- In which John discusses the complicated reasons why the United States spends so much more on health care than any other country in the world, and along the way reveals some surprising information, including that Americans spend more of their tax dollars on public health care than people in Canada, the UK, or Australia. Who's at fault? Insurance companies? Drug companies? Malpractice lawyers? Hospitals? Or is it more complicated than a simple blame game? (Hint: It's that one.)
My problem with this video is it's an onslaught of information that gives the viewer the impression he's a fucking idiot. There are a few facts in there that aren't as commonly known but by not giving the impression that the dude had to pause to breathe, it basically hammers home the purpose: post to facebook, feel superior, expect your right-wing friends to bow down before your superior knowledge (or link-posting) and sit there smugly knowing you're in the right. Lemme break this down in far simpler terms: 1) wage controls were enacted by FDR in 1942. This had the effect of requiring employers to think "outside the box" to attract talent, since salaries were capped. Thus the creation of "benefits." 2) The formerly non-profit insurance companies found themselves in a competitive marketplace where their offerings became an extension of salary. Meanwhile, McCarthyism, which made it really hard to go back to anything "socialized." 3) Nixon squeezed out everyone but the giant insurance conglomerates with the HMO act of 1973. Simply put, yeah, stuff is more expensive here because individuals and small organizations have been unable to compete for prices for more than seventy years. There's your capitalism in a nutshell. The end result is that expecting fairness in health care pricing is like expecting to win a small claims judgement against the mayor. You're outranked, outgunned, and institutionally fucked. Everything else is just a symptom of the problem.
To be fair, the author's target audience are those trying to learn high school topics. Also, wouldn't small organizations have it worse off because they have less leverage with regards to negotiating prices? My understanding was that Medicare could get much lower prices on drugs and other supplies, it's just legally required not to.My problem with this video is it's an onslaught of information that gives the viewer the impression he's a fucking idiot.
Fine. It's still an onslaught. The "shouting head" approach to education is a big misstep. It should be avoided at all costs. Link 2: THAT is what I speak of - a system of basic health insurance that was affordable and universal to all, essentially, that was annihilated by the Stabilization Act of 1942.Also, wouldn't small organizations have it worse off because they have less leverage with regards to negotiating prices?
This era also saw the birth of one of the largest health insurance programs—the “Blues.” In Dallas, the administrators of Baylor Hospital created a system to help close the affordability gap and attract patients by offering high school teachers 21 days of hospital care for $6 per year. Similar prepaid hospital plans developed throughout the nation and were endorsed by the American Hospital Association. Combined under the name Blue Cross (BC), these plans had tax-exempt status under state laws that allowed them to operate as nonprofit organizations.
Around the same time, Blue Shield (BS) was developed by medical service bureaus composed of physician groups in the Pacific Northwest to provide medical care to lumber and mine workers for a monthly fee. Everyone was charged the same premium, regardless of age, sex, or pre-existing conditions.
These plans were so popular that when Sen. Robert Wagner (D-N.Y.), Sen. James Murray (D-Mont.), and Rep. John Dingell Sr. (D-Mich.) proposed a national health insurance plan in 1943, the legislation failed, in part due to backlash against government expansion into an area now well-covered by the nonprofit sector.
Watch what happens: http://i.imgur.com/Xzu0b3h.gif See that sharp climb between 1946 and 1952? That's " The formerly non-profit insurance companies found themselves in a competitive marketplace where their offerings became an extension of salary. Meanwhile, McCarthyism, which made it really hard to go back to anything "socialized" in a nutshell. You're also missing: So. We go from an AFLAC-like disability insurance because "health insurance was AFFORDABLE and universal to all" (doesn't mean they all had it, meant they could all buy it - $6 a year in 1921 is $76 a year in 2012) to exactly what I said.Health insurance—as it has evolved in the United States—began in the early 1900s. During this time, health care itself was not very costly; the chief cost associated with illness was actually the loss of wages. Thus, “sickness insurance,” similar to our current concept of disability insurance, was meant to cover loss of wages.
This era also saw the birth of one of the largest health insurance programs—the “Blues.” In Dallas, the administrators of Baylor Hospital created a system to help close the affordability gap and attract patients by offering high school teachers 21 days of hospital care for $6 per year. Similar prepaid hospital plans developed throughout the nation and were endorsed by the American Hospital Association. Combined under the name Blue Cross (BC), these plans had tax-exempt status under state laws that allowed them to operate as nonprofit organizations.
I think people continue to ignore the problem of free-riders. The US spends a bomb on military matters every year and NATO, Canada, and Mexico are direct beneficiaries. They are indirect beneficiaries as well because of the technology trickle-down effects, but I bet those are smaller than people like to believe, though that's just gut not science. The reason AZT costs $0.01/dose in Africa has a lot to do with profit capture in the US, for example. -XC