The lack of ideological diversity on Potomac Watch really hurts the discussion. Health Care is a complicated subject and it requires a more nuances discussion than presented here.
Neither of these speakers offers a systematic empirical analysis of why US healthcare is more expensive and less effective than in any other high GDP nation. Nor do their talking points explain why US healthcare is broken the worst and people die earliest and in the most debt in states with the best scores on the free market low regulation index rankings. They offer zero ideas about how to fix rural healthcare or how to address our gross racial disparities in healthcare. They say nothing about the growing problem of hospital/provider monopolies. They are silent on how private equity has degraded care quality. WSJ, this was a complete waste of our time. Next time give us evidence-based solutions instead of fluff and anecdote.
Compare healthcare to an iPhone? The fact is consumer has way more leverage in smartphone market than healthcare. If I can’t afford iPhone 16 I can go with iPhone 14 with not much an issue, or I wait for 1 year to get Apple AI technology. No ordinary person can do that when they need healthcare. That is people feel hurt and exploited. This discussion is like kindergarten talk.
Kaiser Permanente, a private healthcare organization, doing a survey on how well private healthcare organizations are perceived by the public? Absolutely no bias.
What do I want from healthcare? I don't want to be poisoned by my food. I don't want to be poisoned by the medicine I take to fix what I get from my food. I want doctors, backed up by hospitals, that give a crap about me, instead of just their bottom line. I want healthcare to be unusual, but when it is needed, to be effective. If I need healthcare, I don't want to have to declare bankruptcy.
Completely wrong take. You cannot gaslight the people into forgetting their horrible lived experienced, nor the premiums they pay or the bills they get. Or the profit the insurers make. Boo!
So I got a question... If you've hired and paid for armed protection to protect yourself from danger and harm in the unlikely event it happens, and you are confronted by an armed attacker: do you have to spend hours in an agonizing debate with your guards' security firm, going over every little detail to determine whether the attacker is a threat or not, before they can fulfill the duties for which you've paid their security firm? And even if, after much debate, the attacker is finally deemed a credible threat, you now have to pay your security detail's company a further premium on top of what you're already paying them before they can so much as tell you to "get down!" How would you feel about a personal protection company that operates this way?
The basic issue is that Americans want incompatible things from healthcare. That is, they want the best conceivable care, whenever they want it, for free. Unsurprisingly, this isn’t possible, and leads to anger.
I don't believe that is true. What Americans want from their health care insurance is a fair deal, or at least what they perceive as a fair deal. What we see is an industry in which profit margins are directly enhanced by denying care, and we see executives who "earn" exorbitant compensation packages- in part by finding more expeditious ways of denying that care. Most Americans don't see that as a fair deal.
@@brokenrecord3095 You “see an industry in which profit margins are enhanced by denying care.” You have just rephrased what I said. Not “denying care” means allowing infinite amounts of care, which is another way of saying “the best conceivable care, whenever they want”. There is no system that can allow infinite care. You state that most Americans don’t see that as a fair deal. What is the alternative?
Health care is very complicated issue. These people criticize corporate’s greed is complete wrong. They should look into Obama care and how many illegals didn’t pay into system but are allowed to use system for free.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
You forgot to say "sponsored by the insurance lobby"
The survey results cited in this episode are so far off from the public opinions in social media on quality of health insurance.
The lack of ideological diversity on Potomac Watch really hurts the discussion. Health Care is a complicated subject and it requires a more nuances discussion than presented here.
Neither of these speakers offers a systematic empirical analysis of why US healthcare is more expensive and less effective than in any other high GDP nation. Nor do their talking points explain why US healthcare is broken the worst and people die earliest and in the most debt in states with the best scores on the free market low regulation index rankings. They offer zero ideas about how to fix rural healthcare or how to address our gross racial disparities in healthcare. They say nothing about the growing problem of hospital/provider monopolies. They are silent on how private equity has degraded care quality. WSJ, this was a complete waste of our time. Next time give us evidence-based solutions instead of fluff and anecdote.
It's on purpose. This is the Wall Street Journal. Most of the people who work on Wall Street own a lot of the stock in 'health care'.
This is propaganda. I was trying to listen to Potomac watch to get balanced information and I get garbage.
Compare healthcare to an iPhone? The fact is consumer has way more leverage in smartphone market than healthcare. If I can’t afford iPhone 16 I can go with iPhone 14 with not much an issue, or I wait for 1 year to get Apple AI technology. No ordinary person can do that when they need healthcare. That is people feel hurt and exploited. This discussion is like kindergarten talk.
I don't think they want money for themselves. LIARS.
This is terrible propaganda! Your rich and so out of touch
Kaiser Permanente, a private healthcare organization, doing a survey on how well private healthcare organizations are perceived by the public? Absolutely no bias.
What do I want from healthcare? I don't want to be poisoned by my food. I don't want to be poisoned by the medicine I take to fix what I get from my food. I want doctors, backed up by hospitals, that give a crap about me, instead of just their bottom line. I want healthcare to be unusual, but when it is needed, to be effective. If I need healthcare, I don't want to have to declare bankruptcy.
Wow, this is complete garbage.
Very interesting, thank you.
I unsubscibed
Completely wrong take. You cannot gaslight the people into forgetting their horrible lived experienced, nor the premiums they pay or the bills they get. Or the profit the insurers make. Boo!
So I got a question...
If you've hired and paid for armed protection to protect yourself from danger and harm in the unlikely event it happens, and you are confronted by an armed attacker: do you have to spend hours in an agonizing debate with your guards' security firm, going over every little detail to determine whether the attacker is a threat or not, before they can fulfill the duties for which you've paid their security firm?
And even if, after much debate, the attacker is finally deemed a credible threat, you now have to pay your security detail's company a further premium on top of what you're already paying them before they can so much as tell you to "get down!"
How would you feel about a personal protection company that operates this way?
The basic issue is that Americans want incompatible things from healthcare. That is, they want the best conceivable care, whenever they want it, for free. Unsurprisingly, this isn’t possible, and leads to anger.
I don't believe that is true. What Americans want from their health care insurance is a fair deal, or at least what they perceive as a fair deal. What we see is an industry in which profit margins are directly enhanced by denying care, and we see executives who "earn" exorbitant compensation packages- in part by finding more expeditious ways of denying that care. Most Americans don't see that as a fair deal.
@@brokenrecord3095 You “see an industry in which profit margins are enhanced by denying care.” You have just rephrased what I said. Not “denying care” means allowing infinite amounts of care, which is another way of saying “the best conceivable care, whenever they want”.
There is no system that can allow infinite care. You state that most Americans don’t see that as a fair deal. What is the alternative?
The problem with U.S. healthcare:
Everything about it
Health care is very complicated issue. These people criticize corporate’s greed is complete wrong. They should look into Obama care and how many illegals didn’t pay into system but are allowed to use system for free.