In the US, many companies use health insurance as leverage to retain their employees, while garnishing their wages. Corporate America is fighting a single-payer system because it will give many employees more employment mobility: They can quit a low-paying, dead end job without fear of paying uninsured medical/pharmaceutical bills.
You can have a "insurance follows the policy owner" system without having the government become the stand in for the company, where the government garnishes the wages to pay for the insurance. Better yet, why don't we get government spending reduced and harness the revalued currency's buying power rather than spend more money and devalue the currency, making things more expensive?
As someone who moved from the US to Canada, I am constantly surprised by the positive differences in Canada's healthcare system, not saying that it is perfect, there are plenty of things that still need improvement, but so much better than the US.
"our health care system is broken." FACTS. In the United States (one of the wealthiest nations on earth) we have people rationing their life saving medication so they can afford to eat. The amount of people in the US that die every year from not being able to afford Healthcare is incalculable.
I'm from the uk, we have the NHS which I love, and it has it's advantages but it has many of the same problems and some problems the US system does not have
@@octavius8562 We are by far the wealthiest government, not just one of them. We spend more on defense then the next 5 countries combined. Our air force is the strongest and largest on the planet. The second largest air force? Our gosh dang navy lol. We have quintuple the number of aircraft carriers then the next most powerful nation. We are quite literally the only superpower on the planet and we still can't get our healthcare system right because our politicians would rather pander to market-failure-creating insurance companies than to the American people.
Tiny correction: The system might be called Bismarck but it wasn't founded by him - he implemented it cause the workers and their political parties fought for it. Bismarck then implemented that in order to appease the working class. It wasn't like he wanted to do them a favor. That's also a hint for you guys over in the US: You'll need to fight for universal health care!
I'm afraid that here in the US, we will have to wait until all the old Republican politicians die-they still think it is a Communist plot thought up by Stalin! Also, the AMA-American Medical Association fights that like mad and they donate heavily to political campaigns and their Lobby is one of the strongest!
As a nurse, I'm always wary of explanations of the US' healthcare systems, but this is spot on. The rest of the world enjoys piece of mind, while those in the US debate the cost of an ambulance transport during a possible MI. #DFTBA
The uk system isn't much better. Although it's all "free" (we end up paying for it with higher taxes anyway) there are majer problems such as lack of high quality treatment and consultation leading to higher complication rates and a lack of access to complicated life saving surgeries which people often have to travel to the us to get and pay "out-of-pocket" for since it is uncommen to have health insurance due to the reliance on the NHS. As well as extremely long waiting times, for exemple when I was 15 I had an ingrown toenail which I tried to book a GP appointment for, twice, and they only got back to me 3 years later! which luckily by then the problem had fixed itself.
@Kristen Are you looking at paying thousands for an ambulance ride though? Because in the US that's a very likely thing. Also doesn't each province have a different way of handling costs?
Where I am from the Bismark model is mostly used. Government sets a standard package of care and requires all people to have insurance. Private insurance companies compete on price to attract customers. Also because its required, government will subsidies low income individuals to pay for the insurance fees. There are several more tweaks and rules to reduce costs. But as an individual, it costs me about 2000eu a year, and I can get into several accidents and not pay a cent more.
Thank you for the added context. What you described sounds great. Is the standard package of care sufficient for everyone? And is the care provided of good quality?
Truly believe the socialism method is best. If I have to pay the government instead of a private company my healthcare. Government can fight to lower cost and when ever an Unforeseen medical event that costs a lot of money, the government will pay for it. Out of pocket shouldn't exist in the US who claims to be a wealthy nation.
I live in India and our healthcare system is not an 'out-of-pocket' system, for example: Contraceptives are free Abortions are free All medicine is free (the cheap and easy ones to provide, paracetamol, fever meds, flu meds) All vaccines are free IUDS are free Abortions are free All birth control methods are provided free of cost Hospitals also serve patients for free (In reality, there's usually no capacity and you can bribe the officials to get priority treatment but this is mostly a problem in overcrowded cities, not in the rural areas where most of us live), but your video is still great! Edit: this video doesn't answer the question The answer is: the French healthcare system is the best
Interesting take on it. One of the missing categories would be "Which system produces the best/newest medications and surgical developments?" Although the America has problems, the one fact that is overlooked too often is how many people fly to this country to have surgeries that simply aren't available to them in their own industrial country. Or how many drugs are developed in America specifically because of their self-payer system. Not taking a side, but I believe it is something that shouldn't be overlooked.
how can the medical information system be used for academics without breaking the privacy of medical records? I believe such privacy issues are easily solved and records should be available for medical students all around but without any identification of patients. the real privacy problem is that hospitals and providers dont want their errors to be seen... ... ...
Unfortunately, even 'anonymized' patient data can easily be matched to a particular person with just a few demographics... And demographics can't be removed without crippling the usefulness of the data.
You can anonymize some information, & In certain scenarios still extrapolate who a person is through their data. People with rare diseases or conditions. Of note comorbidities. Geographic location. Access to certain groups of health services (sexual or LGBTQIA+ health clinics, termination clinics, etc). As is the case in the police force, It's been shown time and time again that people who have access to private data will use it irresponsibly (stalking their exes for example). Data leaks and hacking are also a massive problem. It would be very helpful for academics to be able to access vast swaths of medical records. No doubt it would help with study and identifying trends and many other things. However, I believe it is not as simple as you may think. There was a lot of good public feedback about the Australian ,"My health record" issue and people had raised some points that may be of interest to you
In America even with Insurance people still don't go to the hospital because it still costs too much. So many people who technically have access to healthcare, but in practice do not. The most popular and successful programs seems to follow the Beveridge model such as Medicare. However in recent years there's been massive cuts to medicare and VA. People who are not aware are misinformed to believe it's because the model doesn't work rather than the cuts to it's funding and support.
From pretty much all available data, the most effective model is a hybris semi-private model, such as in Singapore, Taiwan and Israel. On the one hand, most of the system is funded by public money (national insurance, health tax, etc.). However, the providers are not only private, but there is healthy competition between them, therefore people can pay more to get a better experience - but fundamental care is free. In Singapore, people get the same quality of healthcare in hospitals, but one can pay money for a private room, better meals, etc. Usually the sums are pretty high (profitable), so this subsidizes actual care for people whose care is only paid for by public money. The competition between providers also incentivizes them to negotiate for better medicament prices, access to more imaging institutes etc., and other perks for their customers. Many people in these countries have multiple private insurances, in order to cover better care, but the ongoing costs are ridiculously low by the standards of other wealthy countries.
A factoid about the Beveridge Model is that it was inspired (at least in part though I’m not sure about other influences) by the system that the Great Western Railway put in place around their railway works where I live in Swindon. That was back in the 1800s, and because basically the whole of the community was employed by this organisation they were able to create a system where everyone paid into the healthcare system there, making it free at the point of access.
I think India's healthcare system quite more compex than out of pocket . For example goverment has 'ayushman bharat yojana' and other such social programs which basically provide free healthcare to poor and elderly. My grandfather was infected by COVID this year and his treatment cost was paid fully by government. BUT as india is still a lower middle income country there is inequality in healthcare facilities number and quality and affordability. The reason our healthcare is bad is different from USA's reason . Hope that gives more context 👍
If we also talked about why changing a bad public hc system is so hard, the impression I have is that developing a hc system is something extremely path-dependent. Politicians decide how things will be, but when a HUGE budget is already being allocated to anyone, be private companies or public servants, this creates lots of interests in discussions about changing a given policy, and politicians will tender to those interests whatever be the system in place.
2:07 - 2:14, under this definition, all American health insurance companies are not part of the Healthcare system, as their bottom line is profit not service.
I find, with the NHS in the UK, how good it runs depends on the people who are in government, when really it should be independent of government and not used as a political football.
I knew this episode was going to make me pull a lot of faces, and it did. The information presented is really great - and I know you only have so much time to devote. As you said: Not an Encyclopedia! It just makes me feel a little bitter and sad to understand yet again that healthcare systems are damn complicated, and there really isn't just one system that WORKS, for everybody, everywhere, every time. (But I really wish there were.) As someone who is not insured - but whose husband IS (we're in the US, he's on disability because of failed kidneys)... I can say this much. Health information systems are SO much better than they were even 25 years ago, and I am incredibly grateful for that. Without that, managing my husband's health would be nigh-on impossible. A person with non functional kidneys has to watch dozens and dozens of factors - just as an example, there are no fewer than seven groups of foods he has to sharply limit in his diet, and that's not getting into the dozen or so medications he has to take. The clinic does a huge range of blood tests on him every single month, and there's just SO MUCH information in those tests... Without the system that the clinic and associated hospital has in place, we'd never keep track of it all. But because we DO have that access, we can literally know just how he's doing. I can go and pull up a graph of, say, his platelet count - for a year or even two years of past tests - inside of fifteen minutes if I need to. That's incredibly helpful and reassuring - because if I can do that, so can any doctor that has to see him. Even if he falls again and has to go to the emergency room - I can feel confident that the staff and doctors there will know EXACTLY what his health info is, and get him diagnosed accurately, treated in as timely a manner as they can, and get sent home the moment it's okay to do so. All of those are things I don't know if I could have counted on back when my son was born. Everything was on paper still, and though they had systems to handle that, it was still a LOT slower to get a given packet of information. At the same time... It feels horribly wrong that if you happen to be poor, your health is basically up to Fate. Even insurance doesn't mean you get good health care: my mother in law died of liver cancer without ever receiving a single treatment, because her insurance WOULD NOT cover chemo. Being not insured at all, I live in fear of ever having REALLY bad health issues. Even managing high blood pressure is made far more difficult than it ought to be, and at the state level - well my state basically says "too bad for you, go work full time." (Saying this to a person caring full time for a dialysis patient is beyond cruel, but it's literally just how my area IS about the matter.) Still. I can remain grateful that I am able to care for my husband's needs at all, and grateful that I'm around to complain about high blood pressure rather than already being dead. It just feels like in this day and age - I should be able to expect more than "at least it isn't worse." You know?
Video: "It's a really hard and bad question to ask which healthcare model is best." Also video: "The out-of-pocket model, though easy to remember because of the name, is... probably the worst." I think it's fair to say the Beveridge model gives the best outcomes as outcomes are better when health doesn't have profit motives under a privatized system. Medicare is great, but it would be better and cheaper without private companies as middle-men between funding from the govt and health institutions.
Why do you say that private organizations are the one providing the health care in Canada? With the caviat it might be different in each province, most hospitals here in Quebec are completely public, own by and paid by the government. And most health care providers are employees of the public system. Even though the doctors are technically "self-employed" and charge their fees to the government for the service they provide, that barely count as private organizations. They have to negociate with the government as any union to establish those fees and quotas.
So a brief explaination. Quebec is the exception in that regard with most hospitals owned by private NFPs, often associated with a Religion or Charity. And while the Labs and providers and the like are PAID by the public system, they do so via a "We are charing the government for this service" rather then an employee basis. As long as an organization can meet the Regulations of the Provence, they are part of the healthcare system and do whatever they want (as long is it doesn't violate those regulations). Also a Doctor working at a Hospital (Public or Private) is rarely an employee and is instead an independent contractor. Finally as a Bismark nation, once you get outside the area of "This is covered by regulation" and into "Healthcare not covered By Medicare" what your Provence and Providers will give you is subject to great variance. In a true Beveridge Model the doctors are not independent at all. They are public employees and are asigned to their work location. You get moved from clinic to clinic as the country needs you (As long as your travel to work distance remains reasonable), you are employed directly by the government and your every action is guided by the regulations of said government. And as its completely run and managed by the government their is no, "This is Healthcare not covered by Medicare." The whole idea is all Healthcare is owned by the government so its impossible to be outside the system while being inside the country. This gives the Beveridge model a disadvantage for dealing with tourists compared to the Bismark Model. In Bismark a foreigner isn't covered but thats fine because they can just pay our of pocket. (Or more commonly, via Travel Insurance) In Beveridge the government must create a system for the Foreigner (Or again, their Travel Insurance) to pay for their healthcare as its not something that exists for the residents.
I don't know which system is best, but US system is definitely the worst. I live in Russia, and in past years I got a salivary gland adenoma removed, a tick removed and analysed in a lab for TBE and Lyme, a cast done on a Jones fracture, and a number of visits to a psychotherapist to first cure severe depression, then manage my ADHD. Guess what, all of these services were free. I've only paid for medication - cheap doxycycline for prevention of Lyme and not so cheap Zoloft and Strattera for mental stuff. Dental care is a different story - you can get it for free if it's an emergency, like sharp pain, but get the cheapest materials and anaesthesia. In essence, Russian healthcare tries pretty hard to not let you die or become an invalid. Not the best healthcare in the world, but available to anyone mostly free of charge. Definitely better than paying exorbitant amounts of money to stay alive.
Most Canadians not employed by our health care system say (quietly) it has diminished in service but the cost has become a bottomless pit. Often hear people say HCP are withholding care and pleeding HC system poverty. Perhaps it is best to not be critical, maybe it could cost you your life ?!
Better to have a modestly flawed model that functions the majority of the time than no model at all. Especially because having a model let's you know where and what you're lacking in care.
India has a multi-payer universal health care model that is paid for by a combination of public and private health insurance funds along with the element of almost entirely tax-funded public hospitals. - Wikipedia
About the source, you mean Zodpey, Sanjay; Farooqui, Habib Hasan (2018). "Universal Health Coverage in India: Progress achieved & the way forward". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 147 (4): 327-329. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_616_18. PMC 6057252. PMID 29998865. That's what Wikipedia references in its article. Sorry for being nitpicky.
Another interesting metric would be something resembling QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Year, which not only considers lifespan), used in health economics. What model can maximize QALYs in a certain population?
Let’s not forget how stigma surrounding (recreational) drug use is massive and significantly harming people. Also. Doctors don’t seem to know anything realistic about drug use for fun.
US' health care model isn't only broken, it straight up has no point existing to begin with as an economic-defensive union. The folly is 50 times worse that what you think. No US constituent state has become outstanding for their health care, despite it being their job as the government responsible for their citizens. The *why* varies on location, from there just not being anything anyways to harsh environments to simple gross negligence (say hello to New York and California, with an honorary nod to England), but the end conclusion is the same. Respect your elections. The illusion of parties are a trap. The "US health care system" can't work if our own systems don't work either. We know who the problem is. We'll go up the ladder when we have rungs at the base to climb on.
Can't get over the fact that the universal Healthcare system was a British man idea. And a knight at that. I guess I'm too biased against the british, I thought they were all about sleazy stuff when it came to politics. I stand corrected.
The healthcare systems with the lowest costs and highest quality of care are free market systems where patients pay out if their own pocket and 3rd party payment is banned. Since this cuts costs by 85% or more, it's easy to raise private charitable funds to help the poor get the care they need or for doctors to perform a limited amount if services for free.
Only if monopolies and price gouging are banned and thoroughly enforced on the supply side, or you get a situation more like the US healthcare system. Which would also disincentivise companies from the extreme investments required to create new medicine. And/or lead to substandard testing of new medicines, which can have horrendous consequences down the road.
That's historically the model everyone had. Still the model many countries have. Spoilers, it didn't work and still doesn't. It is more expensive, ineffective and only rich people could afford good care. Your comment is a blatant lie.
The USA has the best and the cheapest Healthcare system. My monthly premiums are 2% of my pay, and my deductible plus yearly out of pocket max are also 2%. So, the most I have to pay is 4% of my earnings. WAY cheaper than the tax of national healthcare!Healthcare! I'm a type 1 diabetic, since I've already paid $3k out of pocket for the year, I've hit my out if pocket max, and don't have to pay another dime out of pocket for the rest of the year.
It’s great for people with good insurance. Other countries believe even poor or homeless people deserve healthcare. Also what happens if you have an emergency and you’re taken out of your insurance’s network?
The USA has the most expensive healthcare in the world and has much wise results than other wealthy countries. Your preferred propaganda probably won't tell you this but you're paying more for your medicine here than you would in any other wealthy country
In the US, many companies use health insurance as leverage to retain their employees, while garnishing their wages. Corporate America is fighting a single-payer system because it will give many employees more employment mobility: They can quit a low-paying, dead end job without fear of paying uninsured medical/pharmaceutical bills.
You can have a "insurance follows the policy owner" system without having the government become the stand in for the company, where the government garnishes the wages to pay for the insurance.
Better yet, why don't we get government spending reduced and harness the revalued currency's buying power rather than spend more money and devalue the currency, making things more expensive?
People always say that Germans don't have humour,
but we have.
It's just like healthcare.
Most Americans don't get it.
That is too good
As someone who moved from the US to Canada, I am constantly surprised by the positive differences in Canada's healthcare system, not saying that it is perfect, there are plenty of things that still need improvement, but so much better than the US.
It might be hard to definitively rank Healthcare systems, but I feel very confident in saying that the US would be very, very far from the top.
I mean, if anyone can tell which ones are worse, there's probably others that can be ranked "not as bad". It can't be that difficult.
Land of the free-feeling, home of the chickenhawks!
"our health care system is broken."
FACTS. In the United States (one of the wealthiest nations on earth) we have people rationing their life saving medication so they can afford to eat. The amount of people in the US that die every year from not being able to afford Healthcare is incalculable.
Good point
I'm from the uk, we have the NHS which I love, and it has it's advantages but it has many of the same problems and some problems the US system does not have
i don't know about "incalculable" if its a number, it can be determined. I do agree with you though on the stupidity of it all though.
@@octavius8562 We are by far the wealthiest government, not just one of them. We spend more on defense then the next 5 countries combined. Our air force is the strongest and largest on the planet. The second largest air force? Our gosh dang navy lol. We have quintuple the number of aircraft carriers then the next most powerful nation.
We are quite literally the only superpower on the planet and we still can't get our healthcare system right because our politicians would rather pander to market-failure-creating insurance companies than to the American people.
but muh freedom n jesus
As a health care provider, truly appreciate the concise, yet thorough and simple explanation of what "health care" is.
Tiny correction: The system might be called Bismarck but it wasn't founded by him - he implemented it cause the workers and their political parties fought for it. Bismarck then implemented that in order to appease the working class. It wasn't like he wanted to do them a favor.
That's also a hint for you guys over in the US: You'll need to fight for universal health care!
I'm afraid that here in the US, we will have to wait until all the old Republican politicians die-they still think it is a Communist plot thought up by Stalin! Also, the AMA-American Medical Association fights that like mad and they donate heavily to political campaigns and their Lobby is one of the strongest!
As a nurse, I'm always wary of explanations of the US' healthcare systems, but this is spot on. The rest of the world enjoys piece of mind, while those in the US debate the cost of an ambulance transport during a possible MI. #DFTBA
@Kristen that's not great. Possibly even terrible.
And still orders of magnitude better than the United States.
The uk system isn't much better. Although it's all "free" (we end up paying for it with higher taxes anyway) there are majer problems such as lack of high quality treatment and consultation leading to higher complication rates and a lack of access to complicated life saving surgeries which people often have to travel to the us to get and pay "out-of-pocket" for since it is uncommen to have health insurance due to the reliance on the NHS. As well as extremely long waiting times, for exemple when I was 15 I had an ingrown toenail which I tried to book a GP appointment for, twice, and they only got back to me 3 years later! which luckily by then the problem had fixed itself.
@Kristen Are you looking at paying thousands for an ambulance ride though? Because in the US that's a very likely thing. Also doesn't each province have a different way of handling costs?
I'm sure this comment section is going to be filled with civil and professional discourse regarding healthcare /s
I don't know whether people take that much pride in their healthcare system.
Where I am from the Bismark model is mostly used. Government sets a standard package of care and requires all people to have insurance.
Private insurance companies compete on price to attract customers.
Also because its required, government will subsidies low income individuals to pay for the insurance fees.
There are several more tweaks and rules to reduce costs. But as an individual, it costs me about 2000eu a year, and I can get into several accidents and not pay a cent more.
Thank you for the added context. What you described sounds great. Is the standard package of care sufficient for everyone? And is the care provided of good quality?
@@ethan-loves usually yes but if you live in a rural area you might have difficulties in finding a specialist near you.
Truly believe the socialism method is best. If I have to pay the government instead of a private company my healthcare. Government can fight to lower cost and when ever an Unforeseen medical event that costs a lot of money, the government will pay for it. Out of pocket shouldn't exist in the US who claims to be a wealthy nation.
I live in India and our healthcare system is not an 'out-of-pocket' system, for example:
Contraceptives are free
Abortions are free
All medicine is free (the cheap and easy ones to provide, paracetamol, fever meds, flu meds)
All vaccines are free
IUDS are free
Abortions are free
All birth control methods are provided free of cost
Hospitals also serve patients for free (In reality, there's usually no capacity and you can bribe the officials to get priority treatment but this is mostly a problem in overcrowded cities, not in the rural areas where most of us live), but your video is still great!
Edit: this video doesn't answer the question
The answer is: the French healthcare system is the best
"the French healthcare system is the best" why?
Interesting take on it. One of the missing categories would be "Which system produces the best/newest medications and surgical developments?" Although the America has problems, the one fact that is overlooked too often is how many people fly to this country to have surgeries that simply aren't available to them in their own industrial country. Or how many drugs are developed in America specifically because of their self-payer system.
Not taking a side, but I believe it is something that shouldn't be overlooked.
how can the medical information system be used for academics without breaking the privacy of medical records? I believe such privacy issues are easily solved and records should be available for medical students all around but without any identification of patients. the real privacy problem is that hospitals and providers dont want their errors to be seen... ... ...
I'm guessing that anonymization is the name of the game
Unfortunately, even 'anonymized' patient data can easily be matched to a particular person with just a few demographics... And demographics can't be removed without crippling the usefulness of the data.
You can anonymize some information, & In certain scenarios still extrapolate who a person is through their data. People with rare diseases or conditions. Of note comorbidities. Geographic location. Access to certain groups of health services (sexual or LGBTQIA+ health clinics, termination clinics, etc).
As is the case in the police force, It's been shown time and time again that people who have access to private data will use it irresponsibly (stalking their exes for example).
Data leaks and hacking are also a massive problem.
It would be very helpful for academics to be able to access vast swaths of medical records. No doubt it would help with study and identifying trends and many other things. However, I believe it is not as simple as you may think.
There was a lot of good public feedback about the Australian ,"My health record" issue and people had raised some points that may be of interest to you
You anonomise the data.
In America even with Insurance people still don't go to the hospital because it still costs too much.
So many people who technically have access to healthcare, but in practice do not.
The most popular and successful programs seems to follow the Beveridge model such as Medicare. However in recent years there's been massive cuts to medicare and VA. People who are not aware are misinformed to believe it's because the model doesn't work rather than the cuts to it's funding and support.
From pretty much all available data, the most effective model is a hybris semi-private model, such as in Singapore, Taiwan and Israel. On the one hand, most of the system is funded by public money (national insurance, health tax, etc.). However, the providers are not only private, but there is healthy competition between them, therefore people can pay more to get a better experience - but fundamental care is free. In Singapore, people get the same quality of healthcare in hospitals, but one can pay money for a private room, better meals, etc. Usually the sums are pretty high (profitable), so this subsidizes actual care for people whose care is only paid for by public money. The competition between providers also incentivizes them to negotiate for better medicament prices, access to more imaging institutes etc., and other perks for their customers. Many people in these countries have multiple private insurances, in order to cover better care, but the ongoing costs are ridiculously low by the standards of other wealthy countries.
A factoid about the Beveridge Model is that it was inspired (at least in part though I’m not sure about other influences) by the system that the Great Western Railway put in place around their railway works where I live in Swindon. That was back in the 1800s, and because basically the whole of the community was employed by this organisation they were able to create a system where everyone paid into the healthcare system there, making it free at the point of access.
I think India's healthcare system quite more compex than out of pocket .
For example goverment has 'ayushman bharat yojana' and other such social programs which basically provide free healthcare to poor and elderly.
My grandfather was infected by COVID this year and his treatment cost was paid fully by government.
BUT as india is still a lower middle income country there is inequality in healthcare facilities number and quality and affordability. The reason our healthcare is bad is different from USA's reason .
Hope that gives more context 👍
If we also talked about why changing a bad public hc system is so hard, the impression I have is that developing a hc system is something extremely path-dependent. Politicians decide how things will be, but when a HUGE budget is already being allocated to anyone, be private companies or public servants, this creates lots of interests in discussions about changing a given policy, and politicians will tender to those interests whatever be the system in place.
2:07 - 2:14, under this definition, all American health insurance companies are not part of the Healthcare system, as their bottom line is profit not service.
Hard to answer which one is best. Easy to answer which one is worst.
We have insurance companies in the US
My family in Canada comes to the US for major issues
The VA system is a nightmare
The greed of the US Healthcare system is repulsive. Coming from someone who is a Healthcare worker.
Man, that transition noise sounds like the sound youd get in a game when a warning occurs
THIS CHANNEL NEEDS MORE SUBSCRIBERS
I find, with the NHS in the UK, how good it runs depends on the people who are in government, when really it should be independent of government and not used as a political football.
Very informative! I wish this type of information was taught in schools.
I knew this episode was going to make me pull a lot of faces, and it did. The information presented is really great - and I know you only have so much time to devote. As you said: Not an Encyclopedia! It just makes me feel a little bitter and sad to understand yet again that healthcare systems are damn complicated, and there really isn't just one system that WORKS, for everybody, everywhere, every time. (But I really wish there were.)
As someone who is not insured - but whose husband IS (we're in the US, he's on disability because of failed kidneys)... I can say this much.
Health information systems are SO much better than they were even 25 years ago, and I am incredibly grateful for that. Without that, managing my husband's health would be nigh-on impossible. A person with non functional kidneys has to watch dozens and dozens of factors - just as an example, there are no fewer than seven groups of foods he has to sharply limit in his diet, and that's not getting into the dozen or so medications he has to take. The clinic does a huge range of blood tests on him every single month, and there's just SO MUCH information in those tests... Without the system that the clinic and associated hospital has in place, we'd never keep track of it all. But because we DO have that access, we can literally know just how he's doing. I can go and pull up a graph of, say, his platelet count - for a year or even two years of past tests - inside of fifteen minutes if I need to. That's incredibly helpful and reassuring - because if I can do that, so can any doctor that has to see him. Even if he falls again and has to go to the emergency room - I can feel confident that the staff and doctors there will know EXACTLY what his health info is, and get him diagnosed accurately, treated in as timely a manner as they can, and get sent home the moment it's okay to do so. All of those are things I don't know if I could have counted on back when my son was born. Everything was on paper still, and though they had systems to handle that, it was still a LOT slower to get a given packet of information.
At the same time... It feels horribly wrong that if you happen to be poor, your health is basically up to Fate. Even insurance doesn't mean you get good health care: my mother in law died of liver cancer without ever receiving a single treatment, because her insurance WOULD NOT cover chemo. Being not insured at all, I live in fear of ever having REALLY bad health issues. Even managing high blood pressure is made far more difficult than it ought to be, and at the state level - well my state basically says "too bad for you, go work full time." (Saying this to a person caring full time for a dialysis patient is beyond cruel, but it's literally just how my area IS about the matter.)
Still. I can remain grateful that I am able to care for my husband's needs at all, and grateful that I'm around to complain about high blood pressure rather than already being dead. It just feels like in this day and age - I should be able to expect more than "at least it isn't worse." You know?
"nobody knew health care could be so complicated"
Video: "It's a really hard and bad question to ask which healthcare model is best."
Also video: "The out-of-pocket model, though easy to remember because of the name, is... probably the worst."
I think it's fair to say the Beveridge model gives the best outcomes as outcomes are better when health doesn't have profit motives under a privatized system. Medicare is great, but it would be better and cheaper without private companies as middle-men between funding from the govt and health institutions.
I came for the comments from the USA, and I’m not disappointed!
Why in all this discussions people dont mentioned Brazil Health Care System ?
Probably because this is a video from a US based company on the platform of a US company that primarily speaks towards english speaker
Probably because it’s included in the same category as the nhs
I love how this video implies the USA has a health care system
It does!
Several, in fact.
Two even *work*, if you can imagine that.
All Govt Hospitals in India are Free. Private Also there at Premium but Poor People will be paid from Crowed Funded NGO.
'Unique' was a very polite word to use >
Why do you say that private organizations are the one providing the health care in Canada? With the caviat it might be different in each province, most hospitals here in Quebec are completely public, own by and paid by the government. And most health care providers are employees of the public system. Even though the doctors are technically "self-employed" and charge their fees to the government for the service they provide, that barely count as private organizations. They have to negociate with the government as any union to establish those fees and quotas.
So a brief explaination.
Quebec is the exception in that regard with most hospitals owned by private NFPs, often associated with a Religion or Charity.
And while the Labs and providers and the like are PAID by the public system, they do so via a "We are charing the government for this service" rather then an employee basis. As long as an organization can meet the Regulations of the Provence, they are part of the healthcare system and do whatever they want (as long is it doesn't violate those regulations). Also a Doctor working at a Hospital (Public or Private) is rarely an employee and is instead an independent contractor.
Finally as a Bismark nation, once you get outside the area of "This is covered by regulation" and into "Healthcare not covered By Medicare" what your Provence and Providers will give you is subject to great variance.
In a true Beveridge Model the doctors are not independent at all. They are public employees and are asigned to their work location. You get moved from clinic to clinic as the country needs you (As long as your travel to work distance remains reasonable), you are employed directly by the government and your every action is guided by the regulations of said government.
And as its completely run and managed by the government their is no, "This is Healthcare not covered by Medicare." The whole idea is all Healthcare is owned by the government so its impossible to be outside the system while being inside the country.
This gives the Beveridge model a disadvantage for dealing with tourists compared to the Bismark Model. In Bismark a foreigner isn't covered but thats fine because they can just pay our of pocket. (Or more commonly, via Travel Insurance) In Beveridge the government must create a system for the Foreigner (Or again, their Travel Insurance) to pay for their healthcare as its not something that exists for the residents.
Some things shouldn’t be left to the market. They’re too important. There’s no limit on what I’d be willing to pay to be alive and healthy.
I don't know which system is best, but US system is definitely the worst. I live in Russia, and in past years I got a salivary gland adenoma removed, a tick removed and analysed in a lab for TBE and Lyme, a cast done on a Jones fracture, and a number of visits to a psychotherapist to first cure severe depression, then manage my ADHD. Guess what, all of these services were free. I've only paid for medication - cheap doxycycline for prevention of Lyme and not so cheap Zoloft and Strattera for mental stuff. Dental care is a different story - you can get it for free if it's an emergency, like sharp pain, but get the cheapest materials and anaesthesia. In essence, Russian healthcare tries pretty hard to not let you die or become an invalid. Not the best healthcare in the world, but available to anyone mostly free of charge. Definitely better than paying exorbitant amounts of money to stay alive.
India has a universal health care programme that is tremendously successful.. its not out of pocket
Most Canadians not employed by our health care system say (quietly) it has diminished in service but the cost has become a bottomless pit.
Often hear people say HCP are withholding care and pleeding HC system poverty.
Perhaps it is best to not be critical,
maybe it could cost you your life ?!
This channel deserves way more views. Keep up the great videos.🙏
no way!! Indianapolis! i’m in bloomington
which one does singapore use?
2:11 If the main objective is to make a profit rather than health... then the USA health care system is really small XD
very informative love it
Better to have a modestly flawed model that functions the majority of the time than no model at all.
Especially because having a model let's you know where and what you're lacking in care.
Wow. Finally understood about it. Brilliantly explained. 👍
In UK Heatlthcare is complety free !!!
+1 Baby Spice! 😀
Anything but the US
India has a multi-payer universal health care model that is paid for by a combination of public and private health insurance funds along with the element of almost entirely tax-funded public hospitals. - Wikipedia
About the source, you mean Zodpey, Sanjay; Farooqui, Habib Hasan (2018). "Universal Health Coverage in India: Progress achieved & the way forward". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 147 (4): 327-329. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_616_18. PMC 6057252. PMID 29998865.
That's what Wikipedia references in its article. Sorry for being nitpicky.
She admits that many countries use multiple models of health care systems. So, India no doubt would be one of them
India is more of a Bismarck model now, especially with the launching of the ABHA scheme
Scary. Answered.
i need a sincere and an answer with substance. why is good health a human right? what do you mean by good health?
I know which one is the worst!
or, is there one more terrible than the US? In terms of costs.
Many!
... Just not in any modern first world country and not most of any of the other ones that aren't crippled by poverty.
Nice
wooohooo UK number one....
I'm glad to be an American 🙃 (sarcasm)
"Let me help me or you'll drown fish". A parable of "good intentions" not necessarily overall being harmless.
Great video!!
Could you guys make a crash course on how to make a crash course?
If not that then maybe on education system or "How to teach science"
Ha!
Great American. Where the rich survive and poor die
Nate has a nice stereo
Just say that socialized medicine is best :p
As usual, Australia gets forgotten.
You should make episode about Algeria health system , it's joke.
Agree
The Health care system only works when ur not sick, sadly. I apologize if I come across as crass.
Zoom zoom ☝️ this one 🕐🕜
Another interesting metric would be something resembling QALYs (Quality Adjusted Life Year, which not only considers lifespan), used in health economics. What model can maximize QALYs in a certain population?
This. Surprised this was omitted.
The NHS
Crash course In public health… they make customers not cures 😂🤷♂️
India's has multipayer universal health care system. Get your facts right. Public hospitals are free for all.
Woah I'm finally first lmao well.... maybe :D
Single payer of course.
Let’s not forget how stigma surrounding (recreational) drug use is massive and significantly harming people.
Also. Doctors don’t seem to know anything realistic about drug use for fun.
US' health care model isn't only broken, it straight up has no point existing to begin with as an economic-defensive union.
The folly is 50 times worse that what you think. No US constituent state has become outstanding for their health care, despite it being their job as the government responsible for their citizens. The *why* varies on location, from there just not being anything anyways to harsh environments to simple gross negligence (say hello to New York and California, with an honorary nod to England), but the end conclusion is the same.
Respect your elections. The illusion of parties are a trap. The "US health care system" can't work if our own systems don't work either.
We know who the problem is. We'll go up the ladder when we have rungs at the base to climb on.
VIVA O SUS
E viva o sus
🙄
Not the USA
Land of the free-feeling, home of the chickenhawks!
Can't get over the fact that the universal Healthcare system was a British man idea. And a knight at that.
I guess I'm too biased against the british, I thought they were all about sleazy stuff when it came to politics. I stand corrected.
Imagine having to pay for health care 😂
This is strictly an American problem lol
Rights are things that can’t be done to you, not what should be done for you.
The healthcare systems with the lowest costs and highest quality of care are free market systems where patients pay out if their own pocket and 3rd party payment is banned. Since this cuts costs by 85% or more, it's easy to raise private charitable funds to help the poor get the care they need or for doctors to perform a limited amount if services for free.
Only if monopolies and price gouging are banned and thoroughly enforced on the supply side, or you get a situation more like the US healthcare system. Which would also disincentivise companies from the extreme investments required to create new medicine. And/or lead to substandard testing of new medicines, which can have horrendous consequences down the road.
This is a lie on both metrics.
Hey, someone read "Atlas Tugged!" May you enjoy your gilded life, Your Excellency.
That's historically the model everyone had. Still the model many countries have. Spoilers, it didn't work and still doesn't. It is more expensive, ineffective and only rich people could afford good care. Your comment is a blatant lie.
the one who is actually free from governamental control.
Which don’t exist.
Hey, someone read "Atlas Tugged!" May you enjoy your gilded and/or hardscrabble life, Your Excellency.
Yeah... "free" to pay thousands of dollars for something like an ambulance ride because the hospital can charge whatever it wants.
The USA has the best and the cheapest Healthcare system. My monthly premiums are 2% of my pay, and my deductible plus yearly out of pocket max are also 2%. So, the most I have to pay is 4% of my earnings. WAY cheaper than the tax of national healthcare!Healthcare!
I'm a type 1 diabetic, since I've already paid $3k out of pocket for the year, I've hit my out if pocket max, and don't have to pay another dime out of pocket for the rest of the year.
It’s great for people with good insurance. Other countries believe even poor or homeless people deserve healthcare. Also what happens if you have an emergency and you’re taken out of your insurance’s network?
The USA has the most expensive healthcare in the world and has much wise results than other wealthy countries. Your preferred propaganda probably won't tell you this but you're paying more for your medicine here than you would in any other wealthy country
So, there is multiple european country like mine, where you can get type 1 diabetes, and get nothing out of your pocket...
So with your 3k.... well 😶
"Monthly premiums are 2% of my pay"
So you probably make, what, 150K?
I am glad that you have landed the healthcare that you need at an affordable cost, but you are absolutely a rare outlier.
Sad Canada health care effectively collapsed and became worst than American one.
No it didn't.
That's a lie and you're aware of that.
Thank you.
Thank you