wacho!!!
El otro día fui al hospital y había una silla de ruedas hecha con un armazón de metal y una silla de plástico atornillada ¿? Es una poronga el sistema de salud público en general, por la falta de fondos y la pésima administración (y gigantesca corrupción, como todo lo estatal). Es una lástima cómo la corrupción arruina todo.
The children advertisement ban should get picked up here in the states
And the sugar, fat, tobacco and alcohol taxes. Make it more expensive to be unhealthy. Then reduce import taxes on healthier items like fruit and vegetables.
Considering how much of US politics is (apparently, from what I've observed) influenced by corporate entities, I doubt such a law will ever be passed. Real unfortunate.
@@looking_arround There are special taxes and advert bans on alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, and things of the like in the US. They're called Sin Taxes and you usually see them in the south around the more religious communities and states. I don't think I've ever heard of a tax on fat or sugar though. For that, you're usually left on your own to read the nutrition facts on the back of the package.
So many goddamn regulations need to be picked up in the United States.
If someone takes Tony the Tiger away from me, im throwing hands
When you said the NHS was rubbish I was super concerned because I’m Scottish, I had no idea about the difference in England. Thanks for informing me!
Yes, thanks to taxpayers in England the Scottish division of the NHS does perform better. I would not call NHS England rubbish however.
"Would the US government be willing to allocate 12-15% of its budget to a system like this?" (Frances). Dude the US government is currently allocating 27% of its budget to the government part of its healthcare system. A system that per citizen costs twice as much as Frances, almost three times as much as the UKs and delivers worse results than either. Without even managing something as basic as covering everyone.
Thats the problem with comparing places like the UK to France: Both are better and far cheaper than the US setup, and things that are poor by European standards are vastly better than the US setup. And also, you don't pay extra insurance premiums for being fat in the US. Plus, yes Japan has people in good shape and low healthcare costs, the US has an out of shape population and high healthcare costs. The UK also has people almost as unfit as the US, and very low costs. The Nordics have a fit population and very high costs. Theres no correlation.
So, should we just accept that healthcare for all is just a bad idea? I mean it doesnt seem that bad of an idea to bring back healthcare systems like badgercare (wisconsin's old healthcare) aaaand strive for healthcare in states that just cannot do it themselves. My idea of what they will at least attempt is for states that have a better system in place, leave it be and for states that dont... well... I guess they dont have much of a choice.
Because like the guy said, it must be done by individual states (since most states are the size of European countries)
@@velnz5475 No, just saying that the video guy seems totally unaware of how much the US system costs for worse results than the UK and France both.
@@midgetman4206 why is size an argument? European systems work about the same from Iceland with 300k people to Germany with 80+ million. No theory predicts any limit in population.
@@garmeyes7196 since different states will have different needs since you know, they act differently
I could be wrong here, correct me if so, but arent public health care systems in general cheaper since they dont have all those middle men between your insurance payment and your healthcare?
Yup they are
Yeah, but all public system need to be closely monitored or they quickly start trowing money by the windows. They usually don't have much incentive to be efficient with their spending, as it is the government who pay the bill.
You pay the difference in waiting times due to inefficiencies endemic to public services.
There's also an argument to be made about medical research being disincentivised through such measures.
At least some part of the whole reason european countries can afford to have their systems is because americans basically pay the brunt of the cost of medical research.
Also as we need (or rather needed since trump is slowly changing things) to pay way less military upkeep, since we don't have to maintain a status as world hegemon.
A lot of the social programs in europe are only possible to the extent that they are implemented, because the US is indirectly bankrolling a lot of it.
No. What?! What are you thinking? There are middle men... tons of them. Even more once you add the beurocracy of a government. You cant add and get less. Are you seriously saying government can do with LESS middlemen than a private business???? HAHAHAHA, dear me... no...
@@bashisobsolete.pythonismyn6321 healthcare is very much about money
“Over in Europe, we have a sugar tax”
Sweden: *sweating nervously*
I remember going to Sweden for vacation, like, hot damn do you guys put sugar in EVERYTHING?!
Don‘t get me wrong, it tastes amazing, but hot damn
@@SahnigReingeloetet Yes, more or less. As much as I neglect brushing my teeth, I'm amazed I've never gotten dental caries.
HK-47 Aye, but I do get it, as much as I do love cold and humid weather, it is taxing in the long run. And I loved the sheer amount of deep-fried and sugary stuff (ain‘t healthy but fuck it). My sister in law is from Latvia and has a part Swedish family, the Smôrgastorta on the wedding was fabulous, Swedish cuisine is really something
@Marc T I would sooner imagine magnesium to be an issue rather than calcium. IANADr though.
@Marc T Ah, just found it: www.betterbones.com/bone-nutrition/magnesium/
I knew I wasn't completely crazy. Magnesium is part of the enzymes we use to absorb calcium from our diet and utilize vitamin D.
"The enzyme that is required for forming new calcium crystals, alkaline phosphatase, also requires magnesium for activation, and if levels are low, abnormal bone crystal formation can result."
I'm from Brazil, living in the U.S. I always feel divided about this matter. My experience with public health was not great at all. In Brazil, if you have cancer, you have to go to a private hospital bc in the public hospital, it would take months just to get a ct scan or regular visits. I am speaking for experience, but some people might have a different opinion. Here in the U.S. I suffered a small accident in 2019. A simple broken bone, and in a matter of HOURS, I had my surgery, and I was going home! That was new for me. Once in Brazil, I had to go to the hospital bc I was shaking in cold. I would have to wait for over 300 ppl in front of me to have a visit in an emergency room, I went home instead. And note that private hospitals could be expensive everywhere, even in Brazil.
Your experience highlights some of the common pitfalls that can happen with a public health service, and also why private health can seem attractive.
I'd maintain that private health can only be attractive if the public option is already messed up or non-existent.
Just starting from the basic concept, it's a bit weird having public and private health coexisting in a country in such a major way, and demonstrates some major flaws. You say the wait times for the publicly funded ct scans in Brazil are so long you have to go to a private hospital.
Just think about that for a moment, the demand for something as important as a ct scan is so high, that an entire 'for profit' industry is not just allowed, or getting by, but is a huge staple.
When that happens with the other major emergency services, we recognise that something is very wrong.
Wait times for police are months long? So hire the mercenary contractors.
Wait times for the fire department are weeks long? So hire mercenary... firefighters.
In those situations, of course the private institutions are attractive than the alternative. When your house is on fire, naturally the private firefighting company is going to look really good compared to a 3 week wait time from the publicly funded one... but the real problem here isn't that people who can afford to choose chose the fast one, the problem is the publicly funded one isn't just as fast.
I don't doubt your experiences in Brazil and the US, and I'm sure the US experience felt nice and fast.
I'm equally sure that if you had some mercenary firefighters on retainer, you'd call them if you had a housefire. But those aren't nearly as common, and while private security firms exist, they tend to be expensive and very specific in their duties, and not something everyone is expected to deal with.
One of the richest men in history lived in ancient Rome, he invented a private firefighting company.
He got rich by haggling with people out the front of their burning property, refusing to put it out unless they caved to his really high prices.
That only lasted a few years before the Roman empire put a stop to it. Primarily for the public good of not letting the city burn down just because someone wasn't home to haggle with this guy.
But for some reason we have allowed the same situation to continue for thousands of years when it comes to health.
Maybe because the economic and material effects just aren't as viscerally obvious as a city burning down, but those flow on effects are just as real and deadly.
I don't want to ban private healthcare, I don't want to ban private firefighting either.
I just think that if an entire for profit industry, that by definition cost multiples times what the public option costs, can happily take up a noticeable amount of the market. It's pretty fucked up.
If it took months for firefighters to get to your house in Brazil, but a private firefighting company in the US gets there really fast. That doesn't mean the concept of public firefighters is bad, it means they are horribly underfunded and understaffed.
I LITERALY know people who lives got safed because of public healthcare here in Brasil. Including cancer pacients, which protocol is different. And the private is not as ridiculous expensive as it is in the US. There is no comparison on that matter.
@@oswaldoalbuquerque All members of my family had to pay out of their pockets, and some even had take out loans for that, but good for your family. If that was me, I wouldn't take the risk.
Thing is… the US is not a developing country. Brazil is. It's not an insult, but an explanation why if you get cancer, you die - unless you go to a private company.
A country with the wealth of the US should have been able to solve their issues, instead of making them worse.
The NHS aint bad, or shit. Growing up with it with 4 operations, 2 MRI's, dozens of blood and other such tests and I've received great care and I've definitely seen improvement.
@@goblin7404
Its probably because he can fixate on the issues here easily due to growing up in the uk
tbf the NHS does have issues, though for sure it's better than the us system pound for pound, it's still been savaged by deliberate underfunding by neolibs, sold off, etc
we love it & need to remake it, imo.
Yeah, i've had operations and am in hospitals most of the time, NHS isn't shit in terms of the care given etc.
If you only look at it from economic and business stand points it probably does look shit.
But trust me, those doctors care more than anybody else and the care you are given in an NHS clinic is uncomparable
Agreed, his emphasis on how bad the NHS is very strange. The quality of care is exceptionally high. Where the NHS falls short is in infrastructure and wait times. Small issues often get put on the back-burner and some critical health issues (mental health services in London being a very good example) can have queue times of over a year. This, however, is a funding problem. The points about quotas and management style in the NHS being poor are valid, but what the NHS essentially needs is more money. Austerity is the single biggest issue that has plagued the NHS and Kraut failed to mention it entirely.
Hey its better than the US 👀 Americans hate to pay taxes because most of the money doesn't go to what its supposed to and the rich don't have to pay.
I feel as though people would be willing to make the switch if they made a living wage and could verify where the funding is going 👎👎
Its very sad.
I visited Denmark at 12 and was bitten by a venomous spider and had to be in the hospital overnight to get an antidote. My mother and I were panicking over the price but the doctor just laughed, said it was free, and they gave us a free lunch.
We👏 were 👏 shocked👏 !
4:11 I mean how can you start presenting an idea and the means to achieve it when the debate only goes as far as considering if it is communism or not.
American politics is like a team sport and not actual discussion of viable solutions. If you look at the campaign ads here, it's mostly just berating the other party instead of talking about their own positions. "You won't be safe in Biden's America."
"We need to recover from Donald Trump"
The above are real quotes from campaign ads
Agreed. He does raise a good point that if they really wanted to create a public healthcare system in the USA they'd need to actually talk about the details beforehand, but he seems to gloss over the fact that this might be caused by the political climate rather than a lack of desire to hammer out said details.
It's difficult to have a real discussion about your plans for public healthcare when the opposition seems intent on demonizing the very concept of public healthcare and doesn't even want to take the idea seriously.
lmao true USA politics is one politically illiterate shitshow
Yeah, political debates in my country (Spain) are also a pathetic shitshow 98% of the time. Reduced to the left calling the right corrupt fascists and the right calling the left Spain-hating communists but for what I've seen, American politics... man, they're on a whole other level.
I feel like this is happening on many contries, though, both left and right are getting more and more radicalized.
@@aegis7272 That's an understatement lol
5:18 "it's less sweet"
Oh boy here I am thinking coke is way too sweet as it is
Yeah, it's liquid sugar over there, no idea how they drink it.
Yeah as an American I went to Amsterdam and ordered a hamburger with fries and they somehow messed that up. Stale and unseasoned.
@@Shorty15c4007 you just went to a bad resturant or didn't consider other cultures have different taste preferences
@@normalisboring2831 I tried different restaurants and the American dishes did not compare. One of the things I like to do when traveling to the other side of the pond is trying the McDonalds and experiencing the different menu items and sauces.
I did go to a fancy restaurant and tried the carpaccio. OMG that was delicious!
Different countries have different specialties. Amsterdam had great sweets and really the only food I enjoyed there was the foreign food. The middle eastern falafel or Asian fried rice dishes there were excellent. I think the dutch in terms of food are known for cold cut sandwiches which was pretty much subway lol.
@@Lilliathi you will drink your American Coca-Cola and you will like your diabetes
You need to remember the ridiculous amount we spend on health insurance, which beats out how much we would have to pay in taxes anyway.
I am french and I can tell you this video makes huge misconceptions about how our healthcare works.
First, it is not organised by the state, it's an independent organism that receives fundings directly from the "Sécurité sociale" (Social security), which is financed by cotisation, not taxes. Taxes are, by definition, administered by the State. Here with the cotisation system, it is administered by workers themself. That's why we say it is socialised. It is not a part of the state budget.
I find it extremely misleading to say that we pay huge taxes to get a good health service : we pay a cotisation, and we know exactly where it is going.
This is precisely why we don't pay that much. Health expenses is about 10% of what we all pay. Meanwhile in the US, it's about 15%, the service is worse and it is extremely imprevisible.
When you think about it, the reason is obvious: there is not someone administering this that wants to make money. It's simply administered by workers. However, our politics are slowly incrementing a capitalistic logic in the hospitals.. So the health workers are have harder and harder schedules, bad revenues etc. Because they are not employed by a capitalist, they are considered useless.
@Samuel Moog It's not it, we are slowly seeing our hospitals faulter through lack of investments and rise in costs (aging population). The LREM or LR models just prefer a reduction in the Sécu's role rather than expanding it's funding. But it is something we will have to chose later in life because in it's current model the system cannot survive in the long run with underinvestment, aging population and needs to balance the budget.
While I agree that the Sécu is not "funded by taxes" it sort of is, at the end of the day it's still money taken by the government to fund something, and with the Sécu's deficits being plugged by the state there's an argument to be made that it is taxes just presented differently. Also about that perception I'm not sure most people in France have it, as most people don't understand where the money for their Allocations Familiales comes from..
If the way your health service is funded includes forcing people to pay for it, they are taxes.
@@BraceletGrolf a lack of investment due to an increase of global costs and dyfunctionnal structure. the budget cut was a low blow to the public services that had to start implementing a more capitalistic view on its inner management which explains the problems we have with hospitals and such
like 10 patients for one or two available medical personal (nothing precise, I say this in order to have an exagerated idea)
I'm not sure if they compensate the lowering of the budget with taxes, but it would make sense and I personnaly would be okay to generally pay more taxes for better health and such
however, I am also German at the same time, and BOY would I prefer living in France in order to pay less taxes, because if you are just a regular working dude prepare to get your monthly wallet blown
and our countrymen tend to believe that not spending a penny on public services or policy is a "too social nationalist thing"
I really fear the passivity of the average German more than the activism of the right-winged extremists
--> notre système va être réformé c'est sûr et certain. Toutefois je pense que personne en France ne sera prêt à l'abandonner ni à le réduire à une pâle copie: ce serait du suicide social, politique et culturel. Je ne pense pas que nous auront droit à un NHS français.
Translation :
our system WILL be reformed. That is a certitude. However, I sincerely doubt that anyone in France will be up to abandon our system or to turn it into a shallow shell. This would translate to a political, social and cultural utter suicide. I doubt that we will have a French NHS
So basically you have a double taxation scheme, one which you call "taxes, we can't seem to see where that money goes" and another one, which is "taux cotés, but this one we are kinda aware of where it's going because we spelled it in French". If that even remotely works, I have nothing else to say but, well, I am glad it does!
@@thenoobzmaster it's quite a mess
But
IT JUST WORKS
Something I find quite interesting is that even when you compare to the UK, one of the worse off systems in Europe, it's still ultimately better than that of the US, supposedly.
That speaks volumes to how much better most European countries have it by comparison.
The NHS is severley underfunded with proper funding it could be one of the best healthcare systems in the entire world. It needs to be completely re-thought out and be organised much better. The Tories clearly do not care about it.
@@masonchin4705 to be fair, the tories may not care but labour actively fucked it
not saying the tories are good, knockoff trump needs gone already but labour and the lib dems have both managed to kill most of their goodwill with the people so I dunno how we get a decent party... fucking nick clegg ruining what could have been an actual party worth supporting.
UK is actually rated in the top half of EU health systems while having a lower cost to the taxpayer than even what US spends to provide its limited public healthcare.. We have big issues that need addressing but it's far from being the worst.
Kraut's pushing a narrative that isn't representative of reality.
www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2018/EHCI-2018-report.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjQtefYwd7qAhVNa8AKHXhaAdIQFjAAegQIBRAC&usg=AOvVaw3_DgziQK29fftCqqw0tmKY
From a outsider perspective, the NHS has improved over the years and is no more as bad as it used to be. This is mostly a political issue now between torries and larbor
I’d take our American system over the shitty uk one any day
The cost of health care in the US is staggering. Claiming that France's system only works because they fund it heavily is misleading. The US spend more of their GDP on health care than France (or pretty much everyone) - a large portion of that being private funding (through insurance). The cost in the US is also much more expensive in part due to the lack of regulation and profit oriented nature of the system. As such funding would not be the issue for the US in the long run and not or those who already have expensive health insurance. The fact remains, that the US is the only industrialized country without a universal health care system and they pay the most (which have not not reflected on the quality of health care).
The US also has a larger and less healthy population compared to these other countries
@@metheguyeveryonehates8636 That and the deliberate price gouging by pharmaceutical companies also plays a role.
@@kaspi001 there's so many regulations on pharmaceutical companies that only already well established companies can afford to compete
Is the GDP on healthcare calculated as total value or as per capita? The United States has a much bigger population than France, so the results can vary very largely whether way you compare the difference of fundings on healthcare between the US and France. (I still know that the US sucks in healthcare)
@@wedonteatbears For percentage of GDP Americans spend 18% and France spends a little less than 12%. For cost per person, America spends $10,224 and France spends $4,902.
Unfortunately now that it's 2023 we're seeing what's happening when individual states have a say over what is legal in the public health and it's even more unfortunate that in some states it's even criminalizing healthcare.
First of all, fantastic video.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for mentioning the soda ban in New York! As a guy who grew up in New York City at the time, I always bring that up when talking about healthcare with my friends and they just say that im exaggerating. It's really damn annoying.
Hilariously i heard the soda ban actually ended up hurting local grocers because people would rather drive 30mins/1hr outside of the city to buy from a grocer which had their prefered size of soda. Im not 100% if this was specifically new york or another city that implemented this type of control.
The sad thing is, what he's proposing is literally how the US is supposed to work. The Federal government has literally no power to enact a healthcare system constitutionally. It would be illegal. The states, on the other hand, do have that power.
What you're literally watching is the communist take over of the US in real time with these unconstitutional programs being proposed by tyrannical politicians who are seeking to destroy America and turn it in to a South American despotic regime (see San Francisco and LA for examples of billionaires living next to squalor in a completely disgusting display of moral decline).
Thank god that Hillary didn't win.
@@VACatholic you're one of the stupidest people ive ever seen in a youtube comments section and that's a really high bar
@@VACatholic I don't think that's correct that the federal government has no power to create a health care system.
They have Veterans hospitals - poorly run, sick soldiers treated as lazy disposable welfare moochers, not as honorable service members.
They have Medicare. Obviously, insurance DOESN'T WANT to provide health insurance to elderly people, for obvious reasons. Medicare enables a private insurance market to exist, by removing the cost burden, thereby loosely guaranteeing profits.
That's not Communism. Capitalism has ALWAYS had govt subsidies for Capitalists in a mix of direct and indirect ways.
No capitalist firms create money .. except banks which are licensed by govt to create infinite money "out of thin air" in the form of credit dollars exchanged for valuable legal contracts. Other than banks, nobody creates dollars except Uncle Sam. We *exchange* Uncle Sam's dollars and compete to earn them .. or speculators win dollars by placing financial wagers, often leveraged financial wagers, so magnified by credit.
To eliminate govt spending would be to eliminate capitalism.
Hospitals need welfare.
Doctors need that welfare.
Nurses need that welfare.
Medical equipment companies need that welfare.
Medical technology companies and software companies need that welfare.
Pharma needs that welfare.
Many of them need extra long patents, too, which means a partial monopoly. Soviet communism was 100% monopoly, one provider, the State. Partial monopoly is partial communism, but, as I said, capitalism even going back to the 1500s has always been dependent on govt handouts.
@@gg_rider You wrote a lot of text. I'm sorry to say it's wrong.
When you can point to the part of the constitution that allows for all of these things you're talking about, let me know. Until then they're unconstitutional.
Also the idea that banks create money is just a ridiculous way of looking at the world. Companies create value by creating products. Banks are just institutions meant to facilitate that exchange.
Finally your comment on capitalism and communism are too ignorant to correct here. Please do some more research. Capitalism does not need socialism at all. You're just historically wrong. Almost everything you said is a lie.
About the "who pays and what it costs?" USA already spends more money from federal budget per citizen on healthcare than France...
And their system is shit and the people still need to pay huge sums for healthcare...
It's madness.
France healthcare is shit too, don't think otherwise.
It’s so sad how the people we vote for fuck us over and then they still support them, like there’s no alternatives
Yes but that cost is not shared by everyone and two france is a good example of how a system could be run america if we do it will be a bad example a terrible example the american healthcare system at the current moment is a joke but if we go to a socialized system
@@drgrey7026 We DONT WANT MORE GOV POWER
That is the main reason we dis like 'free' healthcare by the government
@@diamondrg3556 you're not wrong but we still have a health care crisis. I'm not saying I want a shitty universal healthcare platform but something it's need to be done.
It’s crazy how wanting to help everyone be healthy here in the US suddenly became a radical left wing idea
Well, for corporations it is. Being unhealthy creates demand. Demand for health care, more demand for unhealthy food that is being overeaten, demand for gym memberships so they don't feel as bad about the problems that are probably coming from elsewhere.
Healthy and and satisfied people don't need to pay to just patch up all the problems in their life. Where will the poor corporations find their profits then?
And this is why left wing ideas are radical in the US. You let the private corporations, who's sole reason for existance is profit, to have massive influence in politics, society and culture. Naturally they will push for a politics, society and culture that maximises their profit potential, at the cost or exclusion of everything else. The pressure towards unhealthy living habits is not a bug, it's a feature, it helps their bottom line.
@@Hysteresis.Actual The healthcare industry does want people to be unhealthy. But most American corporations would prefer that people be healthy. Most Americans get their healthcare through their employers. So sick people for most corporations --> higher costs --> lower profits.
When something about American politics doesn't make sense, the answer is usually race. White Americans don't want to subsidize healthcare for black Americans. America's experience with Medicare and medicaid didn't help either. They tried public healthcare just for the elderly and the poor. Then as the population aged, that turned out to be more expensive than anything else that the government does. usdebtclock.org/ The economist who designed the program for the elderly actually formulated a theory called the Iron Triangle, which stipulates that there is a 3 way trade off between quality, cost, and access on healthcare. ldi.upenn.edu/news/william-kissick-and-iron-triangle-health-economics So now, because no one talks about the sacrifices that a public healthcare system entails, Americans don't see a way out of the Iron Triangle.
@@Sewblon Most corporations do not use their power to lobby for the issue of healthcare. As higher cost of healthcare may increase their costs, but it also decreases worker bargaining power, overall lowering worker compensation. As unions/employees have to worry about losing their healthcare in addition to just working conditions and pay. If there is any overall advantage to a healthier workforce, it's not enough of a difference for corporations to put their money towards solving the issue.
Whereas industries that directly benefit financially from the ill health of Americans do spend money to lobby, and market bad foods/habits. Because for them it's a direct investment that they see monetary returns on.
Herein lies the problem, corporations always try to privatise profits and socialise costs. They are not willing to spend money to solve a socialised issue, eg an unhealthy workforce, but they are perfectly happy to cause socialised issues to create private profit for themselves, eg by creating the unhealthy populace so they can be paid to 'address' the problem.
In a system where money has so much power, the sources that actually put money towards shaping policy/culture are always the cynical selfish actors, because they have the best returns on investment for the money they put it. While other corporations might have a slight preference for that not happening, they don't actually use their money/power to act on this, because it's a much poorer ROI for them.
It's fine to want everyone to be healthy. It's another thing for the state to compel you to be healthy. Frankly they have no business in my health, or what kind of insurance I want to buy or not buy. F OFF!
Wow. As an US citizen this is eye opening
Oh God please don't think that.
This video is so wrong on so many fundamental levels people here are, rightly, speculating this is produced in association with Healthcare insurance companies.
@@duckheadbob Please, go on. Don’t miss anything, I want to know what you think is wrong here!
@@duckheadbob you have a moral imperative to elaborate!
@@duckheadbob now there's an American
I’d rather pay $10 for shitty service than $600 for still also relatively shitty service
$10 per what? Day? Because that's pretty close to 15% of your income
@@baconsir1159 no. I’m talking about upfront costs for services. In the US I got a bill for an ambulance ride that was $1,100. In the UK the ambulance ride is from what I understand $0 as it’s covered by the NHS. That’s just $1,100 for transportation, no services no medication nothing, just physically fucking moving your body from point A to point B. Sure in England my taxes might be 200-300 higher but I don’t have to worry about a freak accident putting my entire financial situation in a scramble. There are literally people here in the United States that AVOID going to the hospital/doctor even WITH insurance out of fear of ridiculous medical bills. And it’s a legitimate fear because the health system over here is a joke. If you’re rich you’re fine if you’re broke you’re fucked. Sure maybe what’s over in Europe isn’t perfect but I’d sure as hell think something where people can actually use the damn system without being afraid of having their bank accounts emptied is better than what we have now.
@@lipsontajgordongrunk4328 This may sound like a bad idea but if youre an immigrant or turning 18 you should file a form where you want to use public services like healthcare and education, or private ones. Therefore having different tax rates. My worries is thay obviously the richer ones would just choose the other option and make public services shit and underfunded
Meanwhile he tells companies they need to pay their employees more to provide the same shit service. LOGIC
@@vile1636 If you're talking about minimum wage then you're an absolute imbecile. Minimum wage in the US is literally unlivable. There is no single area in the entirety of the United States where $7.25 an hour is above the poverty threshold. Shit service or not, people should be allowed to at least make a livable wage.
Minor nitpick for France: There is actually no bi-partisan support of our national healthcare system. The more economically-liberal inclined politician (like the current government has of 2019) are more in favor of privatizing has much of the system has possible, making the national system reimburse less % of the cost of any practice / medicine, giving more importance to private company that give extra-coverage (reimburse what the national healthcare don't). It's more subtle than being strictly for or against having a healthcare system, but there is definitely no consensus between the various party.
thank you
@@Kraut_the_Parrot and note that the US current setup costs 27 % of their budget. Without covering everyone and while getting worse results than either one.
Oui, mais même la droite ne souhaite pas radicalement altérer sa nature, pas comme au Royaume-Uni en tout cas.
1:32 “Things were made worse under the Thatcher administration”
That’s a decent summation of her tenure, yes
Argentinaaaaaaaa
@@yesd2024 Got fuckedddddddddddddd
Thatcher: "Only a war could save mi ass"
* Gets invaded *
*ARMADA TIME*
Argentina be like
MARGARET THATCHER IS DEAD
Positively surprised that a European citizen (or any non-American for that matter) was able to so fully understand and correctly analyse the American political landscape. Was skeptical going into the video, but you made a really great set of arguments. I agree with your conclusion and would go further to say that in fact this is one of the strengths of the American Federal system. But leveraging the immense authorities given to US states we could federally mandate that each find its own, unique solution and allow the voters of each respective state to choose which ever one they are most comfortable with.
This is refreshing. I'm so sick of the mindset that you can just import a culture.
"We should do like them!" No, you should research what we do, and from that find a way to make a version that will work for you. If you want our results, it requires more work than simply copy/pasting our system.
germany: *have high food quality
germany: *lower purchasing power parity than US citizens
to sum it up germany: *pay less for food with better quality
Lmao your unironically using Germany as a good example
Wait this is actually wrong and plus at least we don't have to wait for healthcare 🤣😂
@@unclesniffer7166
1. The whole farming sector is heavily subsidized by the EU. This is done on intent, because it is believed to be essential to peace and stability that everybody has access to enough food.
2. The 'Aldi'-principle is very simple: sell a small variety of basic private-label goods in the most unfancy stores and hand the price advantage over to the customer. It is all about cost-cutting in this business.
Discounters got so successful over the last 40 years, supermarkets were forced to introduce their own private-labels which will always match the price of Aldi. So if you only buy basic products (milk, eggs, yoghurt, flour, sugar, but also frozen pizza, soups and soap or shampoo) , you will pay the smallest possible ammount of money for food.
3. There are five major retailers (Edeka, Rewe, Aldi, Schwartz (Lidl, Kaufland) and Metro (real)), who together have 80+% market share and you can't walk a mile in a German city without passing by at least three of them. It is really hard for them to gain any extra market share, so there are a lot of "price wars" going on, to get some extra customers.
4. It has been getting better, but in general the Germans aren't willing to spend that much on food. Its a mindset survived since 1945-1954. most germans lived in houses, who were self-feeding for hard times (war). these two WWs made the german state support national food production on a privat level in gardens, even making laws about the vegetables, to secure the most food for their population. In WW1 the lack of food broke the german Reich. oblivious most survivers of these 2.WW remembered the war hungers and had to be convinced to base their food on supermarkets on an over-regional level. today these prizes cant really increase themself, because people would simply go to an other discounter. so they remained on a low position
4. i would like to point out, that walmart had to move out of southkorea and germany in its long sucessfull buisness all ove rthe world, because both national markets paid incredible less money for their food and because walmart were not able to keep up the price-wars in germany or southkorea. for walmart this is oblivious just a "unrelevant small market", but it proofs my point, that germany had incredible cheap food prizes for a good quality, explicit compared to the USA. Japan has a better food quality, but they have a mindset to actual pay for the BEST quality. so the japanese market is more diverse and open and walmart was able to penetrate that system....a bit. it still suffers in huge areas of his normal buisness concept and had to consider the japanese situation on the market to make their buisness work.
in germany Lidle and aldi would fill every gab in seconds to get an advance against the other.
i think you misunderstand what purchasing power parity means
@@supertriggerd4959 i agree, that the ppp is problematic, because the Law of One Price and the differences of goods distribution influence the value. But the USA has inside her own border large agrar sectors. it should be extremly easy for the US consumers to buy a high variety of goods with different quality and by that definition automaticly low prices. it should be extremly easy, if the US economy isnt based on exporting agrar goods of bad quality to other nations, if the national population is not able to consum all goods.
THIS is the problem. the USA has significant worse food goods, because you import food to the asian and southamerican markets, thereby dont have to follow strict guild lines in these nations and these companies try to brand the same regulations in the US industry to make the export of these goods from the US easier. the national US consumer is thereby burdened with worse becoming standards. This is supported by the republican president Trump and his trade deal with China. A trade deal with the EU would have made a effort for the US agrar sector to make better products to get access to the EU market and thereby higher the food quality in the US.
food is a product, that can be preserved in some form and can stay fresh for some time, thereby need less regulations in trade. It is produced nonlinear by weather influences. these factors support the possibility, that bad or long preserved food actual meaned for southamerica or china, get into US supermarkets, because they were not able to reach these foreign markets in time. you can test it by looking at your food quality dropping in the case of a trade war with china.
i clearly dont speak about american farmers, because these guys are actual most of the time good, they want to produce better products for americans, they want to higher the quality, but they dont have the money to make the investments for better food quality. they have to get money from buisnesses, who demand a followed rule of quality standards and quality reduction to cut costs. most of the times farmers get pressed into debts by these regulations, because they are designt for non-preserving industry. there are allways some idiots, who want to "work with animals". let them work for 5-10 years in a doomed farm system and produce bad products for cheap money. these buisnesses controll the US food productio and they are the main problem of bad US food quality.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim public healthcare was perfrct or just works. The point is its still better than ours here in the U.S. im a type 1 diabetic and I can tell you I have come close to breaking the bank just to get shit I need to stay breathing. Luckily I have good insurance now but a large majority of peopke here are not so fortunate so my point remains.despite its flaws your healthcare beats ours any day.
Update 5/26/2020: haha wow i didn't realize this would get so much attention i havent checked it since i wrote it. Im not gonna read the replies cause theres too many but good day to you all.
One problem in the US is poor life decisions. Not going to college, will mean you like considerably less on average compared to others. Not trying to shit on Blue collars, but if you do try in life, you cn usually like decent money in the US.
@@justintrudeau6599 a problem with that way of thinking is that it ignores or is ignorant *of* key parts of the social landscape of America.
Colleges are so expensive we have people putting off *retirement* to pay off their debts. Obviously that's on the more extreme end, but combine the unreasonable levels of debt you're forced into with the lack of guaranteed prospects with which to pay off that massive debt in order to guarantee it would even be worth anything and you've got a problem that you can't just shrug your shoulders and mumble 'personal responsibility' at and expect to be taken seriously.
And that is completely ignoring the right wingers constant demonization of higher education as 'liberal brainwashing'.
"Luckily I have good insurance now but a large majority of peopke here are not so fortunate so my point remains.despite its flaws your healthcare beats ours any day."
Couple of things you should consider, if you have a moment:
1)Monopsony. If you don't know what that is, it's when the government is the biggest or practically the sole customer of a business. Put simply, if medical equipment is bought chiefly by the government, as it currently is, it's going to be expensive, because the government can afford any price (with your money), which means private business are going to have to raise their prices to stay in business. The cost of equipment affects the price of medical care as a service and commodity. The reason why it's so expensive is *because* of government intervention already; expanding government intervention is only going to make private healthcare affordable exclusively to the rich; as is the case already in Canada and the UK.
2)State lines restricting regions to specific insurers---a corporatist institution, not a capitalist one---also disincentivizes businesses to lower price. Why would they? It's either garbage government healthcare, or what the private insurers are selling, protected by artificial inhibitors on the free market, like a coral of customers with no private alternatives.
3)It's unconstitional. There is no purview granted to the federal government whatsoever to impose or regulate nationalized healthcare. None whatsoever. Not a single solitary clause, Article or Amendment suggests the federal government has any such authority. The State governments, however, can, under the 10th Amendment, but, they shouldn't, because it's immoral to force complete strangers to subsidize your private life.
Justin Trudeau your thinking is trash. Some people just don’t have enough time or money to get into college.
@@justintrudeau6599 yea except 40% of adult americans have graduated college now which is significantly higher than what it used to be. The issue is a lot more complicated than unskilled workers. It's a combination of a transition to a service industry based economy along with the general societal push for everyone to go to college instead of some people going to trade schools. In fact you are probably more likely to make a more consistent better living if you were to go to trade school instead of college.
Austrian here, we have since de-federalized (? is that a word?) our health insurance but since Austria is tiny and our states are super tiny, it should be a bit more efficient now.
I'm pretty happy with and grateful for our healthcare, even though it's not perfect.
It is now
7:12 Hands down the best illustration of the America People I’ve ever seen.
lol
funny how your name is "The Professor" has the profile picture of the dumbest president in the US
@@ihazplawe2503 _incoming angry Trump supporters_
@@sillowillo lol
@@ihazplawe2503 "trump bad 😠😠"
Imagine having to make a GoFundMe, or a beggin campaign (in more accurate words), so you could pay a live or death surgery
@black bear hahahahaha
@black bear no
@black bear Almost like companies having absolute power over prices allows them to manipulate everything
(it is much more complex than that but wanted to make a parody of your comment)
Or watch this right, you could go to a hospital that's shit and have them do it instead, you'd be sweating by the balls before they even start noon
@black bear there is an american video explaining how the american private health care system is more expensive than the european ones.
I dont remember the name but you can find it with "american healthcare more expensive than european"
Ah, a Sugar Tax?
*Just like old times*
Edit: I'm bout to tax anyone liking this comment ;)
Edit: Let me tax you :(
Sugar?
*theres a tax for that*
@@DeWitherWarrior
Comments with an Oversimplified-reference?
*There's a tax for that.*
@@friedibarti8070
Comments referring to a comment with an oversimplified reference ?
*There's a tax for that*
@@awaitingconfirmation8406 Metacommentarry? There’s a tax for that.
Being defended for your own good?
theres a tax for that
Hi Kraut,
My company is a leading provider of clinical insourcing in the UK. We are a private company treating NHS patients in NHS hospitals, when discussing the NHS you missed a few points wildly. Would be happy to discuss in detail the real issues the NHS faces & why it is failing.
You haven’t mentioned an important aspect though: the US spends in health much more than a European countries, in proportion.
Still, its life expectancy is remarkably lower and the public health of the society is lower than in European countries. ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health-expenditure
So Americans spend in reality much more money to get a less healthy population.
The argument of some democrat candidates has been: let’s stop throwing money at big pharma, large insurances or health businesses, and start putting money towards the health of the society.
If they had an “European” system the US would spend a fraction of what they spend now.
Also, a healthier population is less expensive for the state anyway: for example a prevalence of obese people means lots of people with a variety of diseases and disabilities that require assistance, not just someone to pay their hospital bill.
Yea, this guy is out of touch.
Yea I've been to Europe and didn't see a single obese person now that I think about it
@@dram906 Not to mention that in the US, it's expensive trying to eat healthy. If you don't have a good income, it's hard to do.
@@moosesandmeese969 The FDA's lax regulation on the quality of food increases the perceived exclusivity of what would be considered normal quality products in Europe. This drives up costs when suppliers attempt to replicate food of the standard seen in the UK or in European countries, as they must charge higher prices to compete with suppliers who sacrifice quality in production and preparation for increased revenue through the exploitation of the lack of regulation in order to spend as little possible on aspects of food production and supply that are legally required in countries that legislate more stringently.
@@dram906 I've seen borderline obese people in Europe, but very, very rarely a morbidly obese one.