The ONLY way to lower healthcare costs is to give the rapacious insurance companies competition. Since the insurance companies raise premiums based on the cost of services. That sounds right? But NO since the insurance company executives market comprehensive insurance to employers and various groups and that marketing is based on those services. SO when an employee gets sick, even a little, they run to the doctor and therefore waste services. The President's healthcare reform IS the solution.
@exenrontexas One of the largest subsidies to employer driven plans, the "pre tax" premium on those plans WAS NOT removed in Obama's plan. Meaning an individual with a NON employer plan subsidized the employer plan. The irony here is that this is the product of legislation in 1948. His plan is NOT the solution.
@NoProbaloAmigo I agree to some extent. The Presidents healthcare reform did not go nearly far enough. The President should have reworked the abyssmally expensive BUSH Medicare Part D which will cost tax payers TRILLIONS. But he is working with Republicans who always stick in special breaks for 'THEIR PEOPLE" the wealthy GOP supporters.
@exenrontexas It is very true that the Republican party represents special interests, but the Democrats do as well. Actually any political party with any degree of power must have "customers." But I find it odd what you talk about Medicare Part D, because Obama's plan is very expensive as well.
@NoProbaloAmigo I agree that both/any party has problems but the Dems are so disorganized, fractious and under funded that they are not a danger to democracy, but the GOP IS. The GOP is extremely well organized, extremely focuses and extremely well funded and IS a danger to democracy. The wisdom of the Founders could not envision how dangerous they are. The GOP controls TWO branches of government. Heaven help us if they totally upset the division of government power.
@exenrontexas Really? Is that why Romney has been wining by landlsides in the primary? I checked out opensecerts, and the Dems have more money than the Republicans. Your characterization cannot be supported, or even that the Dems are "a danger to democracy," which is a misnomer in our republic.
@NoProbaloAmigo A little historical review might help you. In 1934 a extremely wealthy group of ultra conservative Republicans plotted the violent overthrow of democracy in America to set up a fascist dictatorship to aid Adolf Hitler. The planned to have a private army of veterans march on Washington, assassinate the sitting president, suspend the Constitution and disband Congress. The approached Marine General Smedley Butler to lead the forces. He exposed the plot.
@NoProbaloAmigo In the halls of the GOP power base, I heard discussions about ways and means to DESTROY the Federal government because it to some degree is controlled by the PEOPLE and they have great disrespect for the wisdom and power of the PEOPLE. Frequently they talked about weakening the Federal government so that they could DESTROY it. The BUSH plan was just that. He attacked the Constitution, the checks & balances, he rammed Citizens United and wasted TRILLIONS on war.
@exenrontexas Who knows, there is a lot of unsupported hyperbole in your posts and literal hearsay. For example, the Republicans cannot destroy the federal government, unless they want to stop their own pork machine!
@NoProbaloAmigo I also suggest you watch on youtube some of the speeches by Naomi Wolf who lays out how history is repeating what happened in Germany in 1932 step by step and, of course, BUSH set up his private army known as Blackwater whose leader is closely associated with extreme right wing pseudo religious demagogues. Dig a little and learn.
@exenrontexas Where are the sources? What? Bush was the head of Blackwater? Still, what you say is not supported by any facts, for example, you said the Republicans are more organized, when you can't make a claim either way, Also, prior to Bush II, the Republicans were voted in to GET OUT of wars, like Korea, or Vietnam. The Republicans were more of a non interventionist party in the 30's.
@NoProbaloAmigo One source is Marine General Butler. Should I assume that you did not view his video right here on youtube? Second, Richard Nixon was elected with the promise to end the war in Vietnam which LBJ started with a lie after JFK was murdered because he signed an order to REMOVE our troops from Vietnam. Nixon expanded, extended and prolong the war in Vietnam & it only ended in '75 after Nixon resigned in disgrace.Blackwater was enabled by BUSH to get his private army.
@ElJefer You're right, and then the supply of medical care react appropriately....or in this case negatively. Of course, if you can import medical technology, then you can get away with a lot of it, like a Denmark does, or Canada, at the expense of the huge US medical industry, one of our manufacturing bright spots.
What about to "import" Doctor as they do with nurses, allow to import or buy medicines from other countries and make the health insurance companies nationals and allow foreign companies to participate in the market too.
That will bring the medical cost down through competition.
@yenamarre100 That's one of the worst strawmen I have ever read. First of all, I did not say that every one should start their own business, I merely suggest that those who claim that wage structures are unfair are free to run their own experiment however they wish. Secondly, Saturation of WHAT market? You are assuming a fixed number of Jobs, but the reality is a large percentage of today's job's didn't exist a decade ago, thanks largely to start-ups.
@kev3d And yes, starting a new business is hard and most businesses fail. All the more reason that those who risk their fortunes to start something new deserve the greatest share of the profits, if they ever come.
He's speaking in the late 1970's, but it's amazing how much it applies today, over 30 years later. It's just easy to forget how little people - and economic and government policies - change.
I find it very interesting that, with no government assistance in the traditional sense of subsidies, technology has gotten better and cheaper every year. Engineering and materials have improved greatly as well. Yet healthcare costs rise, despite (or perhaps because of) govt programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If the same market pressure existed for health that did for mobile devices, costs would plunge and quality through technology would flourish.
@kev3d ...Lol, you're comparing an industry which is of vital importance, to one that is largely one of entertainment and frivolity. What keeps prices of products like cell phones and laptops down is planned obsolescence, which means that the product is designed to break down or become obsolete after a certain time frame, which promotes upgraded purchases. Societal pressures support this, by shaming those who dont have new equipment or materials -- "ooh, his clothes are SO old"
@flipgood89 Consumption is consumption and competitive forces drive down costs, particularly when people are paying out of their own pocket. Drugs, therapies and medical devices are all replaced or improved over time. Besides, define " vital importance". Food is of vital importance, yet even foods which receive no subsidies can get to the far corners of the country purely through market forces. The point is you cannot lower the cost by pouring more 3rd party money into something.
@kev3d ..Dude. Health care should not be analogous to consumption, tho. Getting a check up is not the same as buying a Big Mac or an IPOD. Its a service that should be a right in a civilized, moral, industrious country. We claim to be the leader of the free world, yet our health care ranks 37th in the world? Thats absurd. Reality does not agree with your argument, as health care costs keep rising. Health care is a playground for the elite, which is counterproductive to the health of the U.S
@flipgood89 Health Care cost rise BECAUSE of LACK of Market Forces, understand? Again, why have the costs gone up when federal spending has increased? By contrast, procedures that are not covered by Medicare and Medicaid, like cosmetic surgery and lasik are competitively priced. "Rights" do not impose costs on anyone. Besides, the vast majority of people can afford checkups but have been sold the lie that it shouldn't cost anything.
@flipgood89 Of course the health of the US is greatly affected by the racial, diet and exercise backgrounds of the citizenry. In other words, if Americans ate better, exercised more, drank and smoked less then they would be much healthier. Hawaii has the highest longevity among the states, no surprise considering its large asian population (who live longer) and Washington D.C. has the lowest, which also has a high concentration of blacks who tend to not live as long.
@kev3d ...So "market forces" is an end-all-be-all, magical elixir? Without regulation, market forces continually turns into a draconian, centralized network of power. Market forces led to the great depression, and with mergers and wealth now in the hands of the few, we are there now. The health care industry manipulated the system and their lobbyists control Govt. As far as ur racist rant, look into research on how racism affects the health of blacks when all other factors are controlled.
@flipgood89 It is not racist to say that Blacks do not live as long as Whites any more than it is sexist to say that women live longer than men, facts are facts. But yes, racism is a factor; the minimum wage, the drug war, occupational licensing, welfare, and labor unions all negatively affect blacks disproportionally.
But getting back to the point, the US federal government cannot deliver the mail in a cost effective manner yet you want it to manage health care? Talk about magic solutions.
@flipgood89 Its funny to refer to a "draconian, centralized network of power." What do you think the government is? As far as the great depression, I suggest you read "The Government and the Great Depressionby Chris Edwards for starters. Further, examine the endless "wisdom" of the nations financial overlords; Obama's “Seventh Quarterly Report” reveals the govt spent $278,000 per job "saved or created", adding 660+ BILLION to the debt. Its like the bad policies of Bush on steroids.
@kev3d . The govt. is the extension of the citzenry. We are the bosses. The goal of corporations is self-serving. The bottom line is profits above all else --- especially humanity. Govt became oppressive when it began to cater to corporations. Care to explain why when we had a marginal income tax rate upwards of 91%, we were a prosperous, healthy nation? Ur right, I overreacted and called ur earlier post a racist rant. My bad. Guess I was just puzzled why you introduced race for no reason.
@flipgood89 You really believe that, because elected officials are citizens themselves that they are somehow under the control of the people? Sure, corporations are self serving, power hungry politicians are not? The difference is that companies, regardless of industry SHOULD earn their money through free, competitive enterprise and not with the government deciding the winners and losers like it does now.
@kev3d ...yes, of course politicians are under the control of the people. We are the bosses, with the ability to essentially hire and fire elected officials. Thats our democracy. In essence, govt. is literally an extension of the will of the populous. Americans are a self-loathing, superficial bunch that prays at the alter of the elite. Govt. officials act accordingly. If we demanded accountability from our govt. and demanded they stopped serving the elite, then we would see a different govt.
@flipgood89 "Americans are a self-loathing, superficial bunch". I disagree. Really, Americans are just like anyone else, they want things that other people will pay for. But, as we see, when a person or party pays for something with other people's money, there tends to be gross mismanagement. It is a monumental failure to assume that if govt doesn't provide, no one will. Besides, look at the fed govt track record on AMTRAK, Education, the Post Office and so on...why trust them with health?
@kev3d ....If we want to expand what you said, theoretically, Americans are actually getting jerked, because we arent fully incorporated into the economy and the means of production thru our labor. We actually dont receive our rightful earnings. Americans work absurd hours and receive little pay. It all goes to the top. Also, post office is a service that provides a vital need. Getting paychecks and other correspondence to people at an affordable price. Its not designed purely for profit.
@flipgood89 "we arent fully incorporated into the economy" Huh? What is a "rightful earning" anyway? If you feel you are not getting what you deserve then either invest in stocks or start your own business. Now lets say a new McDonalds franchise opens up, do you think the workers ought to "share" in the costs of its construction? The fact is those who get the rewards are most often the ones who assume the risk...except when there is a government bailout which rewards bad practices.
@kev3d ...Well, then how do you explain corporate welfare, handouts, shelters, outsourcing? Thru deregulation and the manipulation of our elected officials, the rule making element of our govt. has been compromised. Capitalism is an economic theory that only works if it is practiced responsibly and morally. When its not, like today, you produce and oligarchy, where we become slaves to the whims of our Corporate daddies.
@flipgood89 Your trust in governments to properly "regulate" markets is misplaced. Of course corporate welfare should be ended (Including payoffs to unions), I agree there. But again, that comes from government. I assume you mean bailouts when you say handouts, well libertarians and Friedman specifically denounced them as well. You'll have to clarify "shelter" because it has several meanings. Outsourcing on the other hand, is a very good thing.
@kev3d ....why do libertarians talk about govt. as if its some soulless, inanimate, object? Govt. is constituted by human beings whom are, theoretically, accountable to us. And how is outsourcing good for anybody other than greedy corporate owners?
@flipgood89 Theory and practice are two different things. The main problem is that government employees personally bear no responsibility beyond their own bruised egos. In other words, if a government program fails (and they fail often) they claim it was not big enough, but bear none of the costs, the taxpayers do. 2000 years ago the Roman historian Tacitus said "The more corrupt the state, the more laws" and it is true, where government grows, liberty yields.
@flipgood89 Further the "corporate daddies" comment is a little silly. Last time I checked, Apple doesn't arrest you if you don't buy an Ipad. Microsoft doesn't fine you if you don't buy Windows. McDonalds won't hold you in contempt if you cook at home. By contrast the government will arrest, fine and otherwise restrict one's freedom if you do something they don't happen to like, like having a plant in your pocket or braiding hair without a license.
@kev3d ....(cont) corporations lobby our govt., in order to compromise our way of life....When corporations began to assume more power, wealth inquality increased as well as our addiction to prescription pills and overall happiness. When govt. was functioning well (in the 40s 50s), the American spirit was at its healthiest, as well as the economy. U talk about the agreed upon principles that govern our society....so you want to get rid of laws???
@flipgood89 You seem to have a knee jerk reaction to the term "corporation", yes they lobby congress....so do Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, the NRA, the NAACP, UAW and so on, some ask for money, others ask for laws to protect their interest (or to restrict someone else.) "When govt. was functioning well (in the 40s 50s" Watch Happy Days much? Look up Truman's approval rating sometime. There was also the Korean War, Jim Crowe and the Red Scare to name a couple issues.
@flipgood89 And yes, I want to get rid of LOTS AND LOTS of laws. 1st, legalize all drugs and the importation of all drugs. 2nd repeal the ridiculous immigration laws to a simpler "sign the form and come in". 3rd, repeal the corporate income tax. 4th, repeal the federal income tax and replace it with a flat sales tax. 5th, End all subsidies. 6th, End all tariffs. 7th Abolish the Federal departments of Education, Commerce and several others. 8th Cut entitlements, raise deductables. etc....
@kev3d .... (cont) As workers, We produce enough in one month, to live off of for a year. But since corporations make the rules, we see less and less of what we rightfully earn. Its funny, we buy alarm systems to prevent people from stealing, yet we pay a bank 700,000 in interest for a house worth 250,000. And investing in stocks, again, leaves one vulnerable to the unethical machinations of companies. (Goldman Sachs....) . Why does the Supreme C recognize corporations as a person? LOL
@flipgood89 "We produce enough in one month, to live off of for a year." If that was true, why would anyone work for anyone else? The fact is not everyone wants to assume the risk of owning the machines, the buildings, the office furniture and all the rest, so instead they sell their time and skill for a wage. If one is an owner they assume more risk but they also reap more reward (if successful).
@kev3d ...." If that was true, why would anyone work for anyone else?" --- EXACTLY. We have created an environment where we are enslaved by capitalism. We work, work, work just to stay afloat while the rich get richer. No spiritual, moral, or intellectual enlargement. Just drones serving our corporate masters.
@flipgood89 Ugh...again with the "corporate masters" drivel. I asked a specific question but you sidestepped the issue. I'll rephrase and ask again; "If a person can make what they need in a month which will last for a year, then why don't they?" What, specifically, prevents a person from doing this? What corporation dictates that you cannot grow apples or sell lemonade or build microchips or wrought iron tables?
@flipgood89 "We work, work, work just to stay afloat while the rich get richer."
Well actually we work less now than we ever have and the work we do now is on the whole much safer, cleaner and easier than ever before. But if you don't want to work for "the rich", then work for yourself. Start your own business, arrange the fairest profit sharing co-op you can. Your fair share/wage will surely attract much talent. Nothing could be more capitalistic than such a voluntary, private arrangement.
@kev3d I've learned a long time ago that trying to use reason to argue someone out of an opinion they didn't use reason to get into is quite useless. Flipgood89 is a fool, stuck in his wrong opinion.
@Romeowasbleeding1 You are right, and perhaps I am wasting my time, but I do enjoy the discussions. I do not expect to change the minds of the true believers in the all-loving, all-wise, all-providing state, but perhaps I can sow a seed of doubt in the minds of those who have not yet made up their minds, not so much by attempting to buttress Dr. Friedman's arguments, he does fine on his own, but rather by showing that his ideas are alive and every bit as valid today.
@flipgood89 Now when it comes to interest, it serves an important function, by charging interest one can purchase a home and not have to have all the capital up front. Such as it is, one can avoid paying most of their interest by increasing the amount and frequency of payments, or one can inherit, or one can rent.
As for the supreme court, that's a bit of an Urban Legend, due to a court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis who somewhat misstated the grounds on which a certain case was decided.
@flipgood89 Now if we look at the post office, it has recently announced that they might shut down as many as 3,700 locations. That's how poorly run the operation is. Of course there is still FEDEX, UPS, Email and Online Banking and Bill Paying but in spite of all this, the Post Office boldly believe "Efficiency be damned...we will run this Post Office until it breaks!" Profits and competition drive costs down and efficiency up, no wonder that where govt gets involved costs increase!
@flipgood89 Now you might say "the people NEED" the post office, or they might NEED healthcare and in general I would agree...but why should the govt provide them? The people need phones and when phones were deregulated, the choices went up and costs went down. The first commercial cell phone in 1983 cost nearly $4000 (almost $8000 today) and now look at the choice and the low costs of even the best smart phones today. That's for-profit, market forces for you, not govt.
@flipgood89 As far as the formerly high income tax rate, so what? Americans live longer now than they ever have, but not as long as other populations, with race being a major factor (Canada has more asians, fewer blacks for example) and diet and exercise being another. But consider this; that health care used to be far more affordable BEFORE the govt started Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 primarily because people paid out of their own pocket.
@flipgood89 One more word on Taxes, just because the top rate was 91% does not mean that people in that bracket were paying 91%. Today, the US has one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world...do corporations pay it? Of course not because they move their assets around, the same as individuals with their income tax. Math doesn't lie and sooner or later the govt runs out of other people's money , especially when there is no market pressure to lower costs.
people who say "the free market can't provide healthcare at a good price because they are too greedy" should ask themselves the question: "If they are so expensive that only rich people can afford it, then how the hell are they gonna make more money?", the problem is when third partys step in to pay for it. this drives up costs because they don't really have to compete for consumers. If I was selling bread for $100/loaf, then I wouldn't make any money!
i agree 100% that friedman assumes there will be competition but there is little competition; if there were true competition then there would be no need for government outside it constitutional constraints
to suggest that us doctors are adversaries of their patients is misinformed
the best transactions happen in a one on one environment; health care costs skyrocket the moment the government starts poking around
and to suggest that doctors favor the canadian model is a fib
Friedman assumes efficient competition in medical; attributing incorrectly the new cost increase solely to new service. Socialist medicine such as Canadian and British has much better outcomes per cost. US doctors are adversaries of their patients, who put off or don't follow through with care, while Canadian doctors work with their patients(who enjoy better health as a result). Of doctors who have worked in both systems, both Canadian and US doctors favor the Canadian system for the patients.
don't you get it! the facts and stats dont matter! fuckin conservatives and their facts, stats and commitment to reason. I hate them! They have no love for their fellow man!!!
@TrollForTuna But you're automatically wrong and ignorant because you're a right-wing fascist fuck! FUCK FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! FUCK DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM! FUCK RESEARCH! Emotions are all we need to have opinions! and society must be based on them alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
@loeghat (cont) Promt care is the right. You do not have free care as you think. You are taxed at a far high rate than we in the US are plus you have your hidden VAT tax. With a VAT of 25% you automatically have a fixed rate of inflation of 25%. Our poor are likely better off than a good part of your middle calss.
@loeghat No, Liberalism (progressiveism, collectivism, socialism) has enslaved people to their government. Also there is no such thing as a free market becasue governments can not help but to stick their big fat corrupt fists into the works. One of the growing industries in the US is medical tourism. This is where people waiting years for treatment come to the US and get treated right away..
@loeghat Its obvious you don't live in the U.S. If someone were to die on the streets in America for lack of health care, it would be on the news 24/7. Don't confuse medical care with health insurance. 40 million to not have health insurance, many because their priorities are elsewhere. But, everyone gets emergency medical care and the virtue of poverty guarantees full coverage. Your understanding of what goes on here is a testimony to the veracity of the foreign press.
@fzqlcs The funny thing is, is that of that 40 million, only about 10 million are effectively without health insurance. You are right, the lack of insurance does not equal lack of care. For example, several states have made prenatal care a free to those without insurance. Additionally no one who shows up at a hospital can be turned away for lack of ability to pay.
yeah if you dont have health insurance even if you do they still gonna charged you at least $10,000 a night for staying at a hospital when you get sick . My parents had to pay that price
@wisesatyr72 and they had to pay that price because of the government. before government interference in health care it was perfectly affordable, and everyone left the deal better off. did you listen to what he said in the video at all?
The issues that take center stage (to my mind) are cost and coverage. Medical costs come in two flavors > what a person could sustain from their own resources (check ups, minor injuries, non-critical ailments such as cold, sore throat, mild infections, etc) and the costs a person cannot sustain out of their own resources (long term hospitalization, major injuries, debilitating conditions, etc.). Insurance would likely work best when it covers the major costs, leaving the rest to the consumer.
Milton Friedman, said that in the case of natural monopoly that "there is only a choice among three evils: private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government operation."
A natural monopoly arises where the largest supplier in an industry has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors.
This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such electricity & water services.
You need to reform the tax code so that individuals and not employers choose their insurance if you want prices to fall. Also get rid of monopolies between state lines. I would even support a public option to introduce competition for the insurance monopolies so as to make prices fall.
I don't know why I'm asking this on youtube, but hey, maybe someone is intelligent enough here.
How do you deal with the "market" of health care? Given that a patient's body is not his own choice, and some people are born with expensive and debilitating illnesses, while others remain completely healthy, how does a completely private health care system deal with the disparity in cost from person to person? Mind you, I mostly support private health care, but this aspect has always confused me.
@TheFerruccio The fact that there is always a "demand" for healthcare, means that there will always be a profit motive for a supply to come into the healthcare market... The more supply is introduced into the market, the lower the cost per individual becomes (even though some people's costs are naturally higher than others, sadly)...
A governmental healthcare market always striclty regulates the medical field, making supply harder to produce, therefore reducing supply and increasing prices...
@TheEllipsis731 So basically, the inequality is not something we can get rid of, but allowing the free market to micromanage the prices on its own is the best we've got, and certainly better than a bureaucracy creating shortages?
I'm being a devil's advocate here. A proponent of state run health care would say "But with state health care ("everyone pays into a national pool"), no individual has to worry about paying tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars for health care anymore!"
@TheFerruccio Right, but in state healthcare, there is a situation where doctors could charge whatever they want to and still get paid, because the government is fronting the bill...
Now, there's only 3 ways to fix that: Rationing, price controls, or high taxes...
We all know the effects of rationing and high taxes, but with price controls, if they set prices too low, the doctor might not have incentives to provide expensive treatments, which has bad consequences... Glad you asked lol...
@TheEllipsis731 "but with price controls, if they set prices too low, the doctor might not have incentives to provide expensive treatments, which has bad consequences... Glad you asked lol..."
The doctor might not have incentive, but 99.9999999% of the time the doctor will have incentive. Hence why countries with price controls offer the same for less.
@MihaiBorcan The problem with government subsidization of healthcare (or any industry, for that matter) is that there is an ever present upward pressure on prices, because demand never goes down, no matter how high costs get...
The crisis in government healthcare isn't really that the prices are too high (yet)... It's that the prices CANNOT come down, and they ONLY go up... Even in countries with universal healthcare, the costs are ever rising... There WILL be a point that prices are too high
@TheEllipsis731 Sounds great except it doesn't work. The US is all private, Canada is all public, and yet everything being the same, prices in the US are not only higher than in Canada but they are also rising faster.
@MihaiBorcan America is not all private... We spend hundred of billions of dollars on Medicare and Medicaid... Every year since medicare and medicaid were introduced in 1965, healthcare costs have risen faster than inflation every single year... It is not a coincidence...
@TheEllipsis731 Huh? Medicaid and Medicare is all 100% privately administered. The government foots the bill for those programs but they are run by private industry.
@MihaiBorcan The subsidization (the "footing of the bill") is the reason that the costs rise... Our government spends more for healthcare per person than Canada does, and yet our system is claimed to be private...
56% of all healthcare spending in the US is from the government...
@MihaiBorcan Google it... 45 to 56.1% of all healthcare spending is from the government... Add up Medicare, Medicaid, military Tri-care, S-CHIP, adn veterans' benefits..
@TheFerruccio So, under a free market health care system, the worst case scenario that everyone brings up is the one I mentioned previously, a family running out of money because they cannot afford the expensive health care that their genetics might require (born with some strange illness). So, what is the worst health care situation for public health care? As in, an anecdotal "worst case scenario."
@TheFerruccio The worst case scenario is that when subsidized healthcare eventually gets too expensive for the government, that the government can no longer handle the costs... This leads to the country having to stop paying for it, which will lead to massive shortages in doctors, medicine, nurses, and hospitals...
If health care becomes too expensive for the government to run, how would it not become too expensive for the private sector to run? And, how would health care become too expensive for the government to run?
With govt, competition is in extracting as much money from the system as possible. Layer upon layer of regulations to try to stop it only increases costs faster.
Private medicine, the incentive is to provide care at a lower cost to more people. Less regulation means more providers, not less, and "basic health" is quite cheap.
An MRI machine is a perfect example. To govt, it's a cost, to be used as little as possible. Privately, it's a money maker. Shortage vs. plenty.
@TheFerruccio The reason is that, the government doesn't technically have money... Whatever it spends has to come out of the private sector, either through taxation, or printing money, or through debt...
When taxes get too high that it stifles growth, or when inflation gets above a certain point, or when debt gets over a certain percentage of GDP, it is fair to say that it is too expensive for government to handle...
Generally, the private sector only deals with what it can handle...
I don't think Friedman gives enough credit for this "rise in demand for medical care" to Medicaid and Medicare, allowing people to avoid having to pay for their own test and care.
So the HUGE increase in demand can be directly attributed to people being separated from directly paying for services. Individuals are insulated from the costs. Bad thing.
@CurtHowland This is a good point. It's the same reason textbook prices are so high, and people keep releasing new editions. I think the Feynman Lectures on Physics has been through 3 editions since the mid 1960s. Hardly any physics class will have it as a textbook. $60 will get you all of them.
I just paid $200+ on a textbook that was required, copyrighted in 2006, and is already on its 9th edition, in such a way that old problem sets are completely incompatible to new ones.
Insurance skews the market it is associated with. By the time consumption of the actual product is needed, a person does not consider the premiums they have paid because they are a sunk cost. All a person looks at is his or her out-of-pocket cost, which will be less for an insured person. The total price of the service hasn't changed, but your QD has increased, Therefore, insured persons increase society's demand for a service above its natural level, which puts upward pressure on price.
@rubberfire101 It would be a apropos, during the typing of a comment, to define the acronyms you use, for people who are not experts in economics (YouTube commenters). What is QD?
The rest of your comment makes perfect sense to me.
@TheFerruccio Sorry about that. QD=quantity demanded. The out of pocket cost to consume healthcare is lower for an insured person; therefore, their quantity demanded rises. The one thing I hope people understand about healthcare is that there is no perfect system in which society can provide healthcare to everyone. The reason is scarcity. The free market distributes all resources most efficiently. It may not be what we like, but it helps more people in the long run than any other system.
Single oayer is the only viable solution...but try telling that to free-market fundamentalists & they will go absolutely nuts...
if these idiots don't go absolutely nuts, they'll stubbornly hold on to their favored ideology without regard for the real-life consequences & implications of that ideology. nevermind the fact that a social service such as a single-payer health care system would help a free-market economy function better, these idiots want the whole system to live up to their ideas
How does socializing a legitimate private market operation help the free market? That has to be one of the most dumbass things I've ever heard with regard to the healthcare debate.
Milton Friedman is right in a sense that part of the problem with the costs of our Health Care system is the waste in it & overspending on things that we don't need like ordering unnecessary tests & there isn't enough more for things that we do need like life saving medicines.
However, the difference between the two (and I'll use Medicare as an example) is that by paying health care costs through a public system, you pay less than what you would have paid had you paid through a private system.
So you either pay a dollar through a private system for a health service, or 80 cents through Medicare for that same service. Again, this is because by having a single public system, you effectively form a Monopsony, allowing the buyers (taxpayers) to set the price. More later!
by having a single payer system you will be putting in place a price floor creating a shortage as you have in every country that has a single payer system. this leads to rationing. I guess it is a mute point now as we will be headed in that direction. We will be like the european nations now with little inventive to improve our own lives.
I was trying to find what I wrote before to respond to some of these comments, and then I realized many have been labeled "spam". Well done.
So there have been a lot of responses, and there are a lot of issues getting mixed and jumbled up.
I think someone was saying something about Medicare being subsidized by taxpayers? Well yes, that's the point. Medicare is not "free"; whether you have a private or public system, someone is paying for the costs.
The pricing system would lower health care costs dramatically. Problem is, whenever you have a third part paying (government, Private health insurance, whatever) there will be no limit to the services desired nor consideration of the cost/benefit ratio. It is only when the payer is the one receiving the service or product that true market forces come into play. See Friedman's talk regarding the "4 ways to spend money".
@ZDWmiamicane not price fixing but the pricing system - the method by which prices are set in a free market. Price fixing has never worked and never will. It reduces supply and quality. Think of the hurricanes in FLA. Cost of repairs and wood went up after all the damage. In a price fixed system, no one would go down there and shortages result. In a free market system, prices rise encouraging construction people to relocate to cash in. That increases supply and eventually lowers prices.
The US spends $1000 per capita just for administrative costs, which is twice that of Canada. This simple fact reflects the inefficiency of the privatized system, as other single payer countries are at least half this cost, but when a healthcare system is run for profit doubtless there will be a lot of administrative overhead. See this study for more details: Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada, Woolhandler Sept. 2003
@Bellantoni You're not trying to suggest that the U.S. has a free market in medicine are you? How about you look up Medicare and Medicaid and then we'll talk.
The problem is that you have multiple health insurance companies trying to get health services, which drives the price. This is not the case in a public system, where there is only one provider of health care.
Take for example Medicare. Medicare works well in the U.S. because it only has to pay something along the lines of 80% of the total costs of health care, and this is because it is essentially a monopoly buyer.
Actually, when health insurances compete for customers it drives the price down. What drives up prices are individuals. Its basic supply and demand that determines price.
@iatemytwin57 your right!! And supply is not fixed like it is in the socialised systems like in our system in Australia. People can wait up to 2 years for a hip replacement! We have a superannuation co-contribution that is there to encourage frugality before retirement. Its no good to people that are on waiting lists. Furthermore because of the small footprint the private sector have and the limited access to customers created by the government, private premiums are prohibitively expensive.
@iatemytwin57 In the health insurance industry, it is actually impossible to maintain a competitive industry as there are huge barriers to entry. In effect, what you get are market failures, and that just means higher premiums for people.
@iatemytwin57 This is interesting to look at. If we go to one end, where we assume there are lots of health insurance companies competing, you would think, then, that this would reduce premiums for people. But when there are lots of HI companies, this actually drives up the prices that doctors charge for their services (a doctor can tell a HI company to pay them an X amount, or else they'll just go to a different HI and collect money from them). The end result is higher premiums from households.
@iatemytwin57 Now, if we go to the other end and assume that there are only a few (or perhaps only 1 ) HI company, then this would put downward pressure on the amount doctors are paid (as they only have 1 HI company to collect money from, so they are forced to take whatever amount that HI company gives them). However, because the HI company is an effective monopoly, it can keep charging higher premiums from households.
@iatemytwin57 The only way to get prices to come down is to keep the monopoly situation in place (where there is only 1 HI company), reducing the amount paid out to doctors. But this HI company is government owned, which means that it is no longer collecting profits, but simply redistributing its pool of money from households to health care providers, and means lower premiums for households as it only collects money to cover the costs of providers.
@iatemytwin57 What drives prices up in the long run is not individuals, but the expansion of the money supply. As the money supply expands, prices will increase most dramatically in those areas where the greatest amount of money is being spent. That's why college and healthcare are the two areas that have seen the most dramatic price increases over the last few decades. Inflation is not an increase in prices, it's an increase in the money supply that leads to higher prices!
@iatemytwin57 What drives prices up is monopoly pricing. Medicaid and Medicare are run by the private insurance companies and the US government is not allowed to negotiate drug prices and health costs, like other countries can, as such they price that at they're ridiculously high prices. However the VA administration runs like a normal single payer system at out performs all other health care providers in the US check out the RAND Corporation's study of it
It is more complex than you state. Medicare pays 80% and is subsidized by taxpayers with much of the cost shifted to those who are privately insured. So, actually costs more. And, is bankrupt. Canadian h/c is less because less services are provided and b/c US citizens foot the bill for R&D on new drugs that Canadian govt refuses to pay. Drug Cos. sell to Canada at lower price than to US b/c it is a large market. Canada should have to pay the same price as us.
There is 70 Billion in fraud in Medicare each year. There is 48 Billion in waste, due to the fee per service per year in medicare. Some hospitals loose money on Medicare so they will no longer service Medicare patients (Mayo Clinic in AZ lost 800 Million on medicare patients). Medicaid is subject to the same failures as Medicare and in some cases is paying with IOUs.
Much of the money lost by hospitals is shifted to the private buyer. Expect it to get worse with Obamacare.
@averitas Nobody pays the other 20%. There is a 20% savings because systems like Medicare are an effective monopsony, and therefore they can charge health care providers what they want to.
It's like Microsoft, and how it can charge customers effectively whatever it wants to because it is a monopoly and therefore it sets the price. Medicare is a monopoly (because it is a buyer of goods, we call it a "monopsony") and as a result it can charge whatever price it wants to.
Let's look at public and private health care systems. If you are to compare the two, and if the only issue we look at is the cost, then there is no doubt that a public system is less costly than a private one. The proof is in the numbers:
US spends 16% of GDP on health care; Canada 10%, and the UK 7%.
The US has a largely privatized health care system, and as a result spends more.
Your error is stating that the US has a largely privatized system. We are somewhere in between and leaning more toward the nationalized system. The problem with this is that we thought we could have the best of both worlds when what we got was the worst.
The government accounts for 48-51 % of healthcare dollars being spent. The rest is mostly insurance companies who act, not as companies in a Free market but as monopolists given their monopoly power by the govt in various forms.
Whoa, lots of different issues have been brought up; I should have checked back sooner.
In response averitas, in general when it comes to the private vs. public debate, the only real argument that can be made for a private health system is in regards to innovation.
If you compare the number of MRI's in the US and Canada, there is no question that the US has more MRI's per capita then Canada. As an investor in health care, you are more likely to invest in the US over a country like Canada.
We appear to have more affordable health care in Europe because we invest almost nothing in R&D, and, here is the big one, the government limits how much is spent per person. Its also called rationing.
On the other hand our health care is more expensive because you lose a whole day of pay to go to the doctor. It takes so long to get medical attention and the time you spend is wasted. I lose so much time going to the doctor that it is cheaper to go to a private doctor and save the time.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Friedman is just plainly, wrong. The rising costs of healthcare does not reflect the peoples need for more healthcare. The rise in cost is due to these privatized institutions raising the costs to bag more money. He talks about greed, but he does'nt explain that greed is a huge part in this rising cost. If healthcare was nationalized and pubilicly owned, greed would still exist but since healthcare is free, all people would get equal healthcare.
I suggest you are plainly wrong. Private health costs rise in part because of program like MediCaid and MediCare, which only pay a percentage of the bill. Private companies that offer full coverage get hosed in order to make up the difference. Also, the fact that most of these insurances are employer-paid, allows the consumers of service to not care about cost. This dynamic only worsens in a government program. The increased demand can only lead to one place: waiting lines.
There is truth to your statement in that there are greedy individuals in the health care industry. However, that greed can (and should) be used to the consumers advantage by allowing more greedy individuals to compete for my dollar. One reason why costs have gone up is my inability to shop across state lines, which limits my choices, which allows fewer greedy individuals to compete, which allows them to charge what they want.
If we allow for more competition, prices would decrease immediately.
@arthurfelter No. Insurance companys now take 1/4 of the money spent on health care in the US. They compete with each other by denying coverage to people when it costs too much.
@MsZeitgeist85 I'm making a fallacious argument? Well, at least I'm making an argument. If I'm wrong, then why don't you open up a discussion an help me understand how I'm wrong? Can we as a society not amicably discuss the important and pervasive issues of our day?
@MsZeitgeist85 I'm referring to more competition (ie more choices) in general. Obama said that if I like my health care plan I could keep it. Problem is, I don't like my health care plan, and I don't have the option to choose. My health care plan is a one-size-fits-all plan chosen by HR for all in my company, and my options are to pay out the butt for health care on my own (because the government penalizes non-employer subsidized health care) or go with the crappy solution HR came up with.
@MsZeitgeist85 Increased competition has a tendency to drive down costs as those offering the goods and services seek to undercut their competition in order to gain more clients. If a health-care provider is raking in 25% in profits, as you mentioned previously, and another provider is capable of taking only 20% in profits - thus offering its clients a lower price - who are people going to go with?
@arthurfelter When Republicnas say "Incresed Competition" it means let insurance companys sell accrost state lines. That means that they would go to that states with the least rules and less people would get coverage.
Also it is not the provider it is the payer that is taking so much in profits. The solution is not more Insurance company options the solution is to put the insurance companys out of buisness and get Single Payer.
@MsZeitgeist85 My question is, where does it stop? If you feel the government has the ability to *force* someone to get health insurance, then what's to stop them from forcing you to drive a Prius, or force you to eat a salad for lunch? Or, taking it a step further, what's to stop the government from forcing you to work in a textile factory? (You know, it's for the common good.)
Also, why, exactly, if someone goes to another state for their health care would people "get less coverage"?
@arthurfelter Where does it stop. Are you talking about goverment mandates? It depends on what kind of system you use. There are 3 basic health care models, of health care some countrys use a hybrid of the diffrent systems. The 3 models are the Bizmark model, the SIngle Payer model, and the NHS model.
Austria uses the Bizmark model and there the goverment requies you to buy private insurance but they have cost controll and they are all non profit. That's why there system works.
@MsZeitgeist85 As far as where the government mandates stop, you failed to acknowledge that if the government can force you to buy something from a private company, there is nothing stopping them from forcing you to buy a Prius.
I want the gov. to leave me alone so that I can get the health coverage that best suits the needs of me and my family – and no one knows what my family needs better than myself.
@arthurfelter That is not the same argument because everyone needs health care but not everyone needs a car. The biggest problem with the US health care system is the for profit insurance companys.
@arthurfelter It is not having a health care provider in another state that is the problem it is letting HMOs sell insurance accrost state lines. The only things that force them to cover pre existing conditions are individual state laws.
If an HMO wants to sell me insurance in California then they have to cover lung cancer and certian pre existing conditions. If they were gong to sell accrost state lines they would have to tear down these laws and the HMOs would drop more people.
@arthurfelter If you want to see prices decrease dramatically, get rid of health insurance completely. Doctors would have to compete for customers. In addition, the doctors would see a dramatic decrease in their operating expenses just eliminating the staff that they now need to process insurance claims, medical coding, etc.
The only way a producer can raise cost is if there is sufficient consumer demand to pay the cost increase. Institutions would not be able to "bag more money" if demand did not support the costs.
How exactly would you provide "free" healthcare? Someone would pay, as Doctors will require pay and drugs cost money to develop.
Equal healthcare, eh? You seem to fail to ask if people want the same healthcare. In particular whether they want to pay for it. Nationalized health care doesn't care if you try to minimize your use of it. You still get the same bill. Why should I not benifit from not buying something I don't want?
if not for government intervention such as state insurance mandates, rampid malpractice suits ( that raising the costs for the patients), the FDA and government regulations on medical practice, which create huge inneficiencies in the medical industry, care would be MUCH more affordable. So don't go around blaming the "privitized institutions" because that's an incredibly ignorant position. It's the most highyl regulated industry.
@rickbar123 You are a complete fool. Get some history books and learn a thing or too about Government intrusion into the free market to see what happens. The dollar is being destroyed among many other bad things happening because of government involvement. You have no clue and are a fool!!!!!!!!
You have no facts to support what you say. First off we are all greedy is some sense. We all serve our own interest to some degree. At the same time we also help others. But to think that the government can take massive amounts of our money and spend it with the same dilligence that we would is dillusional. That has been proven if you know anything at all about history. Our government regulates and taxes to death, driving businesses away and hurting growth.
Furthermore, the government needs to do two things more then anything else, reduce its size and stop spending so much. If it does neither then we are headed down a bad path. And with unemployment as high as it is. And with the bad assets currently propped up. I shutter to think what the next 5-10 years holds for us. Do the rest of the world a favor and get a clue!
An one more thing. Chili is now one of the best countries in South America, economically speaking. When free market qualities were established in the country, it was coming out of a severe recession with 150% inflation. You cannot cure that immediately. But look at the effect today. Refinements from that base improved Chili significantly. If you think the government can go and a never ending spending spree then your are the biggest fool on earth.
On planet earth (as opposed to the Naomi Klein fantasy land) Chile never had a free market under Pinochet (corporatism - a form of socialism - is something else entirely. Still, Chile suffered for years due to the capital flight out of the country upon Allende's rise to power in the first place and things in Chile would have been far worse (economically - free markets have nothing to do with Pinochet's repression which Friedman opposed) had inflation not been curbed.
The ONLY way to lower healthcare costs is to give the rapacious insurance companies competition. Since the insurance companies raise premiums based on the cost of services. That sounds right? But NO since the insurance company executives market comprehensive insurance to employers and various groups and that marketing is based on those services. SO when an employee gets sick, even a little, they run to the doctor and therefore waste services. The President's healthcare reform IS the solution.
exenrontexas 2 weeks ago
@exenrontexas One of the largest subsidies to employer driven plans, the "pre tax" premium on those plans WAS NOT removed in Obama's plan. Meaning an individual with a NON employer plan subsidized the employer plan. The irony here is that this is the product of legislation in 1948. His plan is NOT the solution.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 week ago
@NoProbaloAmigo I agree to some extent. The Presidents healthcare reform did not go nearly far enough. The President should have reworked the abyssmally expensive BUSH Medicare Part D which will cost tax payers TRILLIONS. But he is working with Republicans who always stick in special breaks for 'THEIR PEOPLE" the wealthy GOP supporters.
exenrontexas 1 week ago
@exenrontexas It is very true that the Republican party represents special interests, but the Democrats do as well. Actually any political party with any degree of power must have "customers." But I find it odd what you talk about Medicare Part D, because Obama's plan is very expensive as well.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 week ago
@NoProbaloAmigo I agree that both/any party has problems but the Dems are so disorganized, fractious and under funded that they are not a danger to democracy, but the GOP IS. The GOP is extremely well organized, extremely focuses and extremely well funded and IS a danger to democracy. The wisdom of the Founders could not envision how dangerous they are. The GOP controls TWO branches of government. Heaven help us if they totally upset the division of government power.
exenrontexas 1 week ago
@exenrontexas Really? Is that why Romney has been wining by landlsides in the primary? I checked out opensecerts, and the Dems have more money than the Republicans. Your characterization cannot be supported, or even that the Dems are "a danger to democracy," which is a misnomer in our republic.
NoProbaloAmigo 6 days ago
@NoProbaloAmigo A little historical review might help you. In 1934 a extremely wealthy group of ultra conservative Republicans plotted the violent overthrow of democracy in America to set up a fascist dictatorship to aid Adolf Hitler. The planned to have a private army of veterans march on Washington, assassinate the sitting president, suspend the Constitution and disband Congress. The approached Marine General Smedley Butler to lead the forces. He exposed the plot.
exenrontexas 6 days ago
@NoProbaloAmigo In the halls of the GOP power base, I heard discussions about ways and means to DESTROY the Federal government because it to some degree is controlled by the PEOPLE and they have great disrespect for the wisdom and power of the PEOPLE. Frequently they talked about weakening the Federal government so that they could DESTROY it. The BUSH plan was just that. He attacked the Constitution, the checks & balances, he rammed Citizens United and wasted TRILLIONS on war.
exenrontexas 1 week ago
@exenrontexas Who knows, there is a lot of unsupported hyperbole in your posts and literal hearsay. For example, the Republicans cannot destroy the federal government, unless they want to stop their own pork machine!
NoProbaloAmigo 6 days ago
@NoProbaloAmigo I also suggest you watch on youtube some of the speeches by Naomi Wolf who lays out how history is repeating what happened in Germany in 1932 step by step and, of course, BUSH set up his private army known as Blackwater whose leader is closely associated with extreme right wing pseudo religious demagogues. Dig a little and learn.
exenrontexas 6 days ago
@exenrontexas Where are the sources? What? Bush was the head of Blackwater? Still, what you say is not supported by any facts, for example, you said the Republicans are more organized, when you can't make a claim either way, Also, prior to Bush II, the Republicans were voted in to GET OUT of wars, like Korea, or Vietnam. The Republicans were more of a non interventionist party in the 30's.
NoProbaloAmigo 5 days ago
@NoProbaloAmigo One source is Marine General Butler. Should I assume that you did not view his video right here on youtube? Second, Richard Nixon was elected with the promise to end the war in Vietnam which LBJ started with a lie after JFK was murdered because he signed an order to REMOVE our troops from Vietnam. Nixon expanded, extended and prolong the war in Vietnam & it only ended in '75 after Nixon resigned in disgrace.Blackwater was enabled by BUSH to get his private army.
exenrontexas 5 days ago
The only way the government can make medical services cost less if for them to use force on those who would sell them.
ElJefer 1 month ago
@ElJefer You're right, and then the supply of medical care react appropriately....or in this case negatively. Of course, if you can import medical technology, then you can get away with a lot of it, like a Denmark does, or Canada, at the expense of the huge US medical industry, one of our manufacturing bright spots.
NoProbaloAmigo 1 week ago
What about to "import" Doctor as they do with nurses, allow to import or buy medicines from other countries and make the health insurance companies nationals and allow foreign companies to participate in the market too.
That will bring the medical cost down through competition.
mans410 4 months ago 2
@yenamarre100 That's one of the worst strawmen I have ever read. First of all, I did not say that every one should start their own business, I merely suggest that those who claim that wage structures are unfair are free to run their own experiment however they wish. Secondly, Saturation of WHAT market? You are assuming a fixed number of Jobs, but the reality is a large percentage of today's job's didn't exist a decade ago, thanks largely to start-ups.
kev3d 5 months ago
@kev3d And yes, starting a new business is hard and most businesses fail. All the more reason that those who risk their fortunes to start something new deserve the greatest share of the profits, if they ever come.
kev3d 5 months ago
Friedman's time will end... his wisdom is not timeless.
polvotierno 7 months ago
He's speaking in the late 1970's, but it's amazing how much it applies today, over 30 years later. It's just easy to forget how little people - and economic and government policies - change.
Itugen88 7 months ago
I find it very interesting that, with no government assistance in the traditional sense of subsidies, technology has gotten better and cheaper every year. Engineering and materials have improved greatly as well. Yet healthcare costs rise, despite (or perhaps because of) govt programs like Medicare and Medicaid. If the same market pressure existed for health that did for mobile devices, costs would plunge and quality through technology would flourish.
kev3d 8 months ago
@kev3d ...Lol, you're comparing an industry which is of vital importance, to one that is largely one of entertainment and frivolity. What keeps prices of products like cell phones and laptops down is planned obsolescence, which means that the product is designed to break down or become obsolete after a certain time frame, which promotes upgraded purchases. Societal pressures support this, by shaming those who dont have new equipment or materials -- "ooh, his clothes are SO old"
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Consumption is consumption and competitive forces drive down costs, particularly when people are paying out of their own pocket. Drugs, therapies and medical devices are all replaced or improved over time. Besides, define " vital importance". Food is of vital importance, yet even foods which receive no subsidies can get to the far corners of the country purely through market forces. The point is you cannot lower the cost by pouring more 3rd party money into something.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ..Dude. Health care should not be analogous to consumption, tho. Getting a check up is not the same as buying a Big Mac or an IPOD. Its a service that should be a right in a civilized, moral, industrious country. We claim to be the leader of the free world, yet our health care ranks 37th in the world? Thats absurd. Reality does not agree with your argument, as health care costs keep rising. Health care is a playground for the elite, which is counterproductive to the health of the U.S
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Health Care cost rise BECAUSE of LACK of Market Forces, understand? Again, why have the costs gone up when federal spending has increased? By contrast, procedures that are not covered by Medicare and Medicaid, like cosmetic surgery and lasik are competitively priced. "Rights" do not impose costs on anyone. Besides, the vast majority of people can afford checkups but have been sold the lie that it shouldn't cost anything.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Of course the health of the US is greatly affected by the racial, diet and exercise backgrounds of the citizenry. In other words, if Americans ate better, exercised more, drank and smoked less then they would be much healthier. Hawaii has the highest longevity among the states, no surprise considering its large asian population (who live longer) and Washington D.C. has the lowest, which also has a high concentration of blacks who tend to not live as long.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ...So "market forces" is an end-all-be-all, magical elixir? Without regulation, market forces continually turns into a draconian, centralized network of power. Market forces led to the great depression, and with mergers and wealth now in the hands of the few, we are there now. The health care industry manipulated the system and their lobbyists control Govt. As far as ur racist rant, look into research on how racism affects the health of blacks when all other factors are controlled.
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 It is not racist to say that Blacks do not live as long as Whites any more than it is sexist to say that women live longer than men, facts are facts. But yes, racism is a factor; the minimum wage, the drug war, occupational licensing, welfare, and labor unions all negatively affect blacks disproportionally.
But getting back to the point, the US federal government cannot deliver the mail in a cost effective manner yet you want it to manage health care? Talk about magic solutions.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Its funny to refer to a "draconian, centralized network of power." What do you think the government is? As far as the great depression, I suggest you read "The Government and the Great Depressionby Chris Edwards for starters. Further, examine the endless "wisdom" of the nations financial overlords; Obama's “Seventh Quarterly Report” reveals the govt spent $278,000 per job "saved or created", adding 660+ BILLION to the debt. Its like the bad policies of Bush on steroids.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d . The govt. is the extension of the citzenry. We are the bosses. The goal of corporations is self-serving. The bottom line is profits above all else --- especially humanity. Govt became oppressive when it began to cater to corporations. Care to explain why when we had a marginal income tax rate upwards of 91%, we were a prosperous, healthy nation? Ur right, I overreacted and called ur earlier post a racist rant. My bad. Guess I was just puzzled why you introduced race for no reason.
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 You really believe that, because elected officials are citizens themselves that they are somehow under the control of the people? Sure, corporations are self serving, power hungry politicians are not? The difference is that companies, regardless of industry SHOULD earn their money through free, competitive enterprise and not with the government deciding the winners and losers like it does now.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ...yes, of course politicians are under the control of the people. We are the bosses, with the ability to essentially hire and fire elected officials. Thats our democracy. In essence, govt. is literally an extension of the will of the populous. Americans are a self-loathing, superficial bunch that prays at the alter of the elite. Govt. officials act accordingly. If we demanded accountability from our govt. and demanded they stopped serving the elite, then we would see a different govt.
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 "Americans are a self-loathing, superficial bunch". I disagree. Really, Americans are just like anyone else, they want things that other people will pay for. But, as we see, when a person or party pays for something with other people's money, there tends to be gross mismanagement. It is a monumental failure to assume that if govt doesn't provide, no one will. Besides, look at the fed govt track record on AMTRAK, Education, the Post Office and so on...why trust them with health?
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ....If we want to expand what you said, theoretically, Americans are actually getting jerked, because we arent fully incorporated into the economy and the means of production thru our labor. We actually dont receive our rightful earnings. Americans work absurd hours and receive little pay. It all goes to the top. Also, post office is a service that provides a vital need. Getting paychecks and other correspondence to people at an affordable price. Its not designed purely for profit.
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 "we arent fully incorporated into the economy" Huh? What is a "rightful earning" anyway? If you feel you are not getting what you deserve then either invest in stocks or start your own business. Now lets say a new McDonalds franchise opens up, do you think the workers ought to "share" in the costs of its construction? The fact is those who get the rewards are most often the ones who assume the risk...except when there is a government bailout which rewards bad practices.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ...Well, then how do you explain corporate welfare, handouts, shelters, outsourcing? Thru deregulation and the manipulation of our elected officials, the rule making element of our govt. has been compromised. Capitalism is an economic theory that only works if it is practiced responsibly and morally. When its not, like today, you produce and oligarchy, where we become slaves to the whims of our Corporate daddies.
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Your trust in governments to properly "regulate" markets is misplaced. Of course corporate welfare should be ended (Including payoffs to unions), I agree there. But again, that comes from government. I assume you mean bailouts when you say handouts, well libertarians and Friedman specifically denounced them as well. You'll have to clarify "shelter" because it has several meanings. Outsourcing on the other hand, is a very good thing.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ....why do libertarians talk about govt. as if its some soulless, inanimate, object? Govt. is constituted by human beings whom are, theoretically, accountable to us. And how is outsourcing good for anybody other than greedy corporate owners?
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Theory and practice are two different things. The main problem is that government employees personally bear no responsibility beyond their own bruised egos. In other words, if a government program fails (and they fail often) they claim it was not big enough, but bear none of the costs, the taxpayers do. 2000 years ago the Roman historian Tacitus said "The more corrupt the state, the more laws" and it is true, where government grows, liberty yields.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Further the "corporate daddies" comment is a little silly. Last time I checked, Apple doesn't arrest you if you don't buy an Ipad. Microsoft doesn't fine you if you don't buy Windows. McDonalds won't hold you in contempt if you cook at home. By contrast the government will arrest, fine and otherwise restrict one's freedom if you do something they don't happen to like, like having a plant in your pocket or braiding hair without a license.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ....(cont) corporations lobby our govt., in order to compromise our way of life....When corporations began to assume more power, wealth inquality increased as well as our addiction to prescription pills and overall happiness. When govt. was functioning well (in the 40s 50s), the American spirit was at its healthiest, as well as the economy. U talk about the agreed upon principles that govern our society....so you want to get rid of laws???
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 You seem to have a knee jerk reaction to the term "corporation", yes they lobby congress....so do Mothers Against Drunk Drivers, the NRA, the NAACP, UAW and so on, some ask for money, others ask for laws to protect their interest (or to restrict someone else.) "When govt. was functioning well (in the 40s 50s" Watch Happy Days much? Look up Truman's approval rating sometime. There was also the Korean War, Jim Crowe and the Red Scare to name a couple issues.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 And yes, I want to get rid of LOTS AND LOTS of laws. 1st, legalize all drugs and the importation of all drugs. 2nd repeal the ridiculous immigration laws to a simpler "sign the form and come in". 3rd, repeal the corporate income tax. 4th, repeal the federal income tax and replace it with a flat sales tax. 5th, End all subsidies. 6th, End all tariffs. 7th Abolish the Federal departments of Education, Commerce and several others. 8th Cut entitlements, raise deductables. etc....
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d .... (cont) As workers, We produce enough in one month, to live off of for a year. But since corporations make the rules, we see less and less of what we rightfully earn. Its funny, we buy alarm systems to prevent people from stealing, yet we pay a bank 700,000 in interest for a house worth 250,000. And investing in stocks, again, leaves one vulnerable to the unethical machinations of companies. (Goldman Sachs....) . Why does the Supreme C recognize corporations as a person? LOL
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 "We produce enough in one month, to live off of for a year." If that was true, why would anyone work for anyone else? The fact is not everyone wants to assume the risk of owning the machines, the buildings, the office furniture and all the rest, so instead they sell their time and skill for a wage. If one is an owner they assume more risk but they also reap more reward (if successful).
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d ...." If that was true, why would anyone work for anyone else?" --- EXACTLY. We have created an environment where we are enslaved by capitalism. We work, work, work just to stay afloat while the rich get richer. No spiritual, moral, or intellectual enlargement. Just drones serving our corporate masters.
flipgood89 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Ugh...again with the "corporate masters" drivel. I asked a specific question but you sidestepped the issue. I'll rephrase and ask again; "If a person can make what they need in a month which will last for a year, then why don't they?" What, specifically, prevents a person from doing this? What corporation dictates that you cannot grow apples or sell lemonade or build microchips or wrought iron tables?
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 "We work, work, work just to stay afloat while the rich get richer."
Well actually we work less now than we ever have and the work we do now is on the whole much safer, cleaner and easier than ever before. But if you don't want to work for "the rich", then work for yourself. Start your own business, arrange the fairest profit sharing co-op you can. Your fair share/wage will surely attract much talent. Nothing could be more capitalistic than such a voluntary, private arrangement.
kev3d 6 months ago
@kev3d I've learned a long time ago that trying to use reason to argue someone out of an opinion they didn't use reason to get into is quite useless. Flipgood89 is a fool, stuck in his wrong opinion.
Romeowasbleeding1 2 months ago
@Romeowasbleeding1 You are right, and perhaps I am wasting my time, but I do enjoy the discussions. I do not expect to change the minds of the true believers in the all-loving, all-wise, all-providing state, but perhaps I can sow a seed of doubt in the minds of those who have not yet made up their minds, not so much by attempting to buttress Dr. Friedman's arguments, he does fine on his own, but rather by showing that his ideas are alive and every bit as valid today.
kev3d 2 months ago
@flipgood89 Now when it comes to interest, it serves an important function, by charging interest one can purchase a home and not have to have all the capital up front. Such as it is, one can avoid paying most of their interest by increasing the amount and frequency of payments, or one can inherit, or one can rent.
As for the supreme court, that's a bit of an Urban Legend, due to a court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis who somewhat misstated the grounds on which a certain case was decided.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Now if we look at the post office, it has recently announced that they might shut down as many as 3,700 locations. That's how poorly run the operation is. Of course there is still FEDEX, UPS, Email and Online Banking and Bill Paying but in spite of all this, the Post Office boldly believe "Efficiency be damned...we will run this Post Office until it breaks!" Profits and competition drive costs down and efficiency up, no wonder that where govt gets involved costs increase!
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 Now you might say "the people NEED" the post office, or they might NEED healthcare and in general I would agree...but why should the govt provide them? The people need phones and when phones were deregulated, the choices went up and costs went down. The first commercial cell phone in 1983 cost nearly $4000 (almost $8000 today) and now look at the choice and the low costs of even the best smart phones today. That's for-profit, market forces for you, not govt.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 As far as the formerly high income tax rate, so what? Americans live longer now than they ever have, but not as long as other populations, with race being a major factor (Canada has more asians, fewer blacks for example) and diet and exercise being another. But consider this; that health care used to be far more affordable BEFORE the govt started Medicare and Medicaid in 1965 primarily because people paid out of their own pocket.
kev3d 6 months ago
@flipgood89 One more word on Taxes, just because the top rate was 91% does not mean that people in that bracket were paying 91%. Today, the US has one of the highest corporate income taxes in the world...do corporations pay it? Of course not because they move their assets around, the same as individuals with their income tax. Math doesn't lie and sooner or later the govt runs out of other people's money , especially when there is no market pressure to lower costs.
kev3d 6 months ago
people who say "the free market can't provide healthcare at a good price because they are too greedy" should ask themselves the question: "If they are so expensive that only rich people can afford it, then how the hell are they gonna make more money?", the problem is when third partys step in to pay for it. this drives up costs because they don't really have to compete for consumers. If I was selling bread for $100/loaf, then I wouldn't make any money!
Chaaarge 9 months ago
i agree 100% that friedman assumes there will be competition but there is little competition; if there were true competition then there would be no need for government outside it constitutional constraints
to suggest that us doctors are adversaries of their patients is misinformed
the best transactions happen in a one on one environment; health care costs skyrocket the moment the government starts poking around
and to suggest that doctors favor the canadian model is a fib
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
Friedman assumes efficient competition in medical; attributing incorrectly the new cost increase solely to new service. Socialist medicine such as Canadian and British has much better outcomes per cost. US doctors are adversaries of their patients, who put off or don't follow through with care, while Canadian doctors work with their patients(who enjoy better health as a result). Of doctors who have worked in both systems, both Canadian and US doctors favor the Canadian system for the patients.
bill0756 9 months ago
don't you get it! the facts and stats dont matter! fuckin conservatives and their facts, stats and commitment to reason. I hate them! They have no love for their fellow man!!!
LeftWingPOG 11 months ago
@LeftWingPOG forced tax to provide ineffective healthcare is not compassion.
btw i'm not conservative. in fact, the republicans have the EXACT same healthcare to prop up if obama fails (word-for-word in many places).
watch this:
watch?v=9IJsiBHYTFg
Corporations backed obama, and the same ones back Romneycare. (backup plan)
this isn't about helping the people.
don't get angry just because i disagree. don't just take the reason mainstream media gives. look deeper.
TrollForTuna 10 months ago
@TrollForTuna But you're automatically wrong and ignorant because you're a right-wing fascist fuck! FUCK FREEDOM AND LIBERTY! FUCK DEMOCRACY AND CAPITALISM! FUCK RESEARCH! Emotions are all we need to have opinions! and society must be based on them alone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LeftWingPOG 10 months ago
@loeghat (cont) Promt care is the right. You do not have free care as you think. You are taxed at a far high rate than we in the US are plus you have your hidden VAT tax. With a VAT of 25% you automatically have a fixed rate of inflation of 25%. Our poor are likely better off than a good part of your middle calss.
Robbob9933 1 year ago
@loeghat No, Liberalism (progressiveism, collectivism, socialism) has enslaved people to their government. Also there is no such thing as a free market becasue governments can not help but to stick their big fat corrupt fists into the works. One of the growing industries in the US is medical tourism. This is where people waiting years for treatment come to the US and get treated right away..
Robbob9933 1 year ago
@loeghat Its obvious you don't live in the U.S. If someone were to die on the streets in America for lack of health care, it would be on the news 24/7. Don't confuse medical care with health insurance. 40 million to not have health insurance, many because their priorities are elsewhere. But, everyone gets emergency medical care and the virtue of poverty guarantees full coverage. Your understanding of what goes on here is a testimony to the veracity of the foreign press.
fzqlcs 1 year ago
@fzqlcs The funny thing is, is that of that 40 million, only about 10 million are effectively without health insurance. You are right, the lack of insurance does not equal lack of care. For example, several states have made prenatal care a free to those without insurance. Additionally no one who shows up at a hospital can be turned away for lack of ability to pay.
Robbob9933 1 year ago
yeah if you dont have health insurance even if you do they still gonna charged you at least $10,000 a night for staying at a hospital when you get sick . My parents had to pay that price
wisesatyr72 1 year ago
@wisesatyr72 and they had to pay that price because of the government. before government interference in health care it was perfectly affordable, and everyone left the deal better off. did you listen to what he said in the video at all?
daPlumber702 1 year ago
The issues that take center stage (to my mind) are cost and coverage. Medical costs come in two flavors > what a person could sustain from their own resources (check ups, minor injuries, non-critical ailments such as cold, sore throat, mild infections, etc) and the costs a person cannot sustain out of their own resources (long term hospitalization, major injuries, debilitating conditions, etc.). Insurance would likely work best when it covers the major costs, leaving the rest to the consumer.
moneybagzz 1 year ago
Milton Friedman, said that in the case of natural monopoly that "there is only a choice among three evils: private unregulated monopoly, private monopoly regulated by the state, and government operation."
DavidHilll 1 year ago
A natural monopoly arises where the largest supplier in an industry has an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors.
This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such electricity & water services.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
You need to reform the tax code so that individuals and not employers choose their insurance if you want prices to fall. Also get rid of monopolies between state lines. I would even support a public option to introduce competition for the insurance monopolies so as to make prices fall.
bonfirejovi 1 year ago
2:16 she fell asleep LOL
sabdow 1 year ago
I don't know why I'm asking this on youtube, but hey, maybe someone is intelligent enough here.
How do you deal with the "market" of health care? Given that a patient's body is not his own choice, and some people are born with expensive and debilitating illnesses, while others remain completely healthy, how does a completely private health care system deal with the disparity in cost from person to person? Mind you, I mostly support private health care, but this aspect has always confused me.
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio The fact that there is always a "demand" for healthcare, means that there will always be a profit motive for a supply to come into the healthcare market... The more supply is introduced into the market, the lower the cost per individual becomes (even though some people's costs are naturally higher than others, sadly)...
A governmental healthcare market always striclty regulates the medical field, making supply harder to produce, therefore reducing supply and increasing prices...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 So basically, the inequality is not something we can get rid of, but allowing the free market to micromanage the prices on its own is the best we've got, and certainly better than a bureaucracy creating shortages?
I'm being a devil's advocate here. A proponent of state run health care would say "But with state health care ("everyone pays into a national pool"), no individual has to worry about paying tens/hundreds of thousands of dollars for health care anymore!"
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio Right, but in state healthcare, there is a situation where doctors could charge whatever they want to and still get paid, because the government is fronting the bill...
Now, there's only 3 ways to fix that: Rationing, price controls, or high taxes...
We all know the effects of rationing and high taxes, but with price controls, if they set prices too low, the doctor might not have incentives to provide expensive treatments, which has bad consequences... Glad you asked lol...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 "but with price controls, if they set prices too low, the doctor might not have incentives to provide expensive treatments, which has bad consequences... Glad you asked lol..."
The doctor might not have incentive, but 99.9999999% of the time the doctor will have incentive. Hence why countries with price controls offer the same for less.
MihaiBorcan 1 year ago
@MihaiBorcan The problem with government subsidization of healthcare (or any industry, for that matter) is that there is an ever present upward pressure on prices, because demand never goes down, no matter how high costs get...
The crisis in government healthcare isn't really that the prices are too high (yet)... It's that the prices CANNOT come down, and they ONLY go up... Even in countries with universal healthcare, the costs are ever rising... There WILL be a point that prices are too high
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 Sounds great except it doesn't work. The US is all private, Canada is all public, and yet everything being the same, prices in the US are not only higher than in Canada but they are also rising faster.
MihaiBorcan 1 year ago
@MihaiBorcan America is not all private... We spend hundred of billions of dollars on Medicare and Medicaid... Every year since medicare and medicaid were introduced in 1965, healthcare costs have risen faster than inflation every single year... It is not a coincidence...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 *hundreds*
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 Huh? Medicaid and Medicare is all 100% privately administered. The government foots the bill for those programs but they are run by private industry.
MihaiBorcan 1 year ago
@MihaiBorcan The subsidization (the "footing of the bill") is the reason that the costs rise... Our government spends more for healthcare per person than Canada does, and yet our system is claimed to be private...
56% of all healthcare spending in the US is from the government...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 It can't be. Those programs pay less per person than the private insurers do.
MihaiBorcan 1 year ago
@MihaiBorcan Google it... 45 to 56.1% of all healthcare spending is from the government... Add up Medicare, Medicaid, military Tri-care, S-CHIP, adn veterans' benefits..
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio So, under a free market health care system, the worst case scenario that everyone brings up is the one I mentioned previously, a family running out of money because they cannot afford the expensive health care that their genetics might require (born with some strange illness). So, what is the worst health care situation for public health care? As in, an anecdotal "worst case scenario."
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio The worst case scenario is that when subsidized healthcare eventually gets too expensive for the government, that the government can no longer handle the costs... This leads to the country having to stop paying for it, which will lead to massive shortages in doctors, medicine, nurses, and hospitals...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheEllipsis731 Two situations:
1: Government paying for health care.
2: People paying for health care privately.
If health care becomes too expensive for the government to run, how would it not become too expensive for the private sector to run? And, how would health care become too expensive for the government to run?
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio Incentives.
With govt, competition is in extracting as much money from the system as possible. Layer upon layer of regulations to try to stop it only increases costs faster.
Private medicine, the incentive is to provide care at a lower cost to more people. Less regulation means more providers, not less, and "basic health" is quite cheap.
An MRI machine is a perfect example. To govt, it's a cost, to be used as little as possible. Privately, it's a money maker. Shortage vs. plenty.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio The reason is that, the government doesn't technically have money... Whatever it spends has to come out of the private sector, either through taxation, or printing money, or through debt...
When taxes get too high that it stifles growth, or when inflation gets above a certain point, or when debt gets over a certain percentage of GDP, it is fair to say that it is too expensive for government to handle...
Generally, the private sector only deals with what it can handle...
TheEllipsis731 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio Its simple. It doesn't matter what you have. You pay and you live, or you don't pay and don't live.
MihaiBorcan 1 year ago
@MihaiBorcan Yeah, I already know this argument. That's not what I was asking. Thanks anyway.
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
I don't think Friedman gives enough credit for this "rise in demand for medical care" to Medicaid and Medicare, allowing people to avoid having to pay for their own test and care.
So the HUGE increase in demand can be directly attributed to people being separated from directly paying for services. Individuals are insulated from the costs. Bad thing.
CurtHowland 1 year ago
@CurtHowland This is a good point. It's the same reason textbook prices are so high, and people keep releasing new editions. I think the Feynman Lectures on Physics has been through 3 editions since the mid 1960s. Hardly any physics class will have it as a textbook. $60 will get you all of them.
I just paid $200+ on a textbook that was required, copyrighted in 2006, and is already on its 9th edition, in such a way that old problem sets are completely incompatible to new ones.
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
dubbyadubbyadubbyadot telegraph dot co dot uk/health/7908742/Axe-falls-on-NHS-services.html
JojahBoy 1 year ago
Insurance skews the market it is associated with. By the time consumption of the actual product is needed, a person does not consider the premiums they have paid because they are a sunk cost. All a person looks at is his or her out-of-pocket cost, which will be less for an insured person. The total price of the service hasn't changed, but your QD has increased, Therefore, insured persons increase society's demand for a service above its natural level, which puts upward pressure on price.
rubberfire101 1 year ago
@rubberfire101 It would be a apropos, during the typing of a comment, to define the acronyms you use, for people who are not experts in economics (YouTube commenters). What is QD?
The rest of your comment makes perfect sense to me.
TheFerruccio 1 year ago
@TheFerruccio Sorry about that. QD=quantity demanded. The out of pocket cost to consume healthcare is lower for an insured person; therefore, their quantity demanded rises. The one thing I hope people understand about healthcare is that there is no perfect system in which society can provide healthcare to everyone. The reason is scarcity. The free market distributes all resources most efficiently. It may not be what we like, but it helps more people in the long run than any other system.
rubberfire101 1 year ago
Single oayer is the only viable solution...but try telling that to free-market fundamentalists & they will go absolutely nuts...
if these idiots don't go absolutely nuts, they'll stubbornly hold on to their favored ideology without regard for the real-life consequences & implications of that ideology. nevermind the fact that a social service such as a single-payer health care system would help a free-market economy function better, these idiots want the whole system to live up to their ideas
FreeMarketRapesYou 1 year ago
@FreeMarketRapesYou
How does socializing a legitimate private market operation help the free market? That has to be one of the most dumbass things I've ever heard with regard to the healthcare debate.
breakinthebend 1 year ago
@breakinthebend, health care has many of the features of what economists call a "natural monopoly"
One important factor is "barriers to entry."
In health care, one example of this factor is the way medical doctors control their numbers starting with the way MDs are trained.
Another example is the high development cost and complexity of medical technology.
Laissez-faire is not an option, unless there are enough people out there willing to choose premature death.
DavidHilll 1 year ago
Milton Friedman is right in a sense that part of the problem with the costs of our Health Care system is the waste in it & overspending on things that we don't need like ordering unnecessary tests & there isn't enough more for things that we do need like life saving medicines.
ErikS1975FreeState 1 year ago
"What they WANT to buy". No, by what they NEED to buy. By what they cannot NOT buy.
IdleGod 1 year ago
However, the difference between the two (and I'll use Medicare as an example) is that by paying health care costs through a public system, you pay less than what you would have paid had you paid through a private system.
So you either pay a dollar through a private system for a health service, or 80 cents through Medicare for that same service. Again, this is because by having a single public system, you effectively form a Monopsony, allowing the buyers (taxpayers) to set the price. More later!
gigamage 1 year ago
by having a single payer system you will be putting in place a price floor creating a shortage as you have in every country that has a single payer system. this leads to rationing. I guess it is a mute point now as we will be headed in that direction. We will be like the european nations now with little inventive to improve our own lives.
tubbymanbat 1 year ago
I was trying to find what I wrote before to respond to some of these comments, and then I realized many have been labeled "spam". Well done.
So there have been a lot of responses, and there are a lot of issues getting mixed and jumbled up.
I think someone was saying something about Medicare being subsidized by taxpayers? Well yes, that's the point. Medicare is not "free"; whether you have a private or public system, someone is paying for the costs.
gigamage 1 year ago
This bill is a fiasco! It doesn't solve the problem, it just adds 30 million more people into a broken system.
44warjunkie 1 year ago 2
The pricing system would lower health care costs dramatically. Problem is, whenever you have a third part paying (government, Private health insurance, whatever) there will be no limit to the services desired nor consideration of the cost/benefit ratio. It is only when the payer is the one receiving the service or product that true market forces come into play. See Friedman's talk regarding the "4 ways to spend money".
jamo387 1 year ago 20
@jamo387 I don't think price fixing ever works. That bumb Nixon tried to do it and it flunked!
ZDWmiamicane 1 year ago
@ZDWmiamicane not price fixing but the pricing system - the method by which prices are set in a free market. Price fixing has never worked and never will. It reduces supply and quality. Think of the hurricanes in FLA. Cost of repairs and wood went up after all the damage. In a price fixed system, no one would go down there and shortages result. In a free market system, prices rise encouraging construction people to relocate to cash in. That increases supply and eventually lowers prices.
jamo387 1 year ago
The US spends $1000 per capita just for administrative costs, which is twice that of Canada. This simple fact reflects the inefficiency of the privatized system, as other single payer countries are at least half this cost, but when a healthcare system is run for profit doubtless there will be a lot of administrative overhead. See this study for more details: Costs of Health Administration in the U.S. and Canada, Woolhandler Sept. 2003
Bellantoni 1 year ago
@Bellantoni You're not trying to suggest that the U.S. has a free market in medicine are you? How about you look up Medicare and Medicaid and then we'll talk.
jamo387 1 year ago
Continuing my post.
The problem is that you have multiple health insurance companies trying to get health services, which drives the price. This is not the case in a public system, where there is only one provider of health care.
Take for example Medicare. Medicare works well in the U.S. because it only has to pay something along the lines of 80% of the total costs of health care, and this is because it is essentially a monopoly buyer.
gigamage 1 year ago
Actually, when health insurances compete for customers it drives the price down. What drives up prices are individuals. Its basic supply and demand that determines price.
iatemytwin57 1 year ago 3
@iatemytwin57 your right!! And supply is not fixed like it is in the socialised systems like in our system in Australia. People can wait up to 2 years for a hip replacement! We have a superannuation co-contribution that is there to encourage frugality before retirement. Its no good to people that are on waiting lists. Furthermore because of the small footprint the private sector have and the limited access to customers created by the government, private premiums are prohibitively expensive.
aussieconservative 1 year ago
@iatemytwin57 In the health insurance industry, it is actually impossible to maintain a competitive industry as there are huge barriers to entry. In effect, what you get are market failures, and that just means higher premiums for people.
gigamage 1 year ago
@iatemytwin57 This is interesting to look at. If we go to one end, where we assume there are lots of health insurance companies competing, you would think, then, that this would reduce premiums for people. But when there are lots of HI companies, this actually drives up the prices that doctors charge for their services (a doctor can tell a HI company to pay them an X amount, or else they'll just go to a different HI and collect money from them). The end result is higher premiums from households.
gigamage 1 year ago
@iatemytwin57 Now, if we go to the other end and assume that there are only a few (or perhaps only 1 ) HI company, then this would put downward pressure on the amount doctors are paid (as they only have 1 HI company to collect money from, so they are forced to take whatever amount that HI company gives them). However, because the HI company is an effective monopoly, it can keep charging higher premiums from households.
So either way, households get high premiums.
gigamage 1 year ago
@iatemytwin57 The only way to get prices to come down is to keep the monopoly situation in place (where there is only 1 HI company), reducing the amount paid out to doctors. But this HI company is government owned, which means that it is no longer collecting profits, but simply redistributing its pool of money from households to health care providers, and means lower premiums for households as it only collects money to cover the costs of providers.
This is the proper way of reducing prices.
gigamage 1 year ago
@iatemytwin57 What drives prices up in the long run is not individuals, but the expansion of the money supply. As the money supply expands, prices will increase most dramatically in those areas where the greatest amount of money is being spent. That's why college and healthcare are the two areas that have seen the most dramatic price increases over the last few decades. Inflation is not an increase in prices, it's an increase in the money supply that leads to higher prices!
BikiniBabe1985 1 year ago
@iatemytwin57 What drives prices up is monopoly pricing. Medicaid and Medicare are run by the private insurance companies and the US government is not allowed to negotiate drug prices and health costs, like other countries can, as such they price that at they're ridiculously high prices. However the VA administration runs like a normal single payer system at out performs all other health care providers in the US check out the RAND Corporation's study of it
Bellantoni 1 year ago
It is more complex than you state. Medicare pays 80% and is subsidized by taxpayers with much of the cost shifted to those who are privately insured. So, actually costs more. And, is bankrupt. Canadian h/c is less because less services are provided and b/c US citizens foot the bill for R&D on new drugs that Canadian govt refuses to pay. Drug Cos. sell to Canada at lower price than to US b/c it is a large market. Canada should have to pay the same price as us.
backtotheday 1 year ago 2
There is 70 Billion in fraud in Medicare each year. There is 48 Billion in waste, due to the fee per service per year in medicare. Some hospitals loose money on Medicare so they will no longer service Medicare patients (Mayo Clinic in AZ lost 800 Million on medicare patients). Medicaid is subject to the same failures as Medicare and in some cases is paying with IOUs.
Much of the money lost by hospitals is shifted to the private buyer. Expect it to get worse with Obamacare.
jfelce 1 year ago
@gigamage And who pays the other 20%?
averitas 1 year ago
@averitas Nobody pays the other 20%. There is a 20% savings because systems like Medicare are an effective monopsony, and therefore they can charge health care providers what they want to.
It's like Microsoft, and how it can charge customers effectively whatever it wants to because it is a monopoly and therefore it sets the price. Medicare is a monopoly (because it is a buyer of goods, we call it a "monopsony") and as a result it can charge whatever price it wants to.
gigamage 1 year ago
Let's look at public and private health care systems. If you are to compare the two, and if the only issue we look at is the cost, then there is no doubt that a public system is less costly than a private one. The proof is in the numbers:
US spends 16% of GDP on health care; Canada 10%, and the UK 7%.
The US has a largely privatized health care system, and as a result spends more.
gigamage 1 year ago
Your error is stating that the US has a largely privatized system. We are somewhere in between and leaning more toward the nationalized system. The problem with this is that we thought we could have the best of both worlds when what we got was the worst.
The government accounts for 48-51 % of healthcare dollars being spent. The rest is mostly insurance companies who act, not as companies in a Free market but as monopolists given their monopoly power by the govt in various forms.
cieslinskimw 1 year ago
@gigamage But how many do you see running to the UK and Canada for healthcare vs. the US?
How many new medical advances, procedures, devices vs. the world do we put out?
averitas 1 year ago
Whoa, lots of different issues have been brought up; I should have checked back sooner.
In response averitas, in general when it comes to the private vs. public debate, the only real argument that can be made for a private health system is in regards to innovation.
If you compare the number of MRI's in the US and Canada, there is no question that the US has more MRI's per capita then Canada. As an investor in health care, you are more likely to invest in the US over a country like Canada.
gigamage 1 year ago
We appear to have more affordable health care in Europe because we invest almost nothing in R&D, and, here is the big one, the government limits how much is spent per person. Its also called rationing.
On the other hand our health care is more expensive because you lose a whole day of pay to go to the doctor. It takes so long to get medical attention and the time you spend is wasted. I lose so much time going to the doctor that it is cheaper to go to a private doctor and save the time.
XCritonX 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Friedman is just plainly, wrong. The rising costs of healthcare does not reflect the peoples need for more healthcare. The rise in cost is due to these privatized institutions raising the costs to bag more money. He talks about greed, but he does'nt explain that greed is a huge part in this rising cost. If healthcare was nationalized and pubilicly owned, greed would still exist but since healthcare is free, all people would get equal healthcare.
jdmay1 2 years ago
I suggest you are plainly wrong. Private health costs rise in part because of program like MediCaid and MediCare, which only pay a percentage of the bill. Private companies that offer full coverage get hosed in order to make up the difference. Also, the fact that most of these insurances are employer-paid, allows the consumers of service to not care about cost. This dynamic only worsens in a government program. The increased demand can only lead to one place: waiting lines.
fzqlcs 2 years ago 3
There is truth to your statement in that there are greedy individuals in the health care industry. However, that greed can (and should) be used to the consumers advantage by allowing more greedy individuals to compete for my dollar. One reason why costs have gone up is my inability to shop across state lines, which limits my choices, which allows fewer greedy individuals to compete, which allows them to charge what they want.
If we allow for more competition, prices would decrease immediately.
arthurfelter 2 years ago 17
@arthurfelter No. Insurance companys now take 1/4 of the money spent on health care in the US. They compete with each other by denying coverage to people when it costs too much.
You are making a fallacious argument.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I'm making a fallacious argument? Well, at least I'm making an argument. If I'm wrong, then why don't you open up a discussion an help me understand how I'm wrong? Can we as a society not amicably discuss the important and pervasive issues of our day?
arthurfelter 11 months ago
@arthurfelter I assume that when you say competition you are talking about the HMOs right.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 I'm referring to more competition (ie more choices) in general. Obama said that if I like my health care plan I could keep it. Problem is, I don't like my health care plan, and I don't have the option to choose. My health care plan is a one-size-fits-all plan chosen by HR for all in my company, and my options are to pay out the butt for health care on my own (because the government penalizes non-employer subsidized health care) or go with the crappy solution HR came up with.
arthurfelter 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Increased competition has a tendency to drive down costs as those offering the goods and services seek to undercut their competition in order to gain more clients. If a health-care provider is raking in 25% in profits, as you mentioned previously, and another provider is capable of taking only 20% in profits - thus offering its clients a lower price - who are people going to go with?
arthurfelter 11 months ago
@arthurfelter When Republicnas say "Incresed Competition" it means let insurance companys sell accrost state lines. That means that they would go to that states with the least rules and less people would get coverage.
Also it is not the provider it is the payer that is taking so much in profits. The solution is not more Insurance company options the solution is to put the insurance companys out of buisness and get Single Payer.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 My question is, where does it stop? If you feel the government has the ability to *force* someone to get health insurance, then what's to stop them from forcing you to drive a Prius, or force you to eat a salad for lunch? Or, taking it a step further, what's to stop the government from forcing you to work in a textile factory? (You know, it's for the common good.)
Also, why, exactly, if someone goes to another state for their health care would people "get less coverage"?
arthurfelter 11 months ago
@arthurfelter Where does it stop. Are you talking about goverment mandates? It depends on what kind of system you use. There are 3 basic health care models, of health care some countrys use a hybrid of the diffrent systems. The 3 models are the Bizmark model, the SIngle Payer model, and the NHS model.
Austria uses the Bizmark model and there the goverment requies you to buy private insurance but they have cost controll and they are all non profit. That's why there system works.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 As far as where the government mandates stop, you failed to acknowledge that if the government can force you to buy something from a private company, there is nothing stopping them from forcing you to buy a Prius.
I want the gov. to leave me alone so that I can get the health coverage that best suits the needs of me and my family – and no one knows what my family needs better than myself.
arthurfelter 11 months ago
@arthurfelter That is not the same argument because everyone needs health care but not everyone needs a car. The biggest problem with the US health care system is the for profit insurance companys.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Profit insurance company's? are you sure about that? Would you say there is a problem with car insurance industry also?
shaqdaddy11 10 months ago
@arthurfelter It is not having a health care provider in another state that is the problem it is letting HMOs sell insurance accrost state lines. The only things that force them to cover pre existing conditions are individual state laws.
If an HMO wants to sell me insurance in California then they have to cover lung cancer and certian pre existing conditions. If they were gong to sell accrost state lines they would have to tear down these laws and the HMOs would drop more people.
MsZeitgeist85 11 months ago
@arthurfelter If you want to see prices decrease dramatically, get rid of health insurance completely. Doctors would have to compete for customers. In addition, the doctors would see a dramatic decrease in their operating expenses just eliminating the staff that they now need to process insurance claims, medical coding, etc.
colyo222 9 months ago
@arthurfelter "The best way to check ambition is with ambition" -iforgotwho
MrHamncheez 8 months ago
The only way a producer can raise cost is if there is sufficient consumer demand to pay the cost increase. Institutions would not be able to "bag more money" if demand did not support the costs.
How exactly would you provide "free" healthcare? Someone would pay, as Doctors will require pay and drugs cost money to develop.
FAHayek89 2 years ago 2
Comment removed
hyylo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FREE? lol
who pays for the doctors?
We pay for it via HIGH tax.
DONT CALL IT FREE.
nothing is free. the water you drink is not free. We pay tax to the government to clean the water before it reaches the home.
FREE. lol. you make me laugh.
hyylo 1 year ago
Equal healthcare, eh? You seem to fail to ask if people want the same healthcare. In particular whether they want to pay for it. Nationalized health care doesn't care if you try to minimize your use of it. You still get the same bill. Why should I not benifit from not buying something I don't want?
NordboDK 1 year ago 3
if not for government intervention such as state insurance mandates, rampid malpractice suits ( that raising the costs for the patients), the FDA and government regulations on medical practice, which create huge inneficiencies in the medical industry, care would be MUCH more affordable. So don't go around blaming the "privitized institutions" because that's an incredibly ignorant position. It's the most highyl regulated industry.
Thill029 1 year ago 2
While we're at it, equal gravity for all planets!
conchobarmanthei 1 year ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear Milton,
I hope the Devil sticks his fork up your ass as he turns you over the coals.
Maybe the Devil will use the same fork on your CEO friends. Burn in Hell you little greedy prick.
rickbar123 2 years ago
You're a statist fuck aren't ya? Libertarians are for a free market providing it doesn't harm anyone, if it does, you have a right to pursue.
sticksquash 2 years ago
@rickbar123
this was worth a good laugh.
Milton beats Satan via armbar, rd 1
wohs145 2 years ago 3
@rickbar123 You are a complete fool. Get some history books and learn a thing or too about Government intrusion into the free market to see what happens. The dollar is being destroyed among many other bad things happening because of government involvement. You have no clue and are a fool!!!!!!!!
jeremyraybrown 2 years ago
get a book and read about Siapan or Chile and the free market
the free market is the rich mans joke on the working class
rickbar123 2 years ago
You have no facts to support what you say. First off we are all greedy is some sense. We all serve our own interest to some degree. At the same time we also help others. But to think that the government can take massive amounts of our money and spend it with the same dilligence that we would is dillusional. That has been proven if you know anything at all about history. Our government regulates and taxes to death, driving businesses away and hurting growth.
jeremyraybrown 2 years ago
Furthermore, the government needs to do two things more then anything else, reduce its size and stop spending so much. If it does neither then we are headed down a bad path. And with unemployment as high as it is. And with the bad assets currently propped up. I shutter to think what the next 5-10 years holds for us. Do the rest of the world a favor and get a clue!
jeremyraybrown 2 years ago
An one more thing. Chili is now one of the best countries in South America, economically speaking. When free market qualities were established in the country, it was coming out of a severe recession with 150% inflation. You cannot cure that immediately. But look at the effect today. Refinements from that base improved Chili significantly. If you think the government can go and a never ending spending spree then your are the biggest fool on earth.
jeremyraybrown 2 years ago
no way on God's green earth, are you saying the free market helped Chile?????
put down the crack pipe if you are
END IMPORTS= the next 15 years will be great
TURN OFF - Rush and Beck, you sound dillusional
rickbar123 2 years ago
On planet earth (as opposed to the Naomi Klein fantasy land) Chile never had a free market under Pinochet (corporatism - a form of socialism - is something else entirely. Still, Chile suffered for years due to the capital flight out of the country upon Allende's rise to power in the first place and things in Chile would have been far worse (economically - free markets have nothing to do with Pinochet's repression which Friedman opposed) had inflation not been curbed.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago
And 'ending imports" is an economic disaster and was, in fact, one of the reasons that the recession of 1929 became the Great Depression.
Your "facts" are nothing of the kind and your suggestions are examples of the worst economic ignorance.
FletchforFreedom 2 years ago 2
who pays you to troll YT and pump this BULLSHIT????
The free market caused the depression!!
Allende was good for Chile????
GO PUMP RUSH AND BECK BS TO THE STUPIDS
rickbar123 2 years ago