Politicians need to realize there are more solutions than just mfa or current system. Half of Europe uses a private system like the US but with extreme regulations- where government sets the prices.
You would think that with the ACA forceing everyone purchase insurance private insurance wouldn't need to advertise as much. You would also think there government wouldn't need to spend so much in advertising the ACA marketplace since Medicare doesn't require any.
tetsubo57 Without profit, you wouldn't have the kinds of healthcare technology available too... So... if anybody can offer a solution appealing to both consumers and producers, please become a consultant and offer your services, thank you.
In the USA some insurance companies and many providers are not for profits. In most countries at least some healthcare is provided by for profit companies. The UK is the one I know of that provides the great bulk of healthcare by government and not through for profit companies. Some care in the UK is provided by for profits though. (There may be other countries similar to the UK, maybe Sweden and I know Honduras is similar to the UK but more people there opt for private care. I only mention Honduras because I lived there.) Some people in the UK do get some private health insurance: www.privatehealthadvice.co.uk/figures-facts-about-uk-private-healthcare.html ("After the rise in 2015, a total of 4,022,000 people have cover, or 10.6% of the population.") BTW k-12 education in the USA is dominated by Government and the USA spend much more than other developed countries with very similar output.
Longtime viewer, first time commenter here. Like, I've been watching since the channel was established and promoted by vlogbros. Love your work, Dr. Carroll. I work, now, in a pain management clinic. I previously worked for a major private company which offers Medicare advantage plans. In fact I'd say it's one of the industry's leading companies and continues to expand its Medicare offerings and decrease it's commercial plans. I know Medicare isn't a super entertaining topic to young people because it gives an impression that this only matters for the "elderly" but, knowing what I know in my line of work, it is so important for every American citizen to learn all that we can about Medicare as it operates today. Especially if we eventually hope to push for a single payer system where we are all operating under a "medicare for all" program regardless of age. I implore you to make more videos breaking down Medicare into digestible pieces. You guys do so well at making things understandable in laymen (sp?) terms and it's a topic we so desperately need to hear more about it!! Thank you for all you do, HCT!!
Not an American but the network of doctors thing always seemed odd to me, only being able to go to a doctor on your insurance network seems nuts. Doing away with that and having just Medicare and all doctors accessible to all patients seems more sensible
More complicated than that. The federal government provides Medicare, but private insurance companies are regulated by each state independently. That drives up costs tremendously for insurers, as they essentially have to have a different division for each state. Each state also requires that an insurer have enough doctors in the network to provide all possible services. Large hospitals align themselves with certain insurers to guarantee themselves patients. The insurers have to direct their patients to the hospital networks to guarantee enough specialty coverage. This is a failure of government.
@@christianlibertarian5488 It's the states that provide supervision of private insurance and can ban them if them misbehave. Sounds to me, you are pushing de-regulation.
Good luck running a hospital or clinic on 87 cents on the dollar. The American Hospitals Association has found that half the hospitals in the country would be operating at a loss under MFA.
@@cbl6520 Under Medicare for All, the federal government would negotiate a global budget with hospitals. This is nothing new. Many countries around the world do this and it works. The AHA represents many hospitals, including for-profit, with some extremely well compensated executives. It stands to reason that they be against MFA, as they’d wouldn’t be as wealthy under a system that prioritized human needs over profits.
@@timc1604 Problem with global budgets is that they never allow for enough funding to provide unfettered access to care and can only control supply and not demand, hints the rationing and long waiting lists for treatment in most universal healthcare systems. They also put healthcare decisions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, whom decide how many MRI scanners are available, how many beds hospitals have and how many medical graduates enter the work force, and above all else when and IF you receive care, as a means of artificially controlling costs. Imagine being diagnosed with a highly aggressive cancer and being told you have to wait several months to get chemotherapy and radiation therapy, cancer doesn’t exactly care about wait times. Also, your second statement is what we call a genetic fallacy, where you disregard the validity of a claim based on its origin and not the claim itself. You can’t just disregard information based on its origin. Just because it comes from a “for profit” institution doesn’t invalidate the claim in question. If you need further proof, The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has also mirrored the AHA’s projected outcomes of MFA’s devastating financial impact on hospitals and other outpatient clinical institutions.
Your doctor can do care management, coordinating your care to appropriately specialist as they always have done. Private insurance companies do it to spend as little on as little care possible.
@@caracrabtree715 I want you to note what you just said. Private insurance companies are dedicated to reduce spending. There is no other actor in the entire system that wants to reduce spending. Yet you condemn the insurance companies for doing their job.
Hey this is all very nice, but as a foreigner, It would really do me a lot of good if you slowed down and dumbed it down a little bit, like explaining terms etc... Thanks for your work!
Looking at the administrative costs of Medicare for all are interesting, but if such a program were to be created tomorrow, as you've just pointed out that would be a small fraction of total cost. Ever plan on an episode (or maybe there's one already that I missed) going over exactly how much MFA would likely cost if it were to appear? And maybe just as important: for the average american who switched from average private insurance, would their health outcomes likely worsen or improve as a result of switching to MFA?
if the private part of medicare actually costs a lot to maintain, this is an excellent argument to get rid of private players in medicare for essentials and cover them fully.
Any politician against Medicare for All should lose theirs. Personally I think they should be tied to each other. They should get the same quality and quantity of the same value as the rest of us Average Joes.
Hi I'm all for Medicare for all but please don't act this way. Everyone is human and has a right to equal access of quality healthcare services regardless of their personal beliefs. Stand up for the core values you are fighting for and don't let others frame of mind influence those values. Healthcare is a right. For everyone.
@@Schru1 All I said was politicians should not have better health care than the rest of us especially since taxes pay the bill. So I don't understand what you mean by don't act this way. No one is better than anyone else including the House of Representatives and the Senate. And if they want to vote against the common person then they should have the same health care as the rest of us and see what they think then.
Take away private insurance companies, make government the only buyer as an monopsony will make drug / device companies lower their costs for their products and services.
At least there is a way to effect the reduction of bureaucracy in Medicare by public oversight and required transparency. That is not the case in the private health care and insurance industry, especially as in many states private health insurance is in the hands of quasi monopolies that the public has no way to control. No transparency - business secrets - and competing bureaucrats in private health insurance vs. required transparency in Medicare administrations - which one do you preference?
You have perfect transparency in private insurance. You read the contract, and that is what they are obliged to do. States are the entities in control of insurance companies, not the federal government. The state limitations are what creates the quasi-monopolies. Talk to your STATE government if you don't like the health insurance rules.
Allowing for more sufficient competition between medical insurance companies would certainly help bring down the private administration costs. We don't currently have much of a competitive marketplace.
HMO Networks decrease competition. PPO are expensive. The US Health Care non-system is extremely fragmented, bureaucratic, wasteful, very expensive, down right complicated, utterly unfair etc.
HEALTH CARE : Europe vs America THE USA WHY SO COMPLICATED??? WHATS IN IT FOR THE GOVERNMENTs and THE PATIENTS and why EUROPE WINS European system costs 11% of GDP against 19% in the USA The USA (BAD)system is rated at 42nd in the world. EU HEALTH CARE IS ALL INCLUDED and is the best! THE REAL ISSUE 1. EU Health is non political, non profit, more efficient and cheaper that the USA system, 2. BETTER in many ways, as the patient is first, and health has no “profit COST”. 3. It reduces the cost to the Government. (11% against the USA 20% per year GDP) 4. Its not fragmented. Its coverage is national, and for all. 5. If you are REGISTERED as a TAX payer, you have no problems. 6. If you are clandestine, then you get some emergency humanitarian services only. USA life expectancy is 42th in the world on the world ratings. WHATS IN IT FOR THE EU PATIENT? If you pay taxes, as an individual, and contribute to the central government “POT” (the community POT of money). You are covered for all treatment, hospital costs, surgery, drugs, implants, chemo, post op therapies, cost of prescribed drugs, specialist and normal GP doctors bills, specialist bills etc etc. (There are some small exceptions.) You dont have to look at the small print of coverage. Its all included, pocket your credit card.. you dont need it. You dont have to pay in advance NO Paperwork just let the system work The system is rated as better than the American system as nobody is excluded and the system covers 99% of all patient needs. THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM: HOW IT WORKS: All european health systems are government run and are simple systems . It is a central, run by the govenment covering all healthcare needs for the population and is non profit , universal, and also internationally recognised between all EU countries. The EU underlying system is through fiscal residency of a person, Simply put, each person pays into the THE GOVENMENT POT as a % of individual pay packet contributions where you are employed Importantly even if you are unemployed, but registered, you control illegal immigration. Illegals get no benefits, unless humanitarian emergency. Importantly you are still covered. you as a patient get equal rights and coverage across Europe. The EU system is state run, and covers everyone, from birth to death and costs half of the USA system. Therefore in the USA a % of the health cost is based on profit to be paid out in dividends. Additionallly not all people in the USA are covered, (approximately 15%) Its a Bum deal for Americans. It costs 8-9% of GDP more than Europe HOW IT IS MANAGED: In America USA, the health system is profit run for the most part and privately handled. Patient care is secondary to profit for 50% of coverage. The European state (country) is the employer of all health staff, doctors, nurses, etc. Central government then covers the hospitals costs through a system which keeps the hospitals covered for the expenses of each patient. If we compare the EU to the USA structure in terms of cost to GDP, Europe average 11% of GDP to the USA 20% of GDP, (2019) with the EU at 99% coverage and with improved life expectancy rate, compared to the USA. Central Government in each country collects the money through the taxes you pay as a citizen, and redistributes it (generally) to regions ,hospitals, and doctors etc which then distributes the funds to the health system used by the patient. The Government also allows the private sector to operate under the public system, to build hospitals, run them privately. Each country allows this in different rules, like Germany/UK/France etc. They are then licence them to operate by the government. But importantly, the patient who pays to the state contributions through his salary, has equal rights to access all hospitals. 10-15 % of the EU health system is private If you wish to pay an additional supplement to the state system, you are allowed to do this into to the private scheme on top of your mandatory state payments so you get private health care coverage. But you cannot opt out of the central system or add to it. Most of people dont have the means or desire to pay private insurance policies. So the state system is better for them. WHATS THE BENEFIT IN THE EUROPE SYSTEM Basically the EU system covers 99% of people and costs the half of the USA system. In addition to this, with the EU system, if you pay contributions to the health system in the UK or France, you can have full medical care in other countries , Germany, Italy, Hungary or any other of the 27 states etc. If you lose your job, you will still be covered. you just pay less to the system as unemployment reimbusement to you is less, so you pay less, but the more you earn at work, the more you contribute to the central system. Its based on % of earnings. These European systems are based on the old and original UK system, The National Health Service, abbreviated to NHS, was launched by the then Minister of Health in Attlee's post-war government, Aneurin Bevan, at the Park Hospital in Manchester. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948 at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester. Thanks for the comments!!!!
Interesting that you make networks sound like they're supposed to be good when I think they're a major problem with US healthcare... It took my dad 6 months of fighting with insurance about out of network issues before he could get surgery for his pancreatic cancer and know it would be covered.
Yeah I don't get why people love private bureaucracy but hate public bureaucracy. And private plans are often cheaters. I paid $100/month for about seven years for a plan for my daughter. When she was 17 she accidentally cut a tendon in her thumb trying to open plastic packaging. I looked up the preferred providers in the plan, and chose one. The plan was $2000 deductible, so I paid that. Then after the fact they refused to pay for anesthesia, and when I got the surgeon bill they only paid for 50% instead of the advertised 80% because they said he charged too much. So I ended up paying around $6,000 in addition to the $7,000 I had already paid for insurance. They only ended up paying out about $4,000!
@Daniel Jensen - It isn't just fighting with insurance companies about network issues, although that is bad enough. The video is a bit disingenuous in the place where it covers the additional administrative costs of private health insurance that are caused by extra spending on fraud detection & prevention. All of those extra verification procedures and reviews of claims are not primarily to prevent fraud. That may have been the reason they started, but at some point an insurance company exec realized that profits could be increased by rejecting claims. Now, private insurance companies have "fraud prevention" and claims review departments whose primary purpose is to find reasons to reject or delay payment of claims. And they are quite good at it, as they are making profit contributions far greater than the costs of doing the reviews.
@@christianlibertarian5488 With private insurance, the damage is already done. You can switch, but you can never get your thousands of dollars back, and many people will be financially ruined. Nor can you get back the thousands of dollars in premiums you paid over the years leading up to that one medical event where you found out they weren't going to live up to what you thought you had paid for. France has a very good system where taxes pay for about 77% of healthcare expenses, and private supplementary insurance pays for most of what's left over. French healthcare regularly ranks in the top 5, and it costs half as much per person as US healthcare, primarily because the government negotiates pricing with providers and suppliers. If we could save even just 30%, that would be around $1 trillion annually, about $3,000 per year for every US citizen.
@@dalegreer3095 In France, radiologists make about $100,000/yr. At that rate, there would be exactly zero radiologists in the US. Other specialties are similar. France doesn't "negotiate." The government sets a price.
@@k-doggy1762 The rest of the world does not have single payer. Canada has single payer and Sweden, UK and many less developed countries have government provided care which is close to single payer. Switzerland, Germany, France and the Netherlands have Universal care closer to the USA under the PPACA though starting in 2019 the USA will go back to allowing people to opt out of buying health insurance which will again move away from the systems I mentioned (Switzerland, Germany, France and the Netherlands) making the USA once again the odd man out, .
Wrong. Profit belongs in healthcare as well as all other goods and services. There is no "price gouging" in a competitive market. The solution is ending state involvement, not expanding it.
Chris Lewis sorry for the late reply. Healthcare is a complicated field, and there’s no clear solution to how broken our system is. I think it’s good to have some competition - for example Europe does have for profit clinics, however we need a minimum standard of care. When people get arrested they have the right to an attorney, when they get sick they should have the right to a doctor. I’ve got zero problem paying higher taxes if it means that everyone is entitled to healthcare, though we do need to deal with the fact that they lobby more than any other group in order to change things. It’s a multi-faceted issue, but in short, I’d rather it be run poorly then have millions of people not get proper healthcare.
The largest cause of higher costs , under a single - payer plan, is a relatively small percentage of people greatly over- using the highest- priced services and benefits.
The statement at the 5:24 mark that private plans offer an advantage because they have an out-of-pocket limit and Medicare does not is completely disingenuous. It ignores the fact that up until the Affordable Care Act that conservatives love to hate, private insurance typically did not have an out-of-pocket limit and for those private health care insurance policies that did have a limit, it was much, much higher than it is now. The out-of-pocket limit is not something that the insurance company executives put in place because they are responsible, caring people. They did it because they were forced to.
The fact is this: Humanity is going to stop growing our population eventually. When that happens, we are going to be living in a society in which the old people to less than old people ratio is going to be really high. Healthcare costs will rise as that ratio rises, because old people are health care whales. It will not get any higher than that, but it will cap off at a high level, and we are going to have either bear the cost of that society, or we are going to have to start letting old people die. Pick one and be honest about the consequences you think society should accept: should we live in a society in which we can live nice long retirements? Or should we just let old people die before or not long after they retire.
Medicare for all is just the tag line. It would be a system mirroring other countries and not the US’s Medicare. Every proponent of Medicare for all is so because of being a great opponent to price gouging private insurance so of course they don’t want it.
In the US, you have to be careful about how you say it. You can supply hot buttons for the older, more narrow sighted and entrenched who will champion the big pharma and generally be oppositonal
If Medicare is funded by people working their whole life to out into a system they can use when they retire... then how are we gonna justify ppl taking from the pool before they have contributed adequately?
Doesn't work like that. Medicare taxes today fund costs today. No value is stored. There will have to be taxes on every working person, to pay for benefits for everybody in the US.
don't many doctors hate taking medicare/medicaid? both because they pay so far below market value that it pretty much costs them money to have those patients AND actually getting medicare/medicaid to cough up the tiny bit of money they DO give is arduous and time consuming. Making a medicare for all plan sounds like you'd wind up with the same issues as Canada that you COULD go to a regular doctor and get a limited selection of possible treatments, or you could cough up additional money and go to a private doctor you actually pay and get significantly better service.
it's math. Americans don't like to do the math. Here I'll do it for you all. Right now my premium is $2244 a year. If Medicare for all is passed it would a 4% tax on my 40k income coming to $1600 and I wouldn't pay for anything else like prescriptions, co-pays etc. So does everyone now see that it is a lot less? When you take away the profiteering from private insurance and big pharma. All our costs will go down
I mean I love this idea but like... I love quality healthcare facilities that are comfortable and technologically advanced. I think a lot of people that support Medicare for All (which I personally do) think that Medicare equals free healthcare. Most don't even know the difference between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage nor do they understand different parts of Medicare such as supplemental insurance. Urgencies will be covered (part A) but part B (and arguably C) work to control utilization and overall healthcare spending; however, with either Traditional or Advantage, you will never go bankrupt because of medical bills.
@@Schru1 We don't think its free healthcare, everyone knows it is paid by taxes :/ Its just run more efficiently and ethically when you remove the profit motive. And no, I didn't know the difference between the two but I'm British so I don't really need to. I do watch a lot of American news on youtube tho so it is suprising that I haven't heard the terms before. We have private insurance here in the UK but its for supplimental stuff on top of your essential healthcare; which is entirely free whilst you are in the facility. The fact Americans go bankrupt because of healthcare at all is disgusting to me.
@@charliesmith1358 Part A is paid through taxes but parts B, C and D require at least copayment and typically premiums. Very similar to private insurance.
@@charliesmith1358 But thanks for your perspective! I'm always interested in hearing others thoughts on healthcare and I've always loved studying other countries systems! :)
@@charliesmith1358 "We don't think its free healthcare, everyone knows it is paid by taxes :/ Its just run more efficiently and ethically when you remove the profit motive." So explain to me why over 8000 doctors have left the UK 2008 and 2012 and medical school enrollment is down in the UK, of which the primary reason is poor pay and working conditions? Or how about the fact that NHS hospital patients are 45% more likely to die than their American counterparts? www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-british-doctors-do-not-want-to-practice-in-own-country/ www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/gp-topics/education/medical-school-applications-decrease-as-negative-publicity-takes-toll/20030395.article www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/death-rate-much-higher-in-english-than-us-hospitals/
im a doctor and i'll just say straight up. medicare managed by private insurance is wayyyyy more paperwork and etc. I have some patients on medicaid and medicare that get it through the county's public plan. and the admin is almost non-existent. its wayyyy easier to work with them compared to privately run medicare. but private plans straight up (except for the top 0.1% of super elite plans) are even worse. also, why are you using current medicare as a base-point? the medicare for all plan has nothing to do with current medicare? you talk about out of pocket cost, but the bill clearly says $200 out of pocket max annually. www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129 i will leave the link here for people who want to be actually informed. summary: coverage will be comprehensive - including medications there will be no cost sharing, no copay no co insurance no deductible, except for medications which has $200 annual max the secretary of health will completely re-draft the provider payment fee schedule to reflect a fair rate, which will increase in proportion to inflation and other factors.
I am amazed that you are a doctor but don't understand how you are paid. Medicare currently does not pay you enough to cover your income. If you worked 100% Medicare, you would have no net earnings. Zero. Zip. Medicare for all *CANNOT* work, as written in the Sanders bill. It would provide insurance for all, but eliminate care for anyone.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Thank you for informing me how my practice is running. I had no idea! I must have been dreaming when doing my books every month. if you actually read the bill, you would have seen the section where they would compeltely re-write the fee-schedule payments, meaning the pay would be more. and these days big insurance pushes you to be in-network in exchange for sometimes lower pay than medicare/medicaid pays you, often times the same, except with more paper work involved, meaning less time to treat more patients, meaning actually less net pay. of course you can go out of network and gouge the public with 5000+ deductibles that no one would ever use for non emergency proceedures such as surgery. my professional policy is to never send any surprise bills, i've paid for hundreds of treatments out of my own pocket because insurance keeps playing games. but yea, tell me more about my finances because obviously you know better than I do.
@@ajlee613 OK. I get $6 to read a single view chest xray from Medicare. I get $14 from the combined mix of private payers. Is there a provision in the bill which doubles re-imbursement to that of private payers? Or, is Bernie Sanders planning to cut my income yet still expect the same level of care?
@@christianlibertarian5488 yes read the bill first. they will completely rewrite fee schedules. as an out of network provider, a large insurance company hired a 3rd party and a office visit market price for my region is $120, this is what they would make my patient pay me since the VAST majority of people do not actually meet their deductible (except for specialists who treat people with certain conditions which may require hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of procedures). However in-network they make you sign something to collect $20 copay and then they pay you $20 on top of that for 40 dollars after going through all it all (for most plans under them but not all, there are a few super elite plans that pay more but maybe 1% of patients have these types of plans). just from the last level of extra administration alone, they were paid 60, and took 20 to leave me a total of 40 including any copays. a different insurance company, one of the largest in the nation pays out 120 - 150 at the start, and again I end up with around $42 after my check gets passed around through administration with veryone taking a cut for doing almost nothing. my local county public plan (because mine has one) works with medicare and medicaid and pay out 90 to start, yes it is under the $120 market price, but guess what, the county treasurer directly signs the check and they send it out to me so i get $90. so I make over twice the amount, but they pay 25% less. it is more efficient. this may not be how it is in all states or counties, however I have seen first hand how much money one can save by cutting out all the profit and all the unnecesary levels of administration. if you are a provider actually doing work for your patients, you should definitely be pro-universal healthcare. and while there is a way to make a whole lot more by inflating fee schedules and selling patients out to collections for a % and ruining their credit for a profit. I do not believe most doctors find this ideal, I defintely would never make my living this way.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Medicare does not pay enough for the CURRENT costs (which include insane bureaucracy and also a lot of incentives to game the system). Those rates would likely be very sufficient in one of the wealthy single payer countries.
HEALTH CARE : Europe vs America WHATS IN IT FOR THE GOVERNMENTs and THE PATIENTS and why EUROPE WINS European system costs 11% of GDP against 19% in the USA EU HEALTH CARE IS ALL INCLUDED THE USA NOT & WHY SO COMPLICATED??? USA life expectancy is 42th in the world on the world ratings. WHATS IN IT FOR THE EU PATIENT? If you pay taxes, as an individual, and contribute to the central government “POT” (the community POT of money). You are covered for all treatment, hospital costs, surgery, drugs, implants, chemo, post op therapies, cost of prescribed drugs, specialist and normal GP doctors bills, specialist bills etc etc. (There are some small exceptions.) You dont have to look at the small print of coverage. Its all included, pocket your credit card.. you dont need it. You dont have to pay in advance NO Paperwork The system is rated as better than the American system as nobody is excluded and the system covers 99% of all patient needs. THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM: HOW IT WORKS: All european health systems are government run and are simple systems . It is a central, run by the govenment covering all healthcare needs for the population and is non profit , universal, and also internationally recognised between all EU countries. The EU underlying system is through fiscal residency of a person, (ie you pay into the employment tax system of the country you live and into health system, if you are registered or unemployed you are covered) Simply put, each person pays into the THE GOVENMENT POT as a % of individual pay packet contributions where you are employed Importantly even if you are unemployed, but registered, you control illegal immigration. Illegals get no benefits, unless humanitarian emergency. Importantly you are still covered. you as a patient get equal rights and coverage across Europe. The EU system is state run, and covers everyone, from birth to death and costs half of the USA system. Therefore in the USA a % of the health cost is based on profit to be paid out in dividends. Additionallly not all people in the USA are covered, (approximately 15%) Its a Bum deal for Americans. It costs 8-9% of GDP more than Europe HOW IT IS MANAGED: In America USA, the health system is profit run for the most part and privately handled. Patient care is secondary to profit for 50% of coverage. The European state (country) is the employer of all health staff, doctors, nurses, etc. Central government then covers the hospitals costs through a system which keeps the hospitals covered for the expenses of each patient. If we compare the EU to the USA structure in terms of cost to GDP, Europe average 11% of GDP to the USA 20% of GDP, (2019) with the EU at 99% coverage and with improved life expectancy rate, compared to the USA. Central Government in each country collects the money through the taxes you pay as a citizen, and redistributes it (generally) to regions ,hospitals, and doctors etc which then distributes the funds to the health system used by the patient. The Government also allows the private sector to operate under the public system, to build hospitals, run them privately. Each country allows this in different rules, like Germany/UK/France etc. They are then licence them to operate by the government. But importantly, the patient who pays to the state contributions through his salary, has equal rights to access all hospitals. 10-15 % of the EU health system is private If you wish to pay an additional supplement to the state system, you are allowed to do this into to the private scheme on top of your mandatory state payments so you get private health care coverage. But you cannot opt out of the central system or add to it. Most of people dont have the means or desire to pay private insurance policies. So the state system is better for them. WHATS THE BENEFIT Basically the EU system covers 99% of people and costs the half of the USA system. In addition to this, with the EU system, if you pay contributions to the health system in the UK or France, you can have full medical care in other countries , Germany, Italy, Hungary or any other of the 27 states etc. If you lose your job, you will still be covered. you just pay less to the system as unemployment reimbusement to you is less, so you pay less, but the more you earn at work, the more you contribute to the central system. Its based on % of earnings. These European systems are based on the old and original UK system, The National Health Service, abbreviated to NHS, was launched by the then Minister of Health in Attlee's post-war government, Aneurin Bevan, at the Park Hospital in Manchester. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948 at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester. THE REAL ISSUE 1. EU Health is non political, non profit, more efficient and cheaper that the USA system, 2. BETTER in many ways, as the patient is first, and health has no “profit COST”. 3. It reduces the cost to the Government. (11% against the USA 20% per year GDP) 4. Its not fragmented. Its coverage is national, and for all. 5. If you are REGISTERED as a TAX payer, you have no problems. 6. If you are clandestine, then you get some emergency humanitarian services only. Thus the authorities know who you are and send you home after. Thanks for the comments!!!!
@@alexejnovak8693 yes. I am from the uk, live in italy, and have worked in the medical device business 35 years doing business in 70 countries. Not copy and paste.
@@scott7008 , it's weird that person from the UK generalizes the whole Europe like it's one country like the US. That's why I though it's just another copy-paste
@@alexejnovak8693 the EU system is all similar based on Bismark and the Uk system. Its also interconnected with reprocity accounting systems. I can access France from Italy, likewise them for example.
@@alexejnovak8693 my analysis was based on published facts. The USA is full of different schemes, they are inappropriate when it comes to health coverage . If it costs less, you have a point. But it costs MORE and is twice the EU average and is also rated at 42 in the WHO directory.(which the USA funds!!) And the USA system has big social gaps, and has been exposed by COVID19. Lose your job and you are in serious trouble. No central policy. etc etc.
You don't even need to pore over decades of data to figure out the cost savings of government-funded insurance: it's pure logic. Insurance companies make a profit, which means they take in more money than they pay out. The government doesn't make profit, which means it pays out exactly as much as it takes in. If exactly as much money was paid out in the form of healthcare costs, the total cost to everyone who pays into the system would be the amount they pay into insurance companies now, minus the profits currently made by insurance companies. Collective bargaining would reduce the amount a universal coverage program needs to pay out, thereby reducing costs even further.
The "logic" is wrong. Private insurers are less expensive even when counting profit. Government is not even remotely as efficient as the private sector.
actually the public non-profit insurance agencies and the non-profit hospitals are massively better than for-profit. _Numbers and FACTS matter_ The NHS (that leans the most towards public non-profit) sets a GOOD example, they are record setting cost-efficient (and being so streamlined and nationalized helps with that). Canada is pretty good cost-wise too, but nothing like the U.K. - The problems of the NHS stem from MASSIVE UNDERFUNDING. Spending in the U.K. per person in 2017 (and most is delivered via the NHS - and the treatments in the private sectors are more expensive so if anything they drive costs up): USD 4,250 for every person on average
it is not only the profits that cost more. admin gets much more complicated, so more labor costs (and it does nothing for the delivery of CARE). Important: the profit motive creates (toxic) incentives to "game" the system (like "milking" the contracts of patients with good insurance with unnecessary treatments. Even worse: the private insurers make the most profit when they exclude risks and refuse the pay for treatments, that requires an insane bureaucraZy - the costs are shifted over to the patients (and to government that props up the insanity with plenty of subsidies, that was the goal of ACA) The admin costs are very high - but they are necessary costs of business for the for-profit insurance companies to maximize the profits in this environment (simply refusing to pay and let people die would be even more lucrative but they cannot pull that off, so the buraucraZy is the next best option for them). In single payer nations the profit motive is removed from the equation when doctors use the tools * and make medical decisions and proposals for treatment - they discuss it with the patients not with the agency or anyone else. (* the tools for which the agency has negotiated the prices, for instance pharma prices. The agencies only provide a framework) the "insurance" part is adminstration, it is not creative and does not need marketing or sales skills. FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE companies BRING NOTHING TO THE TABLE when it comes to FACILITATING good healthcare for everyone. Their "product" is very generic and large scale. it is the negotiating result for drugs, what compensation will a hospital get for 1 day - or 1 day in intensive care, or the compensations for ambulance transport. Or the service to pay the bills of the providers (doctors, hospitals) making sure they do not bill unreasonable costs. The doctors to the individual case to case work. The org must be set up like a clockwork. Collecting the money (they get a part of the funding as wage deductions from companies), the software part, communication with providers, paying the bills, outlook on what is new in medicine, ongoing roundtable with hospitals and doctors (and often the government officials as well: If the state pays a lot of subsidies the governor can as well sit at the table when the doctors employed by state-run hospitals negotiate wages and a new worktime model). it is NOT rocket science and of course the systems have been developed since the late 1940s in most countries. The U.S. has one player that can play at the national level and has the systems know how: Medicare / Medicaid (and also the VA - but Medicare is larger and handles more patients). So they can scale that up.
@@xyzsame4081 no they aren't. Numbers and facts do matter. The NHS is not the most cost efficient. The fact that the government made US healthcare expensive is not some proof that private is bad. We have a mixed system. It - like every other country - was cheaper before government got involved. Simple as that.
universal healthcare is expensive. i live in canada and both liberals and conservatives are cutting the healthcare budget because healthcare keeps on getting expensive each year
*healthcare* is expensive. The question is how much of that expense goes to buy yachts for a few rich douchebags, and how much of it goes to actual care for people.
Healthcare costs in general are really high. The Canadian single-payer system works to keep the prices manageable through economies of scale and price restrictions. Fortunately, even though we've seen a big increase, the increase in Canadian healthcare costs has been smaller than seen in the US. upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Health_care_cost_rise.svg
Administrative costs are obviously a small fraction of total health care costs, and barely worth arguing about. Wildly escalating charges by doctors and hospitals are the real problem, but nobody talks about capping those fees because the AMA makes large “campaign contributions” (wink wink) to all politicians.
It's not a simple problem. Administrative costs are part of it (this video didn't even mention the administration done by hospitals and clinics). High wages for doctors are part of the problem, like you say. High cost for patented drugs is part of the problem. Unnecessary malpractice lawsuits is part of the problem (lot's of people sue even if the bad thing that happened to them isn't the doctor's fault. The lawsuit cost's the doctor time, money, and paperwork even if they win, which they usually do). Waste is a part of the problem. Fraud is a part of the problem. Lack of preventative medicine relative to late-intervention medicine is part of the problem. Excessive education costs are part of the problem. The business models of EMR companies are part of the problem. Because there are so many problems, they are each individually a small fraction of total health care costs.
THANK YOU! I agree, let's control administrative costs, but let's not forget why those administrative duties were created. Most are intended to improve quality in some aspect and while some fail to do so, there are a lot of benefits associated with administrative costs that are so easily overlooked.
Administrative costs amount to about 1/3 of total healthcare spending in the US. That's significant, not to mention that wrangling with insurance companies is a big reason doctors are frustrated and leaving the field.
The U.S. private insurance companies have 20 % overhead versus 3 - 5 % at most in the public agencies. (And a lot of what is spent in the U.S. goes over their counters.) Wealthy single payer country healthcare spending 8 - 11 % of GDP. Versus 18 % in the U.S. a few percent in admin do add up !! Total healthcare spending in the U.S. was 3,5 trillion USD in 2017, some may have been out of pocket, but a lot was paid to an insurance company which in turn paid for healthcare bills. Worse: private insurance CREATES INCENTIVES to MILK the good contracts. (more costs but no advantage in better outcomes). a single payer system has streamliend costs and unified contracts (think staff, software development). As opposed to a system with a multitude of contracts - which causes costs on TWO sides. The insurers and the doctors / hospitals. The administrative work of the insured when they fight the insurance agency, and compare the best contract are not even factored in. Plus insurers using every trick and then some to NOT pay when a patient needs more costly treatment. So they need to employ a lot of staff produicing red tape and harrassment. It is a lot of work to DENY CARE / PAYING for TREATMENTS. The MfA bills have provisions and funds !! for the retraining of 1 million people that right now handle the denial industry and the extremely complicated billing.
In the market system the soulless corporation decides what treatments you get and what doctors you see. In Medicare for all the government makes those decisions. Are you sure the corporation is better?
There is no large country with better healthcare performance. Canada, UK etc have subpar scarce care that’s lagging behind years in options. On the other hand regulation has hindered competition from entering the market. Truly the US has one of the most regulated hcare sectors in the world. If you’re still in favor of programs like medicare, which doctors are fleeing btw because it doesn’t pay their 100k+ student debt, let it compete freely in the market.
johannes alke Is there a possibility one could infer from my statement what I think about educational regulations? Ultra high standards are laudable but not when it means insane cost. My point being, student debt comes from the too long, active research path requiring, approach to the vocational training
The United States ranks 37th in healthcare performance. www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf www.internationalinsurance.com/news/ranking-top-eleven-healthcare-systems-country.php Another, more recent study shows 11th. www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings
Sheesh and Kaden Jacobson, the ranking of the United States depends on which metric you use. If you use something simple like life expectancy, the United States ranks far below many other nations. If you measure it by infant mortality, death due to preventable illnesses, death due to untreated chronic conditions, or quality-life years, the United States ranks poorly. But, if you measure it by research, either dollars spent on research or number of publications, the United States ranks #1. I'm not sure about this, but I think we probably also do a greater number of complex medical procedures per person than any other country. What this amounts to is that the United States has the best healthcare that money can buy, but if you don't have the money, you might as well live in a third world country as far as healthcare goes. Medicare actually pays out quite well. Not as well as private insurances, but enough for doctors to pay their debts. Medicaid, on the other hand, could make loan payments difficult.
@@robprop4575 Research is not even remotely related to health care... Compared to European countries, the USA puts out proportionally far fewer PhDs. There will also continue to be fewer researchers and publications if the NIH funding keeps getting hit.
Medicare-for-all is a good idea for all American's young and old. and it can be controlled on who can get coverage and who can't get coverage. Ok if you just what you're citizens to have Medicare for all it can be controlled like that.The government can make a roll if you go to a Doctor you have to prove that your a US Citizen.
it's math. Americans don't like to do the math. Here I'll do it for you all. Right now my premium is $2244 a year. If Medicare for all is passed it would a 4% tax on my 40k income coming to $1600 and I wouldn't pay for anything else like prescriptions, co-pays etc. So does everyone now see that it is a lot less? When you take away the profiteering from private insurance and big pharma. All our costs will go down
- healthcare that is rationed - Huge demand on a system that is already having a hard time keeping up - Having medical innovation take a huge step back - Millions of job losses I am a little skeptical but not 100 percent against it. I would like some sort of system that has some cost to it to keep everyone from going to the doctor for just a scratch. I lived in Europe and that's what they did. Its more than just math. I have a high deductible plan that is 2800 a year. I put that entire amount into my health savings each year to cover this. It comes out to about 110 a paycheck. After 2800 I pay 10 percent. All prescriptions and anything medical related is apart of this deductible.
@@CaptainSteen Why would you be homeless? You pay 2244 I pay 2800 except my entire premium is actually my deductible that goes into health savings. I pay about 110 a paycheck that goes into a savings used to pay my deductible. My employer pays 90 percent after that. This allows me to roll over what I don't use. I also tent to shop for my care. And I shop for prescriptions. The problem with health care is that there is no transparency. it would be like going to a grocery store without prices.
Funny how politicians critical of MFA don’t make arguments anywhere close to as reasonable and correct as this.
Because it won't really help them paint mfa in a bad light
Politicians need to realize there are more solutions than just mfa or current system. Half of Europe uses a private system like the US but with extreme regulations- where government sets the prices.
Funny how when you take out marketing and profit from healthcare, the cost goes down.
Woah woah woah, but Republicans told me _pRiVaTizAtIOn_ would make the costs come down. Idk who to believe. 🤷♀️
(/s in case it isn't super obvious)
You would think that with the ACA forceing everyone purchase insurance private insurance wouldn't need to advertise as much. You would also think there government wouldn't need to spend so much in advertising the ACA marketplace since Medicare doesn't require any.
tetsubo57 Without profit, you wouldn't have the kinds of healthcare technology available too... So... if anybody can offer a solution appealing to both consumers and producers, please become a consultant and offer your services, thank you.
In the USA some insurance companies and many providers are not for profits.
In most countries at least some healthcare is provided by for profit companies. The UK is the one I know of that provides the great bulk of healthcare by government and not through for profit companies. Some care in the UK is provided by for profits though. (There may be other countries similar to the UK, maybe Sweden and I know Honduras is similar to the UK but more people there opt for private care. I only mention Honduras because I lived there.) Some people in the UK do get some private health insurance: www.privatehealthadvice.co.uk/figures-facts-about-uk-private-healthcare.html ("After the rise in 2015, a total of 4,022,000 people have cover, or 10.6% of the population.")
BTW k-12 education in the USA is dominated by Government and the USA spend much more than other developed countries with very similar output.
No, it doesn't.
Longtime viewer, first time commenter here. Like, I've been watching since the channel was established and promoted by vlogbros. Love your work, Dr. Carroll.
I work, now, in a pain management clinic. I previously worked for a major private company which offers Medicare advantage plans. In fact I'd say it's one of the industry's leading companies and continues to expand its Medicare offerings and decrease it's commercial plans.
I know Medicare isn't a super entertaining topic to young people because it gives an impression that this only matters for the "elderly" but, knowing what I know in my line of work, it is so important for every American citizen to learn all that we can about Medicare as it operates today. Especially if we eventually hope to push for a single payer system where we are all operating under a "medicare for all" program regardless of age.
I implore you to make more videos breaking down Medicare into digestible pieces. You guys do so well at making things understandable in laymen (sp?) terms and it's a topic we so desperately need to hear more about it!!
Thank you for all you do, HCT!!
Not an American but the network of doctors thing always seemed odd to me, only being able to go to a doctor on your insurance network seems nuts. Doing away with that and having just Medicare and all doctors accessible to all patients seems more sensible
More complicated than that. The federal government provides Medicare, but private insurance companies are regulated by each state independently. That drives up costs tremendously for insurers, as they essentially have to have a different division for each state. Each state also requires that an insurer have enough doctors in the network to provide all possible services. Large hospitals align themselves with certain insurers to guarantee themselves patients. The insurers have to direct their patients to the hospital networks to guarantee enough specialty coverage. This is a failure of government.
@@christianlibertarian5488 It's the states that provide supervision of private insurance and can ban them if them misbehave. Sounds to me, you are pushing de-regulation.
Good luck running a hospital or clinic on 87 cents on the dollar. The American Hospitals Association has found that half the hospitals in the country would be operating at a loss under MFA.
@@cbl6520 Under Medicare for All, the federal government would negotiate a global budget with hospitals. This is nothing new. Many countries around the world do this and it works.
The AHA represents many hospitals, including for-profit, with some extremely well compensated executives. It stands to reason that they be against MFA, as they’d wouldn’t be as wealthy under a system that prioritized human needs over profits.
@@timc1604
Problem with global budgets is that they never allow for enough funding to provide unfettered access to care and can only control supply and not demand, hints the rationing and long waiting lists for treatment in most universal healthcare systems. They also put healthcare decisions in the hands of unelected bureaucrats, whom decide how many MRI scanners are available, how many beds hospitals have and how many medical graduates enter the work force, and above all else when and IF you receive care, as a means of artificially controlling costs. Imagine being diagnosed with a highly aggressive cancer and being told you have to wait several months to get chemotherapy and radiation therapy, cancer doesn’t exactly care about wait times.
Also, your second statement is what we call a genetic fallacy, where you disregard the validity of a claim based on its origin and not the claim itself. You can’t just disregard information based on its origin. Just because it comes from a “for profit” institution doesn’t invalidate the claim in question. If you need further proof, The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) has also mirrored the AHA’s projected outcomes of MFA’s devastating financial impact on hospitals and other outpatient clinical institutions.
So yes... Still no excuse for the excessive healthcare costs in the US. Also, you need to look at the whole picture, not just administrative costs.
He literally made the video to tackle one point made by Democrats. Not a video essay on the totality of Medicare for all.
Yeah, my point stands
Keep up the awesome work!
Your videos are criminally under watched given the amazing content they provide!
Care management by a private plan just feels like a cost-saving watchful eye, and a conflict of interest in you receiving the best healthcare
Your doctor can do care management, coordinating your care to appropriately specialist as they always have done. Private insurance companies do it to spend as little on as little care possible.
@@caracrabtree715 I want you to note what you just said. Private insurance companies are dedicated to reduce spending. There is no other actor in the entire system that wants to reduce spending. Yet you condemn the insurance companies for doing their job.
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries
www.statista.com/chart/21372/assessed-contributions-to-the-world-health-organization/
phmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D1.pdf
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries/country-details/GHO/france?countryProfileId=bf9b312e-ef3a-4686-8ae9-f4694418a5ae
Donated to Bernie.
This just proves that we must remove private insurance if we hope to lower costs.
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries
www.statista.com/chart/21372/assessed-contributions-to-the-world-health-organization/
phmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D1.pdf
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries/country-details/GHO/france?countryProfileId=bf9b312e-ef3a-4686-8ae9-f4694418a5ae
Hey this is all very nice, but as a foreigner,
It would really do me a lot of good if you slowed down and dumbed it down a little bit, like explaining terms etc...
Thanks for your work!
Vulagarize! that's the word I was looking for.
any way to post links to the studies that are referenced in the videos?
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries
www.statista.com/chart/21372/assessed-contributions-to-the-world-health-organization/
phmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D1.pdf
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries/country-details/GHO/france?countryProfileId=bf9b312e-ef3a-4686-8ae9-f4694418a5ae
Looking at the administrative costs of Medicare for all are interesting, but if such a program were to be created tomorrow, as you've just pointed out that would be a small fraction of total cost. Ever plan on an episode (or maybe there's one already that I missed) going over exactly how much MFA would likely cost if it were to appear? And maybe just as important: for the average american who switched from average private insurance, would their health outcomes likely worsen or improve as a result of switching to MFA?
if the private part of medicare actually costs a lot to maintain, this is an excellent argument to get rid of private players in medicare for essentials and cover them fully.
Any politician against Medicare for All should lose theirs. Personally I think they should be tied to each other. They should get the same quality and quantity of the same value as the rest of us Average Joes.
Hi I'm all for Medicare for all but please don't act this way. Everyone is human and has a right to equal access of quality healthcare services regardless of their personal beliefs. Stand up for the core values you are fighting for and don't let others frame of mind influence those values. Healthcare is a right. For everyone.
@@Schru1 All I said was politicians should not have better health care than the rest of us especially since taxes pay the bill. So I don't understand what you mean by don't act this way. No one is better than anyone else including the House of Representatives and the Senate. And if they want to vote against the common person then they should have the same health care as the rest of us and see what they think then.
@@truecrimelover2022 Congress and the Senate are in a ACA local exchange. You ever research what you say?
Take away private insurance companies, make government the only buyer as an monopsony will make drug / device companies lower their costs for their products and services.
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries
www.statista.com/chart/21372/assessed-contributions-to-the-world-health-organization/
phmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/D1.pdf
www.who.int/data/gho/data/countries/country-details/GHO/france?countryProfileId=bf9b312e-ef3a-4686-8ae9-f4694418a5ae
At least there is a way to effect the reduction of bureaucracy in Medicare by public oversight and required transparency. That is not the case in the private health care and insurance industry, especially as in many states private health insurance is in the hands of quasi monopolies that the public has no way to control. No transparency - business secrets - and competing bureaucrats in private health insurance vs. required transparency in Medicare administrations - which one do you preference?
You have perfect transparency in private insurance. You read the contract, and that is what they are obliged to do.
States are the entities in control of insurance companies, not the federal government. The state limitations are what creates the quasi-monopolies. Talk to your STATE government if you don't like the health insurance rules.
Allowing for more sufficient competition between medical insurance companies would certainly help bring down the private administration costs. We don't currently have much of a competitive marketplace.
This was the attempt of ACA - to create competing markets.
HMO Networks decrease competition. PPO are expensive. The US Health Care non-system is extremely fragmented, bureaucratic, wasteful, very expensive, down right complicated, utterly unfair etc.
HEALTH CARE : Europe vs America
THE USA WHY SO COMPLICATED???
WHATS IN IT FOR THE GOVERNMENTs and THE PATIENTS and why EUROPE WINS
European system costs 11% of GDP against 19% in the USA
The USA (BAD)system is rated at 42nd in the world.
EU HEALTH CARE IS ALL INCLUDED and is the best!
THE REAL ISSUE
1. EU Health is non political, non profit, more efficient and cheaper that the USA system,
2. BETTER in many ways, as the patient is first, and health has no “profit COST”.
3. It reduces the cost to the Government. (11% against the USA 20% per year GDP)
4. Its not fragmented. Its coverage is national, and for all.
5. If you are REGISTERED as a TAX payer, you have no problems.
6. If you are clandestine, then you get some emergency humanitarian services only.
USA life expectancy is 42th in the world on the world ratings.
WHATS IN IT FOR THE EU PATIENT?
If you pay taxes, as an individual, and contribute to the central government “POT” (the community POT of money).
You are covered for all treatment, hospital costs, surgery, drugs, implants, chemo, post op therapies, cost of prescribed drugs, specialist and normal GP doctors bills, specialist bills etc etc.
(There are some small exceptions.)
You dont have to look at the small print of coverage.
Its all included, pocket your credit card.. you dont need it.
You dont have to pay in advance
NO Paperwork just let the system work
The system is rated as better than the American system as nobody is excluded and the system covers 99% of all patient needs.
THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM:
HOW IT WORKS:
All european health systems are government run and are simple systems .
It is a central, run by the govenment covering all healthcare needs for the population and is non profit , universal, and also internationally recognised between all EU countries.
The EU underlying system is through fiscal residency of a person,
Simply put, each person pays into the THE GOVENMENT POT as a % of individual pay packet contributions where you are employed
Importantly even if you are unemployed, but registered, you control illegal immigration. Illegals get no benefits, unless humanitarian emergency.
Importantly you are still covered. you as a patient get equal rights and coverage across Europe.
The EU system is state run, and covers everyone, from birth to death and costs half of the USA system.
Therefore in the USA a % of the health cost is based on profit to be paid out in dividends.
Additionallly not all people in the USA are covered, (approximately 15%)
Its a Bum deal for Americans. It costs 8-9% of GDP more than Europe
HOW IT IS MANAGED:
In America USA, the health system is profit run for the most part and privately handled. Patient care is secondary to profit for 50% of coverage.
The European state (country) is the employer of all health staff, doctors, nurses, etc.
Central government then covers the hospitals costs through a system which keeps the hospitals covered for the expenses of each patient.
If we compare the EU to the USA structure in terms of cost to GDP, Europe average 11% of GDP to the USA 20% of GDP, (2019) with the EU at 99% coverage and with improved life expectancy rate, compared to the USA.
Central Government in each country collects the money through the taxes you pay as a citizen, and redistributes it (generally) to regions ,hospitals, and doctors etc which then distributes the funds to the health system used by the patient.
The Government also allows the private sector to operate under the public system, to build hospitals, run them privately.
Each country allows this in different rules, like Germany/UK/France etc. They are then licence them to operate by the government.
But importantly, the patient who pays to the state contributions through his salary, has equal rights to access all hospitals.
10-15 % of the EU health system is private
If you wish to pay an additional supplement to the state system, you are allowed to do this into to the private scheme on top of your mandatory state payments so you get private health care coverage.
But you cannot opt out of the central system or add to it.
Most of people dont have the means or desire to pay private insurance policies. So the state system is better for them.
WHATS THE BENEFIT IN THE EUROPE SYSTEM
Basically the EU system covers 99% of people and costs the half of the USA system.
In addition to this, with the EU system, if you pay contributions to the health system in the UK or France, you can have full medical care in other countries , Germany, Italy, Hungary or any other of the 27 states etc.
If you lose your job, you will still be covered. you just pay less to the system as unemployment reimbusement to you is less, so you pay less, but the more you earn at work, the more you contribute to the central system. Its based on % of earnings.
These European systems are based on the old and original UK system, The National Health Service, abbreviated to NHS, was launched by the then Minister of Health in Attlee's post-war government, Aneurin Bevan, at the Park Hospital in Manchester. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948 at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester.
Thanks for the comments!!!!
Why do doctors so strongly oppose this? I'd love a video which would help talk about the concerns *they* have with it, and whether or not it's valid.
Interesting that you make networks sound like they're supposed to be good when I think they're a major problem with US healthcare... It took my dad 6 months of fighting with insurance about out of network issues before he could get surgery for his pancreatic cancer and know it would be covered.
Yeah I don't get why people love private bureaucracy but hate public bureaucracy. And private plans are often cheaters. I paid $100/month for about seven years for a plan for my daughter. When she was 17 she accidentally cut a tendon in her thumb trying to open plastic packaging. I looked up the preferred providers in the plan, and chose one. The plan was $2000 deductible, so I paid that. Then after the fact they refused to pay for anesthesia, and when I got the surgeon bill they only paid for 50% instead of the advertised 80% because they said he charged too much. So I ended up paying around $6,000 in addition to the $7,000 I had already paid for insurance. They only ended up paying out about $4,000!
@Daniel Jensen - It isn't just fighting with insurance companies about network issues, although that is bad enough. The video is a bit disingenuous in the place where it covers the additional administrative costs of private health insurance that are caused by extra spending on fraud detection & prevention. All of those extra verification procedures and reviews of claims are not primarily to prevent fraud. That may have been the reason they started, but at some point an insurance company exec realized that profits could be increased by rejecting claims. Now, private insurance companies have "fraud prevention" and claims review departments whose primary purpose is to find reasons to reject or delay payment of claims. And they are quite good at it, as they are making profit contributions far greater than the costs of doing the reviews.
@@dalegreer3095 So, switch to another plan. That is why private insurance is better. With MFA, you could not switch.
@@christianlibertarian5488 With private insurance, the damage is already done. You can switch, but you can never get your thousands of dollars back, and many people will be financially ruined. Nor can you get back the thousands of dollars in premiums you paid over the years leading up to that one medical event where you found out they weren't going to live up to what you thought you had paid for.
France has a very good system where taxes pay for about 77% of healthcare expenses, and private supplementary insurance pays for most of what's left over. French healthcare regularly ranks in the top 5, and it costs half as much per person as US healthcare, primarily because the government negotiates pricing with providers and suppliers. If we could save even just 30%, that would be around $1 trillion annually, about $3,000 per year for every US citizen.
@@dalegreer3095 In France, radiologists make about $100,000/yr. At that rate, there would be exactly zero radiologists in the US. Other specialties are similar. France doesn't "negotiate." The government sets a price.
This was really great!
Meanwhile the military budget is $800+ billion dollars.
This is America... why does anyone need insurance just pay for it if you're not rich ...tough nuggies. Amurika!
WE THE PEOPLE......challenge the politicians
We need to figure out how to stop price gouging in healthcare. Something so essential to human life shouldn’t be run like a business
Jason Smith non profit single payer universal healthcare like the rest of the developed world.
@@k-doggy1762 The rest of the world does not have single payer. Canada has single payer and Sweden, UK and many less developed countries have government provided care which is close to single payer. Switzerland, Germany, France and the Netherlands have Universal care closer to the USA under the PPACA though starting in 2019 the USA will go back to allowing people to opt out of buying health insurance which will again move away from the systems I mentioned (Switzerland, Germany, France and the Netherlands) making the USA once again the odd man out, .
Wrong. Profit belongs in healthcare as well as all other goods and services. There is no "price gouging" in a competitive market. The solution is ending state involvement, not expanding it.
So would you rather it be run like the DMV instead?
Chris Lewis sorry for the late reply. Healthcare is a complicated field, and there’s no clear solution to how broken our system is. I think it’s good to have some competition - for example Europe does have for profit clinics, however we need a minimum standard of care. When people get arrested they have the right to an attorney, when they get sick they should have the right to a doctor. I’ve got zero problem paying higher taxes if it means that everyone is entitled to healthcare, though we do need to deal with the fact that they lobby more than any other group in order to change things. It’s a multi-faceted issue, but in short, I’d rather it be run poorly then have millions of people not get proper healthcare.
The largest cause of higher costs , under a single - payer plan, is a relatively small percentage of people greatly over- using the highest- priced services and benefits.
"over-using"? for fun?
The statement at the 5:24 mark that private plans offer an advantage because they have an out-of-pocket limit and Medicare does not is completely disingenuous. It ignores the fact that up until the Affordable Care Act that conservatives love to hate, private insurance typically did not have an out-of-pocket limit and for those private health care insurance policies that did have a limit, it was much, much higher than it is now. The out-of-pocket limit is not something that the insurance company executives put in place because they are responsible, caring people. They did it because they were forced to.
Physicians for a National Health Program
The fact is this: Humanity is going to stop growing our population eventually. When that happens, we are going to be living in a society in which the old people to less than old people ratio is going to be really high. Healthcare costs will rise as that ratio rises, because old people are health care whales. It will not get any higher than that, but it will cap off at a high level, and we are going to have either bear the cost of that society, or we are going to have to start letting old people die. Pick one and be honest about the consequences you think society should accept: should we live in a society in which we can live nice long retirements? Or should we just let old people die before or not long after they retire.
Medicare for all is just the tag line. It would be a system mirroring other countries and not the US’s Medicare. Every proponent of Medicare for all is so because of being a great opponent to price gouging private insurance so of course they don’t want it.
In the US, you have to be careful about how you say it. You can supply hot buttons for the older, more narrow sighted and entrenched who will champion the big pharma and generally be oppositonal
Can you please do a video debunking reiki energy healing? Thank you!
Medicare and mental services?
If Medicare is funded by people working their whole life to out into a system they can use when they retire... then how are we gonna justify ppl taking from the pool before they have contributed adequately?
Doesn't work like that. Medicare taxes today fund costs today. No value is stored. There will have to be taxes on every working person, to pay for benefits for everybody in the US.
The Medicare funds are running dry anyhow.
Am I the only one who freaking hates the new intro. The other one was so neat, this is just a 3D gimmick.
I wouldn't go as far to say "hate," but I kinda miss the satisfying sounds of the pills rattling in the bottle.
💙
don't many doctors hate taking medicare/medicaid?
both because they pay so far below market value that it pretty much costs them money to have those patients AND actually getting medicare/medicaid to cough up the tiny bit of money they DO give is arduous and time consuming.
Making a medicare for all plan sounds like you'd wind up with the same issues as Canada that you COULD go to a regular doctor and get a limited selection of possible treatments, or you could cough up additional money and go to a private doctor you actually pay and get significantly better service.
it's math. Americans don't like to do the math. Here I'll do it for you
all. Right now my premium is $2244 a year. If Medicare for all is passed
it would a 4% tax on my 40k income coming to $1600 and I wouldn't pay
for anything else like prescriptions, co-pays etc. So does everyone now
see that it is a lot less? When you take away the profiteering from
private insurance and big pharma. All our costs will go down
Medicare shouldn't need an out of pocket limit because you shouldn't need to pay out of pocket at all for healthcare
I mean I love this idea but like... I love quality healthcare facilities that are comfortable and technologically advanced. I think a lot of people that support Medicare for All (which I personally do) think that Medicare equals free healthcare. Most don't even know the difference between traditional Medicare and Medicare Advantage nor do they understand different parts of Medicare such as supplemental insurance. Urgencies will be covered (part A) but part B (and arguably C) work to control utilization and overall healthcare spending; however, with either Traditional or Advantage, you will never go bankrupt because of medical bills.
@@Schru1 We don't think its free healthcare, everyone knows it is paid by taxes :/ Its just run more efficiently and ethically when you remove the profit motive.
And no, I didn't know the difference between the two but I'm British so I don't really need to. I do watch a lot of American news on youtube tho so it is suprising that I haven't heard the terms before.
We have private insurance here in the UK but its for supplimental stuff on top of your essential healthcare; which is entirely free whilst you are in the facility. The fact Americans go bankrupt because of healthcare at all is disgusting to me.
@@charliesmith1358 Part A is paid through taxes but parts B, C and D require at least copayment and typically premiums. Very similar to private insurance.
@@charliesmith1358 But thanks for your perspective! I'm always interested in hearing others thoughts on healthcare and I've always loved studying other countries systems! :)
@@charliesmith1358 "We don't think its free healthcare, everyone knows it is paid by taxes :/ Its just run more efficiently and ethically when you remove the profit motive."
So explain to me why over 8000 doctors have left the UK 2008 and 2012 and medical school enrollment is down in the UK, of which the primary reason is poor pay and working conditions? Or how about the fact that NHS hospital patients are 45% more likely to die than their American counterparts?
www.investors.com/politics/editorials/why-british-doctors-do-not-want-to-practice-in-own-country/
www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/gp-topics/education/medical-school-applications-decrease-as-negative-publicity-takes-toll/20030395.article
www.nhs.uk/news/medical-practice/death-rate-much-higher-in-english-than-us-hospitals/
All developed countries have different types of single payer systems. We must have it also.
im a doctor and i'll just say straight up. medicare managed by private insurance is wayyyyy more paperwork and etc. I have some patients on medicaid and medicare that get it through the county's public plan. and the admin is almost non-existent. its wayyyy easier to work with them compared to privately run medicare. but private plans straight up (except for the top 0.1% of super elite plans) are even worse.
also, why are you using current medicare as a base-point? the medicare for all plan has nothing to do with current medicare? you talk about out of pocket cost, but the bill clearly says $200 out of pocket max annually.
www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1129
i will leave the link here for people who want to be actually informed.
summary:
coverage will be comprehensive - including medications
there will be no cost sharing, no copay no co insurance no deductible, except for medications which has $200 annual max
the secretary of health will completely re-draft the provider payment fee schedule to reflect a fair rate, which will increase in proportion to inflation and other factors.
I am amazed that you are a doctor but don't understand how you are paid. Medicare currently does not pay you enough to cover your income. If you worked 100% Medicare, you would have no net earnings. Zero. Zip. Medicare for all *CANNOT* work, as written in the Sanders bill. It would provide insurance for all, but eliminate care for anyone.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Thank you for informing me how my practice is running. I had no idea! I must have been dreaming when doing my books every month.
if you actually read the bill, you would have seen the section where they would compeltely re-write the fee-schedule payments, meaning the pay would be more.
and these days big insurance pushes you to be in-network in exchange for sometimes lower pay than medicare/medicaid pays you, often times the same, except with more paper work involved, meaning less time to treat more patients, meaning actually less net pay.
of course you can go out of network and gouge the public with 5000+ deductibles that no one would ever use for non emergency proceedures such as surgery.
my professional policy is to never send any surprise bills, i've paid for hundreds of treatments out of my own pocket because insurance keeps playing games. but yea, tell me more about my finances because obviously you know better than I do.
@@ajlee613 OK. I get $6 to read a single view chest xray from Medicare. I get $14 from the combined mix of private payers. Is there a provision in the bill which doubles re-imbursement to that of private payers? Or, is Bernie Sanders planning to cut my income yet still expect the same level of care?
@@christianlibertarian5488 yes read the bill first. they will completely rewrite fee schedules. as an out of network provider, a large insurance company hired a 3rd party and a office visit market price for my region is $120, this is what they would make my patient pay me since the VAST majority of people do not actually meet their deductible (except for specialists who treat people with certain conditions which may require hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of procedures).
However in-network they make you sign something to collect $20 copay and then they pay you $20 on top of that for 40 dollars after going through all it all (for most plans under them but not all, there are a few super elite plans that pay more but maybe 1% of patients have these types of plans).
just from the last level of extra administration alone, they were paid 60, and took 20 to leave me a total of 40 including any copays.
a different insurance company, one of the largest in the nation pays out 120 - 150 at the start, and again I end up with around $42 after my check gets passed around through administration with veryone taking a cut for doing almost nothing.
my local county public plan (because mine has one) works with medicare and medicaid and pay out 90 to start, yes it is under the $120 market price, but guess what, the county treasurer directly signs the check and they send it out to me so i get $90.
so I make over twice the amount, but they pay 25% less. it is more efficient.
this may not be how it is in all states or counties, however I have seen first hand how much money one can save by cutting out all the profit and all the unnecesary levels of administration.
if you are a provider actually doing work for your patients, you should definitely be pro-universal healthcare.
and while there is a way to make a whole lot more by inflating fee schedules and selling patients out to collections for a % and ruining their credit for a profit. I do not believe most doctors find this ideal, I defintely would never make my living this way.
@@christianlibertarian5488 Medicare does not pay enough for the CURRENT costs (which include insane bureaucracy and also a lot of incentives to game the system). Those rates would likely be very sufficient in one of the wealthy single payer countries.
Medicare for all isn't an option. It's mandatory and you aren't allowed to buy insurance outside of it unless it's supplemental
HEALTH CARE :
Europe vs America
WHATS IN IT FOR THE GOVERNMENTs and THE PATIENTS and why EUROPE WINS
European system costs 11% of GDP against 19% in the USA
EU HEALTH CARE IS ALL INCLUDED
THE USA NOT & WHY SO COMPLICATED???
USA life expectancy is 42th in the world on the world ratings.
WHATS IN IT FOR THE EU PATIENT?
If you pay taxes, as an individual, and contribute to the central government “POT” (the community POT of money).
You are covered for all treatment, hospital costs, surgery, drugs, implants, chemo, post op therapies, cost of prescribed drugs, specialist and normal GP doctors bills, specialist bills etc etc.
(There are some small exceptions.)
You dont have to look at the small print of coverage.
Its all included, pocket your credit card.. you dont need it.
You dont have to pay in advance
NO Paperwork
The system is rated as better than the American system as nobody is excluded and the system covers 99% of all patient needs.
THE EUROPEAN SYSTEM:
HOW IT WORKS:
All european health systems are government run and are simple systems .
It is a central, run by the govenment covering all healthcare needs for the population and is non profit , universal, and also internationally recognised between all EU countries.
The EU underlying system is through fiscal residency of a person, (ie you pay into the employment tax system of the country you live and into health system, if you are registered or unemployed you are covered)
Simply put, each person pays into the THE GOVENMENT POT as a % of individual pay packet contributions where you are employed
Importantly even if you are unemployed, but registered, you control illegal immigration. Illegals get no benefits, unless humanitarian emergency.
Importantly you are still covered. you as a patient get equal rights and coverage across Europe.
The EU system is state run, and covers everyone, from birth to death and costs half of the USA system.
Therefore in the USA a % of the health cost is based on profit to be paid out in dividends.
Additionallly not all people in the USA are covered, (approximately 15%)
Its a Bum deal for Americans. It costs 8-9% of GDP more than Europe
HOW IT IS MANAGED:
In America USA, the health system is profit run for the most part and privately handled. Patient care is secondary to profit for 50% of coverage.
The European state (country) is the employer of all health staff, doctors, nurses, etc.
Central government then covers the hospitals costs through a system which keeps the hospitals covered for the expenses of each patient.
If we compare the EU to the USA structure in terms of cost to GDP, Europe average 11% of GDP to the USA 20% of GDP, (2019) with the EU at 99% coverage and with improved life expectancy rate, compared to the USA.
Central Government in each country collects the money through the taxes you pay as a citizen, and redistributes it (generally) to regions ,hospitals, and doctors etc which then distributes the funds to the health system used by the patient.
The Government also allows the private sector to operate under the public system, to build hospitals, run them privately.
Each country allows this in different rules, like Germany/UK/France etc. They are then licence them to operate by the government.
But importantly, the patient who pays to the state contributions through his salary, has equal rights to access all hospitals.
10-15 % of the EU health system is private
If you wish to pay an additional supplement to the state system, you are allowed to do this into to the private scheme on top of your mandatory state payments so you get private health care coverage.
But you cannot opt out of the central system or add to it.
Most of people dont have the means or desire to pay private insurance policies. So the state system is better for them.
WHATS THE BENEFIT
Basically the EU system covers 99% of people and costs the half of the USA system.
In addition to this, with the EU system, if you pay contributions to the health system in the UK or France, you can have full medical care in other countries , Germany, Italy, Hungary or any other of the 27 states etc.
If you lose your job, you will still be covered. you just pay less to the system as unemployment reimbusement to you is less, so you pay less, but the more you earn at work, the more you contribute to the central system. Its based on % of earnings.
These European systems are based on the old and original UK system, The National Health Service, abbreviated to NHS, was launched by the then Minister of Health in Attlee's post-war government, Aneurin Bevan, at the Park Hospital in Manchester. Aneurin Bevan, Minister of Health, on the first day of the National Health Service, 5 July 1948 at Park Hospital, Davyhulme, near Manchester.
THE REAL ISSUE
1. EU Health is non political, non profit, more efficient and cheaper that the USA system,
2. BETTER in many ways, as the patient is first, and health has no “profit COST”.
3. It reduces the cost to the Government. (11% against the USA 20% per year GDP)
4. Its not fragmented. Its coverage is national, and for all.
5. If you are REGISTERED as a TAX payer, you have no problems.
6. If you are clandestine, then you get some emergency humanitarian services only.
Thus the authorities know who you are and send you home after.
Thanks for the comments!!!!
Nice copy-paste though. Do you know that the EU isn't a one country and even the quality of the healthcare differs from one country to another?..
@@alexejnovak8693 yes. I am from the uk, live in italy, and have worked in the medical device business 35 years doing business in 70 countries. Not copy and paste.
@@scott7008 , it's weird that person from the UK generalizes the whole Europe like it's one country like the US. That's why I though it's just another copy-paste
@@alexejnovak8693 the EU system is all similar based on Bismark and the Uk system. Its also interconnected with reprocity accounting systems. I can access France from Italy, likewise them for example.
@@alexejnovak8693 my analysis was based on published facts. The USA is full of different schemes, they are inappropriate when it comes to health coverage . If it costs less, you have a point. But it costs MORE and is twice the EU average and is also rated at 42 in the WHO directory.(which the USA funds!!) And the USA system has big social gaps, and has been exposed by COVID19. Lose your job and you are in serious trouble. No central policy. etc etc.
I am perfectly content with my health care. The goverment does not need to maintain it..
You don't even need to pore over decades of data to figure out the cost savings of government-funded insurance: it's pure logic. Insurance companies make a profit, which means they take in more money than they pay out. The government doesn't make profit, which means it pays out exactly as much as it takes in. If exactly as much money was paid out in the form of healthcare costs, the total cost to everyone who pays into the system would be the amount they pay into insurance companies now, minus the profits currently made by insurance companies. Collective bargaining would reduce the amount a universal coverage program needs to pay out, thereby reducing costs even further.
The "logic" is wrong. Private insurers are less expensive even when counting profit. Government is not even remotely as efficient as the private sector.
actually the public non-profit insurance agencies and the non-profit hospitals are massively better than for-profit. _Numbers and FACTS matter_ The NHS (that leans the most towards public non-profit) sets a GOOD example, they are record setting cost-efficient (and being so streamlined and nationalized helps with that).
Canada is pretty good cost-wise too, but nothing like the U.K. - The problems of the NHS stem from MASSIVE UNDERFUNDING.
Spending in the U.K. per person in 2017 (and most is delivered via the NHS - and the treatments in the private sectors are more expensive so if anything they drive costs up):
USD 4,250 for every person on average
it is not only the profits that cost more. admin gets much more complicated, so more labor costs (and it does nothing for the delivery of CARE). Important: the profit motive creates (toxic) incentives to "game" the system (like "milking" the contracts of patients with good insurance with unnecessary treatments.
Even worse: the private insurers make the most profit when they exclude risks and refuse the pay for treatments, that requires an insane bureaucraZy - the costs are shifted over to the patients (and to government that props up the insanity with plenty of subsidies, that was the goal of ACA)
The admin costs are very high - but they are necessary costs of business for the for-profit insurance companies to maximize the profits in this environment (simply refusing to pay and let people die would be even more lucrative but they cannot pull that off, so the buraucraZy is the next best option for them).
In single payer nations the profit motive is removed from the equation when doctors use the tools * and make medical decisions and proposals for treatment - they discuss it with the patients not with the agency or anyone else.
(* the tools for which the agency has negotiated the prices, for instance pharma prices. The agencies only provide a framework)
the "insurance" part is adminstration, it is not creative and does not need marketing or sales skills.
FOR-PROFIT INSURANCE companies BRING NOTHING TO THE TABLE when it comes to FACILITATING good healthcare for everyone.
Their "product" is very generic and large scale. it is the negotiating result for drugs, what compensation will a hospital get for 1 day - or 1 day in intensive care, or the compensations for ambulance transport. Or the service to pay the bills of the providers (doctors, hospitals) making sure they do not bill unreasonable costs.
The doctors to the individual case to case work.
The org must be set up like a clockwork. Collecting the money (they get a part of the funding as wage deductions from companies), the software part, communication with providers, paying the bills, outlook on what is new in medicine, ongoing roundtable with hospitals and doctors (and often the government officials as well: If the state pays a lot of subsidies the governor can as well sit at the table when the doctors employed by state-run hospitals negotiate wages and a new worktime model).
it is NOT rocket science and of course the systems have been developed since the late 1940s in most countries. The U.S. has one player that can play at the national level and has the systems know how: Medicare / Medicaid (and also the VA - but Medicare is larger and handles more patients). So they can scale that up.
@@xyzsame4081 no they aren't. Numbers and facts do matter. The NHS is not the most cost efficient. The fact that the government made US healthcare expensive is not some proof that private is bad. We have a mixed system. It - like every other country - was cheaper before government got involved. Simple as that.
universal healthcare is expensive. i live in canada and both liberals and conservatives are cutting the healthcare budget because healthcare keeps on getting expensive each year
But you spend far less for health care than the US does.
@@steveh46 hmmm, good point
*healthcare* is expensive. The question is how much of that expense goes to buy yachts for a few rich douchebags, and how much of it goes to actual care for people.
Healthcare costs in general are really high. The Canadian single-payer system works to keep the prices manageable through economies of scale and price restrictions. Fortunately, even though we've seen a big increase, the increase in Canadian healthcare costs has been smaller than seen in the US.
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/Health_care_cost_rise.svg
jr. the US government spends more per capita than the UK government on healthcare
Administrative costs are obviously a small fraction of total health care costs, and barely worth arguing about. Wildly escalating charges by doctors and hospitals are the real problem, but nobody talks about capping those fees because the AMA makes large “campaign contributions” (wink wink) to all politicians.
It's not a simple problem. Administrative costs are part of it (this video didn't even mention the administration done by hospitals and clinics). High wages for doctors are part of the problem, like you say. High cost for patented drugs is part of the problem. Unnecessary malpractice lawsuits is part of the problem (lot's of people sue even if the bad thing that happened to them isn't the doctor's fault. The lawsuit cost's the doctor time, money, and paperwork even if they win, which they usually do). Waste is a part of the problem. Fraud is a part of the problem. Lack of preventative medicine relative to late-intervention medicine is part of the problem. Excessive education costs are part of the problem. The business models of EMR companies are part of the problem. Because there are so many problems, they are each individually a small fraction of total health care costs.
THANK YOU! I agree, let's control administrative costs, but let's not forget why those administrative duties were created. Most are intended to improve quality in some aspect and while some fail to do so, there are a lot of benefits associated with administrative costs that are so easily overlooked.
Valid.
Administrative costs amount to about 1/3 of total healthcare spending in the US. That's significant, not to mention that wrangling with insurance companies is a big reason doctors are frustrated and leaving the field.
The U.S. private insurance companies have 20 % overhead versus 3 - 5 % at most in the public agencies. (And a lot of what is spent in the U.S. goes over their counters.) Wealthy single payer country healthcare spending 8 - 11 % of GDP. Versus 18 % in the U.S. a few percent in admin do add up !!
Total healthcare spending in the U.S. was 3,5 trillion USD in 2017, some may have been out of pocket, but a lot was paid to an insurance company which in turn paid for healthcare bills.
Worse: private insurance CREATES INCENTIVES to MILK the good contracts. (more costs but no advantage in better outcomes). a single payer system has streamliend costs and unified contracts (think staff, software development).
As opposed to a system with a multitude of contracts - which causes costs on TWO sides. The insurers and the doctors / hospitals. The administrative work of the insured when they fight the insurance agency, and compare the best contract are not even factored in.
Plus insurers using every trick and then some to NOT pay when a patient needs more costly treatment.
So they need to employ a lot of staff produicing red tape and harrassment. It is a lot of work to DENY CARE / PAYING for TREATMENTS.
The MfA bills have provisions and funds !! for the retraining of 1 million people that right now handle the denial industry and the extremely complicated billing.
The difference between the market and Medicare is that I get to make the value judgement and decide whereas someone else makes that decision.
In the market system the soulless corporation decides what treatments you get and what doctors you see. In Medicare for all the government makes those decisions. Are you sure the corporation is better?
There is no large country with better healthcare performance. Canada, UK etc have subpar scarce care that’s lagging behind years in options. On the other hand regulation has hindered competition from entering the market. Truly the US has one of the most regulated hcare sectors in the world.
If you’re still in favor of programs like medicare, which doctors are fleeing btw because it doesn’t pay their 100k+ student debt, let it compete freely in the market.
...so the problem isn't the student debt forcing doctors to act in ways that bring them money? M'kay.
johannes alke
Is there a possibility one could infer from my statement what I think about educational regulations? Ultra high standards are laudable but not when it means insane cost. My point being, student debt comes from the too long, active research path requiring, approach to the vocational training
The United States ranks 37th in healthcare performance.
www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf
www.internationalinsurance.com/news/ranking-top-eleven-healthcare-systems-country.php
Another, more recent study shows 11th.
www.commonwealthfund.org/chart/2017/health-care-system-performance-rankings
Sheesh and Kaden Jacobson, the ranking of the United States depends on which metric you use. If you use something simple like life expectancy, the United States ranks far below many other nations. If you measure it by infant mortality, death due to preventable illnesses, death due to untreated chronic conditions, or quality-life years, the United States ranks poorly. But, if you measure it by research, either dollars spent on research or number of publications, the United States ranks #1. I'm not sure about this, but I think we probably also do a greater number of complex medical procedures per person than any other country. What this amounts to is that the United States has the best healthcare that money can buy, but if you don't have the money, you might as well live in a third world country as far as healthcare goes.
Medicare actually pays out quite well. Not as well as private insurances, but enough for doctors to pay their debts. Medicaid, on the other hand, could make loan payments difficult.
@@robprop4575 Research is not even remotely related to health care... Compared to European countries, the USA puts out proportionally far fewer PhDs. There will also continue to be fewer researchers and publications if the NIH funding keeps getting hit.
Medicare-for-all is a good idea for all American's young and old. and it can be controlled on who can get coverage and who can't get coverage.
Ok if you just what you're citizens to have Medicare for all it can be controlled like that.The government can make a roll if you go to a Doctor you have to prove that your a US Citizen.
it's math. Americans don't like to do the math. Here I'll do it for you
all. Right now my premium is $2244 a year. If Medicare for all is passed
it would a 4% tax on my 40k income coming to $1600 and I wouldn't pay
for anything else like prescriptions, co-pays etc. So does everyone now
see that it is a lot less? When you take away the profiteering from
private insurance and big pharma. All our costs will go down
- healthcare that is rationed
- Huge demand on a system that is already having a hard time keeping up
- Having medical innovation take a huge step back
- Millions of job losses
I am a little skeptical but not 100 percent against it. I would like some sort of system that has some cost to it to keep everyone from going to the doctor for just a scratch. I lived in Europe and that's what they did. Its more than just math. I have a high deductible plan that is 2800 a year. I put that entire amount into my health savings each year to cover this. It comes out to about 110 a paycheck. After 2800 I pay 10 percent. All prescriptions and anything medical related is apart of this deductible.
@@thomasteal5609 That's sounds awful. I would be homeless trying to pay that.
@@CaptainSteen Why would you be homeless? You pay 2244 I pay 2800 except my entire premium is actually my deductible that goes into health savings. I pay about 110 a paycheck that goes into a savings used to pay my deductible. My employer pays 90 percent after that. This allows me to roll over what I don't use. I also tent to shop for my care. And I shop for prescriptions. The problem with health care is that there is no transparency. it would be like going to a grocery store without prices.