Profit based private health care has profit as prime objective, not heathcare. In Holland they now have a ridiculous experiment. Dentists are allowed to set their own prices. The idea was that they would be more efficient then and prices would go down. Guess what, prices went up for the same services as before. More salary, you see. Now after not even a month or so they are ALREADY threatening them to stop the whole experiment. Long live our socialised health care!
Every area has a 'trust' which comprise of executives, doctors etc... (plus admin , HR etc) They are given a budget by the government depending on number of population, and they decide what to do with it. With the money they commision services and they pay service providers to do it. These service providers are normally family doctors or a hospital. So the 'trust' pays the doctors directly to provide services to the public. Doctors often therefore work for the trust, and therefore the NHS.
that's weird, i expected the UK to be pretty high considering the healthcare is a free public service and so more of its GDP goes towards it. and i expected the US to be low considering the health care is privatised and you have to pay for it
@naruto2710 No, the big problem with the private US system is it's extremely inefficient. Canada, for example, a country with a similar but slightly lower per capita income to the US, spends 11% of GDP on healthcare while the US spends 18%. All that administration, advertisement and insurance is a massive drag on the American economy and drives up prices. It also disincentivizes ppl to get care when they need it so they get sicker and cost more. Even Mexico manages to afford universal care.
@naruto2710 Well EXACTLY! common sense would dictate that private is cheaper, but people need to understand that health is NOT a product like coca-cola. The company does not make more money by having healthy people... it makes more by you needing their expensive options, all the big equipment ans using all their products and time... there is no incentive to keep us healthy.
This is why the US healthcare is ahead in technology, but miles and miles behind in actual public health.
@TheSelfishAltruist interesting. i always thought the main reason why healthcare wasn't free was because of the US population and the strain it would put on the public budget. most countries with free healthcare have a relatively moderate population (40-60 mill). this is precisely the reason why the UK govt wants to privatise healthcare; because of the increase in population and hence the increasing healthcare costs
@naruto2710 Its complex, but free market health will cause rising prices for various reasons I can go into, and the evidence proves it. As long as the state at least commissions healthcare and some money comes privately thats ok (although id argue unfair) but it can still stay at reasonable price. Looking country to country you see this clearly. The USA pays almost double than all public systems for health... this is a shocking situation and it does need addressing seriously.
@naruto2710 On a rising population.. it depends. If for example you are getting young immigrants in who work and pay tax, thats better for the economy as they are less likely to use health services, or social services etc.... but if your population ages (like ours is due to baby boom after WWII) then this is bad, as old people contribute nothing, and use a lot of services. So either we pay more tax to fund services, or we get immigrants to fill int he gaps in the work force.
@naruto2710 The UK government are not privatising health, they are allowing some of it to be done by private providers if they can do it cheaper then public, but the government pays the bill. Our system is complex but ill try explain it (im rambling) in 500 characters (cont)
@naruto2710 The local trust has a degree of freedom, but government dictates the priorities via the 'Strategic Health Authority' which decides wheat is needed to make our health better, it gives the money to the trust, and they then commission the service
So NHS uses a sort of internal capitalism, but the staff are employed by the government and the bill goes to the government. This seems to work to keep costs down as there is no profit made, and the government can dictate where money flows.
@TheSelfishAltruist haven't been getting your comments.very interesting, where are you from and what are your qualifications; you seem to know so much. i've always heard that the NHS system is popular amongst other countries but considering what you've said why haven't america adopted a similar approach? would it be less feasible due to the american political system, i.e. its a federal state and it would be complicated to implement.
@naruto2710 (continue) lastly, i always hear the argument that although partially privatising health may be cheaper and economic, it may result in a reduction in the quality of service because priorities will shift from care to profit, is this likely?
@naruto2710 Well private run health is all about profit, so I think its inevitable quality goes down unless it is heavily regulated by government. A public owned health provider is interested in maximum health, so focus will be on prevention. It wants you to use less of the service as it saves money, and means you are healthy. Private wants to see you more, meaning they have no interest in keeping you healthy. They want you to have expensive unnecessary treatment as they are profit focused.
@naruto2710 Im from the UK. America hasnt adopted it because the right have a strong voice over there. Right wing people believe the government shouldn't be involved in many aspects of public life as they see it as inefficient, and interfering. They believe the capitalist system will allow patient choice, and therefore bring prices down. The problem is health is not a product like a can of cola, so this doesn't happen, hence the most expensive system in the world.
@naruto2710 Also the USA has strong lobbyists. Health industry support politicians financially and in return want concessions (i.e. less regulation). I think this is simply bribery and a huge problem in a lot of countries, the UK included. On top of this the public generally fear a soviet style takeover of health based with myths such as 'death panels' etc... The reality for America is they are literally dying as they are blinded by this right wing ideology, that does not fit for healthcare.
@naruto2710 oh and I am not an expert. I worked for the NHS for a year, and now Im studying medical science, but I do know some of the facts and figures as I think healthcare is important for everybody so Im trying to advocate democratically owned healthcare in the USA. Luckily for me the facts are all on my side, as the USA has the worst value for money system on Earth.
@naruto2710 You have fallen for the propaganda that in all situations public provision = bad/inefficient and private = good/efficient. Free markets in healthcare don't work well because customers (patients) do not have the expertise to buy efficiently, so they are at the mercy of providers. The result in the US is that providers have fleeced them and the industry works, not to make people healthy, but to enrich doctors, drug companies etc
@gartner101 lol. i think you've replied to the wrong person. i actually agree with you and was complaining that the UK govt wants to privatise our healthcare service- at least partially anyway. i think you were meaning to reply to TheSelfishAltruist
From a Canadian perspective on 12:20, why expenditure rose relative to Canada. Public health care results in less administration costs that you see in a private system.
1959 – Premier T.C. Douglas announces plan to introduce a prepaid medical–care program.
Isn't it a bit odd when making a video about comparing health care costs. U.S. to Europe and never mention with a single word that all of the European systems are mainly run by the government and the U.S. is private. I understand that this is a delicate issue to talk about for an American, but if you want to inform about the difference, you shouldn't ignore a major difference of those systems.
How many 9/11 first responders have died since 2001 because they cannot afford healthcare? When even the heroes are left to die, something is wrong. Unfortunately too many people have outsourced their opinion forming process to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder can be the highest bidder because they're the best people at getting money from other people, so they're the last people that should be listened to.
A graph showing insurance company profits over the time would be interesting too
Gee, why wasn't cost of health insurance discussed? Half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to health care and half of those are people who had health care at the time. Not to mention it's estimated that there are 20,000 deaths a year here due to privatized health care.
@HatchetsNCleavers And That 20,000 was a Bush admin ordered study from a Republican congressional committee. Harvard has it at over 45k.... But yeah even if it's only 20 that's pretty deplorable.
@tutortronix "no mention of governmental involvement in terms of cause" You don't think there's governmental involvement in European health care? Less? If anything there's MORE and it's much much cheaper and in 36 cases better. So if there is a causal relationship between government involvement and health care costs it's a positive one. This goes against the knee jerk "government is always bad" idiological nonsence people substitute for rational thought.
I would not go to Europe for medical care. Government is physical force; it's the equivalent of a gun. Do you think it's moral or right to point guns at people to pay for "free stuff" like medical treatment?
@tutortronix haha..... Yes I was forced with a gun into the GP surgery to get my prescription the other day. If you want private you can have it here and pay, but id rather it was free and use state healthcare.. which by the way we LOVE. No political party would EVER touch it. You are missing out your friend.
You're substitution coercion and force for rational thought. That always happens when people turn to the government for solutions to problems that ought to be resolved by voluntary action and rational persuasion.
CHeck out the NHS compared too your shitty healthcare service.
Would any of your health care services say "From cradle to grave" nah, they're just obsessed with profit at all cost instead of giving regard to patients...
It's not just an issue of the number of specialists. It's an issue of the quality and training of those specialists, the quality of the equipment and technology, and the availability of drugs. And most important: how quickly you are treated. In Canada, regardless of how much money you make, you get put in a queue and you wait months and months for treatment.
The question makes perfect sense. Government-run health care, like I get in Canada, sucks. You're being evasive. Does this question make sense: Where would you rather have a heart attack: North Korea or South Korea?
@tutortronix I'm not going to say that our health care system sucks, because it doesn't. But to your question.. Would a rich person go to a free hospital? Would Angelina Jolie adopt a black Jew?
@tutortronix South Korea has a national health insurance (NHI) system covering the whole population. It was introduced by popular demand and is much cheaper than the private USA systems.
North Korea is a completely nasty military dictatorship with no democracy or right to know. it is not even comparable.
@tutortronix A variable you should consider is Govt itself.
Anarchy is a system of Govt. as is plutocracy, military dictatorship, democratic republics etc. What counts is who's Govt. whether there is open debate and information etc.
In reality few systems are either fully state or fully private. In general they tend to be socialized with elements of market providing services.. what fails are dogmas where people's health gets trumped by $ for bosses, corps & arms. including in Nht Korea.
@tutortronix A variable you should consider is Govt itself.
Anarchy is a system of Govt. as is plutocracy, military dictatorship, democratic republics etc. What counts is who's Govt. whether there is open debate and information etc.
In reality few systems are either fully state or fully private. In general they tend to be socialized with elements of market providing services.. what fails are dogmas where people's health gets trumped by $ for bosses, corps & arms. including in Nht Korea.
@tutortronix Any other country might be a fairer comparison than North Korea which has a policy of 'Army first' and has a dead man as head of state. It is really a lunatic nation still officially at war with much of the world apparently.
It was more like a national liberation movement that got taken over by thugs.
Most of the world has socialized healthcare and is a much better example.
No system is perfect. Many in Europe have world class systems with much better coverage for much less.
My daughter has an uncommon genetic form of arthritis. The U.S. health care system spent ten years trying to figure it out. She went to grad school in Toronto where you have opt-in to the local system. In 9 months the Canadians had it diagnosed and started treating it. I'm one person who would be very happy with a Canadian-style system.
If you compare the numbers, virtually all European countries are healthier than the US. Less child mortality, less stratification. I do think that health in Europe is "too cheap" and the health sector, especially nurses and doctors would deserve more money, but usually pharmaceutic and technical companies will hold your health for ransom, so increasing health care spending doesn't do the doctors and nurses any good.
U.S healthcare system: if you can afford it, the quality is the best in the world, but not everybody can afford it. The U.S has the best doctors in the world, but unfortunately not everyone can afford the health-care here.
Other healthcare systems: you won't
be financially screwed, but the quality may not be the best.
There's always a tradeoff, and of course there are other factors to consider.
@phazon100 I doubt that about lower quality... even if you only take the richer Americans and compare them to less stratified countries like Germany.....
You guys don't know what your'e talking about. If you spend more money it dosent mean your'e Getting a better service .People in the US pay more because the private health Insurance cost a ton in other country you pay nearly nothing!!!! plus better service
@haguylerman for individuals with certain illnesses like myself, private health insurance is sometimes preferred. in canada for example, individuals with cf can't get the medication called pulmozyme simply because the government can't afford to pay for it. in the us, people with cf get pulmozyme and live longer, more pleasant lives. not trying to argue too much, but sometimes private markets are superior to a "one-size fits all" government policy.
@dannyledwith21 But in Canada couldn't you privately order that drug? It's not like it's banned is it? So there, you get some, if not maybe the best of both worlds?
@sinistar99 i suppose, but that's not really what i'm talking about. i'm talking about having an insurance plan that will cover your medication. here in the us you can get an insurance policy that covers that medication. in canada, where there is no private insurance market, you would have to pay for the medication in full (if it's possible to purchase the medication at all), which is insanely expensive ($100 a dose i believe).
normal wait time to see a general care doctor in japan is under 48 hours, and lots of ppl are seen same day. I took me 10 days to get in to see my doc and cost me significantly more while he spent only 5 mins with me. healthcare in the usa is a joke.
You know, it is like camping. You don't want to lug around a 100 pound bag while hiking 25 miles up a mountain. So you plan what you need. You look at each object. One knife may be 5oz, another is 3oz. The 5oz knife may be nice, but you need to save weight. You look at your cups. Do you really need thermal insulation, or can you take the noninsulated cup that is 1oz lighter? Every tiny item adds up. You need to plan ahead and pay attention to the smallest detail.
On one hand they agree that the specialists and doctors and high tech equipment are not the leading cause of the jump in price and just a FEW minutes later, that's what is to blame.
When asked what happened in the 1970's, TECHNOLOGY was blamed for higher prices in America and us ADOPTING the tech unlike U.K.
That's B.S.
We have a FOR profit system with administration costs through the roof. Europe doesn't and has better healthcare across the board.
@TheeImmortalPhoenix ya and Europe had better health care because they rather hide behind the United States which means they could spend on their own welfare and we had to spend our lives alwaus "defending" their ungrateful asses. Hopefully when Ron Paul pulls out every military base in Europe, Europe health care tax wqould go even higher and higher.
Profit based private health care has profit as prime objective, not heathcare. In Holland they now have a ridiculous experiment. Dentists are allowed to set their own prices. The idea was that they would be more efficient then and prices would go down. Guess what, prices went up for the same services as before. More salary, you see. Now after not even a month or so they are ALREADY threatening them to stop the whole experiment. Long live our socialised health care!
Efteling4Ever 1 month ago
Every area has a 'trust' which comprise of executives, doctors etc... (plus admin , HR etc) They are given a budget by the government depending on number of population, and they decide what to do with it. With the money they commision services and they pay service providers to do it. These service providers are normally family doctors or a hospital. So the 'trust' pays the doctors directly to provide services to the public. Doctors often therefore work for the trust, and therefore the NHS.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
Why are u americans so afraid of socialism? Socialized healthcare is a must do. Its cheaper and its equally for ALL
zer0lis 2 months ago
Well 60% of the people in the US are overweight. Being fat brings health issues (so the people say).
Now what could a part the problem be...
European people don't visit the hospital for every fart neither
EliteGhost001 2 months ago
that's weird, i expected the UK to be pretty high considering the healthcare is a free public service and so more of its GDP goes towards it. and i expected the US to be low considering the health care is privatised and you have to pay for it
naruto2710 3 months ago
@naruto2710 No, the big problem with the private US system is it's extremely inefficient. Canada, for example, a country with a similar but slightly lower per capita income to the US, spends 11% of GDP on healthcare while the US spends 18%. All that administration, advertisement and insurance is a massive drag on the American economy and drives up prices. It also disincentivizes ppl to get care when they need it so they get sicker and cost more. Even Mexico manages to afford universal care.
Mehtaphorical 3 months ago
@naruto2710 Well EXACTLY! common sense would dictate that private is cheaper, but people need to understand that health is NOT a product like coca-cola. The company does not make more money by having healthy people... it makes more by you needing their expensive options, all the big equipment ans using all their products and time... there is no incentive to keep us healthy.
This is why the US healthcare is ahead in technology, but miles and miles behind in actual public health.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist interesting. i always thought the main reason why healthcare wasn't free was because of the US population and the strain it would put on the public budget. most countries with free healthcare have a relatively moderate population (40-60 mill). this is precisely the reason why the UK govt wants to privatise healthcare; because of the increase in population and hence the increasing healthcare costs
naruto2710 2 months ago
@naruto2710 Its complex, but free market health will cause rising prices for various reasons I can go into, and the evidence proves it. As long as the state at least commissions healthcare and some money comes privately thats ok (although id argue unfair) but it can still stay at reasonable price. Looking country to country you see this clearly. The USA pays almost double than all public systems for health... this is a shocking situation and it does need addressing seriously.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@naruto2710 On a rising population.. it depends. If for example you are getting young immigrants in who work and pay tax, thats better for the economy as they are less likely to use health services, or social services etc.... but if your population ages (like ours is due to baby boom after WWII) then this is bad, as old people contribute nothing, and use a lot of services. So either we pay more tax to fund services, or we get immigrants to fill int he gaps in the work force.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@naruto2710 The UK government are not privatising health, they are allowing some of it to be done by private providers if they can do it cheaper then public, but the government pays the bill. Our system is complex but ill try explain it (im rambling) in 500 characters (cont)
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@naruto2710 The local trust has a degree of freedom, but government dictates the priorities via the 'Strategic Health Authority' which decides wheat is needed to make our health better, it gives the money to the trust, and they then commission the service
So NHS uses a sort of internal capitalism, but the staff are employed by the government and the bill goes to the government. This seems to work to keep costs down as there is no profit made, and the government can dictate where money flows.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@TheSelfishAltruist haven't been getting your comments.very interesting, where are you from and what are your qualifications; you seem to know so much. i've always heard that the NHS system is popular amongst other countries but considering what you've said why haven't america adopted a similar approach? would it be less feasible due to the american political system, i.e. its a federal state and it would be complicated to implement.
naruto2710 1 month ago
@naruto2710 (continue) lastly, i always hear the argument that although partially privatising health may be cheaper and economic, it may result in a reduction in the quality of service because priorities will shift from care to profit, is this likely?
naruto2710 1 month ago
@naruto2710 Well private run health is all about profit, so I think its inevitable quality goes down unless it is heavily regulated by government. A public owned health provider is interested in maximum health, so focus will be on prevention. It wants you to use less of the service as it saves money, and means you are healthy. Private wants to see you more, meaning they have no interest in keeping you healthy. They want you to have expensive unnecessary treatment as they are profit focused.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
All other private run systems are also all about profit so why would you think it was inevitable that quality would go down?
evan13579b 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
We don't have a purely private system. We actually have socialized medicine for the most expensive segment of the population.
evan13579b 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
Also, all hospitals cannot turn down emergencies, and this drives up the costs in general.
That is not capitalism.
evan13579b 1 month ago
@naruto2710 Im from the UK. America hasnt adopted it because the right have a strong voice over there. Right wing people believe the government shouldn't be involved in many aspects of public life as they see it as inefficient, and interfering. They believe the capitalist system will allow patient choice, and therefore bring prices down. The problem is health is not a product like a can of cola, so this doesn't happen, hence the most expensive system in the world.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@TheSelfishAltruist
There is also a massive amount of regulation involved with hospitals and care providing.
evan13579b 1 month ago
@naruto2710 Also the USA has strong lobbyists. Health industry support politicians financially and in return want concessions (i.e. less regulation). I think this is simply bribery and a huge problem in a lot of countries, the UK included. On top of this the public generally fear a soviet style takeover of health based with myths such as 'death panels' etc... The reality for America is they are literally dying as they are blinded by this right wing ideology, that does not fit for healthcare.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@naruto2710 oh and I am not an expert. I worked for the NHS for a year, and now Im studying medical science, but I do know some of the facts and figures as I think healthcare is important for everybody so Im trying to advocate democratically owned healthcare in the USA. Luckily for me the facts are all on my side, as the USA has the worst value for money system on Earth.
TheSelfishAltruist 1 month ago
@naruto2710 You have fallen for the propaganda that in all situations public provision = bad/inefficient and private = good/efficient. Free markets in healthcare don't work well because customers (patients) do not have the expertise to buy efficiently, so they are at the mercy of providers. The result in the US is that providers have fleeced them and the industry works, not to make people healthy, but to enrich doctors, drug companies etc
gartner101 1 month ago
@gartner101 lol. i think you've replied to the wrong person. i actually agree with you and was complaining that the UK govt wants to privatise our healthcare service- at least partially anyway. i think you were meaning to reply to TheSelfishAltruist
naruto2710 1 month ago
From a Canadian perspective on 12:20, why expenditure rose relative to Canada. Public health care results in less administration costs that you see in a private system.
1959 – Premier T.C. Douglas announces plan to introduce a prepaid medical–care program.
1962 – First universal Medicare in North America.
1981 – Canada Health Act
jchengimpact 3 months ago
very interesting video, ty
zalwanich 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Isn't it a bit odd when making a video about comparing health care costs. U.S. to Europe and never mention with a single word that all of the European systems are mainly run by the government and the U.S. is private. I understand that this is a delicate issue to talk about for an American, but if you want to inform about the difference, you shouldn't ignore a major difference of those systems.
Kaniballoy 4 months ago 2
Comment removed
Kaniballoy 4 months ago
Isn't the AMA great?
humanhiveanomaly 4 months ago
How many 9/11 first responders have died since 2001 because they cannot afford healthcare? When even the heroes are left to die, something is wrong. Unfortunately too many people have outsourced their opinion forming process to the highest bidder, and the highest bidder can be the highest bidder because they're the best people at getting money from other people, so they're the last people that should be listened to.
A graph showing insurance company profits over the time would be interesting too
annoloki 4 months ago
Gee, why wasn't cost of health insurance discussed? Half of all bankruptcies in this country are due to health care and half of those are people who had health care at the time. Not to mention it's estimated that there are 20,000 deaths a year here due to privatized health care.
HatchetsNCleavers 4 months ago
@HatchetsNCleavers And That 20,000 was a Bush admin ordered study from a Republican congressional committee. Harvard has it at over 45k.... But yeah even if it's only 20 that's pretty deplorable.
sinistar99 4 months ago
Strange that there was no mention of governmental involvement in terms of cause.
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix "no mention of governmental involvement in terms of cause" You don't think there's governmental involvement in European health care? Less? If anything there's MORE and it's much much cheaper and in 36 cases better. So if there is a causal relationship between government involvement and health care costs it's a positive one. This goes against the knee jerk "government is always bad" idiological nonsence people substitute for rational thought.
sinistar99 4 months ago 2
@sinistar99
I would not go to Europe for medical care. Government is physical force; it's the equivalent of a gun. Do you think it's moral or right to point guns at people to pay for "free stuff" like medical treatment?
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix haha..... Yes I was forced with a gun into the GP surgery to get my prescription the other day. If you want private you can have it here and pay, but id rather it was free and use state healthcare.. which by the way we LOVE. No political party would EVER touch it. You are missing out your friend.
TheSelfishAltruist 2 months ago
@sinistar99
You're substitution coercion and force for rational thought. That always happens when people turn to the government for solutions to problems that ought to be resolved by voluntary action and rational persuasion.
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix
*substituting
tutortronix 4 months ago
Hey americans....i live in the uk
CHeck out the NHS compared too your shitty healthcare service.
Would any of your health care services say "From cradle to grave" nah, they're just obsessed with profit at all cost instead of giving regard to patients...
fatman1001 4 months ago
@fatman1001 Our private health insurance system sucks balls.
sinistar99 4 months ago
Emergency room for regular health care for people who are uninsured costs us a lot.
sinistar99 4 months ago
Funny how all Americans is trying to defend their system here in the comments. I'm Norwegian, the health care system is free, and good.
iasedu 4 months ago
@iasedu
Do millionaires go to Norway or the United States to get treated?
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix US, bevcause the US has more specialists.....
It doesnt say anything about the healthcare system for the average citizen in a country
b3rd4 4 months ago
@b3rd4
It's not just an issue of the number of specialists. It's an issue of the quality and training of those specialists, the quality of the equipment and technology, and the availability of drugs. And most important: how quickly you are treated. In Canada, regardless of how much money you make, you get put in a queue and you wait months and months for treatment.
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix That question makes no sense.
iasedu 4 months ago
@iasedu
The question makes perfect sense. Government-run health care, like I get in Canada, sucks. You're being evasive. Does this question make sense: Where would you rather have a heart attack: North Korea or South Korea?
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix I'm not going to say that our health care system sucks, because it doesn't. But to your question.. Would a rich person go to a free hospital? Would Angelina Jolie adopt a black Jew?
iasedu 4 months ago
@iasedu
If you're talking about Angelina Jolie or some other Hollywood-type, yes. But she doesn't fly to Norway to get medical care.
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix South Korea has a national health insurance (NHI) system covering the whole population. It was introduced by popular demand and is much cheaper than the private USA systems.
North Korea is a completely nasty military dictatorship with no democracy or right to know. it is not even comparable.
marsCubed 4 months ago
@marsCubed
The variable I want you to consider is the degree of governmental involvement in the industry.
tutortronix 4 months ago
@tutortronix A variable you should consider is Govt itself.
Anarchy is a system of Govt. as is plutocracy, military dictatorship, democratic republics etc. What counts is who's Govt. whether there is open debate and information etc.
In reality few systems are either fully state or fully private. In general they tend to be socialized with elements of market providing services.. what fails are dogmas where people's health gets trumped by $ for bosses, corps & arms. including in Nht Korea.
marsCubed 4 months ago
@tutortronix A variable you should consider is Govt itself.
Anarchy is a system of Govt. as is plutocracy, military dictatorship, democratic republics etc. What counts is who's Govt. whether there is open debate and information etc.
In reality few systems are either fully state or fully private. In general they tend to be socialized with elements of market providing services.. what fails are dogmas where people's health gets trumped by $ for bosses, corps & arms. including in Nht Korea.
marsCubed 4 months ago
@tutortronix Any other country might be a fairer comparison than North Korea which has a policy of 'Army first' and has a dead man as head of state. It is really a lunatic nation still officially at war with much of the world apparently.
It was more like a national liberation movement that got taken over by thugs.
Most of the world has socialized healthcare and is a much better example.
No system is perfect. Many in Europe have world class systems with much better coverage for much less.
marsCubed 4 months ago
@tutortronix They actually go to germany, norway, sweden, switzerland, france, austria to get treated too...yes.
derbigpr500 4 months ago
@iasedu And so are the weemen! lol.
sinistar99 4 months ago
when I was in France, I had to wait 6 months to get an appointment with an ophtalmologist to get my prescription glasses.
tetleydidley 4 months ago
My daughter has an uncommon genetic form of arthritis. The U.S. health care system spent ten years trying to figure it out. She went to grad school in Toronto where you have opt-in to the local system. In 9 months the Canadians had it diagnosed and started treating it. I'm one person who would be very happy with a Canadian-style system.
edwardmeade 4 months ago
If you compare the numbers, virtually all European countries are healthier than the US. Less child mortality, less stratification. I do think that health in Europe is "too cheap" and the health sector, especially nurses and doctors would deserve more money, but usually pharmaceutic and technical companies will hold your health for ransom, so increasing health care spending doesn't do the doctors and nurses any good.
SalsaTiger83 4 months ago
U.S healthcare system: if you can afford it, the quality is the best in the world, but not everybody can afford it. The U.S has the best doctors in the world, but unfortunately not everyone can afford the health-care here.
Other healthcare systems: you won't
be financially screwed, but the quality may not be the best.
There's always a tradeoff, and of course there are other factors to consider.
phazon100 4 months ago 2
@phazon100 preach it brotha
dannyledwith21 4 months ago
@phazon100 I doubt that about lower quality... even if you only take the richer Americans and compare them to less stratified countries like Germany.....
SalsaTiger83 4 months ago
@phazon100
I'll have to side with the 'other systems', if somewhat hesitantly. Helping the many instead of the few, sort of thing.
Alignn 4 months ago
@phazon100
And then there's the way the doctor handles it.
baron8107 3 months ago
@phazon100 But you won't necessarily get the best in the world in the US.
Task5003 2 months ago
@phazon100 according to mistreatmeant statistics, even that is not exactly true...
Darusdei 2 months ago
You guys don't know what your'e talking about. If you spend more money it dosent mean your'e Getting a better service .People in the US pay more because the private health Insurance cost a ton in other country you pay nearly nothing!!!! plus better service
haguylerman 4 months ago
@haguylerman for individuals with certain illnesses like myself, private health insurance is sometimes preferred. in canada for example, individuals with cf can't get the medication called pulmozyme simply because the government can't afford to pay for it. in the us, people with cf get pulmozyme and live longer, more pleasant lives. not trying to argue too much, but sometimes private markets are superior to a "one-size fits all" government policy.
dannyledwith21 4 months ago
@dannyledwith21 But in Canada couldn't you privately order that drug? It's not like it's banned is it? So there, you get some, if not maybe the best of both worlds?
sinistar99 4 months ago
@sinistar99 i suppose, but that's not really what i'm talking about. i'm talking about having an insurance plan that will cover your medication. here in the us you can get an insurance policy that covers that medication. in canada, where there is no private insurance market, you would have to pay for the medication in full (if it's possible to purchase the medication at all), which is insanely expensive ($100 a dose i believe).
dannyledwith21 4 months ago
normal wait time to see a general care doctor in japan is under 48 hours, and lots of ppl are seen same day. I took me 10 days to get in to see my doc and cost me significantly more while he spent only 5 mins with me. healthcare in the usa is a joke.
aSheeple 4 months ago
You know, it is like camping. You don't want to lug around a 100 pound bag while hiking 25 miles up a mountain. So you plan what you need. You look at each object. One knife may be 5oz, another is 3oz. The 5oz knife may be nice, but you need to save weight. You look at your cups. Do you really need thermal insulation, or can you take the noninsulated cup that is 1oz lighter? Every tiny item adds up. You need to plan ahead and pay attention to the smallest detail.
Melthornal 4 months ago
What an idiotic interview.
On one hand they agree that the specialists and doctors and high tech equipment are not the leading cause of the jump in price and just a FEW minutes later, that's what is to blame.
When asked what happened in the 1970's, TECHNOLOGY was blamed for higher prices in America and us ADOPTING the tech unlike U.K.
That's B.S.
We have a FOR profit system with administration costs through the roof. Europe doesn't and has better healthcare across the board.
The End.
TheeImmortalPhoenix 4 months ago 2
@TheeImmortalPhoenix ya and Europe had better health care because they rather hide behind the United States which means they could spend on their own welfare and we had to spend our lives alwaus "defending" their ungrateful asses. Hopefully when Ron Paul pulls out every military base in Europe, Europe health care tax wqould go even higher and higher.
Hperman09 4 months ago
@Hperman09 Are you paying attention. Europeans spend LESS on healthcare but get better health outcomes
gartner101 1 month ago
This is awesome :D
ijamesza016 4 months ago
@voiceofreason467 He's also talking about total health spending as a percent of GDP increasing.
WecksyRex 4 months ago
@voiceofreason467 lol he quite obviously does understand it. He's talking about growth in GDP per capita spending on healthcare.
WecksyRex 4 months ago
How much does the profit of health insurance companies in the US contribute to higher health care costs here in the US, Sal?
pmccarthy001 4 months ago
yay more economic vids
plllll0 4 months ago