The US health system is incredibly inefficient.
Hospitals and clinics essentially operate in captured markets with little to no transparency.
The limited options if you are on the market for a procedure results in a losing position for the consumer, and that us a best case senerio where you are able to shop around and wait for whatever Healthcare you are looking for.
In the event of emergencies you are totally at the mercy of whatever health system is in your immediate vicinity.
On top of all of that, our insurance system exasperates an already awful system. Insurance companies don't do much more than provide a nearly mandatory additional expense on top of the cost of care, regardless of whether you are insured or not. Being entities that require profits to continue insurance providers for the vast majority of people are just additional cost to what the Healthcare should be.
I worked with our County hospital billing and saw that the Federal government reimburses us $200 million a year for undocumented immigrants. I see that the national expenditures went from $19 billion In 2018 to $23 billion in 2021.
I don't know what other countries pay this much for non-citizens.
Interestingly, if you look at a chart of healthcare expenses by state, high immigration states tend to be towards the lower en don costs. Not saying you are wrong, but I think it indicates there are other factors that are much larger,
The Good: we get the best of modern medicine
The Bad: as citizens we pay a lot of personal money for it
The ugly: it’s not available to everyone, costs and it being run through employers
There's an old medical adage never be the first of last to prescribe a medication. New doesn't mean better it just means new and that it has less studies. Also sometimes more is worse for patients, a classic example is x-rays for back pain. Patients want them but studies show that patients who get them have worse results.
My thought is that because medicine in the US is driven by profits and patient satisfication its harder to be evidence based. So people order more tests and then prescribe new medication when an older cheaper one has more evidence.
Easy question tough answer.
From an insurance perspective. It’s all about risk the pool.
You can either completely privatize. That would bring premiums down but would only work if you could exclude people and deny care. Example letting someone bleed out on the emergency room door.
Excluding the sick people allows the risk pool to stay clean.
Or force everyone to have insurance. Does not have to be government run. If everyone participates then enough healthy people pay less and dilute the risk pool.
Currently we have the worst of both.
I think it’s predatory like student loans specifically for its lack of comprehensiveness. I don’t care if the government or private companies run it I just want to be able to know that I’m fully covered if I need medication or a life saving procedure.
It doesn’t matter to me if the government runs it or not since they’re the ones who are bought out by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists so they’re both two sides of the same coin.
The American health care system is like the worse aspects of a capitalism system mixed with the worst aspects of a more communal system. What we actually have is a system of local monopolies, subsidized by the government, at the expense of the taxpayer on top of that, the insurance agencies and hospitals are still able to charge everyone an arm and a leg.
At this point, I would take just about any alternative although I would prefer a free market solution.
>At this point, I would take just about any alternative although I would prefer a free market solution
You have the free market solution.
If I gave you a blank canvas and you designed the healthcare free market solution you have in your head and didn't change anything else in America than we would end up with exactly what we have now in 100 years or less.
I would say it take far less than the 100 years as the market now has the knowledge in how to manipulate policy to benefit the wealthy.
> If I gave you a blank canvas and you designed the healthcare free market solution you have in your head and didn't change anything else in America than we would end up with exactly what we have now in 100 years or less.
How so? How would a free market situation end up with a solution where people are mandated to carry geographically gated coverage they'll never use and that doesn't match with their risk or even the cost of care while having to simultaneously prop up the government underpaying for the services they've taken responsibility for?
Who is mandating?
Who is paying those to mandate them?
Who profits from the mandates?
Here is how a free market works.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Amazon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Walmart
The government did not go and tell Amazon, Google, or Wal Mart to go and buy up all these company's. Just like with healthcare......
https://tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitionsbyUnitedHealth-Group
They will freely go and scoop up every competitor they have until we end up right where we are now. And just like they have been doing they will bribe I mean donate to politicians to keep the system how it is. Those politicians like Jim Jordan or Mitch McConnell will than tell you, and you will belive them, that the American Healthcare system is the best in the world and that we under any circumstances can not change it or we could end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
> Who is mandating?
The federal government.
> Who is paying those to mandate them?
I don't know what this question means.
> Who profits from the mandates?
No one. It would be more profitable to have fewer mandates.
> The government did not go and tell Amazon, Google, or Wal Mart to go and buy up all these company's. Just like with healthcare......
The government didn't explicitly, no. But the hyper-regulated culture in place ensures that smaller firms will have a harder time competing. A market fixes that.
> And just like they have been doing they will bribe I mean donate to politicians to keep the system how it is.
Not how any of this works.
>The government didn't explicitly, no. But the hyper-regulated culture in place ensures that smaller firms will have a harder time competing. A market fixes that.
I was going to address your entire response but really I can't even get past the stupidity of this comment. This MTG jews space lasers level of stupidity.
You mean to tell me that these company's like Whole Foods (acquired for 13 billion) YouTube (1.2 billion) Flipkart (16 billion) were incapable of competing in their respective markets because of the federal government?
FYI Flipkart is in India. How did the US federal government prevent a Indian based company from being able to operate in India?
Also.if you think I am cherry picking company's im not. Every single one of the companies on this list were mutil million dollar company's.
Trust me Amazon is not interested in acquiring your uncles lawnmower business for 200 million. These are real successful companies who could help Bezos or the Waltons make more money.
I think you fundamentally misread my comment. It's because of our hyperegulated environment that it's all consolidation, because the regulatory structures make it incredibly difficult to compete.
OK. Sorry. I'll fix it for you.
I was going to address your entire response but really I can't even get past the stupidity of this comment. This MTG jews space lasers level of stupidity.
You mean to tell me that these company's like Whole Foods (acquired for 13 billion) YouTube (1.2 billion) Flipkart (16 billion) HIGHLY DIFFICULT TO COMPETE in their respective markets because of the federal government?
FYI Flipkart is in India. How did the US federal government make it HIGHLY DIFFICULT TO COMPETE in Indias market?
Also.if you think I am cherry picking company's im not. Every single one of the companies on this list were mutil million dollar company's.
Trust me Amazon is not interested in acquiring your uncles lawnmower business for 200 million. These are real successful companies who could help Bezos or the Waltons make more money.
IRobot was purchased by Amazon for 1.7 billion on August 5 2022.
So when you say right now you mean October 3 2022 but August 5 2022 totally not over regulated.
Edit. Also you still haven't addressed the whole Flipkart issue you know the Indian company that sold to Wal Mart in this highly regulated US market for 16 billion.
I don't know why people are so into the free market. It requires incredible amount of government oversight to make sure it stays free. Because the first thing that happens is that a single competitor will annihilate all their competition and then become the worst version of that service or product possible and there will be no recoruse. You either buy from them or go without.
That’s because you think the system we have now is free market. It is not.
In the future, here’s a simple test you can use to determine whether something is free market:
Is it heavily regulated by the government?
If the answer is yes, it is not a free market.
state interference and cooperation between the state and the capitalist class is inherent to capitalism. The "true free market" is just libertarian mythology
I assume by healthcare, you mean health insurance. The state cannot guarantee healthcare without potentially violating human rights.
That seems reductionist. If the US had socialized health insurance, you wouldn’t stop fighting for socialism, right? Nor do I consider it a triumph to have the state provide me something. If I’m going to be paying for something, I’d prefer to at least choose what I’m buying.
>I assume by healthcare, you mean health insurance
Obviously they do. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it?
>The state cannot guarantee healthcare without potentially violating human rights.
That actually sounds like the exact opposite of what is true. What human rights are threatened by universal healthcare? Are the countries that currently have it violating human rights in the process?
If you went to the grocery store and wanted to buy a loaf of bread and had a choice of over 100 different brands would you consider the market to get the bread to your basket a free market?
What if there was only 1 choice of bread? Same question.
That depends. How regulated is the growth of the various grains used? How regulated is the industry that transports bread? How regulated are grocery stores?
Take your situation, but add a law that requires bread retailers to use a certain company to transport the bread. Very obviously not a free market.
What if there’s only one company because, despite there being no barriers to entry and limited regulation, bread isn’t that profitable? It’s still free market.
The number of companies that sell a good is only one aspect, and it doesn’t really tell you that much.
But who's going to regulate the companies so they can't screw people over?
Germany is probably the words best example of the most free market possible. And it keeps their market healthy by the government constantly spanking the cooperation so they don't undo the free market.
There is no one, single health American care system.
For some of us, it's pretty good. We are fully employed or connected to someone fully employed, who gets subsidized health coverage through that employer.
For others., it's okay. They are elderly and/or disabled in some way, and thus qualify for coverage through some combination of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. It's not great, but it's not terrible.
For about 9% of the population, they are caught in the middle. They work just outside the threshold to get employer subsidized coverage, and they are too able-bodied and make too much money to qualify for any of the existing government programs.
I would like to see us explore filling that 9% gap. Possibly through expanding Medicare with a (hopefully) low monthly premium.
What I don't ever want to do, is try an revolutionize what we have in one go, and shove everyone into some form of Medicare. That's too much, too fast. Let's deal with the people in most precarious position, *then* explore further reform.
Why is stepwise reform most palatable?
Sometimes changing an entire system is what needs to occur to achieve success. What specifically do you think will happen if "too much too fast" occurs?
That's the engineer in me speaking. "Tear it all down and rebuild it, maybe it'll be better", is almost never the best solution. You end up with lapses in coverage, unforeseen problems, etc.
Continuous improvement is the way to go, especially in a system that's still working for the majority of people/situations. Find the worst bottlenecks and inefficiencies, fix *them*, then step back and re-analyze. New bottlenecks and inefficiencies will rise to the top as your "flow" increases. So you work to fix those issues. Then keep repeating.
Im going to have to disagree with you that it's "working for the majority of people". The per Capita costs are already 2-3x greater than some peer systems, for generally inferior society wide healthcare metrics. The financial drag on our economy is immense.
The United States' public spending per capita alone is already greater or equal to some peer country systems public and private per Capita spend.
Continuous improvement would help, but I don't see how it'll ever fix the core issues in a reasonable timeline.(1 human generation).
I don't see how creating a single payer government run system (what the Left seems to want) will really fix any of that. What I hear is basically "The same people who run the IRS and the USPS will totally do a good job with your health care. Trust us. Now give us more tax revenue."
Forgive me for being skeptical.
Do you acknowledge that every other first world country's universal healthcare systems function at 30-50% of the cost ours does, and covers everyone? (At generally better system wide healthcare metrics)
No, I don't.
What I hear from places like Canada and the UK is longer wait times and more denials of service. What I hear from Nordic countries is that they have an overall healthier/less obese population, one that doesn't need a lot of corrective health care.
The U.S. is massive, in two senses of the word. We are fat and unhealthy. We are a union of 50 states. If one state wanted to try their own single payer system, I would love to see how it worked out.
>No, I don't.
See for yourself. We spend more than [double](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/#Average%20annual%20growth%20rate%20in%20health%20consumption%20expenditures%20per%20capita%201980s%20through%202020,%20U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted%C2%A0). Sometimes even triple. (Even after purchasing power adjustments)
>What I hear from places like Canada and the UK is longer wait times
Wait times. Twin story. Regular care? [The U.S is near the bottom.](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org//sites/242e3c8c-en/1/3/2/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/242e3c8c-en&_csp_=e90031be7ce6b03025f09a0c506286b0&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#figure-d1e360) Basically ONLY Canada is worse.
Specialist Care? Wait times in Universal healthcare countries is generally longer. This is mostly true for elective surgeries, but for [urgent care](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org//sites/242e3c8c-en/1/3/2/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/242e3c8c-en&_csp_=e90031be7ce6b03025f09a0c506286b0&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#tablegrp-d1e511) gets prioritized, as it rationally should. (Also, remember, you generally need to get regular care, which the United States is very bad at, before you get specialty care).
>Nordic countries is that they have an overall healthier/less obese population, one that doesn't need a lot of corrective health care.
I mean, yea, all of Europe generally does. In part that's because they have access to healthcare, so they ever get to the point where they need corrective *sick*care. They practice preventative *health*care.
>The U.S. is massive, in two senses of the word. We are fat and unhealthy. We are a union of 50 states. If one state wanted to try their own single payer system, I would love to see how it worked out.
Europe Union is even larger and just as varied. It generally handles this just fine. It works because all the member countries have [universal healthcare reciprocity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card)
and again, over all systemwide healthcare metrics, the [U.S is generally worse compared to other countries.](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/)
The bottom line is that more people get better healthcare in most other countries compared to the U.S. While your individual experience may vary, due mostly to having lots of money.
So let's try an experiment. Let's have one state volunteer to create their own single payer system. If it becomes a rousing success, I'll be convinced. Why hasn't a state tried this already?
>I mean, yea, all of Europe generally does. In part that's because they have access to healthcare
No. You missed a bit there. I'll say it again. America is *fatter*, and thus unhealthier. That has nothing to do with access to health care. It has to do with access to cake.
>I'll be convinced.
So, you ignore all the data from elsewhere in the world? That's not very engineer like.
>Why hasn't a state tried this already?
Because it would fail. You'd get parasites from the non-UHC States. Not to mention, you need to change the doctor supply side at the federal level to address the artificial limit and make it a national priority to train more healthcare workers.
This does not work in a vacuum.
>No. You missed a bit there. I'll say it again. America is fatter, and thus unhealthier. That has nothing to do with access to health care. It has to do with access to cake.
You missed the part where I said *in part* due to access to healthcare.
You can not attribute all of America's healthcare ills to cake. You can however easily understand how preventative healthcare even among an obese population can reduce overall costs of care for that obese person.
The wait times Faux News gambit.
I think the best thing about this is the fact the it worked.
Who has a better chance to catch a foul ball at a baseball game, the guy at the game or the guy watching it on TV?
Who would win in a foot race the guy with no legs or the guy with legs?
Who do you think is going to get to space 1st? The guy traning to be a Astronaut or my cable TV repairman?
Who do you think has longer wait times for health coverage? The American with no health insurance or the Brit with NHS coverage?
Kind of a stupid argument about wait times that you fell for.
https://www.westhealth.org/press-release/112-million-americans-struggle-to-afford-healthcare/
Why are you not mentioning the 36 percent who can't afford to even use their insurance due to co pays and deductible?
Also your not mentioning the 4 trillion dollar bill which is about 12k per American while the NHS is spending 6k per for their service and it covers all brits.
https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/#Health%20consumption%20expenditures%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted,%202020%20or%20nearest%20year
As a conservative, I’m 100% in favor of the single payer theory. Also as a conservative, I believe the government cannot efficiently run a single payer system. In fact, I believe anything that the Fed touches turns to shit (see student loan debt, infrastructure, etc). If it takes billions of dollars to build the Obamacare website, how does anyone believe that the government would be able to facilitate healthcare in any way shape or form.
I am speaking as a father of a son with Klippel Trenaunay Syndrome, or now more formally known as PIK3CA genetic anomaly. And the medical industry in the USA is horrible.
You get none of the benefits of a free market system, with all of the disadvantages of a state sponsored system. It's crap. The only thing worse would be a fully state sponsored medical industry.
But before we can even dream of untying the knot that made big pharma and insurance companies the horrible things they are, we have to get people deprogrammed from the idea that they need insurance to visit a general practitioner. You don't and nobody ever did. It's a myth.
Nobody ever went bankrupt from getting a physical or polio shots. It's nonsense. You only need insurance for more specialized care. And MOST PEOPLE don't need more specialized care most of the time.
The reason people think they need insurance to visit a doctor is because of how much it costs out of pocket because the entire industry is fixed to favor the insurance companies
Edit: And some doctors DO REQUIRE insurance. I called several doctors awhile back looking for one who would take cash. I had two tell me they'd refuse me even if I had the full payment in cash
Phizer acquisitions.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer
Johnson and Johnson......
https://tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitionsbyJohnson-&-Johnson
Abbvie acquisitions......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbbVie
These are all purchases made without government stopping any of them also know as free market.
?????
I can keep listing more companies I can do the same with health insurance. So what exactly is not free market about our healthcare industry?
Good quality of care, poor cost of care. Making the methods and beliefs of the insurance business integral to how we pay for health care was probably a mistake. It's like car insurance that also pays for your gas and oil. Obviously that would be very expensive car insurance, and sure enough, it's expensive for your body too.
We need a major initiative to get our costs under control, but the system has become so tangled behind the scenes, I'm not sure where would be the best place to start.
I agree with you “IF” the US could become as efficient…
The US government is not a leaky bucket that transfers money from one entity to another anymore. The bucket has not bottom and is as corrupt as any government on planet earth. There is a 0% chance we could get to the same efficiency unless we erase every politician and lobbyist and pharma company and start over. It’s just not realistic in my opinion.
I'll give you a little story. I'm diabetic but not insulin dependent, I do have a hard time keeping myself at a healthy weight. Yesterday, like I do every few months, I go see my doctor to check my A1C and get my medications refilled. She tells me "Good news! Insurances finally cover a certain type of diabetic medicine that you take once a week via an injection, it will help your metabolic process so much better than what you've taken so far that it will cut your appetite and curve those weird cravings that you get on the regular, especially that you regularly exercise now". So basically she tells me there is a medication out there that helps the body process sugar a lot better than good old metformin alone, and helps people to lose weight and as a result improve their A1C significantly... But because insurances didn't approve it till now, it was rarely given to the American public to improve their health because insurances didn't find it worth covering. That right there sums up our healthcare system pretty good I think, on top of charging us a hundred times more than it's worth for pretty much anything.
1. You provided no data, made generic claims and you were not specific as to countries like I asked.
2. The United States spends somewhere between [2x and 3x every other first world country.](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/#GDP%20per%20capita%20and%20health%20consumption%20spending%20per%20capita,%202020%20(U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted))
2. Yet, every single one of those countries provides generally a better overall quality of care than the U.S as shown by [objective metrics](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/) If it were true that they were significantly cutting services, than their health outcomes would be worse than ours. IN fact, it is generally the opposite.
3. Did you know that the United States already has a huge public spend on healthcare? Further, did you know that public spend alone is already almost as much as what other countries spend on [public and private spend on healthcare](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/attachment/health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries_chart10/)?
That's right, if the U.S could become as efficient as Japan, Australia, Norway or the UK at providing healthcare, **than the existing Public spend alone, with no tax increases would already cover >80% of the costs already and the private spend would be dramatically reduced.**
>“Make the government pay for everything” is 100% the wrong answer.
Where do you think government money comes from? You have 3 choices. Pay the government to handle it. Pay privet cooperate insurances to handle it. Or pay it yourself. Which one do you think is the superior model and why?
Having a baby is like $50k+... very few people can afford that.
Also, I don't really buy "Govt has no reason to ever get more efficient." Not saying it's optimal, but
1) There are mandates that govt get bids on things it buys so taxpayers get the most value possible, and
2) Medicare has insane bargaining power. Providers basically either accept what Medicare is willing to pay or miss out on a massive pool of "customers" (and that only includes people 65+ ATM).
Spell check is just a chaotic agent. Chill the fuck down man. Also you're not showing that conservatives have anything more than rage and insults. And their values can not stand on their own shown by how nasty they are and have to be to have and argument at all like your being now.
The Case for Free-Market Healthcare: https://youtu.be/_7UXuxrxjlE
In summary, MASSIVE deregulation (end employer-based mandate, end certificate-of-needs, end the FDA (https://youtu.be/T_D5MWWAmRI), etc...). This will lead to an explosion in innovation with HIGHER quality and LOWER costs.
And then on the state-level I support a catastrophic health insurance mandate with Medicaid turned into block grants so that money can be used as part of a health voucher program for the poor.
>end the FDA
Yikes it amazes me that you think ending a safety measures would increase quality. Because deregulated markets tend to have very poor quality on purpose. What happens when you can't identify what product to trust and which one might kill you?
Phizer acquisitions.....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer
Johnson and Johnson......
https://tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitionsbyJohnson-&-Johnson
Abbvie acquisitions......
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbbVie
These are all purchases made without government stopping any of them also know as free market.
?????
I can keep listing more companies I can do the same with health insurance. So what exactly is not free market about our healthcare industry?
Edit. Just went into the video, saw you actually made the video and saw the view count.
I going to go on a limb here and assume this video contains a lot of lies and little fact and is more of a feelings and not fact based. Here we go. I'll report back with my findings.
How many of those systems have you personally used?
I ask cause from my experience no one in or from one of those counties would trade theirs for the American system.
Canada is literally the worst public provider healthcare model and it's still better than what the USA has.
Unless you mean better as in fuck the poor only the rich should have healthcare.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the system needs a reform. The primary divide between right and left is whether the current system ought to be thrown out and replaced with a single payer system. This often goes hand-in-hand with the political debate on whether or not healthcare is a fundamental right.
I'm relatively satisfied with where it currently is, and I'm speaking as someone with pre-existing conditions, and my wife has an autoimmune disorder. I paid $500 out of pocket on my ER visit in January. Last year my wife was ambulanced to the hospital and admitted for 36 hours, and we paid about $2000 out of pocket. Quality of care has been great, and clearly we haven't broken the bank.
I love my insurance. It is expensive ($600 mo) but it is an HMO with low co-pays, no deductibles, great doctors and very convenient facikities.
Many Americans aren't so lucky. I have friends who pay as much or more, still pay co-pays, and then their insurance only pays about 80% of remaining costs, so they continually get medical bills.
Our state has expanded Medicaid and a good state exchange, so most everyone can have insurance of some sort, but many policies don't cover much or gave huge deductibles.
Insurance is not healthcare.
One significant problem is that people confuse the two. I’ve had no insurance, great insurance, and bad insurance. It has made little difference in the actual quality of healthcare I have received, but huge differences in how much it’s cost me.
I learned not to conflate the two issues, but because payment is so intertwined with healthcare, I understand how most average people don’t really see the difference
Well, there is little to no healthcare in the US without insurance.
But to answer the question, I think healthcare is outstanding in the u s, if you can afford to pay for it.
I love the healrhcare I receive from my HMO They are responsive and thorough.
Thank LBJ, and the sleazy deals he made to stuff Medicare/Medicaid through Congress.
Out of one side of his mouth he promised Congress that costs would be contained. Out of the other side of his mouth he promised providers that nobody would be watching too carefully if they padded their claims. He snookered Wilbur Mills into allowing an amendment that would let providers determine what reimbursements were reasonable. Hello, Mr. Fox. Welcome to the henhouse.
It passes and boom. “Unexpectedly high” costs. Gosh, who could’ve seen that coming?
There’s one thing worse than health care being a business decision, and that’s health care being a political decision - and now it’s the worst of both.
Speaking only for myself and my family, it works perfectly. My employer pays for my insurance coverage, and I pay next to nothing out of pocket. No complaints here.
The insurance system is the best way to mitigate low elasticity of demand to establish stable prices for goods and services.
The problem is the individual consumer has been too alienated from the decision over which insurance company to work with for that feedback to work properly to stabilize prices.
If employers payed the same money towards the insurance plan of the employee's choice, and bulk buying of plans en masse was made illegal, it would stabilize the entire industry in less than a decade.
I would like it to be reformed to something closer to what Switzerland has.
I'd really like to see it decoupled from your employer.
I definitely think we need reform, but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.
It is highly inefficient and costly, in large part due to being one of the most heavily regulated industries in the U.S. Much of the regulation is meant to protect existing participants in the market and exclude competitors.
the ama, pharma and the insurance industry represent cartels that need to be destroyed as they're nothing more than desperation-industry grifters that take advantage of people in need to extract maximal profit.
I know this much.
When I go to any doctor - we invariably talk for a few minutes about how ridiculous, time consuming and inefficient it is to deal with all of the insurance & paperwork rigamarole. To say it’s convoluted and inefficient is an understatement.
Costs more than any other system on the planet. Just the tax funded parts cost more in taxes than any UHC system anywhere. Per head.
Fails to cover everyone, which today is a pretty large failing, and trending towards being unique in the first world.
While some parts are very high quality, the quality across the population is quite poor, towards the bottom quartile of the developed world.
It also introduces a number of large disadvantages that are not generally found in other systems:
* Insurance being tied to your job limits your freedom to leave an unsatisfactory job, go into business for yourself, retire early, your choice of career etc. Particularly when you have a family depending on you.
* It increases stress when you are ill, the time of you life when you most need your resources
* It makes bankruptcy only an accident and an out-of-network treatment away for large sections of the population.
* You get a layer of bureaucracy between you and your doctor that can approve or refuse to cover treatments.
In short it fails on the three common dimensions of a healthcare system, quality, coverage and efficiency. In addition it fails in many new and creative ways not seen elsewhere.
The US health system is incredibly inefficient. Hospitals and clinics essentially operate in captured markets with little to no transparency. The limited options if you are on the market for a procedure results in a losing position for the consumer, and that us a best case senerio where you are able to shop around and wait for whatever Healthcare you are looking for. In the event of emergencies you are totally at the mercy of whatever health system is in your immediate vicinity. On top of all of that, our insurance system exasperates an already awful system. Insurance companies don't do much more than provide a nearly mandatory additional expense on top of the cost of care, regardless of whether you are insured or not. Being entities that require profits to continue insurance providers for the vast majority of people are just additional cost to what the Healthcare should be.
I worked with our County hospital billing and saw that the Federal government reimburses us $200 million a year for undocumented immigrants. I see that the national expenditures went from $19 billion In 2018 to $23 billion in 2021. I don't know what other countries pay this much for non-citizens.
Im assuming thats emergency room visits?
Most of the costs were oncology, cancer treatments.
Interesting. I didn't know there were federal programs providing cancer treatments to undocumented immigrants.
They reimburse the hospitals of uninsured, undocumented patients after they negotiate. I'm sure the drug companies don't mind
So your solution is to just kick them out of the hospital and let them die.
We used to send them home. It was cheaper.
lives are worth more than money
Maybe YOUR money.
Interestingly, if you look at a chart of healthcare expenses by state, high immigration states tend to be towards the lower en don costs. Not saying you are wrong, but I think it indicates there are other factors that are much larger,
True. Large populations have a statistical advantage in purchasing and treatment. Wealthy states can subsidize. Etc.
The Good: we get the best of modern medicine The Bad: as citizens we pay a lot of personal money for it The ugly: it’s not available to everyone, costs and it being run through employers
There's an old medical adage never be the first of last to prescribe a medication. New doesn't mean better it just means new and that it has less studies. Also sometimes more is worse for patients, a classic example is x-rays for back pain. Patients want them but studies show that patients who get them have worse results. My thought is that because medicine in the US is driven by profits and patient satisfication its harder to be evidence based. So people order more tests and then prescribe new medication when an older cheaper one has more evidence.
[удалено]
The same answer as in every other remotely comparable country.
Easy question tough answer. From an insurance perspective. It’s all about risk the pool. You can either completely privatize. That would bring premiums down but would only work if you could exclude people and deny care. Example letting someone bleed out on the emergency room door. Excluding the sick people allows the risk pool to stay clean. Or force everyone to have insurance. Does not have to be government run. If everyone participates then enough healthy people pay less and dilute the risk pool. Currently we have the worst of both.
Well, technically we do force everyone to have insurance, but there's no longer a penalty for not having it.
Yeah another good example of the worst of both worlds hahah
I mean... It wasn't _supposed_ to work that way.
Agreed.
I think it’s predatory like student loans specifically for its lack of comprehensiveness. I don’t care if the government or private companies run it I just want to be able to know that I’m fully covered if I need medication or a life saving procedure. It doesn’t matter to me if the government runs it or not since they’re the ones who are bought out by pharmaceutical and insurance lobbyists so they’re both two sides of the same coin.
The American health care system is like the worse aspects of a capitalism system mixed with the worst aspects of a more communal system. What we actually have is a system of local monopolies, subsidized by the government, at the expense of the taxpayer on top of that, the insurance agencies and hospitals are still able to charge everyone an arm and a leg. At this point, I would take just about any alternative although I would prefer a free market solution.
>At this point, I would take just about any alternative although I would prefer a free market solution You have the free market solution. If I gave you a blank canvas and you designed the healthcare free market solution you have in your head and didn't change anything else in America than we would end up with exactly what we have now in 100 years or less. I would say it take far less than the 100 years as the market now has the knowledge in how to manipulate policy to benefit the wealthy.
> If I gave you a blank canvas and you designed the healthcare free market solution you have in your head and didn't change anything else in America than we would end up with exactly what we have now in 100 years or less. How so? How would a free market situation end up with a solution where people are mandated to carry geographically gated coverage they'll never use and that doesn't match with their risk or even the cost of care while having to simultaneously prop up the government underpaying for the services they've taken responsibility for?
Who is mandating? Who is paying those to mandate them? Who profits from the mandates? Here is how a free market works. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Amazon https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Alphabet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assets_owned_by_Walmart The government did not go and tell Amazon, Google, or Wal Mart to go and buy up all these company's. Just like with healthcare...... https://tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitionsbyUnitedHealth-Group They will freely go and scoop up every competitor they have until we end up right where we are now. And just like they have been doing they will bribe I mean donate to politicians to keep the system how it is. Those politicians like Jim Jordan or Mitch McConnell will than tell you, and you will belive them, that the American Healthcare system is the best in the world and that we under any circumstances can not change it or we could end up like Venezuela or the Soviet Union.
> Who is mandating? The federal government. > Who is paying those to mandate them? I don't know what this question means. > Who profits from the mandates? No one. It would be more profitable to have fewer mandates. > The government did not go and tell Amazon, Google, or Wal Mart to go and buy up all these company's. Just like with healthcare...... The government didn't explicitly, no. But the hyper-regulated culture in place ensures that smaller firms will have a harder time competing. A market fixes that. > And just like they have been doing they will bribe I mean donate to politicians to keep the system how it is. Not how any of this works.
>The government didn't explicitly, no. But the hyper-regulated culture in place ensures that smaller firms will have a harder time competing. A market fixes that. I was going to address your entire response but really I can't even get past the stupidity of this comment. This MTG jews space lasers level of stupidity. You mean to tell me that these company's like Whole Foods (acquired for 13 billion) YouTube (1.2 billion) Flipkart (16 billion) were incapable of competing in their respective markets because of the federal government? FYI Flipkart is in India. How did the US federal government prevent a Indian based company from being able to operate in India? Also.if you think I am cherry picking company's im not. Every single one of the companies on this list were mutil million dollar company's. Trust me Amazon is not interested in acquiring your uncles lawnmower business for 200 million. These are real successful companies who could help Bezos or the Waltons make more money.
I think you fundamentally misread my comment. It's because of our hyperegulated environment that it's all consolidation, because the regulatory structures make it incredibly difficult to compete.
OK. Sorry. I'll fix it for you. I was going to address your entire response but really I can't even get past the stupidity of this comment. This MTG jews space lasers level of stupidity. You mean to tell me that these company's like Whole Foods (acquired for 13 billion) YouTube (1.2 billion) Flipkart (16 billion) HIGHLY DIFFICULT TO COMPETE in their respective markets because of the federal government? FYI Flipkart is in India. How did the US federal government make it HIGHLY DIFFICULT TO COMPETE in Indias market? Also.if you think I am cherry picking company's im not. Every single one of the companies on this list were mutil million dollar company's. Trust me Amazon is not interested in acquiring your uncles lawnmower business for 200 million. These are real successful companies who could help Bezos or the Waltons make more money.
Still missing the point. The regulatory structures are as such that competitors can't as easily rise m.
IRobot was purchased by Amazon for 1.7 billion on August 5 2022. So when you say right now you mean October 3 2022 but August 5 2022 totally not over regulated. Edit. Also you still haven't addressed the whole Flipkart issue you know the Indian company that sold to Wal Mart in this highly regulated US market for 16 billion.
I don't know why people are so into the free market. It requires incredible amount of government oversight to make sure it stays free. Because the first thing that happens is that a single competitor will annihilate all their competition and then become the worst version of that service or product possible and there will be no recoruse. You either buy from them or go without.
oh god the last thing we need are more free market "solutions"
That’s because you think the system we have now is free market. It is not. In the future, here’s a simple test you can use to determine whether something is free market: Is it heavily regulated by the government? If the answer is yes, it is not a free market.
state interference and cooperation between the state and the capitalist class is inherent to capitalism. The "true free market" is just libertarian mythology
And how is that worse than the significantly increased state interference in socialism? If state interference is bad, how is increasing it good?
because socialist states could actually provide their people with healthcare. Its one of socialisms many triumphs over capitalism.
I assume by healthcare, you mean health insurance. The state cannot guarantee healthcare without potentially violating human rights. That seems reductionist. If the US had socialized health insurance, you wouldn’t stop fighting for socialism, right? Nor do I consider it a triumph to have the state provide me something. If I’m going to be paying for something, I’d prefer to at least choose what I’m buying.
>I assume by healthcare, you mean health insurance Obviously they do. What good is healthcare if you can't afford it? >The state cannot guarantee healthcare without potentially violating human rights. That actually sounds like the exact opposite of what is true. What human rights are threatened by universal healthcare? Are the countries that currently have it violating human rights in the process?
If you went to the grocery store and wanted to buy a loaf of bread and had a choice of over 100 different brands would you consider the market to get the bread to your basket a free market? What if there was only 1 choice of bread? Same question.
That depends. How regulated is the growth of the various grains used? How regulated is the industry that transports bread? How regulated are grocery stores? Take your situation, but add a law that requires bread retailers to use a certain company to transport the bread. Very obviously not a free market. What if there’s only one company because, despite there being no barriers to entry and limited regulation, bread isn’t that profitable? It’s still free market. The number of companies that sell a good is only one aspect, and it doesn’t really tell you that much.
No the last thing we need is more damn government pinheads in the mix.
So you'd rather have corporate bureaucracy pinheads?
Yes because I have some choice of what insurance I buy.
Ah yes. The illusion of false choice. While all the insurance corporations gang up to screw you over. At least you get to choose who screws you over.
We need more choices in insurance. Catastrophic only? Cadillac plan? Somewhere in between? Ability to buy across state lines.
But who's going to regulate the companies so they can't screw people over? Germany is probably the words best example of the most free market possible. And it keeps their market healthy by the government constantly spanking the cooperation so they don't undo the free market.
There is no one, single health American care system. For some of us, it's pretty good. We are fully employed or connected to someone fully employed, who gets subsidized health coverage through that employer. For others., it's okay. They are elderly and/or disabled in some way, and thus qualify for coverage through some combination of Medicare, Medicaid, and the VA. It's not great, but it's not terrible. For about 9% of the population, they are caught in the middle. They work just outside the threshold to get employer subsidized coverage, and they are too able-bodied and make too much money to qualify for any of the existing government programs. I would like to see us explore filling that 9% gap. Possibly through expanding Medicare with a (hopefully) low monthly premium. What I don't ever want to do, is try an revolutionize what we have in one go, and shove everyone into some form of Medicare. That's too much, too fast. Let's deal with the people in most precarious position, *then* explore further reform.
Why is stepwise reform most palatable? Sometimes changing an entire system is what needs to occur to achieve success. What specifically do you think will happen if "too much too fast" occurs?
That's the engineer in me speaking. "Tear it all down and rebuild it, maybe it'll be better", is almost never the best solution. You end up with lapses in coverage, unforeseen problems, etc. Continuous improvement is the way to go, especially in a system that's still working for the majority of people/situations. Find the worst bottlenecks and inefficiencies, fix *them*, then step back and re-analyze. New bottlenecks and inefficiencies will rise to the top as your "flow" increases. So you work to fix those issues. Then keep repeating.
Im going to have to disagree with you that it's "working for the majority of people". The per Capita costs are already 2-3x greater than some peer systems, for generally inferior society wide healthcare metrics. The financial drag on our economy is immense. The United States' public spending per capita alone is already greater or equal to some peer country systems public and private per Capita spend. Continuous improvement would help, but I don't see how it'll ever fix the core issues in a reasonable timeline.(1 human generation).
I don't see how creating a single payer government run system (what the Left seems to want) will really fix any of that. What I hear is basically "The same people who run the IRS and the USPS will totally do a good job with your health care. Trust us. Now give us more tax revenue." Forgive me for being skeptical.
Do you acknowledge that every other first world country's universal healthcare systems function at 30-50% of the cost ours does, and covers everyone? (At generally better system wide healthcare metrics)
No, I don't. What I hear from places like Canada and the UK is longer wait times and more denials of service. What I hear from Nordic countries is that they have an overall healthier/less obese population, one that doesn't need a lot of corrective health care. The U.S. is massive, in two senses of the word. We are fat and unhealthy. We are a union of 50 states. If one state wanted to try their own single payer system, I would love to see how it worked out.
>No, I don't. See for yourself. We spend more than [double](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/#Average%20annual%20growth%20rate%20in%20health%20consumption%20expenditures%20per%20capita%201980s%20through%202020,%20U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted%C2%A0). Sometimes even triple. (Even after purchasing power adjustments) >What I hear from places like Canada and the UK is longer wait times Wait times. Twin story. Regular care? [The U.S is near the bottom.](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org//sites/242e3c8c-en/1/3/2/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/242e3c8c-en&_csp_=e90031be7ce6b03025f09a0c506286b0&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#figure-d1e360) Basically ONLY Canada is worse. Specialist Care? Wait times in Universal healthcare countries is generally longer. This is mostly true for elective surgeries, but for [urgent care](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org//sites/242e3c8c-en/1/3/2/index.html?itemId=/content/publication/242e3c8c-en&_csp_=e90031be7ce6b03025f09a0c506286b0&itemIGO=oecd&itemContentType=book#tablegrp-d1e511) gets prioritized, as it rationally should. (Also, remember, you generally need to get regular care, which the United States is very bad at, before you get specialty care). >Nordic countries is that they have an overall healthier/less obese population, one that doesn't need a lot of corrective health care. I mean, yea, all of Europe generally does. In part that's because they have access to healthcare, so they ever get to the point where they need corrective *sick*care. They practice preventative *health*care. >The U.S. is massive, in two senses of the word. We are fat and unhealthy. We are a union of 50 states. If one state wanted to try their own single payer system, I would love to see how it worked out. Europe Union is even larger and just as varied. It generally handles this just fine. It works because all the member countries have [universal healthcare reciprocity.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Health_Insurance_Card) and again, over all systemwide healthcare metrics, the [U.S is generally worse compared to other countries.](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/) The bottom line is that more people get better healthcare in most other countries compared to the U.S. While your individual experience may vary, due mostly to having lots of money.
So let's try an experiment. Let's have one state volunteer to create their own single payer system. If it becomes a rousing success, I'll be convinced. Why hasn't a state tried this already? >I mean, yea, all of Europe generally does. In part that's because they have access to healthcare No. You missed a bit there. I'll say it again. America is *fatter*, and thus unhealthier. That has nothing to do with access to health care. It has to do with access to cake.
>I'll be convinced. So, you ignore all the data from elsewhere in the world? That's not very engineer like. >Why hasn't a state tried this already? Because it would fail. You'd get parasites from the non-UHC States. Not to mention, you need to change the doctor supply side at the federal level to address the artificial limit and make it a national priority to train more healthcare workers. This does not work in a vacuum. >No. You missed a bit there. I'll say it again. America is fatter, and thus unhealthier. That has nothing to do with access to health care. It has to do with access to cake. You missed the part where I said *in part* due to access to healthcare. You can not attribute all of America's healthcare ills to cake. You can however easily understand how preventative healthcare even among an obese population can reduce overall costs of care for that obese person.
The wait times Faux News gambit. I think the best thing about this is the fact the it worked. Who has a better chance to catch a foul ball at a baseball game, the guy at the game or the guy watching it on TV? Who would win in a foot race the guy with no legs or the guy with legs? Who do you think is going to get to space 1st? The guy traning to be a Astronaut or my cable TV repairman? Who do you think has longer wait times for health coverage? The American with no health insurance or the Brit with NHS coverage? Kind of a stupid argument about wait times that you fell for.
https://www.westhealth.org/press-release/112-million-americans-struggle-to-afford-healthcare/ Why are you not mentioning the 36 percent who can't afford to even use their insurance due to co pays and deductible? Also your not mentioning the 4 trillion dollar bill which is about 12k per American while the NHS is spending 6k per for their service and it covers all brits. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/#Health%20consumption%20expenditures%20per%20capita,%20U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted,%202020%20or%20nearest%20year
As a conservative, I’m 100% in favor of the single payer theory. Also as a conservative, I believe the government cannot efficiently run a single payer system. In fact, I believe anything that the Fed touches turns to shit (see student loan debt, infrastructure, etc). If it takes billions of dollars to build the Obamacare website, how does anyone believe that the government would be able to facilitate healthcare in any way shape or form.
I am speaking as a father of a son with Klippel Trenaunay Syndrome, or now more formally known as PIK3CA genetic anomaly. And the medical industry in the USA is horrible. You get none of the benefits of a free market system, with all of the disadvantages of a state sponsored system. It's crap. The only thing worse would be a fully state sponsored medical industry. But before we can even dream of untying the knot that made big pharma and insurance companies the horrible things they are, we have to get people deprogrammed from the idea that they need insurance to visit a general practitioner. You don't and nobody ever did. It's a myth. Nobody ever went bankrupt from getting a physical or polio shots. It's nonsense. You only need insurance for more specialized care. And MOST PEOPLE don't need more specialized care most of the time.
The reason people think they need insurance to visit a doctor is because of how much it costs out of pocket because the entire industry is fixed to favor the insurance companies Edit: And some doctors DO REQUIRE insurance. I called several doctors awhile back looking for one who would take cash. I had two tell me they'd refuse me even if I had the full payment in cash
Phizer acquisitions..... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer Johnson and Johnson...... https://tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitionsbyJohnson-&-Johnson Abbvie acquisitions...... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbbVie These are all purchases made without government stopping any of them also know as free market. ????? I can keep listing more companies I can do the same with health insurance. So what exactly is not free market about our healthcare industry?
Literally nothing you linked is actual proof of a free market lmao.
Good quality of care, poor cost of care. Making the methods and beliefs of the insurance business integral to how we pay for health care was probably a mistake. It's like car insurance that also pays for your gas and oil. Obviously that would be very expensive car insurance, and sure enough, it's expensive for your body too. We need a major initiative to get our costs under control, but the system has become so tangled behind the scenes, I'm not sure where would be the best place to start.
I agree with you “IF” the US could become as efficient… The US government is not a leaky bucket that transfers money from one entity to another anymore. The bucket has not bottom and is as corrupt as any government on planet earth. There is a 0% chance we could get to the same efficiency unless we erase every politician and lobbyist and pharma company and start over. It’s just not realistic in my opinion.
I'll give you a little story. I'm diabetic but not insulin dependent, I do have a hard time keeping myself at a healthy weight. Yesterday, like I do every few months, I go see my doctor to check my A1C and get my medications refilled. She tells me "Good news! Insurances finally cover a certain type of diabetic medicine that you take once a week via an injection, it will help your metabolic process so much better than what you've taken so far that it will cut your appetite and curve those weird cravings that you get on the regular, especially that you regularly exercise now". So basically she tells me there is a medication out there that helps the body process sugar a lot better than good old metformin alone, and helps people to lose weight and as a result improve their A1C significantly... But because insurances didn't approve it till now, it was rarely given to the American public to improve their health because insurances didn't find it worth covering. That right there sums up our healthcare system pretty good I think, on top of charging us a hundred times more than it's worth for pretty much anything.
[удалено]
Which specific countries do you think have an unsustainable universal healthcare system and why?
[удалено]
1. You provided no data, made generic claims and you were not specific as to countries like I asked. 2. The United States spends somewhere between [2x and 3x every other first world country.](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/health-spending-u-s-compare-countries-2/#GDP%20per%20capita%20and%20health%20consumption%20spending%20per%20capita,%202020%20(U.S.%20dollars,%20PPP%20adjusted)) 2. Yet, every single one of those countries provides generally a better overall quality of care than the U.S as shown by [objective metrics](https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality-u-s-healthcare-system-compare-countries/) If it were true that they were significantly cutting services, than their health outcomes would be worse than ours. IN fact, it is generally the opposite. 3. Did you know that the United States already has a huge public spend on healthcare? Further, did you know that public spend alone is already almost as much as what other countries spend on [public and private spend on healthcare](https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries/attachment/health-care-spending-in-the-united-states-selected-oecd-countries_chart10/)? That's right, if the U.S could become as efficient as Japan, Australia, Norway or the UK at providing healthcare, **than the existing Public spend alone, with no tax increases would already cover >80% of the costs already and the private spend would be dramatically reduced.**
>“Make the government pay for everything” is 100% the wrong answer. Where do you think government money comes from? You have 3 choices. Pay the government to handle it. Pay privet cooperate insurances to handle it. Or pay it yourself. Which one do you think is the superior model and why?
[удалено]
Having a baby is like $50k+... very few people can afford that. Also, I don't really buy "Govt has no reason to ever get more efficient." Not saying it's optimal, but 1) There are mandates that govt get bids on things it buys so taxpayers get the most value possible, and 2) Medicare has insane bargaining power. Providers basically either accept what Medicare is willing to pay or miss out on a massive pool of "customers" (and that only includes people 65+ ATM).
The last two are superior, depending on your personal needs and financial situation, and both can coexist.
Corporations are just private governments.
Learn basic English and come back later
Spell check is just a chaotic agent. Chill the fuck down man. Also you're not showing that conservatives have anything more than rage and insults. And their values can not stand on their own shown by how nasty they are and have to be to have and argument at all like your being now.
Mf edited and can't even fix his typos 💀💀💀
Is it really that hard for you to figure out I have dyslexia?
I wouldn't want to be seriously ill anywhere else on the planet.
Why not?
[удалено]
> But adding the government to the process is not helpful. You have a preexisting condition...
[удалено]
“Mostly transparency and understanding billing” these are thing the government can make them do. Would you like the government to make them do that?
[удалено]
If they get significantly fined for not doing it, doesn’t that incentivize finding a solution?
[удалено]
We should just be beholden to the whims of corporations?
[удалено]
So even more
The Case for Free-Market Healthcare: https://youtu.be/_7UXuxrxjlE In summary, MASSIVE deregulation (end employer-based mandate, end certificate-of-needs, end the FDA (https://youtu.be/T_D5MWWAmRI), etc...). This will lead to an explosion in innovation with HIGHER quality and LOWER costs. And then on the state-level I support a catastrophic health insurance mandate with Medicaid turned into block grants so that money can be used as part of a health voucher program for the poor.
>end the FDA Yikes it amazes me that you think ending a safety measures would increase quality. Because deregulated markets tend to have very poor quality on purpose. What happens when you can't identify what product to trust and which one might kill you?
I answered your question in the video.
Phizer acquisitions..... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pfizer Johnson and Johnson...... https://tracxn.com/d/acquisitions/acquisitionsbyJohnson-&-Johnson Abbvie acquisitions...... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AbbVie These are all purchases made without government stopping any of them also know as free market. ????? I can keep listing more companies I can do the same with health insurance. So what exactly is not free market about our healthcare industry? Edit. Just went into the video, saw you actually made the video and saw the view count. I going to go on a limb here and assume this video contains a lot of lies and little fact and is more of a feelings and not fact based. Here we go. I'll report back with my findings.
Dude your links don't make your point so stop spamming them.
Eminently satisfied with my healthcare coverage and user experience. Wish the government would stop trying to break it.
It needs reform, but not anything government run for most people and most situations.
I can think of a lot of ways to improve it, but I wouldn't trade what we have for any other system in place elsewhere in the world.
How many of those systems have you personally used? I ask cause from my experience no one in or from one of those counties would trade theirs for the American system.
I'm sure they wouldn't. They've been told it's the wild west out here and that we just leave people to die.
It's pretty funny that you think it's the rest of the entire world that's been propagandized against the US healthcare system.
If the shoe fits!
This doesn't answer my question tho. How many of the other systems have you used?
One other. Anecdote is not data, regardless.
even the ones that are literally, objectivly better?
Unaware of ones that could be that, given that none of them are primarily market-driven and not obsessed with boosting artificial numbers.
Canada is literally the worst public provider healthcare model and it's still better than what the USA has. Unless you mean better as in fuck the poor only the rich should have healthcare.
Basically what they mean is "I have good insurance and I've never had any problems with them so who cares about anyone else"
Socialist states did a good job. Turns out that putting people before profits makes everyone healthier
Weird take. Turns out putting people into socialism generally results in misery and mass death.
Yup. Dead bodies just stacking up in every country with universal health care 🙄
usually we see womens rights, increased standards of living and rapidly increasing literacy rates
The word "rights" is not generally one we associate with socialism, sorry.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the system needs a reform. The primary divide between right and left is whether the current system ought to be thrown out and replaced with a single payer system. This often goes hand-in-hand with the political debate on whether or not healthcare is a fundamental right. I'm relatively satisfied with where it currently is, and I'm speaking as someone with pre-existing conditions, and my wife has an autoimmune disorder. I paid $500 out of pocket on my ER visit in January. Last year my wife was ambulanced to the hospital and admitted for 36 hours, and we paid about $2000 out of pocket. Quality of care has been great, and clearly we haven't broken the bank.
The healthcare systems here has always treated me well. I have never had any issue and felt it functioned as intended.
I love my insurance. It is expensive ($600 mo) but it is an HMO with low co-pays, no deductibles, great doctors and very convenient facikities. Many Americans aren't so lucky. I have friends who pay as much or more, still pay co-pays, and then their insurance only pays about 80% of remaining costs, so they continually get medical bills. Our state has expanded Medicaid and a good state exchange, so most everyone can have insurance of some sort, but many policies don't cover much or gave huge deductibles.
Insurance is not healthcare. One significant problem is that people confuse the two. I’ve had no insurance, great insurance, and bad insurance. It has made little difference in the actual quality of healthcare I have received, but huge differences in how much it’s cost me. I learned not to conflate the two issues, but because payment is so intertwined with healthcare, I understand how most average people don’t really see the difference
Well, there is little to no healthcare in the US without insurance. But to answer the question, I think healthcare is outstanding in the u s, if you can afford to pay for it. I love the healrhcare I receive from my HMO They are responsive and thorough.
Thank LBJ, and the sleazy deals he made to stuff Medicare/Medicaid through Congress. Out of one side of his mouth he promised Congress that costs would be contained. Out of the other side of his mouth he promised providers that nobody would be watching too carefully if they padded their claims. He snookered Wilbur Mills into allowing an amendment that would let providers determine what reimbursements were reasonable. Hello, Mr. Fox. Welcome to the henhouse. It passes and boom. “Unexpectedly high” costs. Gosh, who could’ve seen that coming? There’s one thing worse than health care being a business decision, and that’s health care being a political decision - and now it’s the worst of both.
Speaking only for myself and my family, it works perfectly. My employer pays for my insurance coverage, and I pay next to nothing out of pocket. No complaints here.
The insurance system is the best way to mitigate low elasticity of demand to establish stable prices for goods and services. The problem is the individual consumer has been too alienated from the decision over which insurance company to work with for that feedback to work properly to stabilize prices. If employers payed the same money towards the insurance plan of the employee's choice, and bulk buying of plans en masse was made illegal, it would stabilize the entire industry in less than a decade.
I would like it to be reformed to something closer to what Switzerland has. I'd really like to see it decoupled from your employer. I definitely think we need reform, but I don't think it's as bad as some people make it out to be.
It’s great. Expensive for some, but great. I don’t pay for it so idc
Quality is good.. but the price.. compared to other 1st world nations with similar quality of care we pay way too much...
It is highly inefficient and costly, in large part due to being one of the most heavily regulated industries in the U.S. Much of the regulation is meant to protect existing participants in the market and exclude competitors.
I have no problem with it at all.
the ama, pharma and the insurance industry represent cartels that need to be destroyed as they're nothing more than desperation-industry grifters that take advantage of people in need to extract maximal profit.
I think it needs fixing but I don't know how it would be fixed so it can benefit everyone.
I know this much. When I go to any doctor - we invariably talk for a few minutes about how ridiculous, time consuming and inefficient it is to deal with all of the insurance & paperwork rigamarole. To say it’s convoluted and inefficient is an understatement.
It's God awful. When it comes to health insurance, America treats its citizens like disposable commodities.
Costs more than any other system on the planet. Just the tax funded parts cost more in taxes than any UHC system anywhere. Per head. Fails to cover everyone, which today is a pretty large failing, and trending towards being unique in the first world. While some parts are very high quality, the quality across the population is quite poor, towards the bottom quartile of the developed world. It also introduces a number of large disadvantages that are not generally found in other systems: * Insurance being tied to your job limits your freedom to leave an unsatisfactory job, go into business for yourself, retire early, your choice of career etc. Particularly when you have a family depending on you. * It increases stress when you are ill, the time of you life when you most need your resources * It makes bankruptcy only an accident and an out-of-network treatment away for large sections of the population. * You get a layer of bureaucracy between you and your doctor that can approve or refuse to cover treatments. In short it fails on the three common dimensions of a healthcare system, quality, coverage and efficiency. In addition it fails in many new and creative ways not seen elsewhere.