First off about the insurance companies. Let's remember these are businesses and they're looking for profit and they'll take whatever measures necessary to increase profits. In most industries greed is often kept in check by fear off loss, usually loss of customers to competitors offering better deals, but Health care and Health Insurance aren't typical industries, not because of what they deal in, but the level of government rules, mandates, and regulations that add to the cost of their services and large amount of subsidizing the industry receives. Many rules and regulations don't usually make us safer, but often add to the cost of the products health care in this case and costs added as a result often make it difficult for smaller, newer, and innovated companies from entering the market and competing. So aside from just adding to the cost it kills smaller competitors. The larger players love this well because everyone is hit with the same rules so they aren't at any real disadvantage, they have the resources to weather it, and it kills competition and often any costs associated are passed onto consumers. In Health Insurance Federal and State levels of government often mandate companies provide certain health care services in their plans. While it sounds nice that they're providing more services it unfortunately adds to the overall cost of Insurance. People will take advantage of these new services adding to the overall cost and leading to higher premiums. This all put together prevents more flexibility with finding a plan tailored to ones needs and affordability.
There is a also a multitude subsidies directed at the system. I'm going to digress a bit here. When government taxes, borrows, or prints it essentially is increasing it's buying power and reducing someone elses. Taxes whoever is taxed is losing buying power, Borrowing whoever we're borrowing from loses buying power now, and when it Prints the money that pretty much means anyone who has and uses the currency will be losing purchasing power and whoever spends that money first is the beneficiary. So as the government reduces spending power somewhere else it subsidizes Health care on numerous levels like through Medicare. We're inflating the level of money in that specific market. Unfortunately more money does not equate a higher supply of goods and services and pricing is simply a system of rationing. So in order to ration the prices ultimately rise to ensure the industry is overburdened and the scarce good/service isn't immediately made unavailable to everyone. When Medicare was enacted into law their were considerable increases in Medical costs. With government handing out a largely unlimited subsidy for medical care. Patients have no incentives to be careful about costs and Health care providers looking to take advantage of the system and system has done little to actually contain costs. This leads to another point I would like to make.
If the government attempts to curb costs by controlling profit and prices this could have serious implications for the incentives within the market. If you prevent someone from profiting and making what they feel they should earn, those providers may start leaving the industry seek employment elsewhere, and/or the quality of service goes down as a result. Also in order to ration with out the appropriate supply and demand pricing their is either longer waits for services, or a biased/nonbiased way of picking and choosing who obtains care which has it's own issues. So the idea that the only issue will be insurance companies paying more is a bit of a farce.
When comparing the fine, or as John Roberts calls it a tax it isn't comparable to Police and Fire Fighting services which are directly provided by local governments through a number of taxes. Aside from moving to the wilderness the government provides this service whether you like it, or not. You don't have people directly paying for these services and then those that don't are fined. Anyone who pays taxes to these local governments be it sales, or property taxes pay finance these programs somehow. Where as with the Individual mandate if you choose not to purchase a health insurance plan for yourself the government can fine you. I will add that the fine is unenforceable. The only way the IRS could get the money is by subtracting it from your tax returns.
While the law being deficit Neutral is possible, it's not very probable. We're adding and expanding bureaucracies and increasing subsidies and considering the lack of incentive from government to actually run an efficient operatioin. The idea of the law being Deficit Neutral largely relies on savings made from Medicare and New Taxes within the Healthcare industry. Many of the expected savings rely on improvements in efficiency in medical care and production many of which are questionable. We also have to consider that Medicare was headed for insolvency prior to the laws passage and is likely reach that point a bit more quickly. Odds are politicians will find a way to finance Medicare, but there is no guarantee the fix will be deficit Neutral. Onto taxes the law, nor the CBO take into account how behavior of those being taxed may change as a result of such taxes. People will always try to find ways to avoid paying more taxes. Let's use the Medical device tax. Aside from another cost to health-care. If you tax that industry more it may discourage people from engaging in it and could possibly lead to drop in supply and manufacturing. The reduced activity in that industry will result in less revenues. That's why many large tax increases especially on state levels backfire. In New York they passed a luxury sales tax to make the rich pay more in taxes. What this lead to was less people bought those goods in New York, or entirely and severely hurt those business in the state leading to reduced revenues. Maryland imposed a increase on the income tax for wealthy citizens. But many of these residents ended up leaving the State which ultimately lead to loss in revenues. I'm not saying the jury is out on the law being deficit neutral, I'm just highly skeptical.
This video in general isn't very informative and doesn't delve that deep into the detail(let's remember that's where the devil is) of this large and complicated law. There are also a multitude of other issues that this law seeks(does not mean it will) to address and issues it simply produces that also need to be discussed. We also have to consider how the cost burden of all this treatment is being shifted and how new rules and regulations will affect other sectors of the economy in general. How it will affect employment. The video doesn't really deal with these issues and why I'm not discussing them. Personally I wouldn't recommend this to others.
There are certainly regulations that hinder more than they help, but I haven't seen much to support the notion that these constitute the majority of them. If regulations in general were harmful to large businesses, I don't imagine they would spend so much lobbying against them.
As for the increase in costs, this is contradicted by what we see in nations with public healthcare. A private system of health insurance is far more expensive, due to:
A.) The point at which the number of customers who can't afford insurance outweighs the gain from higher prices is high enough that it leaves millions of people unable to afford care.
B.) The fact that it gives hospitals incentive to suggest or perform the most expensive treatments, rather than the ideal ones.
C.) The fact that it discourages individuals from seeking preventetive care, and the cost of treating the problems once they become too severe to ignore is most often greater than the sum of regular checkups.
As for the decline in profits, statistics across our nation's history (and in comparison to other nations) show that the spending of the wealthy is not significantly affected by high taxes until they reach a point far beyond what anyone on the left has suggested. In contrast, aid to those less fortunate has a large and positive impact on economic growth; the poor cannot afford to save, so increasing their disposable income leads to more economic acticity than the same increase would in the hands of the wealthy or middle-class.
You have made some solid points, though, and I respect your thoughtful reply. In hindsight, this video could have gone into a lot more detail than it did.
Countries with socialized medicine have healthcare that is far cheaper to both the government and to the public AND of higher quality than we do.
The comparison to the Soviet Union is when things got hard to take seriously. To suggest that a socialized model like those of the Nordic countries is anywhere close to that is like comparing Bush to Hitler.
Because all businesses are guilty until proven innocent, their actual actions not withstanding, right?
"Countries with socialized medicine have healthcare that is far cheaper to both the government and to the public AND of higher quality than we do."
Is that a fact?
You've made a lot of claims, chum. You will now kindly support them with examples.
I'm familiar with the "death panel"-style myths, and of how they compare to actual data.
Despite spending more on healthcare than anyone else, our average life expectancy is lower, our infant mortality rate is higher, our doctors and nurses per patient are fewer and our overall quality of care are below those of just about every other first-world nation.
Btw, I love how you drew Obama's face. xD All these caricatures of him make me happy.
Hey what I wanted to say, I appreciate how you bring these political videos up. I mean I already respected you as a fun friend with creative stories and artworks, but now I respect you even more because I see you show serious topics and educate people too! Awesome dude!
Unfortunately, we seem to have an attitude of "America is best, so we shouldn't try to improve in ways that other countries have."