馃攳
Why Obamacare Doesn't Work As Promised - YouTube
Channel: PragerU
[0]
We will keep this promise... to the American
people
[4]
If you like your doctor, you will
be able to keep your doctor.
[8]
Period.
[9]
If you like your healthcare plan,
you will be able to keep your healthcare plan.
[14]
Period.
[15]
We weren't as clear as we needed to be
[17]
In terms of the changes that were taking place
[19]
And I am sorry that they
[22]
Are finding themselves in this situation
based on assurances they got from me
[29]
It's very easy for a politician to stand up before
voters and say
[33]
"Health care is a right,"
[34]
And then passionately advocate for
single-payer, or free healthcare,
[38]
Or Medicare for all--whatever term they
might use
[41]
But before we consider the merits of the
government managing your healthcare,
[45]
And that's what this all boils down to,
[47]
Maybe we should ask a more basic question.
[50]
What do we mean by healthcare?
[52]
Because if you get sick, and here we're talking
major illness,
[55]
Or you're in serious pain, you don't just
want healthcare.
[58]
You want quality healthcare.
[61]
And where's your best chance of finding that?
[63]
The answer is right here in America.
[65]
For skilled doctors, cutting edge medical
treatments, and care without long delays,
[70]
No other country rivals the United States.
[72]
Not even close.
[74]
Nobody from Texas is going to Canada for
medical treatment,
[77]
It's almost always the other way around.
[79]
Sure. Our healthcare system has lots of issues,
and we should address them.
[84]
But do we really want to abandon all the ideas
that we do have,
[87]
And start from scratch?
[89]
Because that's what would have to happen if we completely turn healthcare over to the government.
[93]
So, let's imagine we make the change.
[96]
We hear a lot about how great free healthcare
would be,
[99]
But it's only fair we look at the downside.
[101]
The first is that government-run healthcare takes
medical decisions away from patients,
[106]
That means you,
[107]
And puts them in the hands of bureaucrats.
[109]
They decide, for example, how many
MRI machines are going to be available.
[114]
Or under what conditions you can get
back surgery, or a bypass,
[117]
Or even whether you qualify for cancer
treatment.
[120]
That's how it works in the United Kingdom under
it's single-payer system.
[124]
Because it has finite resources, the national
health service, or NHS,
[128]
Sharply restricts access to treatments like
hip and knee replacements,
[131]
Cataract surgery, and even prescription drugs
to deal with common conditions
[135]
Like arthritis and diabetes.
[137]
If you suffer from any of these ailments,
and many others in the U.K.,
[140]
You may just have to live with the pain.
[143]
And let's hope you don't have a medical
emergency.
[145]
In a January 2018 article in the New York
Times,
[148]
Patients in emergency rooms around London
are described as
[151]
"Having to wait 12 hours before they are tended
to...
[155]
Corridors are jammed with beds carrying
the frail and elderly..."
[159]
To deal with the situation, "hospitals were
ordered to postpone non-urgent surgeries
[163]
Until the end of the month..."
[165]
That hardly seems like an improvement over
what we have in the U.S.
[169]
A second big problem with single-payer
systems is that they are expensive.
[173]
Really expensive.
[175]
A recent study by the Mercatus Center at
George Mason University
[178]
Found that a Bernie Sanders style Medicare
for all health system
[182]
Would cost a tidy 32.6 trillion dollars
over 10 years.
[187]
That's on top of what the federal government
spends on healthcare today.
[191]
And this is not a new number.
[193]
Other studies have found the cost to be
roughly in the same range.
[196]
So, how would we pay for it?
[199]
Kenneth Thorpe, a professor at Emory University
and health policy official in the Clinton administration
[203]
Spells it out.
[205]
"If you are going to go in this direction, Medicare
for all, the tax increases are going to be enormous."
[211]
"Not just for the rich," Thorpe estimates, "but
for working Americans and the poor, too."
[216]
Charles Blahous, the author of the Mercatus
study, puts it this way:
[219]
"Even a doubling of all projected individual
and corporate income taxes
[223]
Would be insufficient to finance these added
federal costs."
[227]
And he considers that a conservative
estimate.
[230]
Canada knows all about exploding healthcare
costs.
[233]
In Ontario, the country's biggest province,
those costs took up 46 percent
[238]
Of it's entire budget in 2010.
[240]
By 2030, that number is projected to be 80%.
[244]
In other words, in a few years,
[247]
Ontario will have little money to pay for anything
EXCEPT healthcare.
[252]
Finally, and perhaps most importantly,
[254]
Government-run systems depress the search for new cures.
[258]
Biomedical research spending in the U.S. far
outpaces that of any country
[262]
With nationalized healthcare.
[264]
Even when you account for differences
in population or size of economies.
[268]
That's one reason medical breakthroughs
rarely come from countries
[271]
Where the government controls healthcare.
[273]
They come from the United States, where
the government doesn't.
[277]
The lions share of biomedical research and
development spending in the U.S.
[281]
Over 70 billion dollars in 2012 comes from
the private sector.
[285]
Discovering new medical cures and
technology is a profitable business.
[290]
And thank goodness it is.
[291]
Those profits drive innovation;
[293]
Take away the profits, and you will surely
take away the innovation.
[297]
Single-payer, free healthcare, Medicare for all,
[300]
They might sound great.
[301]
But like all visions of Utopia, they ultimately
produce a lot more harm than good.
[306]
I'm Lanhee Chen, fellow at the Hoover
Institution at Stanford, for Prager University.
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage





