It makes very clear that only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._ Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A. Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
I think it's important when talking about Bernie's Medicare For All plan to mention that supplemental insurance for things like plastic surgery and other things that aren't covered by the bill will still be allowed. When you say it would completely get rid of private insurance and the individual market, that is not entirely accurate and could mislead people to think supplemental insurance on the private market would no longer be available under Bernie's plan.
Yeah, as I understand Bernie's take on it is that people can do whatever they want as far as extra, but his plan already covers everything important. (Not sure if it covers things like chiropractic care though?)
If it's like in the UK (minus the publicly owned hospitals), there would be "premium" private insurance for regular healthcare too. Rich people would be welcome to pay extra on top of their taxes to get the best of the best if they wanted.
@@d_dave7200 It is *not* like the UK in this way. Premium private insurance for regular healthcare wouldn't be allowed. That's what Dr. Carrol means by "doing away with private insurance".
@@elliottmcollins If that's true, it's chance of passing even a large majority Democratic congress just went to zero. It'll have to be compromised on. However, considering his comments on plastic surgery and the like, I'm not convinced of that. If he allows that form of premium healthcare, why wouldn't he allow others? It's not like they'd get out of paying their taxes for Medicare for All. I think I'll have to find the link to his original bill and read it for myself.
When talking about the cost of these bills, I think it's important to mention the cost of the current system. There are many studies out there, including one funded by the Koch brothers, that show that Medicare For All would cost Americans less money over a 10 year period than the current system. So, sure you'd be paying more in taxes, but the increase in taxes would, on average, be less than the price that people are currently paying for insurance and would no longer have to pay under a true Medicare For All system.
Beating the current system isn't hard though. Hell, even a fully free-market version could do better. I think we should try to be a bit more rigorous than simply "better than now"; now _really_ sucks.
Free market is unable to compete in cost because it includes the private insurance co's that have at least 10% higher costs in administrative fee's compared to the current medicare system also because This Medicare For All (Sanders/Jayapal) have the biggest single pool of ppl by a long shot compared to a bunch of smaller free market ins. co pools. This will always allow them to have the most leverage at negotiating prices for procedures,visits and drugs down to the cheapest affordable price.@@Suedocode
@@Suedocode That's the thing though. Not speaking for other plans, but Bernie's Medicare for All plan would insure everybody in the US on all health needs, end any cost at the point of service, and cost less than the current system. So it's not just "better than now", it's waaaaay better than now in pretty much every way.
Under the Sanders and Jayapals Medicare$All ,the type of plan which the study was based off everyone would automatically be enrolled and get this health insurance.The only area the plan would not cover is elective procedures which area cosmetic surgery if you felt you would prefer to change or "enhance your appearance. you would have to either buy a private plan that just covers cosmetic surgery only or pay directly for the procedure.@@bencheveryday
As a democratic socialist, while I like Bernie's plan most (of course), any of the first four options seem like they would be huge steps forward. I'd be pretty thrilled with any of them honestly. The rest aren't really Medicare for All in any meaningful sense, no matter what politicians call them. Though I suppose they'd be better than nothing. Still, if we try to get one of the weaker plans, we'll end up with nothing. You can't negotiate starting from the middle.
Very true. Push for the entire policy though. Be ruthless in the primaries and make it clear that half measures and capitulation will not be tolerated. We have enough "compromise on everything" candidates to topple the party... wait a minute.
Only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._ Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A. Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
Cut the fat from the defense budget and transfer it to health and human services. The country would become stronger and the world a more free place. What’s gonna happen in real life: More spending on military Less spending on human services More wealth for people in the military industrial complex Less service for people who need help What are we fighting for if we don’t care about maintaining the health of our citizens?
So all these plans are a variant of Tricare Prime and Tricare Select. The premium free, free or low decidable, free or low cost sharing, low or no max out of pocket, government sponsored health plan for service members & their families.
Off all the plans, the only M4A plan that addresses the elephant in the room i.e. 'the vast administrative waste' in the system is Bernie's plan. If you want to keep the private insurance - employer based system in place in the name of choice, it means you want to burn money in the name of administration
@@pet3590 it's not alternative facts. The "alternative fact" is the notion that it's cheaper BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COSTS when the reality is that Medicare patients cost more in total. The administrative cost PER PATIENT is consistently higher with Medicare than with private insurance. Just because your parrot friends in leftist circles keep saying something doesn't make it true.
Push that message. Establishment leaders don't like changing the system because it's their system. It made them rich and powerful. We should oust them from office ASAP and install leaders who don't have to be forced and prodded to represent us. Support candidates who don't take corporate money.
Brian Harper You must be more specific than that statement due to the changed popularity % for Medicare For All compared to 2016 the corp. politicianshave changed their verbal messaging to subtly trick us into thinking they are for Everyone getting the best coverage at the most affordable price.New trick messaging " I support Medicre for All but we need a pathway to get there" -Why do they insist on a pathway because it allows private insurance to still keep a portion of the market which allows them make enough S for political donations much larger than we can + It gives them a long time period to lobby to weaken,halt,further stall+privatize(example medicare advantage).Sanders+Jayapals plan are the only plans that do not allow private insurance to offer competing plans on the market+ they reduce cost the most by getting rid of the middleman and with either of these plans we will have the biggest group(all of us) that will allow us to have the most leverage on bargaining down the price of procedures,visits and drugs keeping the costs down the most-Current pres candidates for this besides Sanders are Gabbard,Castro,Gellibrand(although keep in mind she used to be repub and more recently a conservative Dem)
You mean Democrats. Not all of us are stupid enough to support such economic illiteracy. And I don't even support Republicans either, but at least I'm smart enough to not be a Democrat.
James Adams .Meidcare 4 All is not aparty issue it is a people issues as polls show amajority of Americans want Medicare 4 All@@ExPwner including Republican voters. The Mercatus Center Study is not a Democratic or Republican think tank and it contradicts your statement of economic illiteracy on this matter as it shos a 2 trillion $ over 10 years switching over to Medicare4All.Also name calling will do nothing to prove your point.
@@ExPwner You sound smug, apathetic, and incredibly stupid. The only way to effect change is to invade and take over a major party. What us progressives are doing is working. Apathy is how we got Trump, 49% of the country didn't even fucking vote... that is stupid. Trump won because he riled up a base and they fucking voted. Get with it.
Dr. Carroll, I'm interested in which plan you like the best. It would also be enlightening if you could have an economist on the show to give their opinion. I think an expert opinion should have more weight than the opinion of someone like me, a retired military musician.
@@ExPwner its almost like you didnt watch their videos explaining how many of these plans much cheaper for the american taxpayer overall. 20% of private health insurance revenue is set to go for overheads. You dont have to be a business owner to know that for something that is essentially just paying stuff out, can even be semi automated. So with at least a public option, much of the overheads and aministration fees are gone. Most plans show that only 5% of revenue is needed while the other 95% can go to payouts. These facts dont care about your feelings :P
@@MrRishik123 it's almost like you didn't read any of the technical details of the studies showing that these aren't cheaper unless you cut reimbursement to insanely low and destructive levels. Private companies operate more efficiently than government. Medicare has higher administrative costs than private plans even after you factor in profits. So you're just wrong and haven't looked at the numbers. Try again.
@@ExPwner ua-cam.com/video/J4zx8LRBB-Y/v-deo.html&ab_channel=HealthcareTriage yea no my dude. You didn't Even the conservative leaning koch brothers funded research institute found its cheaper. jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders So don't try and argue from the case of privatisation. ". Private companies operate more efficiently than government." Bro, no, not always. Only a few companies like space X are operating more efficiently than the government. ua-cam.com/video/nP95Frc0v4k/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Shaun
James Adams Hit the nail on the head. Most of these “Democratic Socialists” are a bunch of ignorant morons that don’t know anything about insurance, healthcare, or economics. All they here is “Bernie,” and “Free!”
This vid forgot to mention sanders plan also added hearing coverage that includes hearing Aids . Hearing aids are currently advertised from $400-$3250 per ear.
I've been searching for a good explainer on universal catastrophic coverage. Is that something that this channel has covered? If not, I'd suggest doing an explainer. I think many people simply don't know what it is. (For those who don't know, UCC would essentially be a government-provided HDHP and would rely on HSAs and supplemental health insurance to meet the "first dollar" costs of health care.)
Finally, someone else who knows of UCC! For those not in the know, it would seek to provide catastrophic coverage to the vast majority of the population. It can be implemented in two ways: through a private voucher system or through a government program. It it were implemented through a private voucher system, Americans would receive a voucher large enough to afford a HDHP that meets a certain set of federal guidelines. If it were implemented through a government program, then a income-threshold would first be set, with anyone below it receiving first-dollar coverage. Those above the threshold would only be covered if their spending exceeded the deductible amount, which would be based on one’s income. Some plans also include cost-sharing in the form of either copays or coinsurance. Plans also vary on whether or not to charge premiums. Some plans do charge premiums, while others forgo premiums in favor of tax increases. The main purpose of UCC is to cover major expenses while leaving room for self-coverage when such an option is affordable.
If you can get everyone Medicare, and have it be cheaper and better than the current system, seems like a no brainer to me. Medicare for all costs were even analyzed by a conservative research group and found to be cheaper by 2 trillion over the next 10 years. Which makes sense as the government is a nonprofit and would have more power to negotiate drug prices.
Exactly. Only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._ Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A. Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
@@janewright315 yes, it absolutely is unrealistic to cut reimbursement rates to hospitals by 40%. No evidence to prove that it would save lives. Fuck off with your empty virtue signalling, dipshit. Forcing people into your plan isn't moral. Come back when you actually have a valid first principle.
30 trillion in ten years is nothing. Remember what the medical industry always says, “It may be expensive, but your health is worth it.” Damn straight, priorities. We have a fucked up system where the government pays 300 billion in defense spending per year to private corporations fighting windmills and wasting it on lavish lifestyles and overhead and we can’t set up a basic health care service? Bullshit. When are we gonna realize that the military industrial complex is a complete fucking waste? The defense budget could be shrunk by half and we’d still have the best military in the world. But a bunch of CEO’s would have to find new jobs. They’re fucking lying when they tell you to “support the troops”. They spend half the money they get on private corporations, not the troops. It’s a fucking farce
Wouldn't people still want choice though? In most developed countries with universal healthcare you can still get private insurance if you want as it is usually better/faster but costs more. New Zealand has universal healthcare but my parents still use private health insurance as it is much faster and they don't mind paying for it, why not let the people have a choice?
Tech Showdown Same with Canada, Germany, and the UK. People who want quality healthcare end up buying private insurance and go to private clinics for care. The US has way too many people for this to be sustainable. Our federal expenditures last year were $4.14 Trillion and medicare for all is an estimated $31.6 - $60 Trillion over 10 years & keep in mind that the top 20% of our population pays 86% of all income taxes!
In Canada everyone (or at least every citizen and probably every permanent resident) has government health insurance. Private insurance supplements public insurance rather than replacing it.
Periastron Yes I'm aware! If the government health insurance was adequate people wouldn't need or want private insurance. A lot of Canadians also seek treatment for complex/complicated medical needs in the US, and Canada's health insurance will often cover those because they do not have the available staff/training/resources on hand. If you want to see how Medicare "for all" would turn out here, look at the VA. This article here talks about the similarities of Canada's nationalized healthcare system and the US's VA and medicare part D. Canadians often have to wait up to 4 months for cataract surgery, and hip and knee replacement, and in the US you would wait less than 3 weeks. Even MRIs or CAT scans are hard to get in Canada because of low availability and high demand. www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/veterans-administration-socialized-healthcare-system
I'm pretty sure all of these plans allow you to purchase supplemental insurance. Also worth noting that we don't measure wait times in the US, so we don't actually know what they are for the current system, but they definitely exist. Especially in the form of negotiating with insurance to try to get certain procedures and out of network doctors approved for coverage. My dad spent 6 months arguing with insurance before they agreed to cover his surgery for pancreatic cancer because there weren't any in-network doctors who could do it. But as I understand it Canada prioritizes life threatening conditions, which is completely reasonable. If you don't NEED care immediately it's not so unreasonable that you might not get it immediately.
@@kutie216 The cost of Medicare for all in relation to the overall federal budget is mostly irrelevant. We are already paying more than that for healthcare as a country, it will replace our current healthcare spending, not add to it.
To explain how different Medicare for All plans would work, use a hypothetical person who has cancer. Present a real world case study of cost and care details. How would the cancer patient pay for doctor visits, lab tests, MRI's, radiation treatment, chemotherapy, drugs, hospital stays, etc? Would the person have monthly premiums or a federal tax payment? Would there be deductibles, copayments or other expenses? Would there be wait times for treatment? How much money would the person have to pay extra for having cancer? Compare to a cancer patient with both a good and bad private insurance as it is today.
Do any of the plans get into specifics of things like negotiating for lower pharmaceuticals prices? Or are all of these just centered on coverage frameworks? It would seem the feasibility of any or all of them is in the details
I doubt any of them are super specific. They're just proposals by presidential candidates. You wouldn't see any specifics until somebody tried to actually write up legislation based on these.
In the medicare extra section, the text says that if you dont pay taxes, you have to pay premiums. But you said that you dont have to pay premiums when you went over it. Was the mistake in the text or your voiceover?
What if individual states like California, New York or Illinois decide to implement their own state-level universal healthcare systems before the US federal government implement their Medicare-for-all program. Example: if California implements a state-level universal healthcare systems less like Medicare but look more like Britain's NHS. Will the state level universal healthcare systems be absorbed into the Federal one or would those states be allowed to keep their own systems while the rest of the country uses a Medicare for all system?
The Public Option is still the best way to go versus Medicare for all. It will not cause taxes to go up and it will not destroy private insurance immediately. It will also force private insurance to create better care options and/or lower prices in the name of competing with the government's public healthcare.
@@ahadumer418 Yep. This is the dark secret truth that they never tell you about. The public option ultimately destroys private insurance. Medicare For All just does it at warp speed.
Your 2 videos are most viewed on YT about this topic and the main goal is to confuse people? Is someone so nice and give me a link to any video where I could understand, what is medicare 4 all now, how many institucions are already in , how big structural change to healtcare system is in real, how many doctors would stay outside the M4A system, will the universal HC standerdise prices of medical procedures, will prices (quality) will be based on local or nationwide standards or even owners... Sorry for my English (and my country has universal HC for 60 years ) but I really interested to know what you already have and where r u going...do U?
@@Agtsmirnoff I didn't say that identity has no bearing on politics. But for me, his policies would create a much more robust welfare state as compared to the other candidates. That matters to me more than if the candidate is a black gay woman. All things being equal, I would love to see a more diverse candidate, but it's not a priority for me. No Nazi is a socialist. That's absurd. Socialists are first first and foremost for social equality. Nazis are committed to a rigid hierarchy usually based on White Nationalism. They are inherently opposed to each other.
"I DIDN'T say that identity has no bearing on politics." That's what my comment says. "DIDN'T." Reading comprehension. When you say Nazis are socialists you are falling for Nazi propaganda to appropriate left wing ideas. Supporting a welfare state (for white people) does not a socialist make. Socialists believe in public ownership of the economy at large. Nazis may support an expansion of the government but they do not support economic democracy. History has proven that time and time again. That combined with their blatant white supremacy invalidates any claim they have to socialism.
I'm a German healthcare system fanboy. It is tiered. It doesn't punish the poor. The rich can opt out. It keeps politics out of healthcare decisions. It's the best of both Republican and Democrat ideals.
No, it wouldn't. It would increase the size and scope of the government. The notion of "saving" money is based on a projected cut of reimbursement to providers by 40%. It is economic disaster. To suggest that it would save money is economic illiteracy at its finest. Medicare itself was projected to cost much less than it actually costs today.
Any “savings” would be at a major cost of your service. Doctors, specialists, surgeons, and healthcare facilities aren’t gonna work for peanuts. Are you gonna be the one to tell a great doctor that makes 250k per year that he’s now going to make $40k per year, and that he also get to see triple the amount of people? Yea, let me know how that goes. Here’s a tip....Bring a helmet. Doctors and healthcare facilities only take Medicare because of the private insurance supplements that allow them to make a fair wage. Without that, only 10% of them would take it.
Exactly. Only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._ Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A. Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
I get the medicare for all and even the medicare extra as it is like medicare for all, but just with a transition. However, the other plans that retain premiums and restrict the choice of the American people and keep employer based insurance don't make any sense to me and don't address the problems in core ideology, tax allocation, oversight of insurance companies, and administrative costs. Is it so hard to just have medicare for all for the American people and to give people a choice to pay for better private insurance if they want? If our tax dollars are already going to healthcare then the government should provide its people with health coverage.
I think Medicare Extra looks the best one on the universal coverage list though the age should be lowered to 60 and the Healthy America Plan looks the best one on optional coverage list. So there is it. You merge the Medicare Extra and Healthy America Plan and get the right mix. The Medicare Extra Healthy Care Plan.
But both of these systems would incentivize private insurance companies to only give insurance to young and healthy people. These young and healthy people would either a) have to pay both higher taxes to carry the extra load of sick and old people of the 'Medicare Extra' program, or b) they would _resist_ paying extra taxes for a system that they don't need. In the more unlikely case of a) A lot of people would be paying double. In the more likely case b), the costs of the 'Medicare Extra' system would explode because no one healthy is supporting it. None of that makes any sense in the world. Only the first two models by Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are realistic, affordable healthcare systems. Those kind of systems have proven over many decades to be the most sustainable systems. Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords. The last 8 models are just tricks of the private insurance lobbyists to keep racketeering off of the pain and suffering of those who cannot fight back.
Elderly people have to pay premiums and cost sharing for Medicare, without an out of pocket max? And it doesn't even cover dental, vision, and medications? Well damn, no wonder they spend so much on healthcare.
My main thought is that private insurance should be kept to compete with government healthcare. I would be cheering for government healthcare, but if it is deficient in quality, access, etc., people should be able to go back to what they had before.
Medicare for All by Bernie Sanders or Pramaila Jayapal seem to be the simplest. People need a good plan, not choices. A lot of the other plans with option complexities are a bit like Boeing trying to stabilize an unstable plane design with software fixes.
If the Medicare eligibility age was at least reduced to 55 or 60, many people would be able to retire when they're younger versus working to age 65 so they can have employer-based insurance, thus increasing the chances they'll end up in a casket before they can retire.
I'm confused - isn't Medicare for all unfair to all of the people who have paid into the system through payroll deduction for so many years for their medicare? Will they get their money back when and if Medicare for all takes place? What is being said about that?
How about maximum wage for doctors? How about capping hospital costs? How about capping the cost of medical schools? The medical care system in this country is way over-rewarded. The drug companies are very profitable. Look at their stock prices, up 20% in one year. Let anybody over 26 buy Medicare if they want. Also form one consortium of all private medical insurance companies, and offer a competition to Medicare. Institute steel, iron, or lead, low cost plans for poor people.
And Pramila Jayapal's. Who by the way endorsed Bernie Sanders! =) All the others (who are getting _massive_ 'donations' by the private insurance lobby) are just gaslighting the public with marketing tricks.
Premiums and cost sharing are not part of a universal system, you will have a large amount of people that can't afford the premiums but won't be eligible for medicaid, so THOSE TOO ARE BUY IN PLANS.
While single-payer SEEMS LIKE the way to go to me, especially since I consider myself a social democrat... But choice does matter to ppl! It just does! My father prefers his labor union benefits to Medicare, & I understand why! If we can get to a point of 100%-of-Americans-covered, *w/coverage they actually can afford to access,* by enacting a strong & robust public option & further expanding Medicaid... Who am I to deny a retired union member he doesn't get what he negotiated for in his 'collectively-bargained-for' coverage?! Unions BUILT the middle-class, after all!
Non single payer plans will simply leave the main advantages of singles payer plans on the table namely administrative efficiency and negotiating power
You missed one thing that nun of the plans address. All the plans give all kind of ways to ultimately divide up what health care we have amongst the people, in one way or another, but ultimately you will ether have to ration what health care we have so everyone gets there piece, or spend more money from some ware to buy more (Dr, nurses, hospitals, drug manufacturers, and everything that goes with healthcare). I never see any of these health care plans that are supposed to save us money actually address things that make our health care so expensive in the first place, just who pays the bill. 🤔I think it might be because talking about the fact that the medical industry in the United States is way overpriced and saying that Dr’s, Nurses, drug companies, malpractice lawyers, and the entire medical industrial complex is way over priced, is not as politically friendly as saying it is the insurance companies fault. If you actually want to fix health care problems in the United States you are going to have to address the problems of Health care costs that are extremely high because the medical industry likes being rich and have created a system that limits supply no matter the demand. I would like to see a Dr tell us how we can make health care cheaper instead of what I keep hearing, which is Dr’s telling us all these different people who we can get to pay for there second summer home. Until we Address the stupid high cost of health care, the cost of health care insurance is simply a diversion tactic.🤨
Start an Government Online Hospital for free for normal non-emergencies through an mobile app or computer. and open Government run Blood, xray, mri diagnostic centers to handle all the testing associated.
same thing for collage, online collages with classes/videos from the very best noble prize winners and multi billionaire business men and top lawyers and so forth,and each state have testing centers. Candidates are not thinking with 2020 technology they are thinking with 1980's technology
Exactly. Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A. Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
The negative ones are the lot of people who dont work and would rather live off someone and also welfare receipiants. Those who do work have to pay for those who don't..that seems to not be talked about. There are able bodied and mind people who could work but don't
If the right and conservative were for small government, the medical bill could be on half page. 1. Insurer can’t discriminate based on age, gender, pre-existing conditions. 2. List of minimum/essential coverage. 3. No annual coverage cap. Why they don't propose this simple medical bill?
Victor Ch Because those proposals also have impacts on the health insurance market. If you force insurance companies to accept everyone, then people will buy health insurance AFTER becoming extremely ill. If someone has a very expensive illness, shouldn't they pay a little more? For example, someone who is 500 lbs, why shouldn't they pay more? We didn't make them fat and we shouldn't have to pay for the negative consequences of their bad decisions. Or a smoker with lung cancer. It sounds like a good idea, but even the best policies have unseen implications that cannot be predicted at the time of enforcement. I agree with your proposition, but there will be trouble when you force insurance companies to pass on the higher costs of high-risk patients onto lower risk patients. The lower risk patients will see no need to pay for insurance until they are sick if you accept all pre-existing conditions at the same price.
Victor Ch Force other, healthier people to carry insurance and overpay for its value, so that sick people can underpay for the value of theirs. This is, in effect, the approach taken under the ACA. The ACA sought to mandate that everyone carry insurance and to impose “modified community rating” - i.e., an individual’s health history could not be the basis for charging them a different premium amount. this is what we do now here is the link for this info economics21.org/html/who-should-pay-cover-pre-existing-conditions-2327.html
@@kutie216, What you propose it's good idea, but it will not work in real life. It has no chance to be properly regulated. What you propose was the concept before ACA. Most of of the insurers had (before ACA) a rule in contractor that they don't pay for pre-existing conditions. If insurance company went bankrupt (this happened to my employer's insurance in 2015, Health Republic) and next insurance company doesn't want to pay preexisting conditions of your family, what you supposed to do?
@@kutie216 , Before ACA, I had an employer’s insurance for my family with $25,000 annual limit and without a pre-existing condition coverage. If someone gets seriously sick in your family with this type of insurance, it’s BIG problem. This shows a fundamental problem with our medical system and regulation. I don't want go back to this wild west era.
Victor Ch Wow it had a $25,000 limit? I don't know if my insurance has a limit, but coverage does not kick in until I spend $5,000-$6,000. My coverage has not kicked in since 2008 or 2009 when I had 2 major surgeries. Regardless, I don't think I know what the best system is, but I don't think the government, more specifically government health insurance, is the solution. One thing many of us often forget is that health insurance does not guarantee health care. I'm not saying preexisting conditions should be denied covered, but that high risk people should have slightly, not astronomically, higher costs for insurance. Obviously I'm also assuming that those who qualify as low-income would still be on medicaid.
But I want my medical for all with Bernie Sanders as president, because he's the one that talked about it the most, and I even talked about it would be a better idea medicare-for-all would be health insurance for all no matter what like other countries have it.
If you are of reproductive age and can't afford your own insurance or don't have a job that provides insurance, you should be required to be on a method of birth control that you can't forget to take. If Walmart and McDonald's had a giant cloning facility to produce their own employees, it would be easy to get public support to have it shut down. But when government social programs are doing it for them it makes the people who want to stop it look like the bad guys.
Give an ethical example of the government's involvement in administration of involuntary birth control? I'll wait......🤨💅🏾We're not anywhere near the government being just enough to be involved in those decisions beyond making the choice available. If you're so concerned make sure planned parenthood is fully funded. They have way more programs to inform and empower people to take control of their own reproductive health to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Keep in mind that reproductive age starts at puberty, do you expect minor's to be involuntarily temporarily sterilized? I found out that birth control causes clotting issues for me; if I lost my job should I be required to risk my life?
@@MrsCyImsofly we vaccinate children against HPV everyday, why shouldn't we be vaccinating them against the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease that causes poverty and everything that comes with it? I personally think that Planned Parenthood should not exist. Every single service that they offer should be available at the nearest local clinic to wherever anyone in the United States is. And their most controversial services should be only needed in ungodly rare circumstances because there are horrible people out there who do horrible things. The entire Reproductive Rights debate is ass backward. The political party that supposedly believes in a supreme being who conceived a child in a virgin's womb without sex, are the ones who believe that pregnancies can be prevented. The political party that supposedly believes in science and evolution can't seem to understand that human beings have known where babies come from for around ten thousand years and should know how to prevent them. Both sides of that issue are right about some things and wrong about others, making it a perfect way to keep the country at least somewhat divided, and that's it's real purpose.
@@jnzkngs did you just say stds and hpv cause poverty and everything that comes with it? That's not even remotely true or how that works. its proven when people are well-informed and given access to tools to make choices about there health they tend to choose wisely, however this is a hurdle for people with low economic means and those who have been systematical deprived of adequate resources.
@@MrsCyImsofly no, I did something you will like even better. I called children sexually transmitted diseases. Having kids when you are poor almost guarantees that you will stay poor and that those kids will stay poor.
I had not heard of the details for the various plans before, so I found this very informative. Thanks.
It makes very clear that only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._
Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A.
Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
I think it's important when talking about Bernie's Medicare For All plan to mention that supplemental insurance for things like plastic surgery and other things that aren't covered by the bill will still be allowed. When you say it would completely get rid of private insurance and the individual market, that is not entirely accurate and could mislead people to think supplemental insurance on the private market would no longer be available under Bernie's plan.
Yeah, as I understand Bernie's take on it is that people can do whatever they want as far as extra, but his plan already covers everything important. (Not sure if it covers things like chiropractic care though?)
If it's like in the UK (minus the publicly owned hospitals), there would be "premium" private insurance for regular healthcare too. Rich people would be welcome to pay extra on top of their taxes to get the best of the best if they wanted.
@@d_dave7200 It is *not* like the UK in this way. Premium private insurance for regular healthcare wouldn't be allowed. That's what Dr. Carrol means by "doing away with private insurance".
@@danieljensen2626 This wasn't my understanding. Are you sure it allows for private supplemental insurance?
@@elliottmcollins If that's true, it's chance of passing even a large majority Democratic congress just went to zero. It'll have to be compromised on. However, considering his comments on plastic surgery and the like, I'm not convinced of that. If he allows that form of premium healthcare, why wouldn't he allow others? It's not like they'd get out of paying their taxes for Medicare for All. I think I'll have to find the link to his original bill and read it for myself.
If you don't have your health, you don't have anything. We need to help all of our people. Thanks for the great content as always.
No, we don’t. Half of this country are a bunch of useless parasites that don’t even pay taxes. Truth hurts.
@@truthteller4442 Say what you like, Internet Troll. But this nation tries for equality because we all deserve it no matter what "use" we put out.
When talking about the cost of these bills, I think it's important to mention the cost of the current system. There are many studies out there, including one funded by the Koch brothers, that show that Medicare For All would cost Americans less money over a 10 year period than the current system. So, sure you'd be paying more in taxes, but the increase in taxes would, on average, be less than the price that people are currently paying for insurance and would no longer have to pay under a true Medicare For All system.
Beating the current system isn't hard though. Hell, even a fully free-market version could do better. I think we should try to be a bit more rigorous than simply "better than now"; now _really_ sucks.
Free market is unable to compete in cost because it includes the private insurance co's that have at least 10% higher costs in administrative fee's compared to the current medicare system also because This Medicare For All (Sanders/Jayapal) have the biggest single pool of ppl by a long shot compared to a bunch of smaller free market ins. co pools. This will always allow them to have the most leverage at negotiating prices for procedures,visits and drugs down to the cheapest affordable price.@@Suedocode
@@Suedocode That's the thing though. Not speaking for other plans, but Bernie's Medicare for All plan would insure everybody in the US on all health needs, end any cost at the point of service, and cost less than the current system. So it's not just "better than now", it's waaaaay better than now in pretty much every way.
So they would not need insurance at all?
Under the Sanders and Jayapals Medicare$All ,the type of plan which the study was based off everyone would automatically be enrolled and get this health insurance.The only area the plan would not cover is elective procedures which area cosmetic surgery if you felt you would prefer to change or "enhance your appearance. you would have to either buy a private plan that just covers cosmetic surgery only or pay directly for the procedure.@@bencheveryday
As a democratic socialist, while I like Bernie's plan most (of course), any of the first four options seem like they would be huge steps forward. I'd be pretty thrilled with any of them honestly. The rest aren't really Medicare for All in any meaningful sense, no matter what politicians call them. Though I suppose they'd be better than nothing. Still, if we try to get one of the weaker plans, we'll end up with nothing. You can't negotiate starting from the middle.
Very true. Push for the entire policy though. Be ruthless in the primaries and make it clear that half measures and capitulation will not be tolerated. We have enough "compromise on everything" candidates to topple the party... wait a minute.
Only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._
Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A.
Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
Cut the fat from the defense budget and transfer it to health and human services. The country would become stronger and the world a more free place.
What’s gonna happen in real life:
More spending on military
Less spending on human services
More wealth for people in the military industrial complex
Less service for people who need help
What are we fighting for if we don’t care about maintaining the health of our citizens?
So all these plans are a variant of Tricare Prime and Tricare Select. The premium free, free or low decidable, free or low cost sharing, low or no max out of pocket, government sponsored health plan for service members & their families.
Off all the plans, the only M4A plan that addresses the elephant in the room i.e. 'the vast administrative waste' in the system is Bernie's plan. If you want to keep the private insurance - employer based system in place in the name of choice, it means you want to burn money in the name of administration
Exactly
Some form of private choice is present in any health care system in the world. M4A can be universal but it can't be comprehensive at the same time.
Except the private market isn't more expensive in terms of administrative costs. Medicare is.
@@ExPwner Alternative Facts
@@pet3590 it's not alternative facts. The "alternative fact" is the notion that it's cheaper BASED ON PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL COSTS when the reality is that Medicare patients cost more in total. The administrative cost PER PATIENT is consistently higher with Medicare than with private insurance. Just because your parrot friends in leftist circles keep saying something doesn't make it true.
To be clear, if a candidate isn't in support of Medicare for all of some sort, they're done.
Push that message. Establishment leaders don't like changing the system because it's their system. It made them rich and powerful.
We should oust them from office ASAP and install leaders who don't have to be forced and prodded to represent us. Support candidates who don't take corporate money.
Brian Harper You must be more specific than that statement due to the changed popularity % for Medicare For All compared to 2016 the corp. politicianshave changed their verbal messaging to subtly trick us into thinking they are for Everyone getting the best coverage at the most affordable price.New trick messaging " I support Medicre for All but we need a pathway to get there" -Why do they insist on a pathway because it allows private insurance to still keep a portion of the market which allows them make enough S for political donations much larger than we can + It gives them a long time period to lobby to weaken,halt,further stall+privatize(example medicare advantage).Sanders+Jayapals plan are the only plans that do not allow private insurance to offer competing plans on the market+ they reduce cost the most by getting rid of the middleman and with either of these plans we will have the biggest group(all of us) that will allow us to have the most leverage on bargaining down the price of procedures,visits and drugs keeping the costs down the most-Current pres candidates for this besides Sanders are Gabbard,Castro,Gellibrand(although keep in mind she used to be repub and more recently a conservative Dem)
You mean Democrats. Not all of us are stupid enough to support such economic illiteracy. And I don't even support Republicans either, but at least I'm smart enough to not be a Democrat.
James Adams .Meidcare 4 All is not aparty issue it is a people issues as polls show amajority of Americans want Medicare 4 All@@ExPwner including Republican voters. The Mercatus Center Study is not a Democratic or Republican think tank and it contradicts your statement of economic illiteracy on this matter as it shos a 2 trillion $ over 10 years switching over to Medicare4All.Also name calling will do nothing to prove your point.
@@ExPwner You sound smug, apathetic, and incredibly stupid. The only way to effect change is to invade and take over a major party. What us progressives are doing is working. Apathy is how we got Trump, 49% of the country didn't even fucking vote... that is stupid. Trump won because he riled up a base and they fucking voted. Get with it.
Dr. Carroll, I'm interested in which plan you like the best. It would also be enlightening if you could have an economist on the show to give their opinion. I think an expert opinion should have more weight than the opinion of someone like me, a retired military musician.
All of these seems better than what you guys have right now in the USA
It isn't, but who needs economics when you have feelings?
@@ExPwner its almost like you didnt watch their videos explaining how many of these plans much cheaper for the american taxpayer overall. 20% of private health insurance revenue is set to go for overheads. You dont have to be a business owner to know that for something that is essentially just paying stuff out, can even be semi automated. So with at least a public option, much of the overheads and aministration fees are gone. Most plans show that only 5% of revenue is needed while the other 95% can go to payouts.
These facts dont care about your feelings :P
@@MrRishik123 it's almost like you didn't read any of the technical details of the studies showing that these aren't cheaper unless you cut reimbursement to insanely low and destructive levels. Private companies operate more efficiently than government. Medicare has higher administrative costs than private plans even after you factor in profits. So you're just wrong and haven't looked at the numbers. Try again.
@@ExPwner ua-cam.com/video/J4zx8LRBB-Y/v-deo.html&ab_channel=HealthcareTriage
yea no my dude.
You didn't
Even the conservative leaning koch brothers funded research institute found its cheaper.
jacobinmag.com/2018/12/medicare-for-all-study-peri-sanders
So don't try and argue from the case of privatisation.
". Private companies operate more efficiently than government."
Bro, no, not always. Only a few companies like space X are operating more efficiently than the government.
ua-cam.com/video/nP95Frc0v4k/v-deo.html&ab_channel=Shaun
James Adams Hit the nail on the head. Most of these “Democratic Socialists” are a bunch of ignorant morons that don’t know anything about insurance, healthcare, or economics. All they here is “Bernie,” and “Free!”
this should be mandatory viewing
This vid forgot to mention sanders plan also added hearing coverage that includes hearing Aids . Hearing aids are currently advertised from $400-$3250 per ear.
I’m a big fan of 1, 2, and 5. I hate everything from 7 and up though. A public option for everyone is the minimum.
I've been searching for a good explainer on universal catastrophic coverage. Is that something that this channel has covered? If not, I'd suggest doing an explainer. I think many people simply don't know what it is. (For those who don't know, UCC would essentially be a government-provided HDHP and would rely on HSAs and supplemental health insurance to meet the "first dollar" costs of health care.)
Finally, someone else who knows of UCC! For those not in the know, it would seek to provide catastrophic coverage to the vast majority of the population. It can be implemented in two ways: through a private voucher system or through a government program. It it were implemented through a private voucher system, Americans would receive a voucher large enough to afford a HDHP that meets a certain set of federal guidelines. If it were implemented through a government program, then a income-threshold would first be set, with anyone below it receiving first-dollar coverage. Those above the threshold would only be covered if their spending exceeded the deductible amount, which would be based on one’s income. Some plans also include cost-sharing in the form of either copays or coinsurance.
Plans also vary on whether or not to charge premiums. Some plans do charge premiums, while others forgo premiums in favor of tax increases. The main purpose of UCC is to cover major expenses while leaving room for self-coverage when such an option is affordable.
If you can get everyone Medicare, and have it be cheaper and better than the current system, seems like a no brainer to me. Medicare for all costs were even analyzed by a conservative research group and found to be cheaper by 2 trillion over the next 10 years. Which makes sense as the government is a nonprofit and would have more power to negotiate drug prices.
No, they didn't find that. They found it with a totally unrealistic 40% cut in reimbursement to doctors.
Exactly. Only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._
Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A.
Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
@@ExPwner Not unrealistic at all. Not to mention, medicare for all would save lives. You may have no morals or values, most ppl do.
@@janewright315 yes, it absolutely is unrealistic to cut reimbursement rates to hospitals by 40%. No evidence to prove that it would save lives. Fuck off with your empty virtue signalling, dipshit. Forcing people into your plan isn't moral. Come back when you actually have a valid first principle.
30 trillion in ten years is nothing. Remember what the medical industry always says, “It may be expensive, but your health is worth it.” Damn straight, priorities.
We have a fucked up system where the government pays 300 billion in defense spending per year to private corporations fighting windmills and wasting it on lavish lifestyles and overhead and we can’t set up a basic health care service?
Bullshit.
When are we gonna realize that the military industrial complex is a complete fucking waste? The defense budget could be shrunk by half and we’d still have the best military in the world. But a bunch of CEO’s would have to find new jobs.
They’re fucking lying when they tell you to “support the troops”. They spend half the money they get on private corporations, not the troops. It’s a fucking farce
Fantastic video!
Thanks again!
Wouldn't people still want choice though? In most developed countries with universal healthcare you can still get private insurance if you want as it is usually better/faster but costs more.
New Zealand has universal healthcare but my parents still use private health insurance as it is much faster and they don't mind paying for it, why not let the people have a choice?
Tech Showdown Same with Canada, Germany, and the UK. People who want quality healthcare end up buying private insurance and go to private clinics for care. The US has way too many people for this to be sustainable. Our federal expenditures last year were $4.14 Trillion and medicare for all is an estimated $31.6 - $60 Trillion over 10 years & keep in mind that the top 20% of our population pays 86% of all income taxes!
In Canada everyone (or at least every citizen and probably every permanent resident) has government health insurance. Private insurance supplements public insurance rather than replacing it.
Periastron Yes I'm aware! If the government health insurance was adequate people wouldn't need or want private insurance. A lot of Canadians also seek treatment for complex/complicated medical needs in the US, and Canada's health insurance will often cover those because they do not have the available staff/training/resources on hand. If you want to see how Medicare "for all" would turn out here, look at the VA.
This article here talks about the similarities of Canada's nationalized healthcare system and the US's VA and medicare part D. Canadians often have to wait up to 4 months for cataract surgery, and hip and knee replacement, and in the US you would wait less than 3 weeks. Even MRIs or CAT scans are hard to get in Canada because of low availability and high demand.
www.cagw.org/thewastewatcher/veterans-administration-socialized-healthcare-system
I'm pretty sure all of these plans allow you to purchase supplemental insurance.
Also worth noting that we don't measure wait times in the US, so we don't actually know what they are for the current system, but they definitely exist. Especially in the form of negotiating with insurance to try to get certain procedures and out of network doctors approved for coverage. My dad spent 6 months arguing with insurance before they agreed to cover his surgery for pancreatic cancer because there weren't any in-network doctors who could do it.
But as I understand it Canada prioritizes life threatening conditions, which is completely reasonable. If you don't NEED care immediately it's not so unreasonable that you might not get it immediately.
@@kutie216 The cost of Medicare for all in relation to the overall federal budget is mostly irrelevant. We are already paying more than that for healthcare as a country, it will replace our current healthcare spending, not add to it.
Aint no way are my taxes paying for an abortion. Your body, your choice, your abortion, YOUR wallet.
What’s Dr Carroll’s preferred option? These are pretty different and I’m curious his thoughts.
To explain how different Medicare for All plans would work, use a hypothetical person who has cancer. Present a real world case study of cost and care details.
How would the cancer patient pay for doctor visits, lab tests, MRI's, radiation treatment, chemotherapy, drugs, hospital stays, etc?
Would the person have monthly premiums or a federal tax payment? Would there be deductibles, copayments or other expenses? Would there be wait times for treatment?
How much money would the person have to pay extra for having cancer? Compare to a cancer patient with both a good and bad private insurance as it is today.
Do any of the plans get into specifics of things like negotiating for lower pharmaceuticals prices? Or are all of these just centered on coverage frameworks? It would seem the feasibility of any or all of them is in the details
I doubt any of them are super specific. They're just proposals by presidential candidates. You wouldn't see any specifics until somebody tried to actually write up legislation based on these.
This is a keeper.
In the medicare extra section, the text says that if you dont pay taxes, you have to pay premiums. But you said that you dont have to pay premiums when you went over it. Was the mistake in the text or your voiceover?
Who else loves them, they inspire me to try new stuff
What if individual states like California, New York or Illinois decide to implement their own state-level universal healthcare systems before the US federal government implement their Medicare-for-all program.
Example: if California implements a state-level universal healthcare systems less like Medicare but look more like Britain's NHS.
Will the state level universal healthcare systems be absorbed into the Federal one or would those states be allowed to keep their own systems while the rest of the country uses a Medicare for all system?
The problem with that is that state have tight budget and that the federal government increase taxes or deficit spend more easily than states
The Public Option is still the best way to go versus Medicare for all. It will not cause taxes to go up and it will not destroy private insurance immediately. It will also force private insurance to create better care options and/or lower prices in the name of competing with the government's public healthcare.
Yeah you are right and after 10 years of the public option the health insurance companies will go broke
@@ahadumer418 Yep. This is the dark secret truth that they never tell you about. The public option ultimately destroys private insurance. Medicare For All just does it at warp speed.
@@deomartinez77 yeah you are absolutely right
Your 2 videos are most viewed on YT about this topic and the main goal is to confuse people? Is someone so nice and give me a link to any video where I could understand, what is medicare 4 all now, how many institucions are already in , how big structural change to healtcare system is in real, how many doctors would stay outside the M4A system, will the universal HC standerdise prices of medical procedures, will prices (quality) will be based on local or nationwide standards or even owners... Sorry for my English (and my country has universal HC for 60 years ) but I really interested to know what you already have and where r u going...do U?
#Bernie2020
@@Agtsmirnoff Fine Tulsi 2020
@@Agtsmirnoff I didn't say that identity has no bearing on politics. But for me, his policies would create a much more robust welfare state as compared to the other candidates. That matters to me more than if the candidate is a black gay woman. All things being equal, I would love to see a more diverse candidate, but it's not a priority for me.
No Nazi is a socialist. That's absurd. Socialists are first first and foremost for social equality. Nazis are committed to a rigid hierarchy usually based on White Nationalism. They are inherently opposed to each other.
"I DIDN'T say that identity has no bearing on politics." That's what my comment says. "DIDN'T." Reading comprehension.
When you say Nazis are socialists you are falling for Nazi propaganda to appropriate left wing ideas. Supporting a welfare state (for white people) does not a socialist make. Socialists believe in public ownership of the economy at large. Nazis may support an expansion of the government but they do not support economic democracy. History has proven that time and time again. That combined with their blatant white supremacy invalidates any claim they have to socialism.
#LearnEconomics
@@Agtsmirnoff the problem is not with the gender or color of his skin you racist/sexist.
I'm a German healthcare system fanboy. It is tiered. It doesn't punish the poor. The rich can opt out. It keeps politics out of healthcare decisions. It's the best of both Republican and Democrat ideals.
Medicare for all would save at least $2,000,000,000,000.
Seems obvious
No, it wouldn't. It would increase the size and scope of the government. The notion of "saving" money is based on a projected cut of reimbursement to providers by 40%. It is economic disaster. To suggest that it would save money is economic illiteracy at its finest. Medicare itself was projected to cost much less than it actually costs today.
Any “savings” would be at a major cost of your service. Doctors, specialists, surgeons, and healthcare facilities aren’t gonna work for peanuts.
Are you gonna be the one to tell a great doctor that makes 250k per year that he’s now going to make $40k per year, and that he also get to see triple the amount of people?
Yea, let me know how that goes. Here’s a tip....Bring a helmet.
Doctors and healthcare facilities only take Medicare because of the private insurance supplements that allow them to make a fair wage. Without that, only 10% of them would take it.
Exactly. Only the first two are actually _Medicare For All._
Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A.
Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
I get the medicare for all and even the medicare extra as it is like medicare for all, but just with a transition. However, the other plans that retain premiums and restrict the choice of the American people and keep employer based insurance don't make any sense to me and don't address the problems in core ideology, tax allocation, oversight of insurance companies, and administrative costs. Is it so hard to just have medicare for all for the American people and to give people a choice to pay for better private insurance if they want? If our tax dollars are already going to healthcare then the government should provide its people with health coverage.
I think Medicare Extra looks the best one on the universal coverage list though the age should be lowered to 60 and the Healthy America Plan looks the best one on optional coverage list. So there is it. You merge the Medicare Extra and Healthy America Plan and get the right mix. The Medicare Extra Healthy Care Plan.
But both of these systems would incentivize private insurance companies to only give insurance to young and healthy people.
These young and healthy people would either a) have to pay both higher taxes to carry the extra load of sick and old people of the 'Medicare Extra' program, or b) they would _resist_ paying extra taxes for a system that they don't need.
In the more unlikely case of a) A lot of people would be paying double.
In the more likely case b), the costs of the 'Medicare Extra' system would explode because no one healthy is supporting it.
None of that makes any sense in the world.
Only the first two models by Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are realistic, affordable healthcare systems. Those kind of systems have proven over many decades to be the most sustainable systems.
Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords. The last 8 models are just tricks of the private insurance lobbyists to keep racketeering off of the pain and suffering of those who cannot fight back.
@@bobrolander4344 but Europe’s countries like Germany France and UK allow private insurance
Elderly people have to pay premiums and cost sharing for Medicare, without an out of pocket max? And it doesn't even cover dental, vision, and medications? Well damn, no wonder they spend so much on healthcare.
My main thought is that private insurance should be kept to compete with government healthcare. I would be cheering for government healthcare, but if it is deficient in quality, access, etc., people should be able to go back to what they had before.
Even under Bernie's plan people would be able to buy additional coverage if they wanted it.
Medicare for All by Bernie Sanders or Pramaila Jayapal seem to be the simplest. People need a good plan, not choices.
A lot of the other plans with option complexities are a bit like Boeing trying to stabilize an unstable plane design with software fixes.
If the Medicare eligibility age was at least reduced to 55 or 60, many people would be able to retire when they're younger versus working to age 65 so they can have employer-based insurance, thus increasing the chances they'll end up in a casket before they can retire.
How would it be possible to eliminate all private insurance, essentially killing the Big 5 insurers plus the Blues?
I'm confused - isn't Medicare for all unfair to all of the people who have paid into the system through payroll deduction for so many years for their medicare? Will they get their money back when and if Medicare for all takes place? What is being said about that?
There actually isn't much of that money left in the system.
How about maximum wage for doctors? How about capping hospital costs? How about capping the cost of medical schools? The medical care system in this country is way over-rewarded. The drug companies are very profitable. Look at their stock prices, up 20% in one year. Let anybody over 26 buy Medicare if they want. Also form one consortium of all private medical insurance companies, and offer a competition to Medicare. Institute steel, iron, or lead, low cost plans for poor people.
Price controls are economic idiocy. Learn economics. We already have high prices because of a shortage. Price controls only make this worse.
Bernie got the one
And Pramila Jayapal's. Who by the way endorsed Bernie Sanders! =)
All the others (who are getting _massive_ 'donations' by the private insurance lobby) are just gaslighting the public with marketing tricks.
Premiums and cost sharing are not part of a universal system, you will have a large amount of people that can't afford the premiums but won't be eligible for medicaid, so THOSE TOO ARE BUY IN PLANS.
While single-payer SEEMS LIKE the way to go to me, especially since I consider myself a social democrat... But choice does matter to ppl! It just does! My father prefers his labor union benefits to Medicare, & I understand why! If we can get to a point of 100%-of-Americans-covered, *w/coverage they actually can afford to access,* by enacting a strong & robust public option & further expanding Medicaid... Who am I to deny a retired union member he doesn't get what he negotiated for in his 'collectively-bargained-for' coverage?! Unions BUILT the middle-class, after all!
Non single payer plans will simply leave the main advantages of singles payer plans on the table namely administrative efficiency and negotiating power
Is Anyone else reminded of John Green?
Oh I see. There's Medicare for All and there's "Medicare for All"
You missed one thing that nun of the plans address. All the plans give all kind of ways to ultimately divide up what health care we have amongst the people, in one way or another, but ultimately you will ether have to ration what health care we have so everyone gets there piece, or spend more money from some ware to buy more (Dr, nurses, hospitals, drug manufacturers, and everything that goes with healthcare).
I never see any of these health care plans that are supposed to save us money actually address things that make our health care so expensive in the first place, just who pays the bill. 🤔I think it might be because talking about the fact that the medical industry in the United States is way overpriced and saying that Dr’s, Nurses, drug companies, malpractice lawyers, and the entire medical industrial complex is way over priced, is not as politically friendly as saying it is the insurance companies fault. If you actually want to fix health care problems in the United States you are going to have to address the problems of Health care costs that are extremely high because the medical industry likes being rich and have created a system that limits supply no matter the demand. I would like to see a Dr tell us how we can make health care cheaper instead of what I keep hearing, which is Dr’s telling us all these different people who we can get to pay for there second summer home. Until we Address the stupid high cost of health care, the cost of health care insurance is simply a diversion tactic.🤨
I don't get it... Is the joke supposed to be a normal UA-cam video on April 1st? I guess you got me then....
I think Bernie's plan is closer to Medicaid-for-All.
I make 15 /hr I no o can’t afford the premiums
If millennials and gen zs voted at same rates as boomers, Medicare for All could actually pass
Start an Government Online Hospital for free for normal non-emergencies through an mobile app or computer. and open Government run Blood, xray, mri diagnostic centers to handle all the testing associated.
same thing for collage, online collages with classes/videos from the very best noble prize winners and multi billionaire business men and top lawyers and so forth,and each state have testing centers. Candidates are not thinking with 2020 technology they are thinking with 1980's technology
Medicare for all means it pays everything for everyone, there's only one version.
Exactly. Only Bernie Sanders' and Pramila Jayapal's bills are _real_ implementations of M4A.
Everything else is just gaslighting, and selling snake-oil with a bunch of vague weaselwords.
Nope! There’s only one!
Who the hell dosent pay taxes legally?
people who make less than the standard deduction I assume or can otherwise deduct/credit their way to pay $0 in taxes.
If you qualify as 100% disabled by the military and they're giving you your pension you don't do taxes.
People who are very poor, but also people like Jeff Bezos.
The negative ones are the lot of people who dont work and would rather live off someone and also welfare receipiants. Those who do work have to pay for those who don't..that seems to not be talked about. There are able bodied and mind people who could work but don't
😎
If the right and conservative were for small government, the medical bill could be on half page. 1. Insurer can’t discriminate based on age, gender, pre-existing conditions. 2. List of minimum/essential coverage. 3. No annual coverage cap. Why they don't propose this simple medical bill?
Victor Ch Because those proposals also have impacts on the health insurance market. If you force insurance companies to accept everyone, then people will buy health insurance AFTER becoming extremely ill. If someone has a very expensive illness, shouldn't they pay a little more?
For example, someone who is 500 lbs, why shouldn't they pay more? We didn't make them fat and we shouldn't have to pay for the negative consequences of their bad decisions. Or a smoker with lung cancer.
It sounds like a good idea, but even the best policies have unseen implications that cannot be predicted at the time of enforcement. I agree with your proposition, but there will be trouble when you force insurance companies to pass on the higher costs of high-risk patients onto lower risk patients. The lower risk patients will see no need to pay for insurance until they are sick if you accept all pre-existing conditions at the same price.
Victor Ch Force other, healthier people to carry insurance and overpay for its value, so that sick people can underpay for the value of theirs. This is, in effect, the approach taken under the ACA. The ACA sought to mandate that everyone carry insurance and to impose “modified community rating” - i.e., an individual’s health history could not be the basis for charging them a different premium amount.
this is what we do now here is the link for this info
economics21.org/html/who-should-pay-cover-pre-existing-conditions-2327.html
@@kutie216, What you propose it's good idea, but it will not work in real life. It has no chance to be properly regulated. What you propose was the concept before ACA. Most of of the insurers had (before ACA) a rule in contractor that they don't pay for pre-existing conditions. If insurance company went bankrupt (this happened to my employer's insurance in 2015, Health Republic) and next insurance company doesn't want to pay preexisting conditions of your family, what you supposed to do?
@@kutie216 , Before ACA, I had an employer’s insurance for my family with $25,000 annual limit and without a pre-existing condition coverage. If someone gets seriously sick in your family with this type of insurance, it’s BIG problem. This shows a fundamental problem with our medical system and regulation. I don't want go back to this wild west era.
Victor Ch Wow it had a $25,000 limit? I don't know if my insurance has a limit, but coverage does not kick in until I spend $5,000-$6,000. My coverage has not kicked in since 2008 or 2009 when I had 2 major surgeries. Regardless, I don't think I know what the best system is, but I don't think the government, more specifically government health insurance, is the solution. One thing many of us often forget is that health insurance does not guarantee health care.
I'm not saying preexisting conditions should be denied covered, but that high risk people should have slightly, not astronomically, higher costs for insurance. Obviously I'm also assuming that those who qualify as low-income would still be on medicaid.
Are we not going to talk about his tie?
Medicare For America is why I’m voting Beto2020.
But I want my medical for all with Bernie Sanders as president, because he's the one that talked about it the most, and I even talked about it would be a better idea medicare-for-all would be health insurance for all no matter what like other countries have it.
@@juanlopez9017but other countries also have private health insurance
Choice mean you can choose to be ripped off
If you are of reproductive age and can't afford your own insurance or don't have a job that provides insurance, you should be required to be on a method of birth control that you can't forget to take. If Walmart and McDonald's had a giant cloning facility to produce their own employees, it would be easy to get public support to have it shut down. But when government social programs are doing it for them it makes the people who want to stop it look like the bad guys.
Give an ethical example of the government's involvement in administration of involuntary birth control? I'll wait......🤨💅🏾We're not anywhere near the government being just enough to be involved in those decisions beyond making the choice available. If you're so concerned make sure planned parenthood is fully funded. They have way more programs to inform and empower people to take control of their own reproductive health to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Keep in mind that reproductive age starts at puberty, do you expect minor's to be involuntarily temporarily sterilized? I found out that birth control causes clotting issues for me; if I lost my job should I be required to risk my life?
@@MrsCyImsofly we vaccinate children against HPV everyday, why shouldn't we be vaccinating them against the most prevalent sexually transmitted disease that causes poverty and everything that comes with it? I personally think that Planned Parenthood should not exist. Every single service that they offer should be available at the nearest local clinic to wherever anyone in the United States is. And their most controversial services should be only needed in ungodly rare circumstances because there are horrible people out there who do horrible things. The entire Reproductive Rights debate is ass backward. The political party that supposedly believes in a supreme being who conceived a child in a virgin's womb without sex, are the ones who believe that pregnancies can be prevented. The political party that supposedly believes in science and evolution can't seem to understand that human beings have known where babies come from for around ten thousand years and should know how to prevent them. Both sides of that issue are right about some things and wrong about others, making it a perfect way to keep the country at least somewhat divided, and that's it's real purpose.
@@jnzkngs did you just say stds and hpv cause poverty and everything that comes with it? That's not even remotely true or how that works. its proven when people are well-informed and given access to tools to make choices about there health they tend to choose wisely, however this is a hurdle for people with low economic means and those who have been systematical deprived of adequate resources.
@@MrsCyImsofly no, I did something you will like even better. I called children sexually transmitted diseases. Having kids when you are poor almost guarantees that you will stay poor and that those kids will stay poor.