If Economists Chose the Health Care System
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 มิ.ย. 2024
- Health economists study the economic determinants of health. They also analyze how health care resources are utilized and allocated, and how health care policies and quality of care can be improved. In this episode, we discuss what exactly a healthcare system would look like if these professionals were calling all the shots.
Related HCT episodes:
Better Ways to Reduce Wasteful Health Spending: • Better Ways to Cut Hea...
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Podcast
Images and Footage
Keith Ellison
iStockphoto.com/NoDerog
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Meredith Danko - Social Media
Tiffany Doherty -- Writer and Script Editor
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Mark Olsen - Art Director, Producer
#healthcaretriage #economists #M4A
Thanks also to our research associate Edward Liljeholm! Edward, we will include your name in our shout-outs starting at the next shoot, which is in a couple weeks!
If you just end the government's influence over the economy I think the Austrian economic model would work the best.
@@zerphase That's a stupid idea you only know about because your ownership class artificially propped it up as a way to justify entrenching their own wealth and privilege over you. It's also literally does nothing to address public health or healthcare.
@@Praisethesunson the free market lowers the cost of goods and services. The government inhibits the free market. The government is bad.
@@zerphase You are literally ignoring reality to preach a dogma that again, you only think to parrot because your owners paid more money than your entire bloodline will ever have to make sure that BS reached you.
Seriously. Go be an embarrassment somewhere else.
@@Praisethesunson You communists are ignoring reality. Go move to Venezuela.
You should say American Health Economists... Health Economists from other countries would probably say the American system should be completely overhauled as they pay per IN TAX per Capita than most other developed countries in order to not receive universal healthcare
If they admitted that then this corporate funded push poll couldn't be used as the propaganda it was intended to be. These "studies" exist to maintain the status quo. Ideally they ratchet Murcia to hand control over public health even more into corporate power. But that's just the ever present secondary goal.
@@Praisethesunson The poll was conducted by two health economists employed by public universities (TAMU and Indiana).
OK these questions seem like they were frames as polling economists on individual proposals to reform the current system. I thought this was going to be like a poll on what economists would choose if there was a completely blank slate and they had to build something from scratch!
Yeah, I thought the same thing. Kind of a disappointment, really.
@@DoggyHateFire They have to do push polls because that's the only way to give maintaining the obvious scam that is the U.S corporate health system a paper thin veneer of data driven choices.
We don't extract ungodly amounts of wealth from people with no other health option for the sake of private owners of capital. Our DATA says that this is the best system we can hope for right now. With some minor changes that of course can only happen in service to the glorious lord god called markets. The fact that these views serve the economic interests of our funders is total coincidence that has to happen or this information isn't published. Those are just the cold hard numbers.
France doesn't exist and Murica loves Freedom(to steal money from the desperate to make the already wealthy slightly richer) too much to ever adopt their communist health system.
The US doesn't have a blank slate, we have a system that's built up over a century. And, to be clear, I don't like the system we have.
@@steveh46 I agree, both types of videos are useful and insightful! But the title definitely seems to imply one over the other.
Agreed, the title was misleading
As a non-American looking in, I marvel that "universal healthcare, paid for by taxes, and NOT tied to employment" wasn't one of the options...
Many Americans find the idea of helping someone who can't work inconceivable.
Source: am american
In America that's called communism.
It's because we can't afford any system of socialized healthcare. People are too poor to afford the sky high taxes, people are too unhealthy and our system would be even worse and more backed up than Canada's system.
@@PowerSax911 The richest country on the planet can afford taxes. The taxes will literally be cheaper than what you spend on corporate insurance.
Please don't use corporate talking points to justify the status quo
@@PowerSax911 Please look into Wendell Potter. Former USA health insurance leader who admits he lied to Americans about how bad Canada's system is and other ideas you are saying.
I have very conservative friends in Canada who love their healthcare.
Justin Trudeau's conservative opponent's approach to try to secure the election at the last moment? He offered to change Canada's 12 MONTH PAID maternity leave to 18!!!! months. That was the conservative position toward health care in Canada.
Our insurance system is very expensive, so I don't believe it is true we cannot afford a different type of healthcare.
Hi, I’m from Brazil. Our economy is crap now (with even crappier president) but at least we have a universal healthcare system that isn’t perfect, but works… for everyone, as opposed to the healthcare system of the richest nation in the history of the modern world.
How come none of the solutions tackled the fact that Americans just simply pay more for things than other countries pay for those things?
Because if these priests for the lord god markets (economists) pointed out the obvious issues of Murican healthcare. Those economists would be working at Wendy's instead of shilling for corporate thinktanks.
A big reason we Americans pay more is because if the innovations are made here, we pay out the nose for them. Then those drugs that we pay $500 for are given free or for 6 pounds in England. They don't pay for innovation. WE DO >
@@Arldavis That's a lie told to you by the industries that steal IP.
Your government pays for the vast VAST majority of every innovation of note to come out of America. Those innovations are then scooped up by private corporate power and walled off access to you.
Meanwhile the "fundamental research" Murican private corporations invest in, is how to market the things they own the paper rights to. That's it.
Including investing in lying to you(which they are legally allowed to do) that without their profiteering you won't get such incredible innovations as. 20 year insulin technology or the oxycotin that would be a top killer of Muricans if Covid never happened.
@@Arldavis We pay for that innovation through taxes, not through prices. Virtually no scientific advancement is privately funded.
@@Arldavis "A big reason we Americans pay more is because if the innovations are made here, we pay out the nose for them."
No, that's not true. When a health care innovation is made in Switzerland, Germany or Canada, do you think the Swiss, Germans or Canadians pay more for them than we do in the US? They don't. And, believe it or not, medical advances are made in other countries too. The Pfizer vaccine was developed in Germany.
Next time: If healthcare professionals choose economic policies. See if they have some interesting ideas with the mess that is economy nowadays.
I'd be curious on their recommendations for allowing insurers to raise premiums for people who don't get vaccinated against COVID.
Where can we find the sources used in this video? I would love to be able to have a starting point to read more about this!
2:35 - 2:52
The graphic clearly says the 71% favored Medicare/aid income cutoff, but you say the 71% oppose. Which is true?
Source???
The article this is adapted from says it was opposed. The source is a nyt article entitled The Health System We’d Have if Economists Ran Things
@@SpeakShibboleth Thank you for supplying the title of the article so I could find it.
I was also intrigued by the opposition between the audio and video information 🤔
Wealthier elders already pay substantially more than average for Medicare through income-related charges deducted from their social security. Those charges are not tax deductible, so they also make an additional contribution through taxes on that money.
This whole video discussion does not address the Elephant in the Room, which is that medical costs in America are well out of line with norms in peer economies. The way that medicine has developed in the past 30 years has allowed the medico-insurance complex to grossly inflate its charges to comprise almost 20% of the entire economy. This has become so entrenched and it employs so many people that political change is very difficult to make. For example: it is not widely appreciated that total taxes for healthcare in the USA (covering Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration, children’s programs, etc.) are similar to the total of taxes that pay for universal healthcare in the United Kingdom, either on a per capita cash or % GDP basis. The figures are readily available from official sources with a little internet research. Other countries also achieve universal healthcare at similar costs. American healthcare coverage will not substantially improve unless excess costs are brought under control.
So we did a survey of Health Economists who work for health insurance companies, or hope to work for them in the future.
The American healthcare system doesn't make sense to me(I'm European and liberal/social democrat, studied economics as part of my IR degree), I always read confusing things about it. Our taxes are higher, yeah, and the healthcare isn't actually free but I don't mind that in exchange for feeling secure that universal healthcare is always there. I'm not for single payer either - most countries here in Europe including the bigger ones like UK and Russia have universal + private option and I prefer it that way, one reason why is because that allows for healthcare freedom in case the government decides to ban, for example, abortion in the universal option and I don't trust the government anywhere to have a monopoly on healthcare. Also I think having universal healthcare incentivises the government and its people to invest in their health because it costs a lot to handle that many people with obesity and other preventable diseases, i still remember how much crap Michelle Obama got for daring to suggest healthy lunches for kids(I'm still not sure it's not a joke that at least some kids are fed fast food in some schools in America?? I thought it was just a movie trope but apparently not??? over here they give children soups and homemade dishes from the cafeteria like chicken, porridge, pasta, fried rice and pilaf, always with vegetables, and slightly sweetened tea as a drink)
Tbf school dinners in the UK are a joke. At least in my secondary, they had a canteen that served hot healthy food, but it was way to expensive and no one bothered with it so everyone just bought sausage rolls and pizza slices and stuff.
So we can completely disregard economists yet again? I don't think they understand the cost of being poor and the undue burden of means testing.
The questions asked weren't open ended (e.g. what is the ideal way to set up the healthcare system), they were "here is a specific reform or policy, do you support it or oppose it?". If you asked how to run a healthcare system (blank slate) I bet you'd get a very different impression
Well that video title is the scariest thing I've heard all month.
This is more of a states' issue but what about repealing certificate of need laws? Surprised that this is never mentioned when discussing healthcare costs.
"Are you ready for my hard-hitting, incisive commentary? I won't hold back, here it comes: This video was on one topic, and I would rather it covered a slightly different topic! Hah!" -These comments.
The American system, as is, is a dystopian nightmare. This conversation is only worth happening if it starts by radically overhauling the entire infrastructure and embracing public healthcare.
They already do…
No questions about a public option?
As the economy keep rising one need to have a different stream of income, one need to have a diversified portfolion in order to survive
Crypto is the new Gold
I've been holding most stocks like TELSA, AAL but the crash are inevitable
It's very important for one to have different stream of income
I've got interest in investing but afraid of doing it on my own to avoid loss from my own end
That's why you need the help of a professional who trade and understand the market more to earn good income.
This should be titled: how health economists responded to a poll.
Employers who provide no benefits invariably pay low wages as well.
To me this implies this survey has little to say about what changes should be made to US healthcare. And indeed if this is what healthcare economists in general believe it implies there's basically nothing to gain from their perspective. A country that has such high spending for such relatively poor life expectancy and incomplete availability of healthcare should generally need wide ranging changes. This survey seems to imply basically no changes except a few adjustments on the edges. That seems pretty badly wrong, even if there is debate on which ways to make changes. My take away, economics as generally practiced in this field doesn't seem to be a useful set of assumptions and methods here.
Bare in mind these were not open ended questions. The economists could have answered the way they did to these questions and still have many more idea for further changes.
So busy cramming your face into the Overton Window here that you've missed the whole wall of options.
How about ask some health economists who have worked with healthcare systems that actually function.
The questions asked weren't open ended (e.g. what is the ideal way to set up the healthcare system), they were "here is a specific reform or policy, do you support it or oppose it?". If you asked how to run a healthcare system (blank slate) I bet you'd get a very different impression
2:35 - 2:52
You say it was opposed by 71% but the graphic clearly says favored. Which is true?
+1
The article this is adapted from says it was opposed. The source is a nyt article entitled The Health System We’d Have if Economists Ran Things
May the algorithm be appease
I guarantee that if Health Economists actually set policy in this country, they'd immediately be given huge sums of money by corporations and billionaires, and end up saying that the system is perfect as it is
I believe the for profit medical industry should be illegal.
But think of the shareholders!!!
*Optional
Private healthcare exists all around the world, but they actually have to have their shit together because they have to compete with the public system.
@@GamerCracked In America competition with the major existing players in any market is communism
So… why is it so important to ensure health coverage? I mean, I am a primary care physician with a public health degree and recently I asked myself this question in light of the Social Determinants of Health Model. In that model, it is said that health care only contributes 10% to health outcomes. It is difficult to find the data that supports this proposition, but if we were to accept it, increasing wages, improving the built environment, identifying genetic traits and investing in behavior change programs would have a much larger societal impact in health metrics. Look at Quebec’s CLSC approach to community health.
Individuals need financial protection from catastrophic medical events (“major medical”) but perhaps comprehensive Heath coverage is something that seduces employees and voters and empowers unions.
I have no answers… only questions. Questions, questions, questions…
Exactly what I expected from this channel. lol
Umm... are we talking about economists, as in people who study how economics and economic policy works? Or economists, as in people that the Koch brothers & other billionaires pay to propagandize the ideas of Ayn Rand and the Chicago School? Because the latter group is at least as big as the former in the US (their foundation brags about endowing ~300 university econ departments with funding, as well as basically every right-wing thinktank), and the latter group mostly doesn't exist outside the US & to a lesser extent UK/Canada/Australia.
They've been waging a sort of... war? On the idea of having an effective US government ("drown it in a bathtub") & on any attempt to improve our society materially ("There is no such thing as society, only individuals")? For like... 40, 50 years now? And arguably, they've been... you know... winning?
This sort of affiliation may be relevant to the goals of your survey.
💚🎃💚
What do you mean "if" economist chose the healthcare system?
They did.
Politicians and corrupt corporations chose the system and paid economists to justify it
We need to get rid of CHIP, Medicare and Medicaid…to make 1 system. We are paying to run 3 different systems that only have rudimentary differences. It’s so wasteful.
It also keeps as many people away from spooky government healthcare as possible. Which is the actual point. Waste doesn't matter when it's in service to concentrations of private economic power.
Major differences.
@@SandfordSmythe please tell me what these “major” difference are.
@@Likeomgitznich Medicaid is a means-tested welfare system under state and federal supervision. And it is paid by a combination of state and federal money. It varies from state to state and is at the mercy of local politicians. It pays so little that the quality of care is affected. Medicare is paid by the beneficiaries, and it is in the mainstream of medical care. It is seen as a right. Because it is supported by pay-roll taxes, current workers don't want to pay enough to support it, and it is running out of money. I certainly agree that all should be replaced by a single payer system, but the entrenched political realities are tough.
@@SandfordSmythe so the only difference are bs that a-holes in Washington peddle? Not really a major difference 😂 also there are states that have Medicaid with a premium. Both are taxes but separate taxes which…again…you can combine. Kinda the point. It’s not hard. There are huge differences. The barrier is piece of shit political that would rather rant about ms Suzy make a dollar to much working as a waitress 70 hours a week getting Medicaid then about how health insurance is freaking important.
"the people who sign up would be disproportiannly sicker, causing insurance to become ever more expensive" This because it isn't actually insurance...it is forced group charity.
I disliked the video for many of the reasons in the comments below. Although HCT has discussed various types of universal coverage in the past, I think that this video should have discussed the opinion of economists on single payer or otherwise universal coverage systems. Maintaining our healthcare system in its current form is irresponsible, unsustainable, and harms the populace. The failure to mention such policies may be due to limitations of the source article. (This particular video seems to just be a quick article summary.) I would have liked for you to at least discuss how not addressing the obvious elephant in the room as one of the major weaknesses of the paper. I like many of HCT’s other videos but this one is just shoddy.
You aren't pretending to care about the shareholders. What are the owners of unnecessary middle man corporations supposed to do all day when they aren't holding your access to healthcare hostage from you?
We can't afford any form of socialized healthcare. We're too big of a country, too unhealthy, and people are buy in large too poor to afford the sky high taxes we would need to pay for it.
@@PowerSax911 Every assumption you just made is wildly incorrect
So they think our system is mostly fine.... That says something about their opinion, doesn't it? Or maybe their pocketbooks. Thank goodness they're not complete monsters but, like, come on.
If economics is a science and health economists are engaged in the science of describing the health care economics then they might be well informed about how the health care system works but it doesn't mean they know how it should work. Science deals with "how" questions. It's health care ethicist that study the "should" questions. But even ethicist don't have special access to the right values. When it comes to choosing values you are on your own.
The symbol you used in the thumbnail is the Caduceus, not the Rod of Asclepius, which is the symbol for healthcare. 🤦♂️
"It is relatively common, especially in the United States, to find the caduceus, with its two snakes and wings, used as a symbol of medicine instead of the Rod of Asclepius, with only a single snake. This usage was popularised largely as a result of the adoption of the caduceus as its insignia by the U.S. Army Medical Corps in 1902 at the insistence of a single officer."
"76% of commercial healthcare organizations used the Caduceus symbol."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caduceus#Current_use
Pretty weird not to mention the numerous other healthcare systems. Healthcare systems that work, and have worked for a long time. Presenting "both sides" of an argument as equal is disingenuous when the body of evidence so obviously supports one side over the other.
Socialized medicine works. That's why medicare is one of the most popular programs in the United States. That's why numerous other nations have CHEAPER healthcare, with BETTER outcomes. We're already paying tons in taxes for medicare, in other countries that would just be our healthcare tax. If we're paying for it, we should be getting it. And even if someone couldn't afford their taxes, it's often more expensive for taxpayers as a collective to have people go untreated than to just get treatment. We shouldn't live or die depending on our ability to pay medical bills, we've already paid (medicare taxes).
Addictions are a disease, but smoking is a choice?
The action of starting to smoke given the vast amount of evidence that it’s dumb makes it a choice. Being hooked on it is the disease. Balancing the stupidity of the initial choice and struggle of the chemical dependency is a highway to nowhere, a hampster wheel of frustration, etc etc
@@Likeomgitznich ... and that differs from addiction how?
Raising taxes is vague. On middle class? Or billionaires only?
Because one is not favorable, and the other is.
I'd be perfectly fine paying an extra 3 grand in taxes to not have to pay 4 grand in premiums. Hell, I'd pay the full $4,000 if it meant no deductibles, co-pays, surprise bills, "out-of-network" bullshit, interminable phone calls with claims denial specialists, etc. I would pay extra to never have to see a form or spreadsheet again in my life.
*Investing today is priceless because tomorrow isn't promised, trading Bitcoins, gold, silver and crypto secure a better*
Most intelligent words I've heard.
I wanted to trade Crypto but got discouraged by the fluctuations in price
That won't bother you if you trade with a professional like Marianne Stefan, my first investment of $3,000 with Marianne on Forex has earned me profit of over $24,820 within 15days
I heard that her strategies are really good
Yeah
Leave it to economists to make everything more complicated. This is why economists shouldn't be consulted about what kind of healthcare we should have.
We need a single payer health care system and Healthcare professionals should be consulted on technical aspects and systems engineers could design the logistics of the program. Economist can be consulted on issues that pertain to their specialty.
Get rid of economists, bankers, and lawyers. Utopia!
Hi there, is it just me or is the very idea of a "health care economist" repugnant?
You probably need specialists to evaluate proposals for cost effectiveness and the like.
That the majority stated what we currently have is about the best you can do; you can understand how the 2008 crash happened.
Wow I'm so glad this comment section revealed the nuance in the US healthcare debate....Not. Most of the comments are like why can't we just make finite and scarce resources totally free (because economics does not work like this) and resource allocation is important. Also because systems have trade-offs yet proponents of single payer and socialised systems (slight difference) other than those in academia almost never acknowledge them. This channel does a reasonable job on several issues, although I do have my gripes with the obvious progressive bias, especially in the use of some misleading statistics in other videos.
The US really has three options that are actually feasible imo. There's the free market option which involves progressively winding back and reforming the cartel regulations which jack up the price of healthcare and reduce supply of medical equipment, hospitals and doctors, there's expanding Obamacare to become Switzerland or there's a public option with extensive private coverage more akin to Australia with subsidies for private insurers to get people off the public system. Now my view is the US should go down path number 1 if it wants to lower costs and make healthcare more affordable to more people while retaining some of the advantages it has in choice, quality and medical innovation.
It would start out fine until republicans loaded it full of their goons. Then lobbyist would come in and eventually it would be congress all over again.
Dems have the presidency, house, and senate. Ability for medicare to negotiate drug prices was issue #1 for voters but it's not going to be passed. Quit drinking the Kool aid and realize both parties are corrupt to the core and are playing off each other to give the people NOTHING.
d1kb6x
#von.ong
From what I understand, any sort of "sin tax" is going to disproportionally affect lower income and/or families of color. So just like Voter ID, it sounds reasonable in theory, but ends up being just another racist, classist policy in a long string of racist, classist policies.
lol no? that's like saying we shouldn't fine polluters because then the poor people won't be able to pollute.
@@monkey314159 Yes exactly. And by "poor people" in this case we're talking about developing nations. Why was it okay for the US and Europe to pollute the planet for a century, easy, dirty energy for us .. but developing nations aren't allowed to keep developing until they skip the dirty fuel and go straight to renewables, which the US and EU have not yet even fully adopted? That's neither fair nor even POSSIBLE.
We're not even talking about "nice to have" things - we're talking basic necessities, like electrical power at hospitals, and having lights so people can do things after dark without burning literal poop to light their homes. Very easy for YOU to say that everyone should pay for polluting - you live in a climate-controlled building with 24/7 access to electricity and internet. You'd change your tune if you had any idea what most people in the world actually live like. But I know asking you to both look beyond your own circumstances AND have empathy for people who don't look like you is probably too much of a stretch, right?
Tragedy of the commons underpins most public common ownership situations
Luckily corporations control murica's health system.
What a cruel and pointless discussion, asking who deserves healthcare, how much they should pay, and how much abuse from their employers they should have to endure just to avoid having medical care stripped away.
Private insurance is a parasitic blight on our society, sucking away tens of billions in profit (i.e. waste) and dooming tens of thousands to unnecessary death from lack of treatment every year.
That kind of waste makes the already rich slightly richer so we aren't allowed to call it waste.
Don't like what science says - make your own left wing scientists and pay them to create research that supports your views.
An economist studies the economy - all of the economy. Not public policies in a limited and controlled state "market". 2 in 3 Medical accountants agree.