Of course there is always a third party payer when it comes to health care, be it private insurance or the government. If there wasn't a third party, it might still be ok for some to pay their doctor $50 (or whatever the cost may be) for a checkup, but how many people will pay a hospital directly $100 000 from their own pockets for heart surgery (as an example)?
Most people don't have that much money up front, which is why there is a third party involved to spread risk and costs.
@gigamage private insurance is strictly voluntary (or once was when it was truly private), but government enforces it's mandates by the threat of force. there is a big difference imo, between healthy competition in a free market and a Leviathan monopoly forcing people to pay for and use it's inefficient "services" merely because they live in the wrong place at the wrong time. if medicine was as free as the electronics market even the poorest people could afford care (like TVs and cell phones).
@MsZeitgeist85 The AMA argued this back in the 1930s too, trying to prohibit doctors from participating in HMOs - and were ultimately convicted under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for it.
Before the rise of the AMA, doctors participated in a free market. Now doctors must join the AMA to practice medicine in the US, and must go to overpriced schools run by the AMA. The AMA has likewise worked diligently to keep medical fees as high as possible. This is why health care in the US is so expensive.
@MsZeitgeist85 Most other countries have nationalized medical systems. The government assumes this role - not a private guild. Medical schools in such countries are much cheaper and easier to get into.
I'm no fan of nationalization, but given the corrupt nature of our present system there may be no viable alternative.
@DrCruel What about Canada, Costa Rica, and Chlie that use a Single Payer system and countrys like Japan, Germany, and Singapore that use the all pravate Bismark model?
@MsZeitgeist85 Canada's single-payer system is run by the Canadian government. So also the "Bizmarckian" systems of Germany and Japan, where care is provided by private hospitals but where fees are controlled by government regulation, and finances are provided by a mandatory government-run insurance program. I might remark, that Germany is starting to have the same problems as the US.
My issue, however, is with the AMA and the deleterious effect it has had on health care affordability.
@MsZeitgeist85 That's right. There's no real equivalent to the AMA in Germany - at least not yet. Pricing limits are set by the German government, not by a professional guild with a vested interest in setting health care costs as high as possible.
You'll find similar causes for high legal costs in the US, in this latter case because of the ABA. Funeral services are likewise kept high by the National Funeral Directors Association. And so on.
Dang! What I was hoping to see when I clicked on this video was Friedman's always insightful analysis of the consequences of 3rd party payers. The video ended right when it was getting to the good stuff!
Oh wow, I have never seen an interview with Friedman when he was at this age. Still brilliant, though missing the energetic spark he had in earlier years. (See- Free to Choose or any interview from around that time)
No one should have to rely on the prospect of having a full-time job with benefits to get healthcare. Yet this is how a majority of workers do it. If we deregulated the system and got third-parties out of the way, we could do the patients a lot of good. They'd be responsible for their own healthcare. Maybe give them more accessible health savings accounts, which gives them an incentive to get the best deal possible and not take unnecessary health risks. It also costs business a LOT.
because democracy is bad. democracy is 51% of the population enslaving the other 49%. that's why we have the constitution. it is designed to keep the individual free to make his own decisions.
Yes! The current system in the US is not perfect, but the alternative is not to give the entire system over to the gov't, for god sakes. It's to give patients MORE freedom and choice. End licensing requirements that keep "less skilled" non-doctor practitioners from performing the same kinds of services at perhaps vastly lower prices. The only people who benefit from massive licensing requirements are doctors because they can keep the supply limited and drive wages up artificially high.
Doctors should be rewarded who get insurance and 3rd parties out of the picture and deal directly with patients. No entity should get between such a precious relationship as the doctor-patient one. When doctors and patients deal with each other directly, costs will begin to go down, patients can better price-shop and compare, and we all win (except maybe insurance co's and gov't). HMOs of today, let's not forget, are largely a creation of the gov't. Employer-based healthcare is ridiculous.
Man...the more and more I see videos of Dr. Milton Friedman the sadder I am that he is no longer with us. I can't believe that this November 16th will be 3 years since he passed away. Speaking for the advocates of free markets in economics and ideas; we all miss you Dr. Friedman
If you mean his record of praising the fed to expand the money supply to create wealth between 1990 - 2001, I guess so. Monetarism has more math and statistic work like Keynesian economic.
very clearly stated, no jargon. excellent!
volkswagongal 2 months ago
Of course there is always a third party payer when it comes to health care, be it private insurance or the government. If there wasn't a third party, it might still be ok for some to pay their doctor $50 (or whatever the cost may be) for a checkup, but how many people will pay a hospital directly $100 000 from their own pockets for heart surgery (as an example)?
Most people don't have that much money up front, which is why there is a third party involved to spread risk and costs.
gigamage 1 year ago
@gigamage private insurance is strictly voluntary (or once was when it was truly private), but government enforces it's mandates by the threat of force. there is a big difference imo, between healthy competition in a free market and a Leviathan monopoly forcing people to pay for and use it's inefficient "services" merely because they live in the wrong place at the wrong time. if medicine was as free as the electronics market even the poorest people could afford care (like TVs and cell phones).
umbilicaltapeworm 1 year ago
@umbilicaltapeworm That so called free market has never existed for primary health care providers. The for profit HMOs are the problem.
MsZeitgeist85 1 year ago
@MsZeitgeist85 The AMA argued this back in the 1930s too, trying to prohibit doctors from participating in HMOs - and were ultimately convicted under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act for it.
Before the rise of the AMA, doctors participated in a free market. Now doctors must join the AMA to practice medicine in the US, and must go to overpriced schools run by the AMA. The AMA has likewise worked diligently to keep medical fees as high as possible. This is why health care in the US is so expensive.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel Do other countrys have some similar restrictions?
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Most other countries have nationalized medical systems. The government assumes this role - not a private guild. Medical schools in such countries are much cheaper and easier to get into.
I'm no fan of nationalization, but given the corrupt nature of our present system there may be no viable alternative.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel What about Canada, Costa Rica, and Chlie that use a Single Payer system and countrys like Japan, Germany, and Singapore that use the all pravate Bismark model?
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 Canada's single-payer system is run by the Canadian government. So also the "Bizmarckian" systems of Germany and Japan, where care is provided by private hospitals but where fees are controlled by government regulation, and finances are provided by a mandatory government-run insurance program. I might remark, that Germany is starting to have the same problems as the US.
My issue, however, is with the AMA and the deleterious effect it has had on health care affordability.
DrCruel 8 months ago
@DrCruel I know that there are goverment subsitys in Germany but there cost problems are no where near as bad as the problems in the USA.
MsZeitgeist85 8 months ago
@MsZeitgeist85 That's right. There's no real equivalent to the AMA in Germany - at least not yet. Pricing limits are set by the German government, not by a professional guild with a vested interest in setting health care costs as high as possible.
You'll find similar causes for high legal costs in the US, in this latter case because of the ABA. Funeral services are likewise kept high by the National Funeral Directors Association. And so on.
DrCruel 8 months ago
Dang! What I was hoping to see when I clicked on this video was Friedman's always insightful analysis of the consequences of 3rd party payers. The video ended right when it was getting to the good stuff!
rmcdaniel423 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A dangerously insane individual....
foxoftrot 2 years ago
mr. burecraut himself!!!
fefe74e 2 years ago
Oh wow, I have never seen an interview with Friedman when he was at this age. Still brilliant, though missing the energetic spark he had in earlier years. (See- Free to Choose or any interview from around that time)
Rest in peace.
Randomrebel459 2 years ago 19
No one should have to rely on the prospect of having a full-time job with benefits to get healthcare. Yet this is how a majority of workers do it. If we deregulated the system and got third-parties out of the way, we could do the patients a lot of good. They'd be responsible for their own healthcare. Maybe give them more accessible health savings accounts, which gives them an incentive to get the best deal possible and not take unnecessary health risks. It also costs business a LOT.
whoo689 2 years ago 5
Healthcare, that is. NOT HSAs, the costing businesses stuff.
whoo689 2 years ago
We should just deregulate.......
Why not let democracy decide the healthcare? Why not allow democratic forces/the popular opinion decide which sort of healthcare system we have?
gsingh5 2 years ago 3
because democracy is bad. democracy is 51% of the population enslaving the other 49%. that's why we have the constitution. it is designed to keep the individual free to make his own decisions.
imstillalive0331 2 years ago 2
Yes! The current system in the US is not perfect, but the alternative is not to give the entire system over to the gov't, for god sakes. It's to give patients MORE freedom and choice. End licensing requirements that keep "less skilled" non-doctor practitioners from performing the same kinds of services at perhaps vastly lower prices. The only people who benefit from massive licensing requirements are doctors because they can keep the supply limited and drive wages up artificially high.
whoo689 2 years ago
Doctors should be rewarded who get insurance and 3rd parties out of the picture and deal directly with patients. No entity should get between such a precious relationship as the doctor-patient one. When doctors and patients deal with each other directly, costs will begin to go down, patients can better price-shop and compare, and we all win (except maybe insurance co's and gov't). HMOs of today, let's not forget, are largely a creation of the gov't. Employer-based healthcare is ridiculous.
whoo689 2 years ago 2
Amen. I went to get a minor surgery just last year. It was so simple, after watching it done, I could do it, on MYSELF. Thats how easy it is.
Could my Nurse do it? no
Could my General Doctor do it? no
Did I have to a ton of cash, to have a specialist do it? You bet.
A specialist... I nearly shit myself when I heard that
LordVigeous666999 2 years ago
Man...the more and more I see videos of Dr. Milton Friedman the sadder I am that he is no longer with us. I can't believe that this November 16th will be 3 years since he passed away. Speaking for the advocates of free markets in economics and ideas; we all miss you Dr. Friedman
Aristotle100 2 years ago 47
He's great treasure indeed. He continued the work of Von Mises and Hayek which today it seems to appear less and less often.
flynn2008 2 years ago 7
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
He's a closet libertarian. But he gets paid to be a monetarist.
flynn2008 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
If you mean his record of praising the fed to expand the money supply to create wealth between 1990 - 2001, I guess so. Monetarism has more math and statistic work like Keynesian economic.
flynn2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
Highly recommend Austrian school of economy. :) Good for you sir.
flynn2008 2 years ago
Comment removed
collapseofthedollar 2 years ago
@flynn2008 Those two are not mutually exclusive.
mrhumpty 1 year ago