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.