The Capitalist Argument For Universal Healthcare
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 сен 2024
- The reason I didn't go into detail on the OECD data, is because there's just way too much of it. Look at how many metrics there are! www.oecd-ilibr...
-----
Join the community discord! ► / discord
Watch Us LIVE (And Click Dat Sub Button!) ► / gameboomers
GB Archive Channel ► / gameboomer
Dev Kit Channel ► / @thedevkit
SFO Backups Channel ► / channel
-----
SUPPORT THE SHOW:
BTC:bc1q6udqgvfm9uaj59l24ut7f73wvsfu707kk6pn3m
SubscribeStar! ► www.subscribes...
Streamlabs! ► streamlabs.com...
Patreon! ► / shortfatotaku
Paypal! ► paypal.me/short...
Humble Bundle Affiliate Link! ► www.humblebund...
Amazon CAN Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/322aFAa
Amazon USA Affiliate Link! ► amzn.to/30PLxgN
Amazon CAN Wishlist! ► www.amazon.ca/...
Amazon USA Wishlist! ► www.amazon.com...
-----
SFO-CIAL MEDIA! HYUK HYUK
DA TWEETS ► / sfosecretary
DA FACES ► / sfotaku
DA GABS ► www.gab.com/sh...
DA MINDS ► www.minds.com/...
DA PARLERS ► parler.com/pro...
DA STEAMS ► steamcommunity....
-----
Credits:
Thumbnail ► Me!
Background ► / cryomancerlex
Music ► • Parasite Eve OST - Out...
#Healthcare #SinglePayer #Medicare4All
oops one of the captions fucked up, sorry
I'm a free market capitalist REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
I still love you.
healthcare is still a right, the same way roads are a right, because you're transactionally owed it
via social contract, taxes and the exchange of goods for services (political authority for healthcare, freedom, protection, relief, etc)
government only get its power in return for maintaining your rights
all rights are owed to you in exchange for being elected into power
What about other things like fire services
Friendly reminder Dev that the Canadian Healthcare system shifted to explicitly telling people to kill themselves, which you've covered. So you are advocating "treatment" should be doctors ending patients with this.
@@dexterkrammer1089you’re right, the average Frenchman has 3 cigarettes for breakfast whereas the Americans have the McDonald’s menu
The Healthcare market in the US is not deregulated. It's just regulated in the most horrific manner possible.
And by the same people that socialized medicine would give more power to. No thank you to socialize medicine in any regard here. Private isn't perfect but at least I get to opt out of paying should things go south in the company's policy.
That's honestly a key problem. The US is not deregulated, it's actually regulated in the best way to give insurance companies all the leverage in any given transaction, itself a remnant of FDR's threats to businesses that put Obama in the hot seat when it came to his attempts to institute a "universal healthcare system" as he had to contend with decades of unions fighting for insurance benefits subbing for raw pay. (This is because Obama did it all through sanctioned insurance companies to prevent savvy folks from making Cleetus's Descunt Helth Inshurence as a do-nothing plan that filled the mandate requirements. Why any universal system must have an opt-out clause in it.) Honestly, the US DID figure it out in some capacity, Wisconsin has had BadgerCare since before Obama after all, but you'll never find that in numbers by country because any efforts by the states to do this of their own accord won't show up for obvious reasons. The ruler can only measure what the ruler is measuring, I don't blame the OECD or Dev for this, but this probably should be mentioned.
This is why whenever the healthcare debate comes into play, I just plain don't want the US factored in at all. Yes, it sucks, I don't think anyone's defending it as objectively good so much as "not as shit as the others despite reeking like a septic tank," but the US is the partially aborted fetus that somehow didn't die despite a procedure and the mother taking copious amounts of alcohol, cigarettes, and thalidomide. Anything that works about it is despite people's efforts, not because of it, and it's no wonder it's so inefficient with the amount of bastard genes from economic thought it picked up.
Almost all problems in capitalist society are a direct result of bad regulation.
@@feliperisseto9113
/Too much regulation
@@josedorsaith5261 There's a difference?
The biggest hurdle to properly balanced regulation is that congress doesn't have any place for delegislators, only legislators. So outside of the rare instance where someone removes a hundred year old law that everyone agrees is outdated and hasn't been enforced for years just to say they did something, we're paying congressmen for nothing more than to add to regulation.
Nothing is more permanent than a temporary government policy, because no one is there to remove it.
Democrats would cry that its undemocratic to democratically remove legislation that they barely get past the fillabuster.
Delegislators...now that is a word! Good point.
@@TheBestestKitty Based
@@TheBestestKitty bruh what, no? Lmfao
There needs to be an elected delegislation commitee given as much power as parliament. Simple as.
It could lead to grid lock, but that's okay. Let the next election decide whether the people want either side to keep it up, or focus on other issues.
Ehh, Canada.
Your universal healthcare system, when stressed by covid collapsed. You stopped providing services to any care not deemed immediately essential.
Apparently, in a closed system, cancer is not as important as covid. Rationing kicked in.
it's always been like this, too many people to check and many people with issues are overlooked more times than not
That shit still happens in a private healthcare system but instead of collapsing ibuprofen prices rise to 100 bucks a bottle
@sekiro_the_one-armed_wolf $100. Aspirin vs have you tried MAIDS?
... And our drug prices are only high because we have to subsidize your price controls.
@@sekiro_the_one-armed_wolf generics tend to stay pretty cheap. it's the patented stuff that goes up. (which sucks when a generic causes a bad reaction while a branded one doesn't, but them's the apples.)
I don't think a privately owned entity should ever have to compete with a government funded entity.
1. The government entity is never in danger of failing.
2.. Taxation means you are literally funding your direct competitor.
Exactly. The government never just wants a foothold. They want complete usurpation of what they can inch their way in. Give them this inch and they will take the rest. It's not capitalistic or competitive at all as one side will always have a distinct advantage which is unlimited taxpayer dollars whether the taxpayer likes it or not. Privately on entities only get that money if they do a good job otherwise the customer goes elsewhere and deprives them of that revenue. The government will never have an issued finding money where it can to compete with the private sector which will have that issue if it screws up.
I disagree completely.
My disagreement is based on self interest. I will explain:
Where I live, the law mandates vehicle insurance for vehicle owners. Insurance companies are private. When I lived in another region, I paid less than half of what I pay now, despite that area having objectively worse driving outcomes (more crashes, more losses per capita), and despite me now having even more years of immaculate driving performance than when I was paying less. In short, private insurance companies are gouging every driver because they can.
I want a public option. Even if they only price match the private insurance. As is, the government has given private companies the liberty to print money at the individual driver's expense.
If the government can require participation in a given market, they are also beholden to ensure that marketplace does not prey upon its participants. Government-run businesses (what Dev would call a crown corporation, what Brits would likely call a council scheme) are one option to keep a check on that market.
@@Gulgathydra If the insurance mandate is removed, you will get actual competition for insurance AND the removal of regulations will let smaller private insurance co-operatives form (among any other private innovation that you cannot think of).
@@Gulgathydra I disagree. What you ate describing is regulation overreach. Introduce another entity that has Gov backing and it will make a bad situation worse. Remember obama care? Same thing as your anecdote with car insurance. Everything got worse. Everything the gov touches gets bloated and diseased.
@@JT-bc5cd ...and you get a lot of people choosing to drive without insurance.
Two takeaways from this video:
First, you and FreedomToons should debate this in a stream. I feel you would both benefit from that.
Second, any debate over government intervention should begin with trust in government. Your arguments in this video may have merit, but I still wouldn't advocate more control in light of the current government we have. After all, they're already racializing access to other public services. I'd rather not have to deal with that in Healthcare as well.
Well that trust has been shot for quite a while. 2020 up till now is tanked even further.
Yes!
This sums it up exceptionally imo.
Universal health care would be great if it didn't give the government the potential for an obscene amount of leverage over people
They are already denying healthcare services to people who refused to take a certain treatment for a virus. And our legal system couldn't care less about that injustice. Our gov't shouldn't be in charge of anything, because they are failing at the very basics of caring only for Americans, the border, and not spending money we don't have so they can give away money to other countries! Their actions are criminal at best. They all deserve to be put on trial for treason, and other things I can't say in public.
@@remyllebeau77 pretty much
Comparing healthcare to the American military is a really bad idea. Yes, we have the most advanced military in the world. But we literally hemorrhage money into hundreds of failed military contracts every YEAR to do it. And at the end of the day, once the money for military contracts runs out, they're out of money to hemorrhage until the next budget. Probably not sustainable to do that, but in a sector where the need for spending varies based on everything from the price of food to the intensity of the flu this season. Because it'll either run out of funds early on the years we need it most, OR we'll remove the funding cap and just hemorrhage out much like congress is trying to do with stimulus money right now.
Also ignores that military is a competitive market, the competition is other countries militaries. That drives innovation even when its single payer.
And also that the military's budget is due to shitty policies that force them to spend the money or risk losing funding, so it includes them doing shit like buying ludicrously expensive coffee makers almost out of obligation.
Also, idk who the hell believes we have the most advanced military, but we fly 70 year old planes, use guns designed in Vietnam, and have next to no intel sharing capability due to negligence of embracing the Internet. We fucking suck.
The 70 year old planes are top quality cargo planes, the guns designed in Vietnam are modernized to a level where everyone else wants them. I've no idea about intel sharing, but I doubt it's significantly worse than any threat country.
You're missing the point, he made the comparison to illustrate how there is innovation in healthcare (as it is in the military), even when the contractor is public, because the private sector has to compete for the contract.
The US does not have private healthcare, nor does it have socialized healthcare. The US has a chimera of the two where the detriments of both shine.
Healthcare is the US is not "deregulated." It's private with extreme amounts of regulation. The reliance on private health insurance also stems from government regulations.
Exactly, US in general is a mixed market economy and the healthcare system is just littered with regulations that could even be a detriment to innovation though i understand why theyre there.
There are absolutely private practices. You obviously haven't even tried to look for them.
@@SomeCanine I'm well aware of fully private, no-insurance hospitals. They are a small minority in the country.
@@TheKiltedGerman Not just hospitals, Physician practices. They're everywhere.
@@SomeCanine there used to be many more. Private practitioners took a hard hit especially with the Obamacare regulations and many ended up joining one of the large medical conglomerates. They used to be the norm. I wouldn't say, "they're everywhere," when they used to be more everywhere.
Also most healthcare is not an emergency so the notion of it being inelastic is just a thought terminating cliche. The problem is that the government does not allow hospitals to be built as providers would see fit. If they were then you could see providers on every corner.
You cannot price control your way into cheap. Instead you get shortages.
The rest of the developed world has figured out healthcare, it's only the US that is lagging and ripping off its citizens.
@@snuscaboose1942 UK NHS is bloated garbage, Canada has it's fair share of issues... so it's not the rest of the world, it's just different problems
@@snuscaboose1942 demonstrably false
@@gingerbeargames Yet ALL of them are miles better than the US. Nothing is perfect, but the US has the most expensive medical care in the world.
@@snuscaboose1942 also a thought-terminating cliche devoid of any substance. The US has healthcare "figured out" as well as any other or better in many respects such as cancer survival.
My idea of rights starts with the individual. The rights an individual, by themselves has, is base level rights, there can never be any more rights than that.
Precisely. Negative rights are what the government should look out for to protect. F*ck positive rights being covered by the government.
See, thing is, "rights" are a very iffy thing to define, specially when we're trying to claim there's rights inherent to the individual as an unalienable quality.
From my perspective, the individual isn't entitled to anything they don't take themselves or aren't given, which is a view in opposition of "natural rights".
Here's food for thought. You have a right to a lawyer in criminal cases, if you cannot afford, one will be provided. This is a positive right.
@@Kuroda786742 In that case you have possibly done something with the direct result of losing your individual rights.
@@ReformedSauron correct.
in norway we have free healthcare, it's so free it only costs us 50+% of our income in taxes + a 25%tax on ALL purchases, i wish my healthcare was less free....
Dane here, so likely very similar in comparison.
If you take a look at the actual tax expenditure (I'm sure Skatteetaten makes yearly figures like Skat in Denmark), you'd see it's a comparatively tiny amount compared to pension/student payouts and redistribution of kommune (and Fylke? "Regioner" in Denmark) money to poorer parts of the country for schools and infrastructure. My biggest peeve with free healthcare is that people with life-style diseases get too much care.
It's always nice to not pay for health care until you need it. I agree it's expensive but there's a logic behind the cost (most notably the doctors and their years of studies to provide you with a reliable service). I'm not norwegian but, as a frenchman, i think our taxes are comparable. Again i don't think it's perfect but i do believe it's a good system... even though i think some of the taxes could be reduced.
It’s like social security in the United States. You pay into a system your entire life that you can withdraw from when you’re 63. It was created when the average life expectancy was 64.
"If you have a cancer and the cure is 1000 dollars you'll want to live..."
Bold assumption on your part Dev.
I mean stage 1 or maybe stage 2 cancer I'll want to live. If it's already at stage 3 or 4 well, I'm not sure the cure is worth it
Cancer also can’t be cured for a thousand. The medical cabal effectively ensures it costs tens of thousands for anything. Breast cancer is a classic. Remove the boob. Doses of chemo. Put a silicone miracle back on there. That shouldn’t be more than 5000 bucks. Go under the knife twice, plus poison. If you can’t pay that under a single payer system... hell, steal the tech and reverse engineer. A sovereign nation can do such things legally 😉
Some would even pay 1000 dollars to just die of the cancer.
@@cherubin7th Some people subscribe to Hasan Piker's twitch for years, spending hundreds of dollars specifically to intentionally die of cancer
@@cherubin7th you'd pay 1000?
Hayek's argument sounds like an argument for universal "emergency" healthcare specifically. Unfortunately state run healthcare systems are more or less a subject of political debate by their very nature, and in case of US hyperpoliticization of such matters, it would be doomed to turn into a tug of war between the "emergency healthcare" option and an "extreme comprehensive" option covering everything even remotely related to healthcare, from predictable voluntary lifestyle disease effects, through birth control, to psychological consueling about feeling shamed for practicing disease causing lifestyles.
Oddly enough, the US already has universal emergency healthcare in practice if not on paper. If a homeless person is found stabbed, they will be taken to a hospital and treated even if everyone knows they have no chance of paying or having insurance. In such cases, the cost will inevitably go to the state. It's weird and inefficient.
There is emergency care. People didn’t know this? Emergency care without insurance is definitely a thing that happens.
Hayek's point falls flat on its' face when you look at the marginal propensity to consume with regards to non-emergency healthcare. When people don't have to pay to get their sunburn checked for cancer, they are more likely to do so. The argument holds in cases of emergency care, where you're no more likely to go get checked out for your broken leg if you don't have to pay; you either have a broken leg and go get checked out, you you don't and you don't.
My guess is that there is some kind of vernacular disconnect from Hayek's time to ours, or it could have just been a misspeak.
@@TheArmin Yeah, Hayek wasn't as great as the likes of Mises and Rothbard unfortunately
“It’s funny, if you ask your average American socialist if they want Canadian style healthcare, they’ll say-“
Ad: “I think we’ve opened the gates of hell”
Lmao
The Japanese system is nice, but most of the countries with robust public Healthcare also have robust immigration policies.
You can't offer a certain level of Healthcare at no or little cost and not expect foreigners from exploiting a taxpayer based system, that they don't pay into.
I forget which economist said it, but there's a quote along the lines of "you can have a welfare state or mass immigration, but you can't have both."
@@christinesarkis4029 In border towns and cities, hospitals have to write off visits from Mexico as it is..
The anchor baby situation is also pretty bad as well.
Since Covid hit, people have been going to the US for treatment as Mexico's Healthcare system couldn't keep up.
Don't forget, the population also has less preexisting health condition (i.e. obesity)
A massive problem in the UK at the moment. Uncontrolled immigration is destroying the National Health Service there, that and the general lack of GPs.
Fun fact japanese healthcare is mostly private. Only elementary school and younger kids receive govt healthcare, everyone else has to pay for their own care directly to doctor/hospital, instead of going through the unnecessary bloat of private insurance.
Speaking purely pragmatically, it doesn't work. We tried it in three different states already; Massachusetts, Colorado, and Bernie Sanders' homeland the Soviet Union, oops I mean Vermont. All three states ended up scrapping it because it was unaffordable. Very shocking, NOT. Socialized healthcare only works in countries where they are subsidized by the United States. Subsidized in more ways than one. Firstly, through the military budget and the money saved on the money that they would have spent on their military but don't because they're within the United States' hegemony and sphere of protection. Secondly, through innovation, both technological and pharmaceutical. Most groundbreaking technologies that have happened are thanks to private businesses and pretty much all came from the US. We make the tech, you guys simply take it. Even worse is Drug Pharmaceuticals where the formulas are stolen and made cheaply in China and then sold back to our so-called allies at a much cheaper price. We do the innovation, we do the funding, and these socialized healthcare systems only work because they're in the vacuum of the American Hegemony. Once you actually try it in America it will fail because there is no country that subsidizes the US. US citizens subsidize the US with a massive amount of debt. All it would do is add on tens of trillions of dollars of debt.
Interesting point about the military, and I haven't heard much about those three states' attempts, though Dev addresses the innovation thing. (10:14) His source suggests that innovation is proportional to a nation's GDP. Unless you're suggesting that the American market drives international innovation, which... doesn't sound *too* improbable.
@@cloakbackground8641 Well you don’t hear much about those states attempts because they failed. Lol. They’re criticism was that “we need to do it nationally or else it won’t work”. If fucking Norway or Finland can do it, then the population of Colorado can do it. But it can’t, because it’s Unaffordable.
they haven't "tried" it whatsoever. They cannot truly try it until the federal government allows them to force scamming insurance companies out of buisness. Obamacare forces each consumer to buy an "insurance plan", either the government's or private entity's. Simply making the government cover the cost should they choose a private plan, doesn't solve anything. Of course the prices are gonna be ridiculous. Either the state covers the entire ridiculous bill, and the project "fails" as you claim, or they don't cover the ridiculous bill, and the consumer ends up in medical bankruptcy, neither is a win. Insurance companies with various plans to choose from simply don't exist under true universal healthcare. There's no middlemen that drive up the prices. So please, stop gaslighting, it has not been tried in the US. The legal infrastructure simply is not in place for it to be tried yet.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter your solution is garbage and you show your true colors by starting with "ban private insurance" because you don't want your failed ideas to have any competition or ability to opt out. The government is just as much of a middle man as any insurance company, and it's more expensive than private parties. You don't have a leg to stand on morally or pragmatically.
@@ExPwner how could government insurance possibly be more expensive? There's no marketing. no HR department. no huge legal team that has to assess claims and disputes. How the fuck is it a middleman when it's all automatic? whatever healthcare provider you choose, they have to pay taxes and whatever else anyway. You sound like a troll at this point if you are gonna deny all of it.
We have welfare healthcare. Its as good as anything else thats free.
It's most certainly not free. Lol
More like "it's as good as anything else the government runs" which is to say inefficient, expensive and sub par.
Yeah, healthcare that's only paid for if you are in poverty. Good luck crawling out of poverty if you're dependant on government assistance to not die of a chronic disease. Universal healthcare is the ONLY kind of government funded healthcare that makes any sense, the ONLY type of government funded healthcare that doesn't punish people for trying to better themselves.
@@Nukestarmaster Whats funny as that everyone here thinks Im American & talking about medicaid for welfare, but Im Canadian, & Im telling you the quality of our healthcare is welfare tier. Id rather have better care I have to pay for.
@@LucVNO You're an idiot then. The US does not have any better health care, despite it costing multiple times more.
Fun fact, most of the time when you see someone posting a receipt of a US hospital bill, its usually from a hospital which is sitting in a state and city which has multiple different regulations which drives up costs, most of the time the costs are very manageable and can live off of
“Healthcare is expensive, we need to start a bureaucracy that costs 1 billion yearly to find out why, and we will offset the costs by making the hospitals pay for the officials they are legally required to have”
“Weird, prices went up, better regulate more”
Zilla?
@@AverusMuto do i know you?
@@thegamingzilla6269 you remind me of a person. He made a world with lizards.
@@AverusMuto thats prolly me then
my main problem with the concept of "universal" healthcare is that no country that is used as an example for "universal" healthcare has in fact universal healthcare. they have "socialized healthcare" for basic needs but plenty of things arent covered from dental problems to chronic pain treatment etc.
No. Just no. The current pandemic put this argument to the rest. I don't want state absolutely anywhere near my health.
You mean the American healthcare system handling the pandemic quite possibly the worst out of the developed nations? that same pandemic where nations that have a functional healthcare system have managed to handle shit shitstorm significantly better? That pandemic?
@@nikoclesceri2267 Yep.
@@agaith4797 they handled it better? didnt tons of ppl die cause they couldnt get access due to state saying the first priority is covid? wasnt there a report that in canada, tons of ppl who were diagnosed with cancer or other illnesses werent allowed to get treatment and etc leading to tons of ppl dying?
This, they can't even handle things without grifting for money and power.
@@qwertyman321 Including in healthcare. Socialized medicine is a trap.
I work in the American health insurance industry, and I definitely agree that our healthcare system needs a drastic rework. The way that healthcare providers bill insurance for services rendered is downright ridiculous. Here's what happens when your doctor sends a claim to the insurance company:
The doctor basically just makes up a number that they want to be paid. Sometimes this number is reasonable, but often times it's around 3-5 times what your insurance will actually pay the provider. When your insurance receives the claim, if we have a contract with the provider, we do the bureaucratic equivalent of telling the doctor "No, that number is stupid, we're going to pay you the rate that's agreed upon in your contract." If your doctor is scrupulous, they'll just accept that they're getting paid the amount they're contracted to be paid, but there are plenty out there who will send you a bill for the difference between what your insurance paid and what the doctor wants to be paid: this is called balance billing. If the doctor is in your network and you suspect they're balance billing you, call up your insurance plan and they'll call your doctor up and tell them to knock it off. If the doctor ISN'T in your network, then you're effectively screwed: they have no contractual obligation to accept that your insurance has paid them enough and they can hold you responsible for anything your insurance doesn't pay. Sometimes an out of network provider will relent if they realize you're poor and can't possibly pay the ridiculous sum of money they're asking for, but this isn't always the case. This is why it's important to stay within your network as much as possible in America
You are describing fraud with extra steps. Name another professional that gets to literally fill out a blank cheque and send it to the bank to see if they will pay.
Why are there no publicly known rates? Every other industry has well known standard rates. A car mechanic is not going to charge 200 an hour. They are not able to claim they spent 5 hours on an oil change either.
The fact that the insurance company has a standard rate they will cover means this information is known.
Make it public. Hot take. Every doctor is registered by a central body. Their licence is revocable if they are committing low key profiteering like this. If they don’t want to be doctors anymore, well fuck I don’t want to drive a forklift anymore either 😂 too bad so sad.
@@Xplora213 I definitrly think that's a good idea. Thing is, rates are negotiated by insurance companies. It's easier for Medicare and Medicaid, since those are federal and state health insurance respectively, and the government does set rates for what they'll pay for covered services there, but not all services are covered by medicare and medicaid (like acupuncture, for example). Private insurance needs to negotiate their own rates with the doctors they contract, and it's not typically standard across every office or hospital. Larger hospital networks have more negotiating power and can demand higher rates. The whole system's a mess
@@distance7721 well that’s my point. The negotiations are quite simple. The insurance company says we pay this for each service and then tell the doctor to fuck off. If the doctor has sold a service covered by insurance, they are implicitly accepting a flat rate.
Australia is largely single payer and many doctors are entirely covered by Medicare standard rates. If they keep their costs down, doctors can make good money like that.
Ultimately there is information available to reduce abuse In the system. We can’t overlook this rank insanity because no other profession can do it. Or just remind people of their first and second amendment rights to disagree and enforce their views. 💡
@@Xplora213 The problem with strongarming doctors too hard under the common system is that it just incentivizes doctors to not contract with insurance companies. This would lead to insurance companies simply ablating medical costs instead of covering them. As an example, say a provider wants to bill $1k for medical services, but contracts with an insurance company to only get paid $100. If we try and force the prov to take less money for that service, they might just decide to end their contract with us, at which point they can still bill $1k, and we'd still only pay $100, but then the member's on the hook for $900, which isn't good for the customer
I don't trust the US to become a single-payer health provider at this point, because if we did, one of two things would need to happen: Medicare would either need to cover everything, or patients would be severely limited in the medical services they actually receive because there's a LOT of stuff that Medicare doesn't cover right now. If I know the US government, they're more likely to go with the latter of those two options. Just imagine for a second that the entire US dental industry goes kaput overnight because everyone's now on Medicare and dental isn't covered
The insurance industry isn't as callous as a lot of people believe. I've definitely seen some horror stories first-hand of people getting the run-around for necessary services, and I've been on calls with suicidal people trying to schedule them an appointment with a psychologist as quickly as possible to save their lives. But at the end of the day, even if it's purely out of self-interest, insurance companies want to keep patients healthy. If you want to look at the system through a purely cynical lens, it costs an insurance company less to make sure that you're getting your medical issues taken care of early so that they don't balloon into massive hospitalization costs. You should also keep in mind, though, that insurance companies are staffed by human beings, and most human beings want to help each other
Every insurance company has a Fraud, Waste and Abuse department to prevent our members from getting ripped off. We don't just log things, either: we work with law enforcement to take down doctors who are trying to scam the vulnerable. I remember there was this one time a few years back that my company was working with state police to help shut down a money laundering operation for the Russian mafia. We do get stuff done, we do look out for our patients, but I think that doctors and hospitals need tighter regulations around how they're allowed to bill members. Some sort of publicly available fair pricing index or something like that would go a long way to giving patients leverage for knowing if their doctor's trying to tip them off
i heard another reason for doctors asking for a high rate at first is because insurance companies don't want to part with their money so they have to ask high inorder to get companies to agree to a regular price, of course that wouldn't stop them from trying to get extra
Waiting for health-care here in Canada is a pain in the freaking ass. Making an appointment through the phone bc of this pandemic is worst bc it's always busy.
Idk man, I really don't know anymore. I am for medical care for everyone because that's the progressive part in me talking, but it's souring slowly since I'm more of a moderate now.
Edited for clarifying distancing myself from the left.
It would be *nice* if it was possible
But you know wishful thinking and whatnot
Same in the UK. I'm literally organising private insurance for my family as we speak
This is when someone shouts “that’s for elective surgeries, not emergency!” How do you often diagnose something before it becomes an emergency? That elective surgery you can’t get for 18 months. Shame that cancer was treatable 12 months ago.
Look up France or Taiwan
theres 3 types of healthcare systems:
1. gov monopoly (Spain) = waiting lists
2. gov regulated (US) = prices skyrocket
3. mostly private and unregulated = affordable and no waiting
When there's a government monopoly the prices tend to skyrocket as well, but the prices are just better hidden. We call that inflation/taxes. All the nordic countries and the benelux have higher general living costs than the US in spite of its "expensive healthcare"
Healthcare just seems like a mess in general weather it’s private or public
The US is a bastard, fetal-alcohol-syndrome-suffering thalidomide baby of a system. It just shouldn't be a part of the conversation because I don't even think the most libertarian of libertarians would genuinely defend it without several critical changes. We all agree it's shit, just opposed on how to make it un-shit.
@@harleymitchelly5542 I would just completely tear it down and start over from scratch.
Healthcare used to be a trade craft like an electrician or plumber. Look at your local dentist office, that used to be how the majority of doctors operated as individual or small private practices. This made them tied to their local community and very sensitive to people's needs rather than profit.
@@tann_man No, slash-and-burn reform can be found anywhere, and the short-term costs of that are something I, as a Libertarian with many an axe to grind with government programs, am deeply aware of. I'm honestly in the same camp as him on healthcare, the US system is so completely buttfucked at this point there is nothing to salvage. You have to repeal the program entirely if you want to do anything at all with it at this point.
That part about the care being compatible is patently false. There are cancers with a 99% mortality rate in Europe that have a 45% mortality rate in the US. It’s no coincidence that people from Canada and Europe come to the US for medical treatment if the cause is important enough.
Not just because of the substandard care in Europe and Canada. The government may decide that your condition isn't worth treating or is too expensive and just let you die. As the old adage goes: the only way to negotiate is to be willing to walk away. While most people won't be willing to just walk on the issue of their health, the government doesn't give you a seat at the table during the negotiations.
Which cancers are those?
Lmao what cancers are those
This seems right, but you can’t just dump a massive claim then leave...
Data please
There was a point in my younger years when I chose to go without health insurance.
Because I saw the odds of myself getting sick were low and I had other ventures I wanted to spend my money on.
Theoretically, I would be less resistant a state run insurance program if I have the freedom to opt out.
Otherwise, my feeling is “Piss off.”
Do you feel the same way about the police or the fire service? I never really understand this distinction that people make between healthcare and the other emergency services. You could equally argue that the likelihood of my house burning down is vanishingly small so I don't need the fire service. When you get old, when you will probably need a massively disproportionate amount of healthcare. If the only people to pay into it are the sick, then healthcare could never financially work. Honestly, I think that the distinction between how people feel in the US and most of Europe is that Europeans may bitch and moan about the cost etc of their universal healthcare (it is a national pastime in the UK), they fundamentally understand that it is a necessary public good and ultimately worth the pain.
@@skelband .
It is in a public interest to have fire departments because fires have wiped out a cities in history.
It is also in the public’s interest to have police and prisons departments because society will always have a subsection of the population in that has no qualms about using violence against anyone else. They’ll eventually turn where ever they are living into their own fiefdoms.
The first example can wipes out a society and the other isn’t a free society.
A society can exist without a government run health insurance.
So it comes down to what a people value.
If responsibility and being free to choose are incredibly high on the list of hierarchy of values, then a mandatory insurance program is going to be repugnant. Hence my reaction of “Piss off.”
@@IamRayson A plague wiped out 50% of Europe so there is a justification for having some kind of organisation to healthcare that has some universality. The coof took American healthcare on the back foot because there is no infrastructure to deal with such a massive rollout of vaccines. I dunno. I get the freedom argument that many in the US have about the issue. In Europe and Canada we just have a different perspective. As an Englishman I feel empathy for my fellow brothers and sisters and that's a very European perspective. I just wish our brethren in the US could be a bit more community minded, and for some basic things put aside the "me first, fuck everyone else" attitude that seems so pervasive there. They don't seem to understand that we *want* our universal healthcare, despite the fact that we do bitch about it and we have massive buyin to the concept.
@@skelband ah the typical high moral ground mindset
@@skelband Does not work in a multicultural hellhole. It's a beautiful idea that everybody would love and understand each other equally, but that's not how humans work. We are all different with different needs, we gravitate towards the people who are similar to us. What do you expect to happen when you put people with different ethnicity, religion, language, manners, history in the same spot and tell them "play nicely and understand each other". "Piss off", that's what going to happen, real fast.
The problem with your argument (if you COULD call it a problem) is that every point you make except for the elasticity position essentially has the underlying premise of "government involves itself therefore this is a no".
However, I think the inelasticity argument (using it only occasionally) is ABSOLUTELY the most important one, because there would effectively be no economic benefit of having a medical system because it would be impossible to predict income. The ability to predict regular income is the most important part of financing, and without it medical establishments would almost always be super high risk and super low reward. Your best bet would be to "go where the sick people are" and upon making those people healthy, well, your revenue will dry up.
The American system is not deregulated, it is just horribly regulated. More to the point, it forces everyone to use a portion of their earnings NOT related to taxes to pay every single insurance company so that the insurance can use it to pay a PORTION of medical costs.
To be fair in the USA the market is only inelastic bc the credit system is in shambles, if people couldn't borrow infinite ammounts of money prices would be much more elastic, because as per definition, demand is willingness and abbleness to pay
Public healthcare is a huge problem and it will not end the way you want it to.
We have to understand that systems with general purposes often will fail due to the problem with generalizing. Imagine you have a car, a car gets you from point a to b, and often times only on specially built roads. This allows cars to specialize in that one thing and make them cheap enough to develop to be useful. However, if you branch that car to do other things, like say go into combat, then suddenly that car will need to have other features to it. Sometimes you can get away with it, like in the Toyota wars where they could mount AA guns on trucks, but those cases are rare and even then still sacrifice the potential of the truck to move things from point a to b. You can't really carry your lumber supplies if the suspension is being brought down by a 5mm cannon.
Governments function the same way, they specialize in one thing, maybe two, and excel doing those things. In this case it's maintaining law and order. Some people might disagree with that specific function, but at the end of the day the function of government is a specific thing. Healthcare is outside of the purpose of government, and that logic cannot be isolated. If you accept that the government should manage the healthcare of the citizens through it's own brand or through legal wizardry, then it logically follows that anything related to the well being of the citizenry is also on the table. This means that other goodies such as welfare can be argued for and if enough people say yes then they get it. This leads to what we have right now in the USA: A section of the populous who does not care about the longevity of the country and instead focuses on how much they would like a check from their government, "free healthcare" and so on.
Ultimately, governments that have too many purposes will collapse because the more complex a system is, the more ripe for abuse it is. Abuse in this case isn't just abuse of the system, but the corruption of its maintainers, such as politicians. You're trying to save your cake and eat it at the same time and that's not how these things work. If your political philosophy points in one direction, but you still believe that it's possible to do it, then there is an internal contradiction within your moral structure.
The problem for the US systems is for some bizarre reason people seem to believe that the thing the government excels in is logistical support.
You had me until you said you couldn’t carry lumber with a 5mm cannon. That’s loser talk and I won’t have it. #ohwhatafeelingtoyota 🥰
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe That's kinda the point of States dude. They aren't supposed to be just provinces under the jurisdiction of the Fed but their own, semi-selfsustaining microstates.
We fucked that up royally by allowing ourselves to view it any other way.
I'm currently reading "The Road To Serfdom" so this is nice coincidence.
People saying yes to wanting a healthcare system like Canada's have not experienced Canada's healthcare service.
Having known many docs and public health officials who have fled the Great White North this is much the case for physicians and patients alike.
@@fat_2627 don't be a psyche in Canada the work hours are insane
People who act like the American system is better have clearly never gotten a 25,000$ bill for having a baby in a hosptial.
People who act like the American system is better have clearly never gotten a 25,000$ bill for having a baby in a hospital.
@@airlesscanvas6425average cost for vaginal delivery is around 13k without insurance in the USA, it’s way cheaper with insurance though. It’s not going to cost 25k as long as you aren’t staying in the hospital for 2 months.
Each time I was really sick, the hospital put me in a corner and make me wait. I just get better by myself each time. Welcome in the Canadian healthcare system.
In the US you die if you don't pay, but in Canada you die while waiting for your treatment and you pay taxes for it.
Yep.
I'd rather take the loan out to buy my expensive health than die waiting on it "for free"
You wont be put on a waiting list with massive internal hemorrhaging you nutter. Thats the reason you`re waiting so long for more minor issues.
@@grapenut6094 There are lots of patients who have died or had their conditions made worse waiting for spot in public health que.
In reality in the US if you don't pay you just negotiate with the hospital or doctor and find either a payment plan that you can afford or enroll in a charity system to cover the costs. Most hospitals in the US have charity systems for low income people that cover the costs and act as a tax write off for the hospital.
"Patents are good, they allow discoveries"
Yeah, right.
There is a word for compelling someone to labor for you - slavery.
I'm not sure I follow this, doctors in universal healthcare systems are still paid but it's a salary rather than billing patients directly. It's not very different from going to a place with service, like a restaurant, and having people work for you there.
If health care is free, demand for health care increases. The number of doctors (charitably) stays the same, so there is less overall medical care to go around. To solve this, you have to either have very slow medical care (see: Canada/UK), encourage people to kill themselves when the get sick (see: Canada), or force people to be doctors against their will, which is where the slavery comes from.
Medicine is human labor. It is not infinite, it's bounded. No one can ever have a right to human labor for this reason.
But this is not compelling doctors to work, not anymore than we compel firefighters or police to work.
@@airlesscanvas6425how
You still cant provide a National system, especially for places like Philly, it does not work in places that are that de civilized and corrupt. There was a reason why we called the Swedish block heads when they came here, they could be duped so easily. In Nordic countries they have self checkout-no security-no employee stores, ours, as San Fran has shown, are different.
America is the irl equivalent of a Minecraft anarchy server
100%.
Sweden (and by extension the other Nordic Countries) get to have nice things because they have rational mature conversations about what their taxpayers can actually afford.
Their elder pensions, for example, are pegged to the overall performance of the economy which means that when COVID hit, older Swedes had to tighten their belts a bit. There were no riots/protests/name-calling because their was a general understanding of the limitations of the social safety net.
That sort of response would never happen here in the US.
@@longshot574 pensions have to be indexed to life expectancy. The original pension was only supposed to cover the final 2-3 years of the average life. Now, it’s normal to survive 20 years on it.
@@theicelandicnationalist2.023 helps when it's a low-trust society. As for why the US is low-trust... well, I could give my opinion but Susan probably wouldn't like it.
@@theicelandicnationalist2.023 How we like it, Guns Gas and God, a man dont ask for things here, he take a look around and say, thank you god!!! Please dont visit American cities, go to our parks, its amazing
My old Freedom Toons LASIK eye surgery senses are tingling at these sketchy statistics.
While my girlfriend was visiting her uncle in Canada pre-covid she went to the hospital short of breath with a high fever and lethargy.
After waiting seven hours she saw a doctor for five minutes who told her she just needs rest and to take some low dose ibuprofen.
When she came home a week later she still felt horrible.
I took her to my doctor here in the US and had him see what she needed.
They caught her Leukemia and got her treatment instantly. I'll take anything other than the Canadian system (In its current form)
(She is from Quebec, Quebec City to be specific)
apart from the seven hour wait, doctors miss diagonsing usually happens alot its pretty annoying not usually only a candian thing as sometimes ive had to wait months just for a simple diagnose from a doctor
If nothing else, privatized healthcare would make more people think more about their health because if they don't they're gonna have to pay to fix it.
10:30 Nope. So much nope. Space exploration has completely stagnated till it was privatized. Don't get me started on military tech.
Space exploration wasn't privatized, it was publicized. SpaceX's profitable missions were paid for by NASA.
The reason space exploration stagnated was because of the UN treaty stating no government or corporation can own any part of space. With no profit motive and no cold war motive, there was no motive sufficient to overcome the literal cost of entry in space exploration.
You want to spend ten billion dollars on what? Going to Mars and bringing back some rocks that you can't even sell? _Grant Request Denied_
@@Gulgathydra the very fact that people listen to the unelected UN is a joke. Sovereign nations of the highest legal authority anything supranational disdains that kind of thing. Private space programs all the way. NASA was only ever meant to be a starting point it is now for all intents and purposes defunct in space missions. The UN can collapse for all I care.
@@ReformedSauron
I'm not disagreeing with you on either NASA or the UN.
Although I will say that we *do* need a world government. Some organization that keeps things in check. The UN is the reason no one owns the Antarctic; the UN is the reason there is a nuclear non-proliferation pact, the UN is the source of the UDHR, which is the only argument _for_ human rights and dignity that can be made against nations that do not hold the same values as yours (if they are a UN member who signed the UDHR).
Sadly, the UN does nothing, except put misogynists "in charge" of women's rights and misanthropes "in charge" of human rights. If the UN meant anything they would be doing whatever is necessary to stop China from developing more nukes.
@@Gulgathydra even if the UN weren't caught up and all the progressive BS they would still be supernational and therefore opposed to the idea of sovereign states in the long run should it gain more power. There is no such thing as United world in spirit so therefore there shouldn't have such a thing be a United world in government. World government is the perfect way to get in the foot in the door for a global tyranny instead of a patchwork of free and not free. I do however understand you're trying to be civil and I'm sorry if I sound pointed.
@@ReformedSauron
World government is not about world governing, so much, more world oversight. It's not about uniting the world, it's about setting standards and holding all nations to them. This can only be done through hegemony or cooperation with enforcement.
Why we don't have slavery anymore? _World hegemony_ (Britannia ruled the seas, and stopped the slave trade). Why aren't all nations nuclear nations? _Cooperation_ (the nations all just agreed not to). The reason Stuxnet was arguably justifiable? _Enforcement_ (Iran agreed not to build nukes, now tries to).
The reason Trump negotiated with North Korea to stop them from making nukes? Cooperation... N. Korea was not included in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and has never signed it. It is not justifiable to enforce the treaty on them because they never agreed to and signed the treaty (the only country not to, interestingly).
If we want to keep a handle on global matters, like polluting the oceans, we need an international authority. The only two options I see are cooperation with enforcement and a global hegemony. And with America waning in power, I'm not sure I want a hegemony...
I live in the UK and have been getting chronic Headaches since June 2020. I got one appointment with a NHS doctor in July where they told me to keep a diary of my symptoms and come back in a few mounts. I have been ignored ever since, and every time I go to the clinic to pick up (unrelated) medication; the car park is always nearly empty.
Having to wait 15 months (and counting) to see a doctor has really turned me against public health care. I get the impression that the NHS doesn't care about their patients because they'll just get paid by the government no matter how lazy or incompetent they are. Really wish the public was opt-in so people could individually choose if they want lower taxes but no free healthcare, instead the NHS just pisses away public taxes on diversity commissars.
I had my run in with the oh so "praised"NHS myself.
About 2 years ago I was bleeding out of my ass naturally I ran across the road to my clinic that was across the street, not only I had to wait for near 2 hours with only one dude in the waiting room. But the absolute bellend of a "doctor" just told me "you need lifestyle change". And with that out the door. I catch a taxi to a&e there they just tell me go see my GP. Like what the actual fuck?
Thankfully no issue came from it and by the next day it was over but still wtf
I think communal support for the random suffering of members, is a good thing. I also think that it cannot be done in such a way that forces everyone to pay in because that is not communal support, but instead just another form of forced money taking. Insurance can often go unclaimed mind you.
@@electricfishfan yeah pretty much. Guess what. We had that. Shriners Hospitals were a pretty good example of how well that works, but look where they are now since the institution of our current system.
My primary issue with universal healthcare is that it wouldn't replace a current tax, it would just be yet another tax on top of everything else
@@MidlifeCrisisJoe Obama, the Illinois Democrat, was considered an outsider?
Hayek didn't support universal healthcare, you sure you read that right?
Insurance is just a private bureaucracy that often doesn't even provide the benefit it's supposed to
Rights are things that are intrinsic to humans so healthcare cannot be a right, the whole point of human rights is that the government can't take them away from you without undoing your humanity.
Correct it is not a right, it should however be an entitlement (or a positive right.). We don't have the right for someone to put out fires or someone to protect use from a home invader. However we are entitled to someone doing that free of charge. (The fire department and police respectively.)
Every now and then you give us a video that really drives home exactly how Canadian you are, lol. Like, no joke, I could hear 'Oh Canada' playing while you extolled the wisdom of a decentralized single-payer system.
Good video, and good primer on the issue. There are points I'd respectfully disagree with, but probably more that I think are valid.
Appreciate you bro, Stay Awesome
I think exclusive patents are bad, where you have a monopoly (basically defeats the capitalist argument), but open or royalty patents are good, where if someone uses your "patent" to produce a good, they have to pay royalties to you. This way, it can allow people to innovate or use the patent to create cheaper forms, while the creator still gets to benefit from their creation.
Which is why most pharmaceutical companies are filing their patents in China. China actually enforces their own patents while stealing everyone else’s.
A person or company having exclusive rights to their own product is anti-free market? You telling them you have any rights to their product, is anti-free market. The US doesn’t enforce patent or copyright laws very well. China does, and that’s why companies are moving there.
“I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” -J. Wellington Wimpy
He’s just not around on Tuesdays.
🎩
🐍 no step on Snek! 🇺🇸🇭🇰
The US has a well established track record of doing things bigger and better when they put their minds to it. Why they haven't done this with universal healthcare is a plain baffling.
10:45 It isn't so much about competitive advantage, so much as the fact that without us, everyone else's system will stagnate too cause they just leech off our effort.
This is true
This can’t be overstated enough. American military spending allows all those western countries to spend money on healthcare as well. Imagine New Zealand trying to maintain a carrier fleet against China and Indonesia (and Australia!) with their current interests in lockdown over economics.
Yes! This is what a lot of people criticizing America do not understand. They should be careful what they wish for. It's not nearly as cut and dry as people think it is.
My most clear concern with public healthcare is that it seems likely to make my private health into a public issue. I'm already upset with how that's happening today. It's even brought up in Kraut's "What Americans dont understand about Public Healthcare"
dev: government is dumb and poorly run
dev: government should manage our healthcare
me: you roll in from stupid town buddy?
Canaderp, land of logical non sequiturs
i didn't say manage, nor would i have
@@ShortFatOtaku you wish for them to manage the money for a healthcare plan. If the government has shown anything it's that they can't manage money. Don't get me wrong dude I love your videos I watch every single one the second they come out. But government is so incompetent no matter who's in charge.
Edit: typo
@@ShortFatOtaku "I didn't say manage it, but I want the government to do what everything managing means and not call it managing"
As a Canadian, I would LOVE for our neighbors to the south to figure this one out in a way that benefits everyone and doesn't become "a backslide into communism"
It really makes me laugh that as a conservative that so many on my side of the political divide view healthcare as the same grocery’s or car insurance.
The “snake oil” argument is also just ignorant and lazy. This is vastly overstated.
Nah.
@@ShortFatOtaku yes, it is overstated. I tried to link to a Mises article detailing the history of this and contrasting it with the failures of government regulation but that got deleted. It's titled "Government Codes vs Innovation."
I spent 20 years in the pharmaceutical/healthcare industry, and this video is an excellent primer of the economics around healthcare markets.
I don't know if you have an economics or business background, but this was a good essay.
13:02 It's almost like the problem is the insurance model or something...
In which case perhaps government is not the answer. The answer rather maybe reform of private insurance and leave it at that.
precisely. Private insurance for primary care isn't even a thing in nordic countries.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter Private or public isn't the point. The issue is the separation between the service provider and the client. That middle-man layer of the insurance/subscription is warping the pricing mechanics.
I will grant you that if it's a mandatory layer, making it subscription style, as in the Nordic countries, as opposed to insurance style, as in the US is the lesser of 2 evils.
An interesting take to be sure, but I can see where it's coming from. At the end of the day, if you wanted a system to provide care to people without the government or the market getting in the way, you'd need to go into solving it from the perspective of seeing both the money-making side and the regulatory side as equally valid and work from there.
Note that I know next to nothing about how the Canadian healthcare system functions, but if what you say is true about it, then I obviously shouldn't be saying it's the worst on the planet. Granted, things can always improve, and I think we can all agree that the universal healthcare that Lefty crazies advocate for is coming from a very different starting point than the average person.
This is the standard centrist argument for it, which I disagree still. But nonetheless interesting to hear
A lot of his assumptions was build and faulty logic so he can look like he's super smart. It's nearly all bad understanding or strawman.
@@Skorch88 Yeah, he does that often. He’s good at setting these videos up in a way that seems logical. In reality, you can make anything seem logical and sound, even communism.
He never discusses any critical flaws in capitalism, like mass homelessness, severe poverty(because of corporations going overseas), terrible infrastructure, and city maintenance(flint water pipes).
He never talks about good policies that have been labeled as socialist. He only discusses any socialist’ idea within the idea of pure socialism. For example, rehabilitation for drug addicts. He would tie that into full on socialism. Or having extended health care after quitting a job or paycheck protection for a few months. Stronger unions. All of these would only be discussed under the broader definition of socialism from what I’ve seen.
To be fair, I haven’t seen much. I also agree with a lot of what he says, but I also disagree with much of what he says.
The idea of demand being as being infinite as "till death" never crossed my mind. Changed my whole perspective.
This is a complete list of all the valid capitalist arguments for socialist healthcare:
Yes.
@@ReformedSauron I unironically agree whole-heartedly.
Single-payer and universal healthcare are not exclusively socialist concepts, did you watch the video? In the US you pay twice as much as the rest of the developed world for a worse service.
@@snuscaboose1942 Twice the price? It's several times more than that, but the quality, both in terms of the overall quality of care, as well as wait times, are on par with, if not exceeding most other nations, and most certainly BTFO Canadian healthcare. Take it from a guy who has spent a considerable amount of time as a hospital patient, mostly in America, but also abroad, the treatment of patients is not what is lacking in American healthcare.
A reasonable argument for a universal healthcare system.
I get uncomfortable when anyone says "the government should...." because too often the government thinks it gets to decide it knows what is best for you.
Would you say the same about the fire department or police?
Those same insurance companies would run the new regulated system and still charge ridiculous prices. Idiotic to think centralizing the healthcare system would make it more efficient
Regarding (de)regulation - is "don't defraud people" really a medical-specific regulation that's needed? A general "you can't sell people stuff that doesn't work" law seems like it'd be enough - covers consumer goods and all services...
INSUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR GRIFT
Medicine that actually cures illnesses is banned or ignored.
@biostemm agreed. If a seller of a medical treatment lies to you about it's nature to get your money, there is no need for specific medical regulation, it is a violation of basic voluntary contracts.
The screenshot literally showed that it was the FTC that laid down the hammer for the false advertising.
the big problem with canadian style, it can be used to extensively augment taxation, if anything healthcare should be it own separated taxe so people can better understand how much they chip in. right now being a quebecer means you are taxed 15% on everything and imposed quite extensively for a system that doesnt work and makes you wait in urgency room for over 8 hours.
America figured it out a long time ago. The medical industry, unfortunately, figured it out before the broad public did. Lobbying should be massively restricted, but good luck implementing that change.
Speaking as a person living in the US.
I have always had the view that universal healthcare wasn’t possible here as (no doubt due to the screeching of certain activists) it has always been presented as the Centralized, Government Planned and Controlled kind of system that American socialists (read authoritarians) want. This is the first time I’ve really heard more than a surface level look into the idea.
It’s would be great to have a system where you don’t go bankrupt cause you got sick or have a kid. But I still don’t think it’s possible for us to develop a functional system because of the way the idea is most often pushed (and the people pushing it).
I actually had a thought experiment for how I'd implement a Universal Health Care system. It basically amounted to it being tax for and paid for at the county level. Granted, you'd need some way of identifying people correctly to know ensure the correct county would be charged. And there'd need to be a way for multiple counties to join up, either due to a single city and/or its suburbs spanning more than one county or rural areas relying on larger population centers for health care needs.
If that last part eventually merges all counties in a state or crosses state lines, then so be it.
The main reason I wanted to keep it at a county level is to make it easier to keep the Medical Tax low if it really isn't needed.
Never heard of Hayek before this video but thanks to you, I have. Now I have to get his books to add to my Sowell collection.
Regulation need not come from the monopoly of violence. The regulations could come from private accreditation or private medical groups.
The American insurance model is due to its heavy regulation from its regulatory capture of the government. Bureaucracy is bad for cost whether private or public.
then its not regulation but guidelines which you are free not to follow and will not be punished for not adhere to. There is always violence, and if the court of law dont do anything, then i see no reason why i should not do it myself. If some dude sold snake-oil to a family member and there wasnt any justice system to adress it, then why not do it yourself?
Would there be anything to stop the creation of false accreditation agencies? Agencies that would sign off on anything for a quick buck and change their names every time a controversy hits?
@@kazineverwind5267 Is this a serious question? agencies would develop a reputation over time. People would naturally give more weight to the judgement of more established firms. Exactly like we do with every single other product or service in existence. Those firms would be incentivized to do a good job informing consumers or they would be out competed.
@@kazineverwind5267 yes, competition. You seem to be repeating the same questions/objections that many have put forward and have already been answered extensively in libertarian circles.
Well since we're seeing how a disturbing amount of healthcare workers feel they need to dictate your best interests to you in accordance with the government forgive me for not wanting to give these people more power. I acknowledge that having accessable healthcare that doesn't require bankruptcy would be ideal however not if that means I can't decide to not see a Dr that doesn't follow their hippocratic oath based on the whims of the government.
I'm a fan of the hybrid system, taxes pays for the public option but if someone wants private insurance, then they don't have to pay for the public option, doctors can accept both forms of payment, it's just that in one case the insurer is the state in another a private company. So far I think that's the best solution, cover everyone with public insurance but people can optout if they buy private insurance
Doesn’t work. Public payer is also a public provider with infinitely deep pockets. There is vertical integration in the market so the government also runs hospitals and this fucks things up a lot.
Wouldn't the public option just be the private option but you outsource money management to the state?
Yes, a public/private hybrid system like this is what I have been advocating for years. But the progressive (authoritarian) left don’t want that. They want govt run healthcare.
@@degenlearns4006 well no, a private insurer won't cover someone that doesn't have the money to pay, the public option covers every citizen regardless, that's why I think that's the better solution just let the people who want private go private and everyone else stays with the public option
@@Xplora213 The government runs some hospitals, private companies can setup their own hospital if they so choose, so I failed to see the issue. The budget will be a percentage of the tax revenue so it's not infinite
Similar to France's system is what I've advocated for here in the US for a little while now. Multi-payer including a public option, deregulate insurance sales across state lines, full price transparency, no discounts for insurers that uninsured individuals can't get, and absolutely no mandates. I would *never* want a government-only system in light of one thing: the UK's NIH has _forced DNRs on people with learning disabilities_ during COVID. In light of that I can _easily_ see an American system in our current environment being used to blackmail people in to getting the shot or being denied service for having the wrong political views on social media.
I think what still separates America from all the other nations that have a decentralized Universal Health Care is that we have individual states that have more people than a good chunk of those countries. I think that even on a decentralized level that's a point that's rarely taken into consideration and would be the biggest reason for why it just wouldn't work, or at the very least why it would be incredibly hard to make it work.
this old "we got more people so it doesn't work" argument is so damn lazy. It's a matter of will. That's all it is. You're not unique, you're not special. Every country has densely populated cities and rural areas. left wing and rightwing mayors, and all the rest of it. All you guys need to do on the federal level is to force each state to offer free healthcare at the point of service. Then the states can figure out how they wanna do it. Fund hospitals through taxes? Fund them and run them? don't fund or run them at all, but only cover citizen's bills? Up to them. Then americans get to see which of the 50 states end up ruining their economies due to horrific management, americans you got freedom of movement between states anyway.
If you want to actually act like a coherent country, and not 50 states, then after 5 or 10 years have the government pick out the state doing the best at healthcare, copy their model whichever one it ends up being, and force it onto the others to ensure equal care. Tough love.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter no. Get bent statist.
@@ExPwner thanks for needlessly admitting defeat. Even though I didn't need further confirmation I was right, it is appreciated, mr. anarkiddie.
@@Google_Censored_Commenter not admitting defeat to anything. We're not going to adopt your idiotic nonsense and we won't comply with any such mandates.
@@Sneedmire the F? You don't have to allow anyone to steal anything to implement it. All you have to do is reprioritize spending that takes place every year anyway.
US spends more on public healthcare as a GDP% than most European nations. The truth is the US has the worst of all systems because our central planners are staggeringly incompetent.
The most compelling argument for Universal Healthcare isn't patient outcome, it's because our public policy makers may try and "fix" the system more and drive up costs/inefficiencies even further.
I had dealt with Canadian health care a few times. It's a nightmare, especially when you need to wait for results and stay in the hospital for a whole day. I remember, when I couldn't get a bed over night. They wanted to make sure that there are free beds for emergency; which for the whole night there wasn't. I had a ovarian cyst and those are very painful that it's hard to sit up. Something, that I wouldn't want my worst enemy to have either. And I needed to have a ultrasound done; But they can only get it in the morning. In the end, they got me a morphine iv drop; and trying to sleep in the waiting room. Thanks goodness, I was lucky it was small and went away on it's own within a few weeks. Yeah, I have many stories to tell.
Canada and UK are the best examples of why putting healthcare in the governments hands is a bad idea.
I have to disagree on this one, because having America s a example of private centered healthcare system is not a fair position, given that there is insane bloat in the american system with administrators and lawyers. That happens because of inneficient incentives given by the regulations that allow insane lawsuits and unreasonable positions. Also your position about the demand being inelastic only holds because of the unhealthy credit system of the US. If you look at it in a more credit-healthy environment, you see that the demand will be more elastic given that people won't have unlimited resources(credit in this case) to pay for the treatments, no matter how much they want them, it's were the able part of willing and able comes in the definition of demand.
As someone who works in a US healthcare system, I can tell you that they are NOT ideologically agnostic organizations. I work for a large system in a major city and it is VERY woke.
I bring this up to say that allowing the Federal or even State government to have (greater)leverage over what is and isn't provided to citizens sounds nightmarish to me.
There are many controversial political and idealogical positions that healthcare providers and pharmaceutical companies openly advocate for that they directly profit from. Such as vaccine mandates, stem cell research, taxpayer funded abortions, animal testing, etc...
This video mentions the malignancy that is America health insurance, I think that deserves a deeper dive. No real consumer driven competition exists in the marketplace. Insurance of any kind(healthcare, home, auto) can't be purchased out of state. They have massive lobbies on top of that. The whole thing's a giant racket.
> If I offended you, I'm right
I'm not so sure that logic follows, generally. Surely the correctness of any statement of fact and the accuracy of any analysis of real world phenomena are not dependant on the opinions of any person on the individual scale.
...Unless we're talking about the mental states of any prospective offendee; Such meta questions tend to get screwy logic due to the propensity to be self-referential. Sure, someone getting offended is caused by the physics / biochemistry of their brains, and so whether they get offended over the subject of their brain biochemistry would determine if they get offended.
You're doing good work my man. Thanks.
I appreciate that!
The problem with America is that the government could get a perfectly serviceable plan to give everybody a bottle of water for $1 per bottle but when it finally got implemented only 25% of the people would get their bottle of water, but it would cost $100 per bottle and it'd be billed as if everyone got their bottle.
Apply that level of competence to health care and what do you think the result will be?
The VA
I really enjoy your videos. You show your arguments with a calm and sophisticated tone and are very factual and logic. Its very enjoyable to listen to your videos, and i sometimes get a different perspective to my own which i appreciate.
I don't see how a market that is basically the way it is because of government can be helped by more government...
It can't. It's a trap masked in "compassion".
@@user-cf6fo6bj1u through allowing healthcare and pharmaceutical monopolies to flout the laws against that kind of thing it absolutely does.
@@user-cf6fo6bj1u The government doesn't control the price directly I think, but they aren't allowed to negotiate.
Brokers in the trucking industry are a good example of hiding prices.
They sell you a load, that you have to haul. That you are responsible for fuel and wear/tear of your equipment.
But the broker only knows what the shipper is paying for the load. A load can pay 1400$, but he will only offer you 700$, which can equate to $1.20 per mile.
You can't know what the shipper pays, because, contractually, he doesn't have to tell you. If you refuse, he'll just find someone else.
If transparency was forced onto these brokers, their career would be in jeopardy for taking too much off the top of a load, when he has little to no cost for its being delivered.
I remember Kraut saying that his preferred national healthcare system was that of Scotland. It mandates that the healthcare infrastructure be managed not at the national level but from local health boards. Much less bureaucratic and more efficient . Seems like you both have similar stances.
That’s a pretty good idea that could work in America if we could wrestle the authority from the fed
The biggest problem with the US system right now are Pharmacy benefit managers like Express Scripts. The government signed a medicare rebate law in the 80s to lower drug prices and instead it created a market for a massive monopoly of price gougers.
Their existence lowers market competition between pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies have to work with them. Until this is fixed, no healthcare ideas will work here.
@@Plainsburner that and healthcare takes a bipartisan commitment to public health that doesn’t exist in the US. We love unhealthy food way too much and look how divisive Obamacare became.
@@Sound557 True about the food, but Obamacare was divisive because it solved nothing and put the burden on people who were already suffering. If our healthcare system is like a leaking dam, then Obamacare was handing out rags to the middle class and telling them to hold it against the leaks.
1. A healthier workforce is more productive.
2. Better access to healthcare leads to better outcomes and a healthier workforce.
2. Medical costs act as a significant barrier to people accessing medical care.
Therefore, reducing the cost of healthcare to patients increases productivity and tax revenue.
The idea that transperancy in costs will go far to help promote competition. I even agree government should always be as minimal as possible, IF it were actually needed. Wherein such a codintion exists. Bolstering private options for experimental or rare treatments for what the private sector does not find profitable enough to provide seems the middle option. Wether purchasing things up front, or giving tax breaks/write offs as charitable donations to non profit medical options should work and be sellable to the public. More coverage and benefits for the left. Still private control and less government control for right. Yes like France, Switzerland or the Nordic models. A good compromise.
This is such a breath of fresh air to have a nuanced conversation from both sides of an argument.
A question though. If we need standards (through regulation) in a market, why do we assume governments need to be the ones to set them?
If we want an institution that sets the standards then why does it need to be government run? This is a perfectly valid function and I can imagine a lot of legitimate (non snake oil) businesses will want to pay a fee to be endorsed by that institution.
And the best part is that the institution's "seal of approval" is subject to normal people's trust in it, unlike government run institutions. That means there is an incentive to be open and honest about how they grade a product or service, because one fuck up can ruin that institution's reputation and hence their future revenue.
I also think that their will always be snake oil salesmen out there. It might be a fallacy to think that regulation prevents them, they'll always find a way to work the system, no matter what system they are in. Not to mention that a lot of ground breaking innovation probably looks a bit like snake oil salesmanship in the beginning.
This might sound harsh but do we need to be so worried about people falling for con men's schemes? Where is the line where people take responsibility for themselves?
We should know people like that are out there and be vigilant ourselves (I get the impression that relying on regulation lulls people into a false sense of security)
Wise words I once heard:
Life is hard, put on a fucking helmet!
I really like the saying "pull yourself up by your bootstraps". It made me stronger and motivated me to be more self reliant.
But I think that it does not apply to illness as much, due to it being caused by a "higher power". We should rely on each other for that.
The problem with “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is that it is a phrase coined by leftists to deride right wing positions. Pulling yourself up by your bootstraps is physically impossible which is why the left coined the phrase as a means of mockery. Search the term. All you will find are articles by leftists about how individual responsibilities are evil.
@@nsanenbrane53 The origin doesn't matter. The point is that if you have a problem in life you should strive to solve it yourself without whining about it. Life is not fair and crying about it will not solve anything.
@AkiRa22084 Sure I agree with that. My point is that the left keeps winning because the right keeps playing their word games. We need to better recognize how the game works and stop playing into it.
@@nsanenbrane53 I think the problem here is thinking that matters
@Bitch Please Thinking what matters?
Thanks SFO, this is the first video that I've watched in a while where I actively disagreed with the premise but actually had my mind changed by the end of it. Great job.
This is the ONLY video I have seen that has managed to make a very compelling argument for Universal Healthcare for me. Legit said things I hadn't thought of before, but actually make sense. It shows how UAS could actually be pretty compatible with my Classical Liberal views.
I guess that's what happens when you listen to someone make practical arguments without any of the dogmatic bullshit and insults.
It's just motivated reasoning though. You can make exactly same arguments for universal housing, universal cars, universal umbrellas. Universal anything. Because this entire argument lies on couple of fallacies, prime example of it is that people shop for healthcare when they need it.
Similarly as we don't shop for houses when we want to go to sleep, we don't shop for cars when we need to go somewhere urgently and we don't generally shop for umbrellas when it starts to rain, we don't generally shop for healthcare when we get sick. Vast majority of people would shop for healthcare insurance plans BEFORE they'd become sick as they do with fire insurance, car insurance, travel insurance, household insurance,...
Yes, some people wouldn't, but that's their choice. But the insurance market is the market solution to low elasticity of healthcare as a service.
I just realised that the way you hold your mouse in the drawn picture, is the way I'd imagine a psychopath holding it. I can't look away now.
Please do a video on Jagmeet Singh. You mentioned you were considering it and I feel it is my duty on behalf of all Canadians to plead with you until you make it happen. Thank you
I'm putting this up there at over of your best composed and written videos on specific topics like this.
I don't think quality healthcare should be free, but it definitely shouldn't be tied to employment. Because employment is tied to quality healthcare, employers will always have the upper hand in negotiations during a strike.
This. In an increasingly "gig" economy, the current situation really fucks over the self-employed and small businesses. Decoupling health insurance from the employer and letting individuals choose their own coverage on an open market would be a huge step in the right direction. But it'll never happen because health insurance coverage gives employers (especially large corporations) a huge amount of power over employees to keep them running on the hamster wheel.
So long as we can phase our way out of that and keep a totally private healthcare system I'd be on board with that idea. A straight off break in a single moment probably would not be good for people at least in the short term and could cause a big downturn. Even medium and small businesses are paying for this kind of thing. Think of how much more than it can expand and cut into the corporate influence to compete with the competition of corporations that can easily afford such a thing. It hurts small and medium sized businesses.
@@christinesarkis4029 Thats only a part of the chain. The drug companies screw the insurance companies. The insurance screws the employer. The employer screws you. Everybody is a captive customer of the guy upstream, so the only one who profits is the drug company at the top of the hierarchy, and the host of leeches in the medical billing industry who have an interest in keeping things that way.
how is it a good thing the employer can frighten employees that way? Loss of capital should be enough, otherwise the corporation can mandate too much from desperate families.
Think this is the most persuasive argument for universal healthcare I have heard. I really enjoy the Hayek take on healthcare you stated. Have always been a fan of deregulated healthcare system but like the nuisance that Hayek stated. Just know the complaints people have with the VA and it’s inefficiency and frankly below average service. Personally don’t mind who I’m paying for healthcare coverage be it government or private insurer as long as it covers when I’m sick and has a good standard of service. My issue is the waste and red tape most government agencies have due to nature of said agencies not to care about profits. Fact is healthcare in the US is way to high and up until quite recently hospitals didn’t even have to be transparent on what the charge patients for services.
I’d be okay with single payer emergency care, only because you don’t have a real choice on where the ambulance takes you, assuming you are even still conscious. Everything else (things you can wait weeks or months for) then I’d still say let the market decide. There are many medical practitioners in the world, and travel is only getting easier.
I suspect this was state health around 30-40 years ago in the Nordic countries etc.... but social spending went up up up.
@@Xplora213 Probably.
As an American living in Canad I can tell you neither country have a good system. What I would like to see is a basic Federal minimum healthcare that every has available to them if they want it, you can opt out of it if you want private health care. That way you can choose what you want.
eh... I don't know, I don't like Corpos, but i don't agree with the state controlling it, mainly because I already live in a country that have State Healthcare and it is shit.
Where are you from? If I may ask
@@rexnas8150 Brazil
@@Chordus_Gaius and what's your experience with your guys' healthcare system?
@@rexnas8150 Not really good. The Hospitals are full and there is not enough to keep the demand. There were a time people died in the hallways and some where hospitalized on the hallways
@@Chordus_Gaius jesus christ. And was this issue because of covid? Or before that? Does it happen regularly?
I still stand by my solution: abolish insurance companies. Before insurance costs were directly regulated by the market of the people; there was no middle man to jack up costs for the hospitals and spread it out onto their customers. Yes, everyone will still pay for their own healthcare, however costs would be forced to come down as otherwise no business could survive. We've seen this work before as before insurance you could get a cast on a broken arm for like 100 bucks (adjusted for inflation) and you were able to directly shop around for a doctor without all the bureaucratic bullshit brought on by going through insurance. Sprinkle some regulation to ensure healthcare providers don't make money through other means or public funding, add a well regulated conservative social safety net for those in absolute need, and boom. We've got ourselves an efficient, affordable, and competitive healthcare system that cannot bankrupt people en masse nor relies on taxpayer funding or government management (which would be a disaster, I'm a vet and trust me when I say you do not want everything to run like the VA or military medical, we would all die 😅)
As a Canadian I've always appreciated the benefits of out universal healthcare system, the only inherent problem I have is that it encourages draconian "healthy lifestyle" laws that restrict individual freedom in order to reduce the cost of said system.
Give me some of those health laws here in Ontario, I don't go a day without seeing a handful of lard buckets wearing clothes. Screw jab mandates, we need a treadmill mandate.
Obesity is a leading cause of rising healthcare costs tho
@@AckReikTheGreatest07 I would rather people who are personally responsible for their serious health conditions be required to foot the bill and everyone was aware of that before they decide to eat nothing but timbits or smoke three packs a day, than have an enforcement mechanism that has to prevent people from doing these things. Laws banning the sale of oversized soft drinks at fast food chains didn't reduce consumption, people just started bringing soda in their car.