Here is a detailed description of the many errors in the above HowTheWorldWorks video on YouTube:

At 0:29, you claim to contradict my description of the public option as a plan in which the "US government would fight rising health care costs by starting up a non-profit insurance plan to compete with private for profit insurance" by saying that "costs do not equal prices," but you do not explain how differentiating costs from prices contradicts my description of the public option which is, of course, an accurate description of what the public option is supposed to do.

In fact, when I watch much of your video, I get the impression you are using this "costs vs prices" argument because it's your prepared talking point and not because it actually applies to any argument I made in my video. After all, I talked about the total COST of health care being lower in these other countries WITHOUT lowering overall quality of care (which contradicts your whole argument about price controls and rationing because comparable quality at lower cost is not rationing).

For example, at 1:07, you put up a "warning distortion" title and call it a "fake talking point" when I say that "the United States spends a greater portion of its gross domestic product on health care than any of the 29 other OECD member countries" which is FACT that I back up by EVIDENCE. Your argument against this FACT is a general claim that the other 29 OECD member countries have "price controls" while you claim at 1:16, that the US does not. In FACT, ALL the OECD member countries INCLUDING THE US have some form of price controls (e.g. requiring a co-pay is a "price control") and some methods of controlling prices are GOOD. Moreover, referring to the 29 other OECD member countries as a generic group in terms of "price controls" makes no sense because each country has a different system with a different mix of public and private options. Finally, at 2:08, you claim in these other countries they "have to ration care ... because they're not cutting costs they're simply setting price controls," but you never give any evidence to back up these claims and your assertion they "have to ration care" is, again, contradicted by the evidence I provide in my video showing the total COST of health care is lower in these other countries WITHOUT lowering overall quality of care (which, again, contradicts your whole argument about price controls and rationing because comparable quality at lower cost is not rationing).

But, you not only do you never address the facts I show from the OECD that total COST of health care is lower in these other countries, but you also fail to address the FACT that the overall quality of care in these other countries with lower costs is comparable to the quality of care in the U.S., even though I provide a link to a peer reviewed study from a 2004 issue of Health Affairs that looked at a range of health problems from breast cancer to measles and concluded:

"...the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.31 Our results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought..."

Instead of actually addressing these FACTS, first, at 2:40 you make the assertion that this quote that comes from the concluding section of the paper is somehow not from the conclusion of the paper because the conclusions are supported by footnotes, even though I showed those footnotes in my video and the citations only support the conclusion that overall quality of care in these other countries with lower costs is comparable to the quality of care in the U.S. At, , 3:15, you try to attack one of the footnoted studies because it tracks patient satisfaction through phone surveys but you never explain what is wrong with that methodology. At 3:45, you also try to attack the Rhinehart study by returning to your prepared talking point about comparisons to other countries with "price controls" while you claim at that the US does not have price controls while, again, in FACT, ALL these countries INCLUDING THE US have some form of price controls (e.g., again, requiring a co-pay is a "price control") and some methods of controlling prices are GOOD. Moreover, referring to these countries as a generic group in terms of "price controls" makes no sense because each country has a different system with a different mix of public and private options. You make several assertions about "what they do in those other countries" to deny services, e.g. at 4:07, but you provide no evidence to back up your assertions and your assertions are contradicted by the evidence I showed that the overall quality of care in these other countries with lower costs is comparable to the quality of care in the U.S.

When you finally get to looking at the results of Health Affairs study I actually cited at 4:20, however, you don't really address my general point that the the health outcomes in the US are comparable to the outcomes in other countries that spend much less on health care. Instead, you decide to ignore outcomes of mental health treatment at 4:41 because you cay those outcomes involve personal choice (as do many health care outcomes) and then at 4:59 you discount the results on transplants because of a theory you have on the effects of allowing the sale of human organs which you back up with no evidence. You never actually address the results as a whole which show, just as said, that the overall quality of care in these other countries with lower costs is comparable to the quality of care in the U.S.

Then, beginning at 6:00, you attack a reference to life expectancy and infant mortality rates by saying "the only relevant measurement" is survival rates after diagnosis which is not only not true (because life expectancy and infant mortality rates also give us important information), but also ignores the fact that I gave you a peer reviewed study from a 2004 issue of Health Affairs that looked at a range of health problems from breast cancer to measles and concluded:

"...the extra spending is probably not buying better experiences with the health care system, with the exception of shorter waits for nonurgent surgery.30 Earlier studies have shown the United States to be in the bottom quartile of population health indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality.31 Our results also fail to reveal what the extra spending has bought..."

In response to these facts that you never addressed you make reference to two studies of your own, "the Lancet oncology study" at 6:37 and a "the National Bureau of Economic Research" at 6:57, but you provide no citations or links to these studies, though from the abstracts I was able to find that seem to match the graphics you showed, neither study found that the US did better in every area, or even for every cancer which, again, supports MY point that, though different industrialized countries do better in different areas, if you look at indicators in many different areas, like in the peer reviewed study from the 2004 issue of Health Affairs that I provided, you'll find, again, that OVERALL quality of care in these other countries with lower costs is comparable to the quality of care in the U.S.

In fact, the most telling revelation you make in your video is your statement at 4:21 that "the United States in every study [you] have ever read has better health care outcomes." If your statement is honest then you must not have read very many studies because the great weight of the evidence backs up what I said in my video which is, again, that the overall quality of care in these other countries with lower costs is comparable to the quality of care in the U.S. Perhaps you should do some more reading before you purport to be a source of information for others instead of just assuming that your ideology is a substitute for the FACTS.

I hope that helps clear up you misunderstanding and

thanks for the video :-)