One Payer States is an 501 c 4 organization devoted to achieving universal for the U.S. The OPS RU-vid Channel contains a wide variety of short and long videos documenting the need for and route to universal health care. A few of the videos are personal (mchuntington@gmail.com).
Well, i have to tell you that América health system is more expensive but it is not better than our spanish system. Rocio jurado went there, and ahe died. More expensive is not the same as better. The problem is that many people from other countries think that it is free but it is not because all spanish citizens pay it with our taxes. It is not free. We pay it for it.
I guess maybe one option would be to have free access to basic healthcare. And complement with private insurance if you want additional services, for instance, private room (in hospitals)…
Yes, Spanish healthcare is paid by its citizens; however, it is not the best when it comes to technology. You will have to wait for long periods of time to get specialized care and will not have the latest or greatest when it comes to treatment. Why else do rich Spaniards seek medical treatment in the U.S. instead of Spain?
The only Spaniards that look for USA healthcare are the ones desperate searching an experimental treatment non approved by national medical institution. In the last 20 years, the service has been degraded by politicians that look for privatize the service; but if you have something serious (like cancer), you will enter in fast protocol. In just a couple of years three members of my family were saved thanks to public healthcare. If all of that would happen in USA, we would be broken. About tech... Bro; firstly, many of your hospitals; above all the public ones, are tearing apart because there's no investment since the 70s. Apart from that, Spain is one of the most relevant countries in public healthcare and medical research per money spend; right now, your doctors are using for chest surgeries a machine invented by Spanish meds, so... There're also many prestigious Spanish surgeons that works for Spanish public system and works internationally for private systems like the USA, Qatar, Indonesia; doctors that are learning and working for the people in Spain, and making money for this knowledge around the world. It's funny, because many times the "state of the art" of surgery in USA is a European public surgeon that has schedule an expensive surgery in the USA XD
I think life expectancy figures speak much clearer and louder than whatever opinion. On average we live six years longer in Spain than in the USA, and a public health system goes a long way towards that. The rest is talking business, not people.
Spain celebrities when told by doctors their cancer is incurable turn to the US in desperation cause they think if you are millionaire you get cured. Go figure !
Your way of life doesn't benefit me or my family in any way shape or form. So pushing your ideology on me and other Americans, then demonizing us for having different opinions and a different way of life is very un American. Especially if you think reality cares about pronouns or your feelings
Well said. They'll say they care about ALL people and then dehumanize seventy four million people by calling them "MAGAts." You know who else used that type of dehumanizing language? Hitler. The third wave experiment is a great example of what these people are doing.
The reality of the American system is that in addition to being private, it is a scam. Insurers have free rein to set the prices they want without restriction. In the US they pay 5 times more for anything simply because no one from the government prevents it. They do not need to establish a public system like those in Europe. What they need is someone to control the insurance companies and big pharma.
@@klmklm8570 Im from Spain i already know, but its not cheaper broski, he said it would be cheaper to implement that in america in comparison to the system that they have now. What a lie!
@@klmklm8570 do you think paying taxes is free? or do you think the government creates money to pay healthcare magicly? It would be an amazing amount of taxes for every citizen, just come to work in spain buddy, a company pays you 2000eu you recieve 1000 and every product has at least 21% taxes plus extras depending on the product. Sounds so beautifull but its painfull. Im not supporting the current US healthcare system, but you have to be realist...
In the long run it's better for everyone including you. As he said if you have cancer in Spain, you can afford the treatment, there you can't be treated unless you're rich or have big amounts of savings, and that applies to other illness. So yeah you pay it through taxes but you still have money to live and you can afford to go the hospital, so it's cheaper. Otherwise, you go to bankruptcy and you can't buy the basic things nor get more treatment. And if there's public healthcare, you can live without worrying about having enough savings in case you need it one day in the future.
Europe's health system works for society, people, but the american one is for ONLY some individuals, instead of delivering the service to universal, these bunch of individuals are just making profits; so think about it 5 min if you think Spain or Europe is poor
Hey Sergio. Have you ever commented the huge ammount of taxes it will be necessary to raise to have something similar to Spanish health care? And the fact to have to wait several years for a serious surgery? And 100% public hospitals full of "funcionarios"?
Pues podrían gastarse el dinero en éso en lugar de los gastos militares, aún así EEUU gasta más que España en sanidad pero de manera menos eficiente. Lo segundo que mencionas es precisamente porque se le está dando la espalda a la sanidad pública. Y sí, los que trabajan ahí son funcionarios.
In July 2023, the 'Radar Healthcare' portal published the ranking of the 33 developed countries on the planet with the best quality of care in their respective health systems. In it, Spain ranked fifth on the global list and third in Europe. The difference is that in Spain you have one of the best health care in the world for free (6'9% of the GDP), while in the United States you have health care that only the rich can afford. Emergency visits and surgeries, in which the patient's life is at imminent risk, are immediate. The specialties with the longest average waiting time are Plastic Surgery with 239 days, followed by Neurosurgery with 213 days and Traumatology, with an average of 149 days. Since the 2019 pandemic, it has been difficult to reach the optimal number of health professionals, which is why waiting times have increased. In any case, the quality of professionals continues to be good, generating the phenomenon of "health vacations", whereby citizens from other parts of Europe come to Spain to enjoy public healthcare.
For those who think he is saying that all hospitals belong to the government, that is not the case. There are private hospitals and you can have health insurance instead of depending on the public health system. It is a universal public service that you can complement with private insurance, for which you do not pay as much as in the United States. The big difference is that because there is a public health service, private companies cannot abuse prices. If they charge too much, people return to the public health system. In addition, by law it is prohibited to set abusive prices for medicines or treatments and negotiations are made with large pharmaceutical companies to give discounts to the government for making very large purchases of medical products. And doctors in the public health system are allowed to work in private clinics as a way of earning more money apart from the work they do in public hospitals.
IT makes no sense what you say. PUBLIC SERVANTS are just workers that work for the government and when they go on strikes it's usually because working conditions are becoming worse. If you think Spanish public Healthcare has problems blame it on the bureaucrats and politicians behind it, not the workers. It's the most childish thing I have heard.
This is a travesty. The work done in California has been by CNA.and allies. Why not have in the panel those who actually supported AB 2200? Peter Shapiro in his healthy CA Now org has worked against single payer and for insurance friendly SB 770!“ unified Financing”. A sham. Shameful.
Hello sir, I am analyzing your RU-vid channel, your content is excellent, But here are some problems: 1. SEO score is meager 2. No title - description - tags are SEO friendly 3. Not sharing on social media platforms and your RU-vid channel is a lot of trouble. As a result views, likes and subscribers are not increasing. Benefits of 100% SEO Score: 1/ Views will increase 2/ Likes will increase 3/ Customers will increase 4/ Viewing time will increase 5/ Business will increase 6/ Audience will increase. 7/ Sales will increase. So, if you want your channel to increase subscribers, views, likes, and comments with proper video SEO, Google ads, and monetization, it will be your right decision. Would you like to increase your SEO score and promote your video? I am waiting for your response. Thank you. My WhatsApp number.+8801673703767
I'm not from Ohio but if i did you'd have my vote! Im focusing my donations on swing states hard this year. The purple and pink states with slightly more affordable places to live, I believe have lots of potential!
Freedom from want is impossible without a tyrant class that redefines what other people want for them. Resources are inherently limited by space and time. For example, the doctor providing healthcare services has a limited amount of time that they can work each day before it starts harming their health. If the number of patients needing service is greater than the number that the doctor can service before taking harm, then someone will be harmed no matter what. The current solution is that doctors have greater protections from taking harm while providing services than their patients do. The reason for this is that harm to the doctor decreases the total amount of healthcare resources available to society, while harm to a patient does not. If we impose a right that all patients must have equal care, then there is a temporary boost to healthcare as the providers are forced to work harder followed by a collapse below baseline as the providers become ill or impaired and eventually quit the profession. Over a long enough period of time, the harm taken by healthcare workers will cause the total amount of working hours where services could be provided to shrink so that less care is provided than the original model. All of this is before we look at things like limited equipment, room, medication, etc. If there are 30 patients who need heart transplants and 1 donor heart, how do we decide who gets it? The current model weighs multiple factors, including how much benefit each patient will receive from the treatment, likelihood of success, and the amount of resources each patient will provide in exchange. The amount of benefit is important because it is believed that a patient who receives greater benefit from treatment will go on to be more productive (create more resources for society). The likelihood of success is important because you are sacrificing other patient's opportunity, so there needs to be a reasonable belief that the treatment will work. The amount of resources that the patient can provide in exchange is particularly important because those resources can be translated into greater healthcare services for the whole community. Buildings, equipment, personnel, training, etc. all require labor and supplies which are only acquired fairly in exchange for resources. While a heart transplant provides a clear example of something that CANNOT ever be equally or fairly distributed to everyone who needs it, all healthcare resources are extremely limited compared to the amount of people that need them and they all currently run into the same problems as the example above when scaled up to the global population. Despite the natural forces of reality stacked against them, a handful of medicines and treatments have become universally available and relatively affordable. These are the ones that have been around the longest, and include painkillers such as asprin, antibiotics such as penicillin, or other useful compounds like antihistamine, insulin, and epinephrine. When antibiotic treatment with penicillin was first discovered, the only people who had access to it were active front-line soldiers. The first publicly available penicillin would have cost over $10,000 in today's US money to produce a 1-hour IV treatment. Today, you can take a few pills for less than 100$ without medical insurance and receive the same care. The reason why the price has decreased is that the people who paid through the nose for treatment back in 1945 funded further research and production facilities that gradually made the service available to everyone. The best way to increase access to healthcare services is to either wait for the system to play out as it has done previously (while regulating and prosecuting malicious actors who try to unfairly extract resources) or to source additional resources from donations. If in 1945 we had mandated that penicillin be available for 100$ to everyone, the people who were making it would not have run out of resources to maintain production, not to mention been completely unable to expand production. The cost of medication today pays for the entire production line, from the factory worker in China getting paid 45 cents an hour, to the ship captain sailing the rusted-out third-hand container ship, to the dock worker whose union went on strike in June 2023 for better wages, to the truck driver that carried it to the hospital, to the nurse who has been on her feet for 16 hours before she gave it to you. Which one of them takes a paycut for your medicine?
Why doesn’t the federal government pay for doctors education and make the new doctors serve in particular geographic areas and in medical areas that are needed for a particular time.. Cuba did (does?) it
There are not enough doctors as Angel said. Cuba pays for medical school. Why can’t we do this. ? There used to some programs where some or all costs of medical education were paid by the government If the new doctor worked in some area chosen by the government for a certain period of time. Are any of these programs still available and if not, why not?
Sorry to say the first few minutes of the zoom were somehow omitted from the you tube. Otherwise Xllnt program and I really appreciated all the presentations especially Doug Boysen. All the comments made by each were spot on and his comments were that plus a relief to hear as they relate to our community’s healthcare. Thank you all
I’m Medicare plus a supplement plan. Before I retired I worked 40yrs in rural medical imaging. From my perspective consolidation of medical services hasn’t improved quality. My concerns are cost based. When private equity corporations own healthcare providers it’s more likely that they will refuse to take on new Medicare patients because of low reimbursement rates. I will never subscribe to medicare (dis)advantage.
I purchased Dr. Belk's book couple years ago. Based on his info on Medicare, I just enrolled in original Medicare and will forego supplemental insurance and will pay out of pocket for copays. So far I have been healthy and have not used medical services.
Excellent work. We might consider the Four Freedoms of the Atlantic Charter as a strategic path against the few who would rule the many. For example, as a conversation starter we might direct to the last six words of the Pledge of Allegiance. Whose side is the listener on?
I wanted to clarify that my intent in this presentation is NOT to support Medicare Advantage plans. I know from my own research and experience that Medicare Advantage plans are draining our taxpayer-supported Medicare funds at much too high of a rate. In fact, many health care providers, including Samaritan and Corvallis Clinic, have begun to drop their contracts with Advantage plans because of the plan's policies and practices that delay or deny preauthorization and payment for necessary care. Many mid-valley residents have, unfortunately, been drawn into Medicare Advantage plans through $0 premiums and additional "benefits" and are now stuck with them. And, many have plans that will not cover local providers in 2024. My intention in this presentation was to help those folks find the "best" Medicare Advantage plans for their current situation.
Hello I hope you are fit and fine I am a professional RU-vidr Marketer I saw your RU-vid Channel your Channel Subscribes 4 and video 33 your Channel and video Content are very good Also that thumbnail design is very attractive But here are some problems: 1/. RU-vid video SEO score is very low 2/. Not title description tags are SEO friendly 3/. Not sharing on social media platforms Services: 1. Monetization notifications button on. 2. Design Attractive thumbnail 3. Channel Verification. 4. Customize section, Playlist. 5. Add channel niche description with SEO. 6. Trailer Video setup. 7. Add Watermark. 8. Build a Banding Channel. 9. Set up Business niche keywords for rank on the first page. 10. Fully On the page, On Page SEO with the use of VIDIQ & Tub buddy. 11. Professional channel creation and optimization. 12. Uploading video & managing Channel. Benefits of 100% SEO Score: 1. Views will increase 2. Subscribers will increase 3. Wash time will increase 4. Likes will increase 5. Comments will increase 6. Audience will increase 7. Sale will increase So if you want your Channel to increase Subscribers, Views, Likes, and Comments With Popper Video SEO Google Ads and Monetization I Will be your employee I am waiting for your reply
You're discussing the central problem of political economy: 1. the state can raise more capital than the private sector for anything that has a time horizon on returns longer than a decade. 2. The state makes worse use of capital than the private sector. Why? 3. The state management and employees and the private sector management and employees both maximize their 'take' of public and private income. So just as all regional increases in income are captured by housing prices and rents, and likewise, all government increases in spending are eventually captured by maximization of employees, minimization of work and responsibility, maximization of salary, and maximization of benefits. 4. There is no resistance to or defense against this 'taking' in the public sector (largely in benefits and salaries for least work with worst results), yet there is resistance to and defesnse against this 'taking' in the private sector using the demand for returns by management, investors and the use of the courts as a threat or punishment. 6. We still retain 'clientelleism' so that bureaucracies are appointed by each incoming political party. 7. So the government is not responsible with capital nor accountable for outcomes, and proceeds are captured by employees, while the private sector is responsible for capital and for outcomes. And the proceeds are captured by management and investors. 8. So our legal and political system is not organized to reward good political management, in no small part because the government and government employees are legally insulated from their corruption by privatization of public spending., nor incentivized for good use of capital. And the private sector management of state-mandated production is not responsible for the return of profits to the polity. 9. In other words, public employees should not be granted salary or benefits without the public approval directly by vote for the quality of service and the returns on our taxes. 10. This creates a market for quality behavior. Prohibiton on uninos of state-financed employees would improve it further, because 'the government is where you work when you don't want to work, need to satisfy customers, and compete in a market for the satisfaction of customers'. Claim: (a) things of us need to survive (health, housing, education, broadband etc) (b) we all need everyone to have those things because it's in all of our interests. (c) then we can only do these things through government (force). Counter-Claim: (a) *Public goods* are those things that capitalize for the indirect benefit of all, not consume for the direct benefit of each. *Redistsributive goods* are those that the market for private consumption cannot produce at a price point sufficient to serve all. (d) however, this is because the government (or at least the treasury) has given all control to the financial sector, with the government hoping to capture the income produced by 'hiring' the financial sector to produce taxes for them. (e) this has produced the most effective investment economy on earth but the least effective government on earth. (Look at how little innovation occurs in europe - it's *almost* all here). Our government was designed to debate for agreement betweeen producers - this is good in matters of legislation and regulation where the private sector and state governments produce commons and the federal government is limited in responsibility to trade policy, treasury, and defense..Our government was NOT designed to produce common goods beyond the limit of market ability to produce them. (f) our government CAN be organized but not in the european model, but in the monarchical model (don't misread that) where some aspect of the state (the treasury) primarily functions as venture capitalist, and keeps shares (interest, returns) in whatever it invests in for the benefit of the people, thereby depriving the financial sector of such absurd degrees of capture of wealth. (g) fundamentally, that's the central problem of our government, and european governments as well. Example: Universal medicare (a) the state could finance and own all buildings and equipment, (b) leave running the hospital to doctors, (c) negotiate the price of all medical supplies (d) explicitly finance medical research instead of leaving it to the market alone (e) Criticism: You folks are making a moral case not a scientific, economic, and empirical one. While the audience is decidedly relying on the christian ethic, it's also relying upon pseudoscience originating in the entire sequence of marxist(class marxism), neo-marxist(cultural marxism), postmodern(anti-truth marxism(relativism)), libertarian(middle class marxism), neocon(elite marxism), antifamily feminist , pc(face before truth), woke(race), sophistries and pseudosciences and is dependent upon the presumption of (a) the end of scarcity and infinite surplus (b) the continuity of growth that produces surpluses - this is a false promise (fraud) that violates every single of the four categories of laws of the universe: Physical laws:scarcity, Behavioral Laws: selfishness and acquisitiveness, Evolutionary Laws: group differences, genetic load, regression to the mean, natural selection), and Formal (Logical) laws: truth by realism, naturalism, identity, consistency, possiblity, correspondence, rational choice, reciprocity, and coherence, with full acounting within stated limits. So your ambition is not a scientific one. It is a theological one. Reality: only small homogenous rule-of-law ethnostates produce sufficient indifference in wants values and political ambition will tolerate taxation sufficient for maximizing redistribution, because they contain the least status competition and demand for political control. Recommendation: You want Democratic Socialism then capture the financial sector, convert it to 'silicon valley at national scale', devolve the federal government use of proceeds to the states, and let the states make their own choices based on their own culture wants and resources. The big blue immigrant labor cities will continue their direction(favelas0 and the suburbs and rural areas will continue theirs. Why? Laws of nature: With density we decrease opportunity costs, but increase housing, labor, and reproduction, costs and we *escape individual responsibility* generating demand for authority. While with decline in density we increase opportunity costs, but decrease, housing, labor, and rerpduction costs at the cost of *bearing individual responsibility* generating demand for autonomy. We aren't equal in cities and territories because our existence isn't under equal terms. That's why our ancestors in the holy roman empire (the majority of europe for 1000 years) used 'free cities' to separate the government of international cities from domestic cities, towns, and rural areas. The Crisis: (a) We have, over the past two decades, seen the elimination of western economic and technological advangage and are coasting on western genetic, cultural, and institutional advantage. (b) We are seeing, beginning last year, the end of liquid capital for investment with the retirement of the boomers and their conversion from savings to consumption. (c) The postwar experiment with benefis, redistribution, and monetary policy has exhausted it's potential becaus we have exhausted the possibility of endless growth upon which all the progressive 'fantasies' were constructed. (d) And we are entering a period of developed world population collapse, and the inability for a small number of workers to pay for a large number of government employes, programs, and retirees. The Future: Subsistence farmers don't produce enough surplus for the production of commons. Developing economies struggle to make investments in basic infrastructure. Average economies don't produce enough for the production of redistributions. Germany, Italy, Japan and Korea are literally dying. American immigration 'fakes' the numbers, but american IQ is declining such that our 105 prior to the industrial revolution, our 100 in the 20th, our 97 today, and our coming 94-95 will reduce us to a second world economy. So moralizing 'shoulds' is not the same as practical production of 'cans'. Grownups who other people put in charge of them, their money, their assets, their businesses, and their lives, only are given power to do so because they work within the limit of CANs. Cheers
This is hilarious! They think the GOVERNMENT will do a good job! BWAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHA!!! And thinks the medical profession will just stop being GREEDY!!!! BWAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHA BWAHAHAHA!
You State based people do not understand the funding mechanisms. State's are at budget, over budget or on their face broke. Learn the difference between currency issuers and currency users. Giant expenditures can't be funded by broke states. (See CAFR Report, no state can currently even fund 100% of their own pensions.) Do NOT call an enhanced state taxpayer funded healthcare system for system "Single Payer" or "Medicare Form All" or "Universal Healthcare" Those terms are Federal pay terms. Don't hijack those terms to garner buzz. It's purposely deceiving, when in reality state taxpayers are funding State based programs. In Washington State, for example, it should be called "7 million Payer", not SINGLE PAYER!! Stop it.
When the US start thinking about its people instead of war and stop being so afraid of socialism, then maybe the US will stop being a 3rd world country.
Great meeting with 2 top Labor Leaders who have had a lot of experience with union members and advocating for Single Payer. Listen to their suggestions based on their long careers. Ada is also a leader in the Democratic Party. Hear how she was instrumental in several of the 2020 elections in Arizona and Georgia.
