Understanding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Reform Proposals

Good morning, Hank. It’s Tuesday. Let’s talk about the healthcare proposals
of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, but first I should say that if you’re interested
in healthcare or health in general, you should check out Health Care Triage, hosted by Dr.
Aaron Carroll. It’s an amazing show. Okay, to understand the candidates’ proposals,
we need to look at the current healthcare system and its problems, so journey back with
me to 2008. At the time, most Americans got insurance
through private companies. There was a publicly funded program for the
elderly to get insurance called Medicare. Many low-income families got coverage through
a publicly funded program called Medicaid, and about 15% of Americans had no health insurance
at all. So, broadly speaking, back in 2008, our healthcare
system had three huge problems. The first was those 15% of people without
insurance. Many people who didn’t work for big companies,
including me, literally could not get health insurance for any price because private insurers
could deny you based on pre-existing conditions. And for many other people, private insurance
plans were just too expensive to afford. And that brings me to our second big problem
back in 2008, which was that our health care just cost too much. We were spending 16% of our nation’s total
economic output on healthcare. Most other rich nations spent under 10%. Like, our healthcare costs were so stupefyingly
high that in the United States, more tax dollars per capita went to healthcare spending than
Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, or Canada. All those countries spending fewer tax dollars
per person on healthcare had universal, publicly funded healthcare. The United States had nothing close to that. Also, lastly, for all this money we were spending
not to insure everyone, we weren’t getting particularly good healthcare outcomes, like,
by almost any measure. From life expectancy to medical errors to
hospital admissions for preventable diseases, the United States was not near the top. So then comes the Affordable Care Act of 2010,
which was designed to address some of these problems, with the emphasis on the “some.” The ACA was primarily designed to get more
people health insurance. About half of the newly insured were supposed
to get Medicaid, which was expanded to include everyone making up to 138% of the poverty
line, and the other half were supposed to get insurance through exchanges, these marketplaces
where everyone can get health insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions. And the insurance would be affordable because
households making up to 400% of the poverty line would have their insurance costs subsidized
by the government on these exchanges. The ACA also sought to reduce spending by
lowering costs within Medicare, and it raised some new taxes, including one on medical devices. But it left the rest of the U.S. healthcare
system largely unchanged. So that was the basic idea. Now, the ACA has never been fully implemented
because a 2012 Supreme Court decision made the Medicaid expansion optional for states,
and nineteen states have so far declined to do it, which means that millions of poorer
Americans remain uninsured. That said, the ACA has been successful at
reducing the number of uninsured people. Today, it’s around 9.1%. And it may have played a role, although experts
disagree about this, in the slowing growth of healthcare costs in the United States. For the twenty years before 2008, healthcare
costs in the United States rose by an average of 8%. In the last five years, they’ve risen by
an average of 5.5%. But, to be clear, costs are still rising faster
than inflation and median weekly earnings. Healthcare outcomes continue to lag behind,
and our healthcare system is still far, far more expensive than any other nation on earth,
although the gap with Europe has closed a bit. The ACA wasn’t really designed to address
those problems, and it hasn’t. And there are other problems, too. In the employer market, premiums and deductibles
are rising as employers cover on average a smaller percentage of healthcare expenses
than they did ten years ago. On the exchanges, some insurance companies
are offering fewer plans. And because companies are insurers are now
required to offer comprehensive coverage with no lifetime benefit limits, many people who
previously had bare bones insurance plans have seen their insurance costs go way up. These are all real problems, but it’s very
important to understand that the structural shortcomings of the United States healthcare
system are much, much older than Obamacare. The ACA is not the reason our healthcare costs
are so high, and we know that because they were very high before the ACA. So with all that in mind, let’s look at
both candidates’ healthcare reform proposals, using analysis from the RAND corporation,
which is nonpartisan and widely considered centrist. Let’s start with Trump’s plan. First, he would repeal the ACA. Now, Trump has said he’ll find ways to make
sure that private insurers continue offering plans to people with pre-existing conditions,
but he hasn’t said how this would be possible. Trump would also change the way Medicaid is
funded, to block grants. This would basically mean that states would
get to administer their own Medicaid programs, but most analyses see these block grants over time
involving lots of cuts. And lastly, Trump would allow insurance companies
to sell plans across state lines, and he would also make all health insurance premiums tax
deductible. But remember, these are deductions, not tax credits,
so they would mostly benefit people with high incomes for reasons explained in this video. Altogether, the RAND analysis concludes, I’m
just gonna quote here: “The Trump proposals decrease the number of insured, increase out-of-pocket
spending for consumers enrolled in individual market plans, and raise the federal deficit
compared to the ACA.” So, here’s how: Around 19.7 million people
would lose their insurance if the ACA were repealed, and Medicaid block grants would
probably increase the number of uninsured further. Sales of plans across state lines and tax
deductible premiums would get some people insured, but all in all, RAND concludes that
about 20.3 million fewer Americans would have health insurance under Trump’s plan. Out-of-pocket expenses would go up, according
to RAND, for two reasons. First, because the tax deductions offered
by the Trump plan are less generous than the tax credits offered by the ACA. And secondly, they estimate that sales of
plans across state lines would raise out-of-pocket expenses because there would be an increase
in the so-called bare bones plans. These are plans with high co-pays or deductibles,
or limits to annual or lifetime benefits. RAND estimates that the average annual out-of-pocket
expenses per person, including deductibles and co-pays and insurance premiums and everything,
would go from about $3200 per person to $5700 per person. And the deficit would go up, because with
the repeal of the ACA, the taxes it raised would also be repealed, as would the changes
in Medicare reimbursement. This would lower some taxes, but most of the
savings were in changes to Medicare, so all in all, under Trump’s plan, according to
RAND, the deficit would go up by about 5.8 billion dollars. And I should add that all the nonpartisan
analyses I could find agreed on all three fronts: that Trump’s plan would reduce the
number of insured people, increase out-of-pocket costs, and increase the deficit. Okay, let’s move on to Hillary Clinton’s
proposals. Clinton would amend the ACA in three big ways. First she would introduce a $2500 tax credit,
or $5000 for married couples filing jointly, that could be applied to healthcare expenses
over 5% of income. So if you’re a single person making $50,000
a year and you pay $5000 a year in health insurance premiums, you would get a $2500
tax credit. Because this is a tax credit and not a deduction,
it would be available to everyone, not just high-income households, but that also means
it would be more expensive. Secondly, Clinton would reduce the marketplace
premium maximum. I know this is a little confusing. Healthcare policy makes tax policy look like
a pleasant walk in the park. But basically, right now the cost of health
insurance premiums on the marketplace exchanges is effectively capped at 9.6% of income. To not benefit from the cap, a family of four
has to make $96,000 a year or more. Basically, Clinton’s plan would lower the
cap from 9.6% to 8.5% for most households. But of course, that program would also cost
money. And then lastly, and maybe most interestingly,
Clinton would offer a public insurance option on the exchanges. This would allow anyone, not just seniors
and low-income people to get their insurance from the government. RAND hasn’t yet updates its analysis of
the public option, but basically, it would probably be cheaper than private insurance
because it would share administrative costs with Medicare, and so it would slightly reduce
the deficit by reducing healthcare subsidies. So all in all, according to RAND, I’m just
gonna quote again: “All of the policies considered increase the number of insured
people and reduce consumers’ out-of-pocket spending on health care.” RAND estimates that the Clinton tax credit
alone would lead to 9.6 million more people getting health insurance, and that households
of all income levels would see their out-of-pocket healthcare expenses go down. The biggest reduction in healthcare costs
would be for families making between thirty and sixty thousand dollars a year, but they
would go down for everyone. But of course these problems would also increase
the federal deficit by what RAND estimates to be ninety billion dollars. So that is RAND’s summary. Trump’s plan would lead to significantly
higher out-of-pocket costs, fewer insured people, and a modestly higher budget deficit. Clinton’s plan would insure more people,
lower out-of-pocket costs, but raise the deficit more. But of course you have to consider those deficits
in the broader context of the candidates’ budget and tax proposals. And to be clear, overall, under Trump’s
proposals, the budget deficit would be trillions of dollars more than under Clinton’s proposals. The other question, of course, is will either
of these proposals significantly reduce the overall cost of U.S. healthcare? And the answer is probably not. The Trump campaign will argue that selling
policies across state lines will increase competition, but that is deeply contested. And also, even in the rosiest projections,
it wouldn’t decrease spending much. The Clinton campaign, meanwhile, will say
that a public option would put real price pressure on private insurers. And it might, but I’ll put a link in the
dooblydoo explaining why a single-payer healthcare system would not magically fix the U.S.’s
problems. The truth is, this is a complicated, multifaceted
problem, and anyone trying to sell you simple solutions probably isn’t telling you the
whole story. And that includes me, by the way. This is definitely only an introduction. If you want to learn much more about healthcare
policy and health insurance and different strategies for dealing with it, check out
Health Care Triage. They’ve got a great video out now about
Medicaid’s return on investment, and next week, they’re have a much more comprehensive
analysis of the candidates’ healthcare plans, so subscribe to them. You can find sources, as well as information
about how to vote in the dooblydoo below. Hank, I will see you on Friday, unless you
have a child in the interim. End screen, Hank always says I need an end
screen. So I put some videos here about health insurance,
why you need it, what the healthcare system in the United States is like, why it’s so
incredibly complicated. Also, if you’re looking for a hot slice
of tax policy, that video is just one click away, and Rosianna drew you a bunny to cheer
you up. Thanks, Rosianna.

100 Replies to “Understanding Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s Health Care Reform Proposals”

  1. @vlogbrothers Hey if you guys have time would you be able to comment on/talk about everything going on at Standing Rock? The media is doing a disgraceful job covering it and I think more americans should know what is going on in their country

  2. I pay 60 dollars a month through my job. I'm about to be laid off. The "Affordable" Care Act price for me at that time will be 384.00 a month. I just looked. Just putting that out there.

  3. German health insurance system in a nutshell:
    Everybody who earns less then 57,600 Euro per year is obligated to have public health insurance, people earning more can opt for a private plan. In public health insurance, both you and your employer pay a monthly premium of 7.3 % of your salary, but maximum 350 Euro (in some insurances, the employee has to pay an additional premium of up to 1.4 %). For that not only you, but also your spouse and your children up to 25 years are insured as long as they aren't obligated to be insured by themselves (because of a job).
    The government is funding public health insurance with additional 14 billion Euro per year (around 170 Euro per inhabitant).
    There are no general deductibles; only some treatment-dependent copays. On medication, adults need to pay 10% by themselves, the same for home care. For each day in a hospital you have to pay 10€ (but maximum 280 Euros per year). Dental replacement is also quite expensive, but on the other hand, we are – I guess – one of the only countries that includes dental health care in the public insurance (I got my wisdom teeth removed this year and didn't pay a single Euro). Mostly, you swipe your health insurance card and that's it.
    The system (which was introduced in 1884 and remained mostly unchanged by the way) is far from perfect, especially for specialised doctors you can wait quite long (if it's not an emergency). On the other hand I know a Canadian who is living in Germany and was having some major health problems. She was amazed by how far everything went and how often she saw the doctors while she was in hospital – just to show that excessively long waiting lines and bad quality aren't necessarily properties of a universal care system.

  4. In UK and Europe it's free medical care for everyone. In UK when pregnant you also get free medicine and dental care too. Why Americans use insurance companies? Just make everyone contribute and there you go. Medical care to all.

  5. As a non us citizen I have a question: why do you bother with things that the president can not change? the only interresting things the candidates can tell you, the voter, are there plans for foregin policy.

  6. It stinks that there is still bias in these videos. It's not terrible. Much better than most. But by no means a true center. A grain of salt is still better than a beach full of it.

  7. Too bad he made this video before Obama care doubled in price lol if you pay attention on BEEING poor then poor we will be hahaa make America rich again

  8. why doesnt the gov. get out of the health care system? i know there are people that cant afford it, but wouldnt the gov. leaving the system end up lowering the prices of insurance?

  9. Im pretty sure Trumps plan, that was just released a few days ago, would actually decrease health cost and the deficit over time.

  10. Thank you so much for doing these! So much of the coverage of this election has focused on personality rather than policy, that I didn't even really know much about the candidates' tax and healthcare proposals before seeing these videos.

  11. I already can see how Obama and Hillary already take care about me in my paystub +1500 $ yearly. Free cheese could be only in mousetrap.

  12. In norway. If im sick. I call the doctor. The doctor gives me what i need, or sends me to specialist. Never had health insurance. We spend less on healthcare per person then the US. Its called universal health care. Look it up.

  13. what is being missed is that health insurance is not Healthcare. health insurance for $50 a month sounds great, but that pesky $6500 deductible (which goes largely ignored) prevents a lot of people from getting actual health CARE. you could insure every single person with a $5 monthly premium, have a $20K deductible and crow that it is a complete success. unfortunately reality gets in the way.

  14. UNBIASED REPORTING?!?!?! What dark sorcery is this? (No, but seriously, i need you to start a news organization cause I want this. Also a comparison display would be awesome.)

  15. There is a viscous cycle of greed involved between doctors, hospitals, and health insurance companies that cannot be reversed without Americans suffering because of it. If it were up to the health insurance companies they would only have healthy members that pay premiums every month and never submit a claim. The health insurance industry is a scam to begin with. The cost of medical treatment continues to rise, and those providing services (Doctors and Hospitals) are scamming the scammers (Health Insurance Companies) with fraudulent claims of services provided. Anyone could create this scam. Use this scenario as an example: I love coffee and I know others love coffee too.. Coffee is HOT! I would sell the idea that if you burnt your lip on your coffee, I would take care of your medical bills. So I sit back and do nothing but to collect your money year after year. Finally a day comes that you call me to make a claim for medical cost to be paid, and I ask you how hot the coffee was that burnt you. You tell me that the coffee was 101 degrees. I say, Oh, sorry. I can only cover your medical cost if the coffee was 102 degrees or higher. Basically I just collected your money and refused to pay your medical bills because the temperature of your coffee wasn't hot enough, and I show you that your policy states that the coffee has to be 102 degrees or hotter in order for me to cover your medical cost. Its a scam any way you look at it. Of course, people who don't have insurance receive a bill from the hospital for $400 for 1 Tylenol, and 1 bandage. Most people have medical debt simply because they can't afford to pay the bill. In return, hospitals raise their price for services to make up for unpaid debt. They then begin to submit fraudulent claims that the health insurance companies have to pay. The after math of fraudulent claims is increases in health insurance premiums. The cycle continues round and round, and eventually no one but the wealthy will be able to get medical treatment period. The hospitals will eventually only provide treatment to the wealthy people who can afford the outrageous cost of medical care. Health insurance will rise to rates that nobody in the lower class or middle class can afford. Everything negative about healthcare in America is caused by greed.

  16. I am not even a voter but the RAND report is very biased. There are so many controversies in that report and I just randomly stated some of those to counter your arguments. First, It fails to account the effects of competition if insurance companies are allowed to sell the insurance across the state lines. Second, assume all you claimed were the correct numbers, the report didn't analyze the utility per dollar actually people get. Assume you paid $400 before the ACA, now you are paying $400 after the ACA because of the subsidies from the government. Your deductibles are not necessary the same and you may not even able to keep your family doctors because doctors are opting out of the ACA. In other words, every dollar you paid have a lower marginal utility under the ACA plan. In addition, the deductibles are so high that you may not even want to use the insurance when you get sick, or people just ignore using their insurances and directly jump to the emergency rooms. As a result, the cost for hospital increase significantly and hospital will either claim a higher subsidies from the government or reduce their level of services. Third, saving accounts are money set aside from your pay before the tax. If you are working, it may significantly reduces your tax burden because it could reduce your AGI to a lower bracket. The trade off is if people are not working, they do not receive those benefits. I agree that would be a problem but America is not North Korea, and people are responsible for their acts. If you are not working, it gives you more incentives to eat healthier and exercise regularly and not to get sick because the high costs of medical bills, and provides more incentives for them to look for a job. Once they started to contribute their taxes to the system, the costs of the subsidies are reduced. In addition, people who are currently working are getting better tax deductions and better health care services. Fourth, the report didn't even account the costs hike when illegal immigrants are applicable to the ACA. I referred back to your chart, in 2008 there are 15% people have no insurance coverage at all. On the bright side, there are 85% of people have some type of health insurances. Your claim is more or less of total moral theories, and I doubt if that is one of the core values of America that made America a great country.

  17. nice try, but this drivel is obvious neoliberal propaganda. Too bad you wasted so much time on making this video because Trump will win and we will build a wall.

  18. What about states where premiums increased dramatically? Ohio's premiums increased 90% after the ACA was implemented.

  19. This may be weird…. but has anyone else noticed Johns skin is like amazing and glowing? I want to know his secrets…

  20. When the ACA went into effect, myself and many friends got our hours cut to lower than 36 per week. My friends were also threatened with a $96 fine if we did not sign up for mandatory healthcare by a certain deadline. The next year it would go up to $600. I was lucky to be on my dad's insurance – although it's bad insurance I at least got out of the fine. For people like me who are morally opposed to government, it's really cruel to try and force our participation in a major corporate-government infrastructure. The cost of healthcare would go ASTRONOMICALLY lower if we deregulated, aka, stopped making so many elaborate requirements for it. It's just like how the tax code is so complicated that the IRS costs more money than it brings in. When hospitals have whole floors dedicated to insurance (which is regulated and designed by government) then the costs go through the roof.
    I have been taking healthcare into my own hands for a while now. I get medication online for a third of the price; I go through Liberty HealthShare which is also a third of the price of standard care, and I'm totally independent of the state. If only there were more organizations like Liberty HealthShare, it could get a lot better. I just don't want to be forced into signing up to be controlled by a large government-corporate system. Whatever happened to live and let live?

  21. Gave exact quotes on Trumps plans but gave extremely vague "kind of's" for Hillarys….. Why did you even bother making this video?

  22. Basically Clinton is offering more "free stuff" that will just tack on to the next generation to pay off. If you're increasing the debt – you are not actually doing anything right.

    Secondly, Trump had not completely outlined his new plan so this is just all speculation on his health plan without looking at ALL of his plans holistically. This is the same for Clinton – you can't just take out ONE segment of what they want to do without looking at the entire picture.

  23. Excellent Video! Very informative.

    It is patently false however, to state that the tax deductibility of health insurance would only benefit the wealthy. This is false. In fact any middle income person especially those living in big cities with two household incomes, would benefit massively. The real issue is that many middle income earners in these areas don't get the benefit of some tax deductions because of the AMT which hasn't been adjusted in over 4 decades (PLEASE do a video on the AMT), which results in many deductions being dissalowed.

    It makes a lot of sense, in any event, that under either plan, that all health insurance costs should be tax deductible. If the government gives you no choice but to purchase the insurance then it is government mandated and clearly, a portion of one person's premiums is going towards another person's cost who received a discount. As a matter of principal this should be tax deductible.

    As for the exchange, I personally participated in it in New York and as I was self employed it made insurance "available"

    The problem is that the all the policies had radical increases in deductibles. Radical. And it was accross the board except for those policies that were "prohibitively expensive". We had a hospital visit and frankly, I would have ratherred not being covered.

    I was insured prior to the exchange as well and deductibles were never as high. Clearly, in order to "participate" in the exchange, the insurance carriers all offered lousy plans and almost all of them increased deductibles and coverage.

    In summary, the ACA removed "freedom of choice" as to whether one wants to or doesn't want to be insured. By removing that choice from the tax payer, the Insurance companies knew that they would have a "captive" audience and had a field day with premiums and deductibles.

    Either way you look at it, in the end, you couldn't keep your plan or, if you did want to keep the plan you had before, it went up massively in price.

    When I was younger, I got insurance for my wife and then 1st kid, and then my other kids as they came along. Eventually, I got coverage as well when I could afford it. But at least it was my choice.

  24. The whole concept of Doctor-Insurance-Patient is rigged to fail in the upcoming years.
    The main factor is the increase in cost of living: As the years pass by, both the doctors and insurers require a hike in their salaries. That speeds up the increase in cost of healthcare by almost 2 times compared to a single payer healthcare.

    Well, the politics are keeping the doctors' salary at a stagnant rate; while the insurers make more profits and in turn buy the politics. Everybody loses, except for the insurance companies.
    If only at least 50% of the people of US were smart enough to understand this, there would be some hopes. Funny how everyone has more concerns about grammar, racism and what not.

  25. Maybe Americans would be more indepedent and less in need of a healthcare system if we went back to eating organic foods like we used to. Why are corporations like Monsanto still allowed to get away with not labelling their toxic GMO foods? This leads to hidden long term health problems for Americans, and makes certain people with corporate investments in the heathcare and cancer industries very wealthy — the Medical and Big Pharma Mafias. This is why other countries that have healthcare systems for their citizens have outlawed toxic GMO's. They have seen the scientific evidence that has been kept hidden from Americans. If the human body is organic then the foods that it is fed should be organic too. Are we ignoring the fact that the Creator of this reality gave us everything we need to heal our bodies through the intelligence of Mother Nature? Maybe prevention is the missing key. I suppose that the blending of Western and (ancient) Eastern medicine might be an intelligent idea, too. By the way, one of my ex husbands is a surgeon, and he told me that in Medical school they are taught absolutely NOTHING about nutrition. Might this be because those that fund our medical schools and institutions have made a large part of their vast fortunes (Rothschild, Rockefeller, Monsanto) off of the backs of ill sheeple? THE SYSTEM "IS" RIGGED!!!

  26. This definitely has a liberal slant. $90 billion in deficit is not modest. If that $90 billion was given to people they could have 30 million people could have $3000 added to their medical saving account a year. Surgery Center of Oklahoma charges less for the complete operation than most people pay in deductibles and copays. The democrats have fleeced and robbed America.

  27. I suppose my biggest opposition to ObamaCare is that if you do not get health insurance you get a fine in your taxes. This is literally forcing people to buy something. This is not the place of our government. I am sorry but what this advocates is immoral.

  28. Mate you should do more to explain this like I'm an idiot. its way more gifted to be able to explain things simply and make a point than to explain things like everyone went to harvard

  29. I found it ironic how we look at tax credits and tax deductions. If you tax people and use the money to subsidize out-of-pocket expenses, if we instead allow the people to keep their money and therefore out-of-pocket expenses rise, how does that square up? Everything by definition is more expensive when they aren't subsidized, but we forget the fact that people are holding that money instead of it being taxed. When we phrase prices like this, we find it almost impossible to remove government programs because they are artificially made cheaper and therefore alternatives are always seen as more expensive.

  30. i've watched this video maybe a dozen times because something just bugged me about what you said about credits and deductions. i FINALLY realized that you're blindly asserting that lower-income filers would NEVER itemize, thus never receive the benefit of the tax deduction. this is very, VERY condescending (borderline elitist) of you.

    for any household spending more than the "standard deduction" on health care, they will benefit greatly from this. depending on the and their healthcare costs, other deductions, and their income, they could receive ALL of their taxes back, PLUS their healthcare costs.

    lower income households need to learn how deductions work, not just have credits thrown their way because they're too incompetent to use what wealthier people have been using for centuries.

  31. So he glosses over the fact that Hillary's plan would increase the deficit by $90 billion. See 7:53 in the video. Where would this come from? you have to be living in la la land to not realize that the government will simply have to recoup this cost in the form of other taxes or revenues sources that would "tax" the middle class in one way or another.

    Her plan would "increase" the number of insured perhaps, but it doesn't solve the problem that the ACA created and that is that
    the insurance policies became "Paper" insurance policies with massive deductibles and carveouts.

    The problem is our medical costs, and not whether or not you are insured. Clearly, the medical providers and insurance companies as well as the drug companies would all have to be "regulated" or "price fixed" somehow.

    That is EXACTLY how all the other countries do it. Whether we like it or not that is the only real solution and forcing people to "buy" bogus insurance is not the solution.

  32. Hi John, I'm really interested in learning more about the ACA and various perspectives. In a different video, you mentioned that you and Sara Green were both on the ACA. What are your primary thoughts/feelings/concerns/worries surrounding the vote and plan to repeal and replace the ACA? Also, I was confused by the first bar graph showing insurance (or lack thereof) providers which in total adds up to 114.3%. Thank you for your videos.

  33. with the republican congress, impossible for her if she were the president to do anything. now Trump's replace act is still not known. we'll see. probably he was the better option

  34. Yeah… The RAND Corporation is centrist. 8.8% of their employees gave to Republicans, while 91.2% gave to Democrats.
    Yeah, that's a "Centrist" group.

  35. FYI RAND gets 3/4 or it's funding from the US government, 1/4 from the US dept of the Health and Human Services. Do you really think they are non-partisan? Follow the money.

  36. What a backward country! What country through out history has never looked after their sick? It can be classed as Barbaric. Yet the Barbarians probably took care of their sick and aged. In this regard America is like old Rome. Is that progress? They make good films though!

  37. I find it somewhat irritating when people come out and say "well…look at how many people are insured" and forget to mention that it's mandatory to get insurance.

    This year the lowest premium available for me is $362 per month that covers up to 60% on most services and has a $9000 deductible before I can enjoy that 60% discount.

    It's utterly disgusting to call this coverage! It's just shameful to say "more people have coverage" when more people who don't qualify for subsidies can't use that coverage at all!

    Did no one ever think "gee, if we force everyone to buy this, and we promise to pay for it what's stopping companies from raising the price? "

  38. 1. So much of this is incorrect because it varies drastically from state to state. Prior to Bill Clinton being in office all the low income, poor and homeless had Medicaid. AS well as AFDA helping single mothers. Clinton ended all those options in 1996. That is the starting point of Medical crisis in America

  39. 2. I carried Blue Cross Blue Shield PPO which was like the Platinum of Insurances for $316. a month /$100 deductable yearly (family coverage). After that horrific #ACA my insurance premiums went up to $996/month and $800 deductable. Also since 1 child has a pre-existing condition, she cannot get medical treatment now for that specific condition without me paying cash for the treatment.

  40. 3. Just because you carry insurance now, doesn't mean that anyone will take the coverage you have. We have been refused by dozens of health care facilities even though I still carry premium insurances. They are all cash & carry services. They basically don't accept any kind of insurances at all. Which should be illegal, but under ObamaCare it is acceptable.

  41. 4. The entire #ACA was created for the sole benefit of the insurance company stockholders and nothing more. This was the Democrats sleeping with the enemies to make their friends even more wealthy at the cost of the American citizens,

  42. 5. Had anyone bothered to read the actual ACT before voting on it, would have been able to see that by 2020,,,  54 MILLION would be without coverage anyway since the premiums would be that of 6 times the basic affordability.

  43. 7, Now when you say the ACA was suppose to cover everyone including those with pre-existing conditions but the healh care providers do not have to accept that person with preexisting conditions if their insurances are so minimul that it will not benefit them to treat those patients with those pre-existing conditions. They are turned away as what we have been time & time again…even with premium health care plans.  The ACA is so ambiguous it gives the HC providers all the powers to decide who they treat and who they can just turn away regardless of your plans..

  44. 8, The money I was stashing for college tuitions, now go to pay our health care coverages because of how horrific aACA turned out to be. it is literally imploding in on itself and the Democrats knew this was coming. They were warned over and over by a multitude of agencies it was going tits up and Democrats did nothing to fix the problems. AS USUAL!
    Being as you are over the TOP Democrat, you obviously put such a Democratic slant on this to sugar coat it,  to get the ignorants to vote for Hillary! Bad move. It discredits you since you didn't investigate this as much as you should have!

  45. I am getting election ads for my Province's provincial election, I wanna put the comment out stating I am too young to vote in the hopes that youtubes invasive ad algorithms will find this and give me less political ads.

  46. Watching this in the aftermath of House Republicans voting to repeal the ACA, just listening to you describe the Clinton plan made my skin feel cleaner and my blood pressure went down. Also I should really go subscribe to Healthcare Triage now.

  47. Rather than focussing on Obama, Clinton  and trump care the US should look at other countries systems as yours is not working, here in Australia everyone pays 1.5% of annual income this is called Medicare,  The government system, you need to have private insurance as well so you don't have to go on a waiting list for operations, if you have private you get into hospital straight away, both systems offset each other on co payments, you cannot get out of paying Medicare, in the end someone has to pay and that's is everyone has to contribute, not each state going it alone, but that's what the brains trust gets paid to do, not commentators like me to worry about.

  48. I spoke with some exchange students from switzerland, they did inform me that there education and healthcare systems are universal. In America you have to pay to play. It would be the greatest debate of all time to universalize healthcare or education for that matter. This is a rags to riches nation. Hard work gets you where you want to go and of course a support group. A policy change to make healthcare universal for everyone, wouldn't patients love that, I would. We would have to make education universal to train a army of doctors to support that notion. Otherwise, who would really suffer. The doctors. I love the idea but could it actually work in America. Hmm.. I wonder when the mentioned countries established this universal system? How many years would it take to adjust for the demand. Intriguing!!

  49. I missed about half a minute thinking…"WHY HIS SKIN SO SMOOTH THO?!" *rewinds so I can pay attention this time*

  50. But what most people don't get is the problem wasn't too much free market, we need more free market so prices can drop.

  51. So in summary we had a healthcare system that was already offering expensive services, and to solve the problem our government started subsidizing it. The new rules made insurance premiums more expensive, combined with new taxes which means we are spending more of a percentage of our GDP on healthcare than ever even though we were already well above other nations.

    We fixed the problem of sending too much on healthcare by spending more. Funny that.

    You then compare both of the candidates general solutions to this illogical system created. Hillary's covers more people but whether or not we can afford it is a question not answered (it sounds great on the surface but bankruptcy comes later). Trump's plan is, well he has never made a very clear plan, so I don't know.

  52. I had to backtrack a couple of times because the art in the background keeps catching my attention. I wanna see each piece up close!

  53. I've seen a few comments bragging about free healthcare in some countries. Just a reminder that it's not free, just free at the point of service. So it's pre-paid, kinda like insurance. I live in the uk, earn about £26k/year and pay around £2.5k/year National Insurance, which is a mandatory tax here if you work. This pays for my healthcare on the NHS, and also for the healthcare of everyone who doesn't pay National Insurance (children, the elderly, the unemployed, those who work cash-in-hand, and foreign visitors). I then pay tax on top of that for everything else.

  54. Sep 2 – Benjamin Fulford – Rothschilds surrender US Corporation bankrupt!! USA Republic accepts shared human destiny.| 2017!! U.S.A. of America, Inc. (a foreign company) gone!! Debt completely negated!! We are once again A REPUBLIC!!

  55. What is your proposed solution? You seem knowledgeable but there are so many issues I think it's hard to know what to do next.

  56. Join the #CME & #CPD Accredited 14th Edition of International Conference on #HealthCare & #PrimaryCare during May 28-29, 2018 in #London, UK. Visit: https://healthcare.euroscicon.com/registration

  57. We can’t give all control to government, but I don’t think the people can handle it on their own either, let alone pay for it. I don’t think any bill will find a sweet spot soon.
    I just hate leftist bias. So thank you for trying to keep it neutral as possible.

  58. It's not just "how much we spend", but WHAT we spend it on. Is it "healthcare", or is it preventative. We have NO preventative healthcare system. It's like we're putting out a fire aiming at the flames. But then again… it's DESIGNED that way.

  59. John you forget! When obamacare was instituted, employers also reduced employee hours further, so they didn't have to offer healthcare. Which meant, those people had to work 2, 3, or 4 jobs just to pay for that insurance, that they couldn't afford to use. Well guess what, the people that NEED healthcare coverage still couldn't get it. Why you ask? Because their health limited the number of hours they could work!, If they could work at all! Deductible of $3200-5700? What a joke! In 2016, I was suppose to pay a $7100 deductible! Make sure that numbers are correct before you try talking about a subject.

  60. Remember when Hillary was the First Lady (not much of a lady either)? Her healthcare proposal was a disaster, much like how she’s a disaster!

  61. No Obamacare was horrible, it wasn’t affordable, it had a penalty if you chose not to do it which was really high. So please don’t pretend Obamacare was in sort of an answer.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *