Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I watched the video and it is a single-payer soft sell by a guy who talks fast to people who outsource their thought process to people who seem to be really smart, and while he did hit on some good points, the implied conclusion that single-payer is the answer ignores the fact that the reason drugs and hip replacements cost more in the US is because the same people who would run a single-payer system are already in the pocket of the pharmaceutical and artificial hip joint industries.
Our government can't even run a website.
Our government spent $491 billion for a website that didn't work.
Several of our government agencies are unable to audit their own books, have lost track of hundreds of billions of dollars and can't explain where it went.
Do you really think they can negotiate with a hip replacement manufacturer?
Correct.
The "death panel" that is the VA should be enough to get all thinking, non partisan people rethinking this whole single payer idea.
I don't know that I agree with the solution, but this does strike to the heart of my biggest objection to Obamacare. The biggest crisis with healthcare was, is and will continue to be escalating costs. With the costs of healthcare skyrocketing, creating a national healthcare system just signed us up for an absolutely insane federal expenditure -- one that is increasing exponentially.
It reminds me of the first Despicable Me movie where Vector steals the moon from Gru and it starts to unshrink inside his ship, eventually crushing the ship from the inside out. All that at a time when we're already spending more than we should be anyways.
Obama and the Dems needed to get the costs of healthcare to stop increasing and start shrinking before creating Obamacare or anything like it. This guy thinks the solution is to go with a single-payer system. I doubt it but we'll see where things go from here.
So why are medical costs so much lower in those countries in which the government is involved with health care?
Govt is involved in health care and related markets regardless. Private and public also throws people. One has to look at incoming and outgoing. What is being made where and outlays. Investments funds make governments plenty. As long as money is being made. Interference is not really the word I would choose, but involvement. Ultimately, it is about costs and profits.
Take a look at securities and institutional investors. So little time, so much money to make. Health care districts are also interesting.
Things like this. Money to be made in so many places.
So why are medical costs so much lower in those countries in which the government is involved with health care?
Costs are lower for the same reason new-release Hollywood movies on DVD cost 50 cents in China.
When foreign governments are either involved in manufacturing or ignoring laws and patents of things created/developed in America they can sell these things at incredibly cheap prices.
Yet this doesn't mean that having the US government force Hollywood to sell 50 cent DVDs in America would work out fabulously for the US entertainment industry it's consumers.
Wait a few years for the Post-Obamacare Single Payer system to arrive and you'll understand.
"During the U.S. presidential campaign in 1987-1988, Blumenthal was chief health advisor to the Dukakis campaign. Twenty years later, in 2008, he was senior health adviser to the Obama campaign. On March 20, 2009, President Obama appointed Blumenthal to be the National Health Information Technology Coordinator, just a month after the enactment of a federal stimulus package that included about $19 billion in incentives, through Medicare and Medicaid, for the adoption of electronic health records."
The Commonwealth Fund, the organization that came up with your numbers, is a cheer leader for single-payer.
Not sure what axe the World Bank might want to grind, but when Blumenthal and Squires are such obvious leftists who continually parrot the same old single-payer-is-the-answer, what's-the-queston propaganda, it's hard to take their survey of 20,045 adults in 11 countries seriously.
If your healthcare isn't compatible with one of the "essentials" required by HHS in conjunction with the White House than your policy gets canceled unless you had the policy before May 2010.
The thing is Obama makes up the rules as he goes along. The "essentials" were never given to the public UNTIL after the ACA was passed.
So Obama is directly responsible for the cancellation of those plans.
Obama is in bed with the insurers to maximize their profits by requiring essentials such as maternity care for men and those over child bearing ages. You could always buy maternity riders in the individual market prior to May 2010.
You didn't mention the requirement to carry pediatric optical in case your kids who left home twenty years ago need glasses.
"During the U.S. presidential campaign in 1987-1988, Blumenthal was chief health advisor to the Dukakis campaign. Twenty years later, in 2008, he was senior health adviser to the Obama campaign. On March 20, 2009, President Obama appointed Blumenthal to be the National Health Information Technology Coordinator, just a month after the enactment of a federal stimulus package that included about $19 billion in incentives, through Medicare and Medicaid, for the adoption of electronic health records."
The Commonwealth Fund, the organization that came up with your numbers, is a cheer leader for single-payer.
Not sure what axe the World Bank might want to grind, but when Blumenthal and Squires are such obvious leftists who continually parrot the same old single-payer-is-the-answer, what's-the-queston propaganda, it's hard to take their survey of 20,045 adults in 11 countries seriously.
OK, then show me evidence that US health care is better, cheaper and life expectancy is higher and infant mortality rate is lower....
Eventually (and sooner than later) some variation of Medicare for all will be implemented in the US.
How will that be paid for?
There's no way the very small percentage who are taxed heavily here in the U.S. (only the top 5% pay a higher share of the federal income tax than their share of the income) can pay for everyone's health care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
