I'd love to see the data on immigrants. I worked for years doing taxes. It is not true about immigrants. They're using other people's SSNs. They all apply for EIC. So, no. They are suckers on the line.
It fucking does mean rationing. Because government does not have a price mechanism, it falls under the economic calculation problem and the knowledge problem.
Adding up Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Admin, CHIP etc. totals approximately $1.1 trillion/annum, or $3360/year per head of population. The United Kingdoms NHS delivers universal health care for approximately $3045/year per head of population. American taxpayers already pay more taxes for healthcare than Brits, only most of them get no benefit for those tax dollars. Tax information is from the Tax Policy Center (USA), Office of National Statistics (UK).
My question about #3 in particular is: how can we consistently and objectively tell the difference between spending that is wasteful and inefficient and spending that is not? What evidence is there that the government would be the better suited at making those sorts of delineations rather than healthcare consumers and their doctors?
Thanks for asking, JBloom31 (Are we related, I mean, as a Bloom to a Flower?). In answer, refer to Myth #4: You are assuming that the path to universal care is necessarily government-controlled, "socialist" regulation, so cutting out waste and inefficiency means that the government has to decide what is wasteful and inefficient. The truth is that the current dominant method of payment for healthcare-fee-for-service, treat-to-code-not only does not discourage waste and inefficiency, it actively pays for it. If we changed the payment methods so that healthcare providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics) in one way or another actually compete on price, quality, and appropriateness, those providers would quickly stop doing tings that don't need to be done, and rapidly figure out how to be far more efficient at what they actually do.
@@JoeFlower First of all thanks for answering me. "You are assuming that the path to universal care is necessarily government-controlled, "socialist" regulation, so cutting out waste and inefficiency means that the government has to decide what is wasteful and inefficient." Only because that's what's currently being seriously proposed by people like Bernie Sanders and backed by many of the people running for nomination alongside him in 2020. fortune.com/2019/04/10/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill/ "If we changed the payment methods so that healthcare providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics) in one way or another actually compete on price, quality, and appropriateness" Do you have a video that covers what you think that payment plan might look like? I've watched most of your videos on the subject of universal healthcare but perhaps I've missed that one. Thanks again.
@@bloomj31 > Only because that's what's currently being seriously proposed by people like Bernie Sanders... That's why this video is about "The Top 10 Myths..." I am trying to differentiate the truth from what is being proposed on all sides. > Do you have a video that covers what you think that payment plan might look like? Actually, I do, but first there is an assumption in your question. We all tend to think of "how to pay for healthcare" as a question with one answer. That is actually one of the reasons it is so hard to come up with that answer, because no answer can fit everyone in every situation. Rather I am talking about a number of tweaks to the system. So did you watch "Medicare For All - Half Off!" It's here: th-cam.com/video/NPs9iF_bTdI/w-d-xo.html If you watched the thee-minute trailer you didn't see all this detailed stuff. It's the 25-minute Master Class that details a lot of the different payment structures and systems that together could greatly reduce the cost of healthcare, even in a universal system.
@@JoeFlower "I am trying to differentiate the truth from what is being proposed on all sides." Do you think that in principle a single payer system would be the most preferable version of universal healthcare systems? "It's the 25-minute Master Class that details a lot of the different payment structures and systems that together could greatly reduce the cost of healthcare, even in a universal system." After watching the video I suppose I have three questions: 1. What economic theory of value do you suggest we apply to healthcare? 2. Are you suggesting the government and/or private insurers start to use a website like choosewisely to differentiate between wasteful spending and whatever the opposite of wasteful spending is? 3. Do you think most of these suggested structural changes would require government interventions of some sort?
@@bloomj31 Question 0: Do you think that in principle a single payer system would be the most preferable version of universal healthcare systems? No, but not for any theory about what is "too much government control" or anything like that. If a whole system has one payer rather than competing payers, it is much easier for the providers to game that system through regulatory capture and market dominance. If a single payer system channeled the funds for healthcare through multiple buying entities (which could be insurance companies) whose business models had built into them the incentive to actually get the job done for less, then single payer would work.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
I'd love to see the data on immigrants. I worked for years doing taxes. It is not true about immigrants. They're using other people's SSNs. They all apply for EIC. So, no. They are suckers on the line.
It fucking does mean rationing. Because government does not have a price mechanism, it falls under the economic calculation problem and the knowledge problem.
Interesting that the USA is still having this conversation. All other developed countries have done it last century. And its working very good!
Adding up Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Admin, CHIP etc. totals approximately $1.1 trillion/annum, or $3360/year per head of population. The United Kingdoms NHS delivers universal health care for approximately $3045/year per head of population. American taxpayers already pay more taxes for healthcare than Brits, only most of them get no benefit for those tax dollars. Tax information is from the Tax Policy Center (USA), Office of National Statistics (UK).
My question about #3 in particular is: how can we consistently and objectively tell the difference between spending that is wasteful and inefficient and spending that is not?
What evidence is there that the government would be the better suited at making those sorts of delineations rather than healthcare consumers and their doctors?
Thanks for asking, JBloom31 (Are we related, I mean, as a Bloom to a Flower?). In answer, refer to Myth #4: You are assuming that the path to universal care is necessarily government-controlled, "socialist" regulation, so cutting out waste and inefficiency means that the government has to decide what is wasteful and inefficient.
The truth is that the current dominant method of payment for healthcare-fee-for-service, treat-to-code-not only does not discourage waste and inefficiency, it actively pays for it. If we changed the payment methods so that healthcare providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics) in one way or another actually compete on price, quality, and appropriateness, those providers would quickly stop doing tings that don't need to be done, and rapidly figure out how to be far more efficient at what they actually do.
@@JoeFlower First of all thanks for answering me.
"You are assuming that the path to universal care is necessarily government-controlled, "socialist" regulation, so cutting out waste and inefficiency means that the government has to decide what is wasteful and inefficient."
Only because that's what's currently being seriously proposed by people like Bernie Sanders and backed by many of the people running for nomination alongside him in 2020.
fortune.com/2019/04/10/bernie-sanders-medicare-for-all-bill/
"If we changed the payment methods so that healthcare providers (doctors, hospitals, clinics) in one way or another actually compete on price, quality, and appropriateness"
Do you have a video that covers what you think that payment plan might look like? I've watched most of your videos on the subject of universal healthcare but perhaps I've missed that one.
Thanks again.
@@bloomj31 > Only because that's what's currently being seriously proposed by people like Bernie Sanders...
That's why this video is about "The Top 10 Myths..." I am trying to differentiate the truth from what is being proposed on all sides.
> Do you have a video that covers what you think that payment plan might look like?
Actually, I do, but first there is an assumption in your question. We all tend to think of "how to pay for healthcare" as a question with one answer. That is actually one of the reasons it is so hard to come up with that answer, because no answer can fit everyone in every situation. Rather I am talking about a number of tweaks to the system.
So did you watch "Medicare For All - Half Off!" It's here: th-cam.com/video/NPs9iF_bTdI/w-d-xo.html
If you watched the thee-minute trailer you didn't see all this detailed stuff. It's the 25-minute Master Class that details a lot of the different payment structures and systems that together could greatly reduce the cost of healthcare, even in a universal system.
@@JoeFlower "I am trying to differentiate the truth from what is being proposed on all sides."
Do you think that in principle a single payer system would be the most preferable version of universal healthcare systems?
"It's the 25-minute Master Class that details a lot of the different payment structures and systems that together could greatly reduce the cost of healthcare, even in a universal system."
After watching the video I suppose I have three questions:
1. What economic theory of value do you suggest we apply to healthcare?
2. Are you suggesting the government and/or private insurers start to use a website like choosewisely to differentiate between wasteful spending and whatever the opposite of wasteful spending is?
3. Do you think most of these suggested structural changes would require government interventions of some sort?
@@bloomj31 Question 0: Do you think that in principle a single payer system would be the most preferable version of universal healthcare systems?
No, but not for any theory about what is "too much government control" or anything like that. If a whole system has one payer rather than competing payers, it is much easier for the providers to game that system through regulatory capture and market dominance. If a single payer system channeled the funds for healthcare through multiple buying entities (which could be insurance companies) whose business models had built into them the incentive to actually get the job done for less, then single payer would work.
Very odd fellow.