As a northern European it's quite baffling to be watching the debate. I'm not trying to be snide; it's genuinely an alien thought to worry about medical costs, insurances etc here. To not have a foundational system in place, so that citizens can worry about all the other aspects of life, society and the larger world seems like such an utterly different way to live your life that it is difficult to fathom.
As a Canadian I also am baffled about this. Trump's claim that "everything will be rainbows...oh wait...it's really complex" was a, sadly, amusing roller-coaster
Asrahn Same. I'm British and I can't imagine how I would live like this. How do you get on with life when an accident or illness would fuck your finances as well as your life?
This is why I, as a european, no longer consider the USA to be a modern civilized country. Universal single payer healthcare is the cornerstone of a civilized country.
As a Canadian I really feel sad for you poor, poor Americans. Our government spends less than HALF of what your government does per citizen on Healthcare, but we actually get free heathcare and you get nothing. So sad. So sad. It's a catastrophe.
Our country is behind of the rest of the modern world when it comes to such basic things functions like healthcare but we're fighting for a single payer system like Canada has. John Conyers a democratic senator has proposed a medicare for all bill and that which most Democrats are already supporting, so when the hopefully if Democrats in 2020 we can have this system implemented.
I simply don't understand how Americans can live like this. Healthcare is a human right. You pay taxes for things like Defence, Roads, and Healthcare. That is just common sense.
@uncripted never said it was free, and the wait times only happen rarely for non emergencies. I have family members with serious illnesses who were looked after immediately and treated without issue. But yes I do agree a private option should be in place
Once again I would like to applaud you for sticking to facts and appreciably unbiased analysis while covering a politically charged topic. It is refreshing to see actual news coverage, and your efforts mean a lot to me.
This is very discouraging... I'm afraid for my ability to afford healthcare, and my partner's. We both need care for chronic illnesses. I'm even more afraid for people living in poverty.
Cycling guy Keeping your own money is not the same as taking someone else's via welfare. Seriously, if you look at the insane markups in prices from retail price to final selling price on medications, you'd realize that the problem isn't lack of daddy govt, but rather the crooked medical industry that gets away with insanely high prices because you keep asking someone else to pay for the markup instead of allowing a free market to take hold.
Diana Peña The crooked medical industry isn't going to become fair with a "free" unregulated market. This new legislation does nothing to regulate prices in the medical industry.
Actually, it would. It would be forced to. When people see the prices they can pay at various locations, they vote with their wallets. Free markets make everything better and less expensive, from food to computers.
I tried to read the actual proposed bill and it is indecipherable legal gobbledygook. What sources did you use to be able to know what this bill will or won't do. Also, you speculate that certain portions of the bill will effect the market in specific ways, what is the source of those predictions?
Why can't we just have the states handle universal healthcare? Individual states have populations as large as some countries, so the argument of saying the population is too large is moot. It also preserves states rights. The federal government can lay down ground rules the states need to follow. If states want to offer more coverage than the federal government demands, they can. There will still be private health insurance, but it will just exist to cover non-essential things that the universal healthcare don't cover.
The main reason is because it would massively decrease the amount of profit that private health insurance companies make because their product is no longer as essential as it once was. Since they're funding politicians in both major parties, neither major party will do anything to jeopardise that source of funding.
Good god no. I want doctors to handle my healthcare, and I will happily pay higher taxes for that to be free at the point of use. The only people who wouldn't benefit from such a model are insurance companies and those assholes who like to hike up the price of life saving medicines, and fuck those guys anyway.
Diana Peña The states are in charge of the VA? Where I am, Washington state, most of the stuff can be done online. I don't have to deal with lines. I think the states will be fine with healthcare.
It would also drive down the prices of health care in general as well, because large state run single payer systems could bargain with drug companies and what not with large purchasing power to lower prices.
With as much money as the US makes it could easily afford a single payer system. There are only two factors that that make US healthcare costs rise. First uninsured, they get sick they go to the ER but they can't pay and the hospital still has to support a budget so it must offset these with higher costs to people that can pay. This leads to higher private insurance costs because they have to have a profit and pay for the inevitable sickness/injury. Second privatized medical needs, proof just look at Epipen. No system is perfect, but private healthcare is horrifyingly bad and only 3 kinds of people think otherwise (Those who profit from it, the uber lucky healthy, and the sheeple).
I'm a new subscriber and I find it frustrating how often you say you've covered it in a previous video cause I don't know which video. Could you put links in the videos to what you're referring to or recap it when you mention it? Thanks this is a great channel!
Thanks, Dr Carroll, for breaking this down so it's a bit easier to understand! Every article or video I see seems to be somewhat selective in which parts they explain.
Nobody should profit from anothers suffering, no matter the situation. That's not Socialism, it's common sense and it's worked here (Scotland) for almost a century.
gskibum What i was proposing was an NHS like system in the USA where every person who works pays into the fund to help everyone, i never insinuated that people must get out and fix people's lives as a full time job with no pay. Perhaps you missed the point where i said it had been working here in Scotland for a century, in which i was referring to the NHS. And before you go on and say "I'm not paying for someone else", by collecting taxes from every person, the UK has some of the best and cheapest healthcare in Europe. Although many would argue we don't pay enough.
Diana Peña If you get hungry, you go out and you buy food. If you get sick, you can't just go out and buy some medication, you need professionals to tell you what's wrong, how to treat it and how long that will take, before consulting more professionals... It's not like eating a sandwich...
It's even horrible for young people, the "cheaper plans" mentioned, will be barely any cheaper, and far,far worse. So, in turn, they will just dump their healthcare all together, further adding to the "death spiral", and increasing costs overall because so many more people will be forced to go to the ER or hospital for medical care that could've been handled at a doctors office.
You can't focus enough on lottery winners. Even if you want to keep the stack of paper small, you have to give the lottery winner issue that's been plaguing healthcare for years now its due share of attention.
Serious questions though because I haven't had a chance to look through much. Are they doing anything with quality of care and cost saving measures funded and supported by the ACA? Are mental health provisions left untouched?
How is Planned Parenthood not a community health center? They are widely distributed and help many people get the healthcare they need. The Republicans are letting their moral outrage get in the way of actually helping people.
Actually, Jane, it's the democrat model. The democrats are so blind with fury over an entitlement being curtailed that they forgot about the millions this law has hurt. Also, if you love planned parenthood so much, why not donate your own money to it? Why are democrats always so opposed to using their own money for stuff they want?
Diana Peña I have happily donated my own money to Planned Parenthood, seeing as their services are used by more republicans then democrats lol. Also, what is it with the right always saying "entitled". Universal health care isn't free, it's paid for by your taxes. Lol, Americans. Freedom baby! Buffalo wings! Trucks!
Ironically I really do not like the individual mandate in the current ACA. What it does, with the income tax penalty, is punish you for not being able to afford insruance simply because the subsidies were insufficient to cover any available health insurance plans that might've been on the market. This just isn't right. And now with this whole shit of being charged 30% more for 12 months after signing back up again after letting coverage lapse for 63+ days just punishes someone for wanting to be reinsured again after having to let it lapse for whatever financial reason. Fucking cut it out with punishing the poor for not being able to afford insurance FFS. I'm 27 goddamn years old, in need of insurance, and can't afford it no matter which way I turn both with the ACA and now with AHCA. Health insurance is nothing more than the world's most profitable pyramid scheme at this point.
I used to just "not like" the tax-averse rich, but now I actively hate them. they're comfortable being responsible for human beings dying from lack of coverage to regain 0.3% of their income. it's so fucked up.
They are not responsible for people dying any more than you are responsible for starving children because you spent $5 on a useless thing instead of donating it to charity. Seriously, why do democrats always assume that being against the federal govt being in healthcare must mean you want people to die? Why not do what I do and DONATE?
Relying on donations is a terrible way to fund something like healthcare- it needs to be consistently funded, and relying on goodwill is not effective at scale.
You don't blame people you blame the system, and those who created the system. You can't blame people for making the most rational decision that will benefit themselves, their families, and friends. It's the governments fault. Lookup the Singapore model.
Also, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent. Corporate democrats (obama and the clintons being recent prime examples) also helped make this happen, but to their credit, they didn't accept the flawed logic that slashing taxes on the top earners is a good thing. Put corporate tax back at 95% and incentivize investment and expansion and benefits. spend that money and you don't have to give it to the "big bad government" boogeyman and they won't need it because you're providing for the people the government is trying to provide for. Lining the pockets of corporations in lieu of allowing everybody to live comfortably doing that which they are able is just bad economics and bad for humanity. Oh, and they ARE responsible because they ARE the people who fund the politicians who give them the tax cuts in return for screwing the sick, poor, and elderly out of healthcare.
Great informative videos, but I'd like to see you make an opinion video where you lay out a plan that you would like to see happen. What could we do to cover everyone? How can we eliminate the insane overpricing of medication? How can we convince people that a healthier nation is for the betterment of the individual as well as for the whole?
As a disabled American and recipient of Medicaid, this plan is going to be a disaster for myself and others like me. The GOP in my state has been vocal about capping individual spending for each insured. It costs about $100,000, give or take, per year to keep me alive. That isn't a number that the GOP will deem "reasonable." And I don't feel like dying at the age of 37.
Imagine all the administration overhead we'd save if every citizen just automatically got health coverage. Then people wouldn't need to worry about if they can afford to have basic health care in the richest nation in the world.
Is like they don't understand what healthcare means and needs! I definitely I'm not for this mess of a plan and would still want the ACA to continue as it just needs to be upgraded and not uninstalled.
I'm still saying there were two bills and the one Obama signed originated out the Senate and the Senate can't originate a new tax so when the supreme court ruled ACA a tax, they made the law unconstitutional only the house can create a tax bill
It takes the part of ACA that wasn't working well, not getting the young healthy people to buy in, and makes it worse. IMO for a solution that covers sick people well you need healthy people in the pool. If not costs will continue to soar and insurers will drop out of the market. Without this being fixed the whole thing will fail and all the other stuff is irrelevant.
Jamie Dorsey i think the shift in charging the old more was an effort to attract more young people to it. im 23 and im uninsured because i would neber be able to afford health insurance under the ACA probably will not under the republican ACA.
The cap on insurance executive tax deduction removal needs to highlight more. Currently only 500k of executive pay can be a tax write off for insurance companies. The bill would lift the cap and possibly millions could be written off by insurance companies.
There was a story on the news several years ago of someone who won the lottery and was getting food stamps because of a loophole. Also in some states the amount of money someone has on the bank doesn't disqualify them to get medicaid only the amount they earn does. Which maybe why they add that rule.
I get it. You don't like abortion. The plans in place don't allow for federal spending on abortion now anyway so why de-fund an essential women's health tool when the "paying for abortion" outcome is the same?
Because it also offers things like contraceptives, and women shouldn't have sex because that stuff is of the devil. Women are to be controlled and in the kitchen, not going around in control of their own health and sexual life. It saddens me I have to explicitly say I'm being sarcastic because this is actually the though process of these people and it may get confused.
I agree with you. The Hyde amendment stops a lot of people's money going towards it. It's so stupid how people get fired up over one issue they hate a whole healthcare system because of it. Especially when they are poor and could benefit from him the most.
Trying to ban abortion will never work because it just stops safe procedures from happening. It's safer when it's legal and so many people will die from back room procedures like they did in the old days
i appreciate how this was presented, you left your views of the subject for the end and gave concise info about practical matters, without cutting to your opinion. This will promote critical thinking in peoplez most def
Where is the analysis on the 3 phase approach proposed by Paul Ryan? I feel like this is an incomplete video without factoring in everything about the ACHA.
I think it says something sad about the state of affairs when I know multiple couples (including my partner and myself) who are considering getting married because one person needs health insurance and stand to lose it under this plan.
why do you have a partner that you didnt plan on marrying before? do you hate yourself so much that you would choose someone you wouldnt want to spend your life with as a partner?
+Jesus Christus It's probably not that they didn't plan on marrying, it's the timing. They might've wanted to marry a little bit further down the road of the relationship. However, they may be forced to do it way sooner just to keep the other person in the clear when it comes to healthcare.
Where is the part where they let us buy health insurance and see a doctor across state lines? Where is the part where we can design our own health insurance policy's?
We desperately need more input from non-Americans in this discussion. We need those with access to universal/single/socialized systems to give their experiences. Tell us the truth. I have friends of "middle class" means without basic health insurance here in Texas. Please keep commenting.
Surprised to see you reporting the lifetime and annual cap ban is still in place as numerous reports that have come out today with the CBO rating are stating the opposite: that lifetime and annual caps are back.
How about to drive down costs we increase regulations on insurance and pharmaceutical companies? Or better yet we go to a single payer system that eliminates all those greedy CEO's jobs and merges all those insurance companies into one huge government run center. I'm all for capitalism but health care is a basic right and should be socialized period end of story.
All the time passed waiting for it to be talked about made it impossible to claw back out the old system destroyed, bad as it was. We are getting something but nothing thats ever been discussed before or works the same for people. Keep trying to make sense of it.
+Nich Citarella Because it's pretax money. If you don't put a limit it opens the door for people to just stash money there instead of paying taxes, which support many other services from the government. You may not currently use it all, but if I gave you the choice of paying $10,000 in taxes or have it available in your HSA what would you choose? I'm being simplistic in the example but this is the reason.
what stopping us from just going to single payer like Britain has? could you assemble a healthcare plan that you consider perfect? you seem to know alot considering all the plan types you've covered. but most importantly, I still don't know how to get insurance.
I hate that anti-abortion politicians penalize people for doing anything even at abortion clinics instead of trying to fight abortion itself. though I have no problem with abortion currently legal in the US, I recognize the many other benefits those clinics offer to both women and men that can be life saving
+Tom Walter Also from the sick, which is a terrible outcome for any decent healthcare system plan. It doesn't directly state that, but it allows increases on your premiums at a very high rate, meaning they don't have to deny you insurance because you got sick or have a preexisting condition, but they can just keep making it more expensive for you until you can't afford it. This is currently illegal for those exact reasons, but the new plan removed those limitations.
The wealthy and corporations do very well out of this - less tax (for Obamacare) and more tax credits. This reduction is passed on to the less wealthy and elderly who either are getting less tax credits or less health care. Doesn't seem fair. The end result is that the US still won't have universal health care like every other democracy on the planet. Get money out of politics!
Question - does anyone know what (2020 FLP) stands for on the Kaiser Family Foundation chart? And - @ 4:00 I believe to say win-fall for the wealthier is disingenuous. It seems like the tax-payer will now be covered (i.e. those in the $40,000-$100,000 range ) whereas the Wealthier (i.e. those in the $100,000+ range) only receive minor coverage.
the cost will rise. this bill and The ACA focused on demand and not supply. any other field with a high cost most would blame a fault on supply and not demand. but for some reason healthcare its all about demand with no effort to actually lower costs. just to make sure more people pay it. and that will somehow lower cost
A 'better plan' would reinforce the idea that the government is actually capable of providing a valuable service, which would entirely contradict the GOP's entire narrative. Americans continue to get screwed over, but conservatives are totally cool with that, so long as they have their 'small government.'
Healthcare Triage Ok thank you! I know you touched on the subject in the video, but it was so brief I wanted to be sure. Thank you guys for all that you do! You're videos are straight and to the point, I love watching them. May God bless you!
here is an analogy on free market Healthcare. Imagine that I am a healthcare provider that has a patent on a life-saving drug that you need. if you do not get the drug, you die. I have the option as the owner of the patent to price it however I like. if I wanted to charge you 1 billion dollars, I could. free market capitalism requires competition to drive prices down. obviously there are Market forces that can drive prices down like the fact that no one will buy it at 1 billion dollars so the price will go down but it is still at a very high price. Working-class and middle-class families would have a very difficult time affording simply looking at the EpiPen phenomena, you can see the issue with free market capitalism in healthcare
Why do we always focus on giving insurance to people. Quite often medical bills are very expensive with insurance. Why don't we focus on reducing how much health care costs?
what about the 600 billion dollars the rich get in tax credits but us normals get the middle finger. you should have talked about that part of the legislation.
No one wants to get sick, unless they are severely mentally ill, but this is a horrible plan. I hate the fact that people don't see how bad this is, we all don't plan when to get sick, or if we will have a life long chronic condition.
Wow, only one point into this plan and I can already see it's a steaming pile of shit. You're going to change Medicaid to a "per capita block grant program?" Um... _WHY_ ? Is there some negotiable standard for healthcare that I'm unaware of? Gee, I already feel *really* confident in this program seeing as I live in South Carolina...
I need this slowed down and spend a show on each subject you covered. Way to much info, to fast and reading it by myself is even more confusing. where can we get help understanding?
Y'know what, why can't certain states just form interstate compacts that deals with healthcare? Like New England and maybe some of the Mid-Atlantic states unite so that they together form the "East Coast Healthcare Interstate Association" or something like that that'll give all its residents a better healthcare that wouldn't rely on this stupid Republican majority held Congress. I think the Swiss model could be a good model to follow for this hypothetical interstate compact. It just feel like the only way at this point so that people don't get worse coverage with this so-called "plan".
Multi-state compacts were included in the ACA. www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/12/kaiser-multistate-health-plans-are-unavailable-in-many-states/77150208/
steveh46 -Well, why haven't they done anything with this!- After reading it that isn't what a interstate compact does. Compacts a multi-state agreements that allow things in common like forestry, fishing regulations, transportation, etc. to have a standard among the compact's members dealt with by a new agency that all the states give power to. Such agencies include the Port Authority of NY and NJ as well as the compact where states agree to recognize out of state IDs and driver's licenses as also legal with the state, etc. My proposal would basically be an interstate compact that creates a new agency that's a public health insurance option for the residents of the compact's members.
Well, at least this seems like an actual bill, an actual plan that has function to it. I also noticed that although the benefits are becoming age based, growing larger with age, the cost deviation between young and old was extended to 1:5 from 1:3, so that there is some effect balancing. I found the bill quite reasonable from a politically republican viewpoint. Taxing the rich to sustain the poor can only be rationalized through ether a strict pragmatic lens, or through a socialist lens of 'the rich can only be rich from stealing or ripping off the poor in some way' idea. I do not believe that it is right to take from your neighbor for your own benefit, even if they are stupid rich, and even if you get the government to do it for you. Now, do I believe that the poor should be neglected and die on the streets, or that people who are in bad stead should be left to die so that rich people can eat more lobster? No! That is terrible and disgusting. I believe that people should invest in their communities, and help those who are in need. I believe that nonprofits and crowdfunded programs are some of the most successful at decreasing world-suck, and that the government is a much worse option for helping anyone effectively. It should not be the governments job to fix our communities and poor, it should be our job! One idea that I had was instead of taxes going to government programs that get gummed up by greedy bureaucrats and other self-interested individuals, that government should just create a demanded amount of funds that must be sent to certain nonprofit organizations and other successful programs that reduce life-suck. That would still be demanding from the rich to care for the poor, but, at least in theory, I believe it would be more effective than government run programs that are legalistic and unvaryingly slow and ineffective.
the social democratic position sounds like they believe that all goods and success is owned by this all-powerful system called "society" that some people just magically get more out of and other people do not. people succeed from working hard and smart at the right times to gain success and position themselves between opportunities that are poised to help them. if you work well and gain property, no one should have a right to take it from you. Without this reassurance you could obviously take all the money from the rich and hand it to people in grave need, sure, but you would also take away from every man the drive to build for themselves a home to care for their families, and steal the assurance for the poor man that he could become a true success and make something of himself. If you can feel fine taking money from people who own it to do what YOU think is best with it freely, then no one actually owns anything that is truly their's now do they? I know it looks so justified when the people are really rich, and the people in need are really needy, but the principle remains true at every level. If it is wrong for a rich person to break into a mansion and steal some precious jewels to pay for their food, cloths, and shelter, then it is still wrong when you try and use the government to do the heavy-lifting for you. Now, if there is a specific function that only the government can due, than all of society is called to make it so, because otherwise the needed institution would not survive without forced founding, and the need keeps the peace and prosperity of the Union in tacked. However, if this program is just the government paying for poor people's health services with rich people's money, then there is a violation of the rich person's rights to their property. I support every man's right to his own property, and i do not believe getting a pay raise makes your right to your property less valid, ever. I hope you can understand, that this has nothing to do with hating poor people, or wanting rich people to be richer. I want the poor to be cared for, and i want the rich to invest in society. I just do not believe that the government has the right to enforce those causes. I would love it if people less focused on the government to solve societal issues, and turned to the society itself. We have wonderful nonprofits that do amazing work to better the lives of the down and out, and I believe that they do it better than the government does most times anyways. Also, if you think that the rich of America do not contribute to America's success unless they are taxed to high heaven, I think you really do not understand how economics works. You do not want the successful, rich people in America to stop working in the US, and you would feel their loss a whole lot more if they never developed their company, hired their workforce, made their money, and bought more materials for their company, than if they never created a company at all, but were somehow gave the same taxes to the government every year.
Both republican and democrat versions of this ACA fall short. If you want an example of why it's a bad idea to have the government run the show, well here you go.
So we will have a VA style healthcare system for all Americans...great. We also cant afford to do that as a country. Entitlement spending is eating up more and more of total government spending. We should have first tried things like encouraging competition between companies, rewrite patent laws so that generic medication is more readily available and maybe even treat healthcare like a public utility, as in a State decides how much the hospitals can charge you to use basic hospital services.
![เจ็บที่ยังฮัก - ม่อน วรวิทย์ [ Official Mv ] จอนนี่มิวสิค](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KALIGSRSjFs/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks. I love analysis. It is often lacking in new reports.
As a northern European it's quite baffling to be watching the debate. I'm not trying to be snide; it's genuinely an alien thought to worry about medical costs, insurances etc here. To not have a foundational system in place, so that citizens can worry about all the other aspects of life, society and the larger world seems like such an utterly different way to live your life that it is difficult to fathom.
As a Canadian I also am baffled about this. Trump's claim that "everything will be rainbows...oh wait...it's really complex" was a, sadly, amusing roller-coaster
As a Canadian, I feel similarly. To me this is just replacing a bad system with a slightly different bad system.
Asrahn Same. I'm British and I can't imagine how I would live like this. How do you get on with life when an accident or illness would fuck your finances as well as your life?
nevramm this one sounds objectively worse for everyone involved...
This is why I, as a european, no longer consider the USA to be a modern civilized country.
Universal single payer healthcare is the cornerstone of a civilized country.
As a Canadian I really feel sad for you poor, poor Americans. Our government spends less than HALF of what your government does per citizen on Healthcare, but we actually get free heathcare and you get nothing.
So sad. So sad. It's a catastrophe.
Our country is behind of the rest of the modern world when it comes to such basic things functions like healthcare but we're fighting for a single payer system like Canada has. John Conyers a democratic senator has proposed a medicare for all bill and that which most Democrats are already supporting, so when the hopefully if Democrats in 2020 we can have this system implemented.
I simply don't understand how Americans can live like this. Healthcare is a human right. You pay taxes for things like Defence, Roads, and Healthcare. That is just common sense.
healthcare isnt a right
@uncripted then stop funding the military, its not a right
@uncripted I live in Canada works fine here
@uncripted what is 12 ER rates
@uncripted never said it was free, and the wait times only happen rarely for non emergencies. I have family members with serious illnesses who were looked after immediately and treated without issue. But yes I do agree a private option should be in place
Once again I would like to applaud you for sticking to facts and appreciably unbiased analysis while covering a politically charged topic. It is refreshing to see actual news coverage, and your efforts mean a lot to me.
This is very discouraging... I'm afraid for my ability to afford healthcare, and my partner's. We both need care for chronic illnesses. I'm even more afraid for people living in poverty.
Cycling guy
Keeping your own money is not the same as taking someone else's via welfare.
Seriously, if you look at the insane markups in prices from retail price to final selling price on medications, you'd realize that the problem isn't lack of daddy govt, but rather the crooked medical industry that gets away with insanely high prices because you keep asking someone else to pay for the markup instead of allowing a free market to take hold.
Diana Peña The crooked medical industry isn't going to become fair with a "free" unregulated market. This new legislation does nothing to regulate prices in the medical industry.
Actually, it would. It would be forced to. When people see the prices they can pay at various locations, they vote with their wallets. Free markets make everything better and less expensive, from food to computers.
Diana Peña lol free market again
Yes, because people who have a heart attack are going to go research different hospitals to haggle with. What a pipe dream.
I tried to read the actual proposed bill and it is indecipherable legal gobbledygook. What sources did you use to be able to know what this bill will or won't do. Also, you speculate that certain portions of the bill will effect the market in specific ways, what is the source of those predictions?
Why can't we just have the states handle universal healthcare? Individual states have populations as large as some countries, so the argument of saying the population is too large is moot. It also preserves states rights.
The federal government can lay down ground rules the states need to follow. If states want to offer more coverage than the federal government demands, they can.
There will still be private health insurance, but it will just exist to cover non-essential things that the universal healthcare don't cover.
The main reason is because it would massively decrease the amount of profit that private health insurance companies make because their product is no longer as essential as it once was. Since they're funding politicians in both major parties, neither major party will do anything to jeopardise that source of funding.
You want the people responsible for the VA and DMV to handle your healthcare?
Good god no. I want doctors to handle my healthcare, and I will happily pay higher taxes for that to be free at the point of use. The only people who wouldn't benefit from such a model are insurance companies and those assholes who like to hike up the price of life saving medicines, and fuck those guys anyway.
Diana Peña The states are in charge of the VA?
Where I am, Washington state, most of the stuff can be done online. I don't have to deal with lines.
I think the states will be fine with healthcare.
It would also drive down the prices of health care in general as well, because large state run single payer systems could bargain with drug companies and what not with large purchasing power to lower prices.
With as much money as the US makes it could easily afford a single payer system. There are only two factors that that make US healthcare costs rise. First uninsured, they get sick they go to the ER but they can't pay and the hospital still has to support a budget so it must offset these with higher costs to people that can pay. This leads to higher private insurance costs because they have to have a profit and pay for the inevitable sickness/injury. Second privatized medical needs, proof just look at Epipen. No system is perfect, but private healthcare is horrifyingly bad and only 3 kinds of people think otherwise (Those who profit from it, the uber lucky healthy, and the sheeple).
I'm a new subscriber and I find it frustrating how often you say you've covered it in a previous video cause I don't know which video. Could you put links in the videos to what you're referring to or recap it when you mention it? Thanks this is a great channel!
Thanks, Dr Carroll, for breaking this down so it's a bit easier to understand! Every article or video I see seems to be somewhat selective in which parts they explain.
"Welcome to a very special Healthcare Tria-"
I didn't notice that until I read this comment and now it's hilarious to me. thanks
Nobody should profit from anothers suffering, no matter the situation. That's not Socialism, it's common sense and it's worked here (Scotland) for almost a century.
Then get out there and devote all of your time & resources - for free- - to alleviate the suffering of others.
There is nothing wrong with making a profit. Food is a necessity and also a for-profit industry. Still more affordable than ever before.
gskibum
What i was proposing was an NHS like system in the USA where every person who works pays into the fund to help everyone, i never insinuated that people must get out and fix people's lives as a full time job with no pay.
Perhaps you missed the point where i said it had been working here in Scotland for a century, in which i was referring to the NHS.
And before you go on and say "I'm not paying for someone else", by collecting taxes from every person, the UK has some of the best and cheapest healthcare in Europe. Although many would argue we don't pay enough.
Diana Peña
If you get hungry, you go out and you buy food.
If you get sick, you can't just go out and buy some medication, you need professionals to tell you what's wrong, how to treat it and how long that will take, before consulting more professionals...
It's not like eating a sandwich...
Singapore model is better.
TL;DW: It's tremendous. Except if you're a lottery winner. Or Poor. Or old. Or a lottery winner. Or pregnant. Or a lottery winner.
It's even horrible for young people, the "cheaper plans" mentioned, will be barely any cheaper, and far,far worse. So, in turn, they will just dump their healthcare all together, further adding to the "death spiral", and increasing costs overall because so many more people will be forced to go to the ER or hospital for medical care that could've been handled at a doctors office.
Dangit! I knew there was a downside to winning the lottery!
rdizzy1, also, young people tend to get old themselves. If a lack of healthcare doesn't get them earlier.
I think you forgot lottery winners.
You can't focus enough on lottery winners. Even if you want to keep the stack of paper small, you have to give the lottery winner issue that's been plaguing healthcare for years now its due share of attention.
Serious questions though because I haven't had a chance to look through much. Are they doing anything with quality of care and cost saving measures funded and supported by the ACA? Are mental health provisions left untouched?
The attack on Planned Parenthood is appalling. Nothing about this is really surprising, though. I expected to be furious.
How is Planned Parenthood not a community health center? They are widely distributed and help many people get the healthcare they need. The Republicans are letting their moral outrage get in the way of actually helping people.
+TheGerm24
"Republicans are letting their moral outrage get in the way of actually helping people."
Isn't that the GOP motto?
Actually, Jane, it's the democrat model. The democrats are so blind with fury over an entitlement being curtailed that they forgot about the millions this law has hurt.
Also, if you love planned parenthood so much, why not donate your own money to it? Why are democrats always so opposed to using their own money for stuff they want?
Diana Peña I have happily donated my own money to Planned Parenthood, seeing as their services are used by more republicans then democrats lol. Also, what is it with the right always saying "entitled". Universal health care isn't free, it's paid for by your taxes. Lol, Americans. Freedom baby! Buffalo wings! Trucks!
If it gets signed, Planned Parenthood will immediately sue because it's a Bill of Attainder.
I moved to Asia where insurance is approx. $100 a month. Not going back.
Ironically I really do not like the individual mandate in the current ACA. What it does, with the income tax penalty, is punish you for not being able to afford insruance simply because the subsidies were insufficient to cover any available health insurance plans that might've been on the market. This just isn't right.
And now with this whole shit of being charged 30% more for 12 months after signing back up again after letting coverage lapse for 63+ days just punishes someone for wanting to be reinsured again after having to let it lapse for whatever financial reason.
Fucking cut it out with punishing the poor for not being able to afford insurance FFS. I'm 27 goddamn years old, in need of insurance, and can't afford it no matter which way I turn both with the ACA and now with AHCA. Health insurance is nothing more than the world's most profitable pyramid scheme at this point.
I used to just "not like" the tax-averse rich, but now I actively hate them. they're comfortable being responsible for human beings dying from lack of coverage to regain 0.3% of their income. it's so fucked up.
Well put
They are not responsible for people dying any more than you are responsible for starving children because you spent $5 on a useless thing instead of donating it to charity.
Seriously, why do democrats always assume that being against the federal govt being in healthcare must mean you want people to die? Why not do what I do and DONATE?
Relying on donations is a terrible way to fund something like healthcare- it needs to be consistently funded, and relying on goodwill is not effective at scale.
You don't blame people you blame the system, and those who created the system. You can't blame people for making the most rational decision that will benefit themselves, their families, and friends. It's the governments fault.
Lookup the Singapore model.
Also, I'm not a democrat. I'm an independent. Corporate democrats (obama and the clintons being recent prime examples) also helped make this happen, but to their credit, they didn't accept the flawed logic that slashing taxes on the top earners is a good thing. Put corporate tax back at 95% and incentivize investment and expansion and benefits. spend that money and you don't have to give it to the "big bad government" boogeyman and they won't need it because you're providing for the people the government is trying to provide for. Lining the pockets of corporations in lieu of allowing everybody to live comfortably doing that which they are able is just bad economics and bad for humanity.
Oh, and they ARE responsible because they ARE the people who fund the politicians who give them the tax cuts in return for screwing the sick, poor, and elderly out of healthcare.
I thought that I heard the term "Even better... believe me." Anyone know where that would be from?
Great informative videos, but I'd like to see you make an opinion video where you lay out a plan that you would like to see happen. What could we do to cover everyone? How can we eliminate the insane overpricing of medication? How can we convince people that a healthier nation is for the betterment of the individual as well as for the whole?
+
The answer to all three questions is an NHS.
Singapore model.
Two words: Single Payer.
Single Payer = Worse then Singapore Model.
As a disabled American and recipient of Medicaid, this plan is going to be a disaster for myself and others like me. The GOP in my state has been vocal about capping individual spending for each insured. It costs about $100,000, give or take, per year to keep me alive. That isn't a number that the GOP will deem "reasonable."
And I don't feel like dying at the age of 37.
Sara Anne Miller why does it cost so much?
It is harvested immunoglobulins from human blood donations. It takes thousands of people to make one dose.
That is one of the most depressing things I've ever heard!!!! good luck with that! sorry
Thanks. We all have hardships; this one is mine.
Sara Anne Miller i will say one thing that probably doesn't apply to this situation but most medical costs is greatly inflated.
What will the net result likely be with the age-based tax credits but the widening ratio to 5:1 working together?
Imagine all the administration overhead we'd save if every citizen just automatically got health coverage. Then people wouldn't need to worry about if they can afford to have basic health care in the richest nation in the world.
Is like they don't understand what healthcare means and needs! I definitely I'm not for this mess of a plan and would still want the ACA to continue as it just needs to be upgraded and not uninstalled.
Looking forward to hearing more on this as time goes on and the CBO score is posted.
I'm still saying there were two bills and the one Obama signed originated out the Senate and the Senate can't originate a new tax so when the supreme court ruled ACA a tax, they made the law unconstitutional only the house can create a tax bill
It takes the part of ACA that wasn't working well, not getting the young healthy people to buy in, and makes it worse. IMO for a solution that covers sick people well you need healthy people in the pool. If not costs will continue to soar and insurers will drop out of the market. Without this being fixed the whole thing will fail and all the other stuff is irrelevant.
Jamie Dorsey i think the shift in charging the old more was an effort to attract more young people to it. im 23 and im uninsured because i would neber be able to afford health insurance under the ACA probably will not under the republican ACA.
And poor people in states that opted out of Medicaid Expansion are still screwed.
The cap on insurance executive tax deduction removal needs to highlight more. Currently only 500k of executive pay can be a tax write off for insurance companies. The bill would lift the cap and possibly millions could be written off by insurance companies.
Welcome to a very special episode of Healthcare Tri-
There was a story on the news several years ago of someone who won the lottery and was getting food stamps because of a loophole. Also in some states the amount of money someone has on the bank doesn't disqualify them to get medicaid only the amount they earn does. Which maybe why they add that rule.
I get it. You don't like abortion. The plans in place don't allow for federal spending on abortion now anyway so why de-fund an essential women's health tool when the "paying for abortion" outcome is the same?
Because it also offers things like contraceptives, and women shouldn't have sex because that stuff is of the devil. Women are to be controlled and in the kitchen, not going around in control of their own health and sexual life.
It saddens me I have to explicitly say I'm being sarcastic because this is actually the though process of these people and it may get confused.
*RobertDownyJunior eye roll meme*
I agree with you. The Hyde amendment stops a lot of people's money going towards it. It's so stupid how people get fired up over one issue they hate a whole healthcare system because of it. Especially when they are poor and could benefit from him the most.
Trying to ban abortion will never work because it just stops safe procedures from happening. It's safer when it's legal and so many people will die from back room procedures like they did in the old days
i appreciate how this was presented, you left your views of the subject for the end and gave concise info about practical matters, without cutting to your opinion. This will promote critical thinking in peoplez most def
Nothing for mental health services or those with addictions
Are you talking about trump care?
yep, it's gone.
Where is the analysis on the 3 phase approach proposed by Paul Ryan? I feel like this is an incomplete video without factoring in everything about the ACHA.
I think it says something sad about the state of affairs when I know multiple couples (including my partner and myself) who are considering getting married because one person needs health insurance and stand to lose it under this plan.
why do you have a partner that you didnt plan on marrying before?
do you hate yourself so much that you would choose someone you wouldnt want to spend your life with as a partner?
+Jesus Christus It's probably not that they didn't plan on marrying, it's the timing. They might've wanted to marry a little bit further down the road of the relationship. However, they may be forced to do it way sooner just to keep the other person in the clear when it comes to healthcare.
Wait, they spend 10% on the report talking about lottery winners ? XD
Where is the part where they let us buy health insurance and see a doctor across state lines? Where is the part where we can design our own health insurance policy's?
We desperately need more input from non-Americans in this discussion. We need those with access to universal/single/socialized systems to give their experiences. Tell us the truth. I have friends of "middle class" means without basic health insurance here in Texas. Please keep commenting.
Surprised to see you reporting the lifetime and annual cap ban is still in place as numerous reports that have come out today with the CBO rating are stating the opposite: that lifetime and annual caps are back.
Can we get a source on the chart you displayed at 4:05? Or was that just something you made?
Here you go bfy.tw/AXte
Literally says the source at the bottom of the chart.
How about to drive down costs we increase regulations on insurance and pharmaceutical companies? Or better yet we go to a single payer system that eliminates all those greedy CEO's jobs and merges all those insurance companies into one huge government run center. I'm all for capitalism but health care is a basic right and should be socialized period end of story.
All the time passed waiting for it to be talked about made it impossible to claw back out the old system destroyed, bad as it was. We are getting something but nothing thats ever been discussed before or works the same for people. Keep trying to make sense of it.
Will never understand why there is a limit on the amount you can put in your health savings account.
+Nich Citarella Because it's pretax money. If you don't put a limit it opens the door for people to just stash money there instead of paying taxes, which support many other services from the government. You may not currently use it all, but if I gave you the choice of paying $10,000 in taxes or have it available in your HSA what would you choose? I'm being simplistic in the example but this is the reason.
Your ideal healthcare plan?
Would love to hear the pie in the sky and also something that may be possible given political will
2020 is a funny year to make a bunch of fundamental changes, ain't it?
I really appreciate these videos bc now I actually know relevant info about what's gonna happen with healthcare policy
What are the chances that this bill will pass?
My understanding was the CBO wasn't going to look at this because the Reps intentionally said that the CBO couldn't look at this one.
CBO report came out! TL-DR: It's even worse than we could have imagined.
what stopping us from just going to single payer like Britain has? could you assemble a healthcare plan that you consider perfect? you seem to know alot considering all the plan types you've covered.
but most importantly, I still don't know how to get insurance.
You forgot the real problem with this. The large tax break given to Insurance CEO.
+Kevin Majors we mentioned the tax in high salaries of insurance executives
This makes me so sad.
Sorta downplayed the first part which significantly affects the overall.
I hate that anti-abortion politicians penalize people for doing anything even at abortion clinics instead of trying to fight abortion itself. though I have no problem with abortion currently legal in the US, I recognize the many other benefits those clinics offer to both women and men that can be life saving
so taking assistance away from the poor who actually need it, to hand it to wealthier people. shocking.
+Tom Walter Also from the sick, which is a terrible outcome for any decent healthcare system plan. It doesn't directly state that, but it allows increases on your premiums at a very high rate, meaning they don't have to deny you insurance because you got sick or have a preexisting condition, but they can just keep making it more expensive for you until you can't afford it. This is currently illegal for those exact reasons, but the new plan removed those limitations.
Repeal and replace TRUMPCARE!! Democrats 2018!!
Could you do a new video about the law? The CBO released a report on it and its a goddamn nightmare...
The wealthy and corporations do very well out of this - less tax (for Obamacare) and more tax credits.
This reduction is passed on to the less wealthy and elderly who either are getting less tax credits or less health care. Doesn't seem fair.
The end result is that the US still won't have universal health care like every other democracy on the planet. Get money out of politics!
Thanks for this video!
Of course this repeal is disgusting. Raise prices on poor and knock em down for the rich and give them tax credits.
Shocker.
Current system sucks, new one creates as many issues as it fixes. Always seems like a win lose with any changes.
IIIhittmanIII Nooot really. There are ways to objectively improve things.
Question - does anyone know what (2020 FLP) stands for on the Kaiser Family Foundation chart? And - @ 4:00 I believe to say win-fall for the wealthier is disingenuous. It seems like the tax-payer will now be covered (i.e. those in the $40,000-$100,000 range ) whereas the Wealthier (i.e. those in the $100,000+ range) only receive minor coverage.
FPL stands for the Federal Poverty Level, how much money they'd have to earn to be above poverty.
it would be a shame if that passed
Sounds like super complicated nationalized healthcare.
So rich people will get a break.. unless they got their money from the lottery? lmao
the cost will rise. this bill and The ACA focused on demand and not supply. any other field with a high cost most would blame a fault on supply and not demand. but for some reason healthcare its all about demand with no effort to actually lower costs. just to make sure more people pay it. and that will somehow lower cost
TrumpCare: Like Trump University, but you die.
I don't understand how in 7 years they couldn't come up with a better plan.
A 'better plan' would reinforce the idea that the government is actually capable of providing a valuable service, which would entirely contradict the GOP's entire narrative. Americans continue to get screwed over, but conservatives are totally cool with that, so long as they have their 'small government.'
What an interesting theory! Do you think they want it to tank to prove government shouldn't be involved?
what a mess, this is like taking the cons of all different plans and rolling them into one big pile of dookie
On a scale of 1 to Skeletor, how boned are we?
I'm gonna say Kimimaro.
What about the pre-existing condition clause?
+urhumbleservant guaranteed issue and community ratings remain as long as you maintain continuous coverage
Healthcare Triage Ok thank you! I know you touched on the subject in the video, but it was so brief I wanted to be sure.
Thank you guys for all that you do! You're videos are straight and to the point, I love watching them.
May God bless you!
Healthcare Triage And this was a highly anticipated episode especially given the past few days, I'm sure you would agree
It's a good thing this did not pass. It would have destroyed our healthcare system, as broken as it already is.
Basically if your old and poor your screwed.
Which makes up a good portion of this country. 1/3 of the US population is 50 or older.
here is an analogy on free market Healthcare. Imagine that I am a healthcare provider that has a patent on a life-saving drug that you need. if you do not get the drug, you die. I have the option as the owner of the patent to price it however I like. if I wanted to charge you 1 billion dollars, I could. free market capitalism requires competition to drive prices down. obviously there are Market forces that can drive prices down like the fact that no one will buy it at 1 billion dollars so the price will go down but it is still at a very high price. Working-class and middle-class families would have a very difficult time affording
simply looking at the EpiPen phenomena, you can see the issue with free market capitalism in healthcare
Why do we always focus on giving insurance to people. Quite often medical bills are very expensive with insurance. Why don't we focus on reducing how much health care costs?
what about the 600 billion dollars the rich get in tax credits but us normals get the middle finger. you should have talked about that part of the legislation.
No one wants to get sick, unless they are severely mentally ill, but this is a horrible plan. I hate the fact that people don't see how bad this is, we all don't plan when to get sick, or if we will have a life long chronic condition.
Wow, only one point into this plan and I can already see it's a steaming pile of shit. You're going to change Medicaid to a "per capita block grant program?" Um... _WHY_ ? Is there some negotiable standard for healthcare that I'm unaware of? Gee, I already feel *really* confident in this program seeing as I live in South Carolina...
nothing will get rid of aca not trump no one thank god for that
Can subsidies pay for insurance that covers abortions to save the mother's life?
yes
Your system couldn’t get more complicated and unfair if it tried,
I need this slowed down and spend a show on each subject you covered. Way to much info, to fast and reading it by myself is even more confusing. where can we get help understanding?
Y'know what, why can't certain states just form interstate compacts that deals with healthcare? Like New England and maybe some of the Mid-Atlantic states unite so that they together form the "East Coast Healthcare Interstate Association" or something like that that'll give all its residents a better healthcare that wouldn't rely on this stupid Republican majority held Congress. I think the Swiss model could be a good model to follow for this hypothetical interstate compact. It just feel like the only way at this point so that people don't get worse coverage with this so-called "plan".
Multi-state compacts were included in the ACA.
www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/12/12/kaiser-multistate-health-plans-are-unavailable-in-many-states/77150208/
steveh46
-Well, why haven't they done anything with this!-
After reading it that isn't what a interstate compact does. Compacts a multi-state agreements that allow things in common like forestry, fishing regulations, transportation, etc. to have a standard among the compact's members dealt with by a new agency that all the states give power to. Such agencies include the Port Authority of NY and NJ as well as the compact where states agree to recognize out of state IDs and driver's licenses as also legal with the state, etc.
My proposal would basically be an interstate compact that creates a new agency that's a public health insurance option for the residents of the compact's members.
I think trump wants to reduce healthcare budget and improve military spending
that's why they change the care act
So it's American for the state to insure the insurance company, but if the state insures the patient it's socialism? What?
No, the Republican argument is that the individual should insure the insurance company, that it *not* be subsidized by the govt.
Thank god I don't have to pay an $800 penalty for choosing not to gamble with my health.
Mandate penalties were absurd
If there is a God, he'll have to ask for my forgiveness.
I don't like the #3, defunding planned parenthood isn't surprising
Obamacaretrump.
Medworks. Network.
+
The republicans plan: step 1 - defund payouts to the elderly, step 2 - watch the elderly die, step 3 - save money
This bill isnt that bad for me. actually its quite good.
this is way too complicated and way too boring. im just telling it like it is. next.
Well, at least this seems like an actual bill, an actual plan that has function to it. I also noticed that although the benefits are becoming age based, growing larger with age, the cost deviation between young and old was extended to 1:5 from 1:3, so that there is some effect balancing.
I found the bill quite reasonable from a politically republican viewpoint. Taxing the rich to sustain the poor can only be rationalized through ether a strict pragmatic lens, or through a socialist lens of 'the rich can only be rich from stealing or ripping off the poor in some way' idea. I do not believe that it is right to take from your neighbor for your own benefit, even if they are stupid rich, and even if you get the government to do it for you. Now, do I believe that the poor should be neglected and die on the streets, or that people who are in bad stead should be left to die so that rich people can eat more lobster? No! That is terrible and disgusting. I believe that people should invest in their communities, and help those who are in need. I believe that nonprofits and crowdfunded programs are some of the most successful at decreasing world-suck, and that the government is a much worse option for helping anyone effectively. It should not be the governments job to fix our communities and poor, it should be our job!
One idea that I had was instead of taxes going to government programs that get gummed up by greedy bureaucrats and other self-interested individuals, that government should just create a demanded amount of funds that must be sent to certain nonprofit organizations and other successful programs that reduce life-suck. That would still be demanding from the rich to care for the poor, but, at least in theory, I believe it would be more effective than government run programs that are legalistic and unvaryingly slow and ineffective.
the social democratic position sounds like they believe that all goods and success is owned by this all-powerful system called "society" that some people just magically get more out of and other people do not. people succeed from working hard and smart at the right times to gain success and position themselves between opportunities that are poised to help them. if you work well and gain property, no one should have a right to take it from you. Without this reassurance you could obviously take all the money from the rich and hand it to people in grave need, sure, but you would also take away from every man the drive to build for themselves a home to care for their families, and steal the assurance for the poor man that he could become a true success and make something of himself. If you can feel fine taking money from people who own it to do what YOU think is best with it freely, then no one actually owns anything that is truly their's now do they? I know it looks so justified when the people are really rich, and the people in need are really needy, but the principle remains true at every level.
If it is wrong for a rich person to break into a mansion and steal some precious jewels to pay for their food, cloths, and shelter, then it is still wrong when you try and use the government to do the heavy-lifting for you.
Now, if there is a specific function that only the government can due, than all of society is called to make it so, because otherwise the needed institution would not survive without forced founding, and the need keeps the peace and prosperity of the Union in tacked. However, if this program is just the government paying for poor people's health services with rich people's money, then there is a violation of the rich person's rights to their property. I support every man's right to his own property, and i do not believe getting a pay raise makes your right to your property less valid, ever.
I hope you can understand, that this has nothing to do with hating poor people, or wanting rich people to be richer. I want the poor to be cared for, and i want the rich to invest in society. I just do not believe that the government has the right to enforce those causes. I would love it if people less focused on the government to solve societal issues, and turned to the society itself. We have wonderful nonprofits that do amazing work to better the lives of the down and out, and I believe that they do it better than the government does most times anyways.
Also, if you think that the rich of America do not contribute to America's success unless they are taxed to high heaven, I think you really do not understand how economics works. You do not want the successful, rich people in America to stop working in the US, and you would feel their loss a whole lot more if they never developed their company, hired their workforce, made their money, and bought more materials for their company, than if they never created a company at all, but were somehow gave the same taxes to the government every year.
Both republican and democrat versions of this ACA fall short. If you want an example of why it's a bad idea to have the government run the show, well here you go.
So we will have a VA style healthcare system for all Americans...great. We also cant afford to do that as a country. Entitlement spending is eating up more and more of total government spending. We should have first tried things like encouraging competition between companies, rewrite patent laws so that generic medication is more readily available and maybe even treat healthcare like a public utility, as in a State decides how much the hospitals can charge you to use basic hospital services.