Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 383 posts

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#261

Post by yks »

peckrob wrote: post #253
yks wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I first started reading about American health care being a foreigner I saw a persistent argument that in single-payer system "people will die in lines". Yet here in the United States the lines in medical institutions are greater than anything I've seen abroad, open slot for appointment with a doctor in one month is a usual deal. And why can't I buy antibiotics without a prescription. Don't I have a right to heal…

> When I first started reading about American health care being a foreigner I saw a persistent argument that in single-payer system "people will die in lines". This is one of the reasons I really wish international travel was within the reach of more Americans. So more people could observe and experience these other systems - not having to be told about them secondhand by commentators with their own agendas. Not just…

> Some people in the survivalist and "prepper" communities say you can take "fish antibiotics"

This and food supplements, little-known or mostly unregulated chemicals, you can buy them online on your own. But as long as chemical is scientifically proven to help you, then nope, you need someone else's approval.

Fish antibiotics' makers surely provide some info (bare minimum "not for human consumption"), so they are covered if people poison themselves. Human antibiotics provide comprehensive usage directions yet it is insufficient.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#262

Post by Vendan »

orangecat wrote: post #211
simoncion wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the fixation on "everyone should have good health insurance" is making this dysfunctional situation permanently unfixable. Nah. Every citizen should have good health insurance that requires no out-of-pocket expenditures. There should be one plan, available to every citizen. There should be one payer, the Federal Government. Anything else is a recipe for price-gouging and ballooning costs.

There should be one plan, available to every citizen. There should be one payer, the Federal Government. Should this also be the case for food, housing, and cell phones? If not, why?

Because those are things that are an actual market. Health care often times isn't. You can choose what grocery store you go to, what apartment you rent, what cell phone you buy. Usually, unless your planning sucked, you have days/weeks/months to figure out what is good value, and compare prices, that kinda thing.

Health care, on the other hand, can be, and at least in my case, usually is, a monopoly. I've got 1 large company that runs most of the doctors offices and all of the hospitals in the area, so they don't have many competitors. Also, for emergency stuff, you don't have a chance to even think about shopping around. Broke a bone? Yeah, sounds like a great time to pull out the phone and shop around for doctors that would be able to set it for cheaper.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#263

Post by [deleted] »

HillRat wrote: post #240
mgkimsal wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been buying insurance for a more than a decade, in multiple states. (direct, not via employers). I can't say I've seen annual rate increases of 20% year in year out for 2 decades. That's simply not sustainable. By way of example, my $100/month policy would be $3800/month after 2 decades of 20% year on year growth.

I believe 8% annual inflation has been the normal rate for many years -- slightly decreased following ACA enactment, but rates then increased by a few points due to less-healthy enrollees, so it's a bit of a wash (not counting all the people who now have health insurance, to be sure). Premiums also only cover part of the cost increase; higher deductibles and reduced coverage are also used to defray costs, and aren't…

[deleted]

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#264

Post by rlanday »

jonnathanson wrote: post #181
stvswn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's was pretty easy to predict: allowing enrollment after a diagnosis was politically popular but a terrible economic disincentive to not buy insurance (because at that point, it isn't insurance -- it's a subscription plan for your treatments). The young and healthy needed to enroll for the economics to work, but the individual mandate was delayed for years -- because coercion isn't popular politically, and there wa…

"It's no coincidence that laser eye surgery, teeth whitening, cosmetic surgery is all generally affordable -- markets and competition have formed." This isn't the best example to have chosen. All of these procedures are discretionary and nonessential. If I find the cost of an elective nose job too pricey, I can take my time and shop around. Or I can just go without a nose job altogether and be totally fine. The only…

Most medicine doesn’t happen on an emergency basis. E.g. if you’re diagnosed with cancer, or find out you should get a heart bypass, you have time to shop around for doctors.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#265

Post by erkkie »

ars wrote: post #165
vidarh wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me as someone living in the UK, this is bizarre. Why would you need an deductables at all for it not to be expensive? This in itself indicates that your entire healthcare sector is entirely dysfunctional. In 2013/2014, the UK National Health Service spent $2928/year per person. This is the average, and includes everything from the costs of births to the costs of expensive heart transplants or cancer treatments. Ge…

People have written about this before, but basically the US subsidizes medical expenses for the entire world. That was able to happen because, unlike virtually anywhere else in the world, medical insurance in the US is private. If the US changes that (which will never happen) I would expect medical costs to go up everywhere else to compensate, either that or research slows down. One thing that might, might, help is f…

Do you have any sources for this based on actual data?

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#266

Post by pjc50 »

HarryHirsch wrote: post #115
stvswn wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a little bit of socialism fails, why is the answer always more socialism?

Because socialism works? Just today: change of health insurance. Need primary care physician. Takes six weeks to be seen. Six weeks, to be scheduled for minor surgery. You might choose to waste an hour on the phone to find a less booked-out physician. In Socialist Britain you are guaranteed to be seen within 48 hours! Here in the US the only thing guaranteed is the waste of time. Seems that is a feature of the plan.…

The 48-hour target has a stupid side effect: in order to meet it, lots of GP surgeries won't let you book more than 48 hours in advance. You have to ring up within minutes of opening time in the morning to book a slot.

Similar things happen with the 4 hour target in A&E: if you're in hospital but conscious and not bleeding, expect to wait at least 3 hours. Having said that, I've twice been in for "this is either nothing or an early warning of something very deadly", been checked over, and of course not had to pay anything. That risk assessment looks very different if it might cost thousands of dollars.

The NHS is completely fantastic at bread-and-butter medical care: diabetes, asthma, minor injuries, obstetrics (it is insane that anyone ever has to pay for this), handing out antibiotics and contraceptives, and so on. The complaints people have tend to be about long waits for non-urgent surgery (anything up to 18 months), and the refusal to pay for marginally effective very expensive cancer drugs.

The only charge is $10 to get your prescription filled, and even that is waivable in poverty. On that subject I have noticed that US pharmacies stock a lot more OTC stuff, presumably due to the difficulty and expense of getting prescriptions. They'll even let you buy dangerous things like 500 paracetamol at a time.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#267

Post by hueving »

mgkimsal wrote: post #190
stvswn wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's was pretty easy to predict: allowing enrollment after a diagnosis was politically popular but a terrible economic disincentive to not buy insurance (because at that point, it isn't insurance -- it's a subscription plan for your treatments). The young and healthy needed to enroll for the economics to work, but the individual mandate was delayed for years -- because coercion isn't popular politically, and there wa…

> you have to buy a plan that covers things you don't need. Well... isn't that sort of the point of insurance all together? There's always going to be someone in an insurance plan getting some treatment that I'll never need, no?

No, it's not that the insurance money is going into a pool to pay for someone else getting that. It's that they are forcing you to buy coverage for something that you can't possibly use (e.g. child dental care for someone with no children).

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#268

Post by YokoZar »

DrScump wrote: post #255
magicalist wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW as of 2015 California requires there be "primary care network providers with sufficient capacity to accept covered persons within 30 minutes or 15 miles of each covered person's residence or workplace", specialists within 60 minutes or 30 miles, and that there be sufficient capacity for doctors within those limits to accept new patients[1]. Getting that enforced isn't easy, but that situation not only shouldn't…

Getting that enforced isn't easy How is that even possible ? How does the state mandate that some random provider step in and subsidize higher payments to providers in order to encourage them to take on more new patients?

By preventing them from selling their insurance on the state-run exchange if they don't meet the standards.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#269

Post by donatj »

Vendan wrote: post #258
nickff wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many people believe the draft is morally equivalent to slavery (which they do not support either).[1] [1] http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2006/11/rangel-and-friedman-on...

That's fine, I personally don't support the draft, but still. What about the legal system? Don't you see there is a problem with forcibly locking a portion of our population away behind bars? After all, that's what the government does, "for your own safety". Do you really feel safe in a country where the government can decide that murder is a "crime" for which you should be inhumanely LOCKED AWAY FOR LIFE? P.S. Extre…

The only justifiable coercion is against coercion. Someone injures you physically or financialy. Forcing someone to do something they don't want to including dieing or giving you their things is coercion. Coercion is always unjust and only fit as a reciprocation for coercion.

Re: Many See I.R.S. Penalties as More Affordable Than Health Insurance

#270

Post by nickff »

Vendan wrote: post #258
nickff wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And many people believe the draft is morally equivalent to slavery (which they do not support either).[1] [1] http://gregmankiw.blogspot.ca/2006/11/rangel-and-friedman-on...

That's fine, I personally don't support the draft, but still. What about the legal system? Don't you see there is a problem with forcibly locking a portion of our population away behind bars? After all, that's what the government does, "for your own safety". Do you really feel safe in a country where the government can decide that murder is a "crime" for which you should be inhumanely LOCKED AWAY FOR LIFE? P.S. Extre…

I have recently revised my views in light of Michael Huemer's latest book, which I found convincing (, despite my initial reluctance to accept many of his findings).[1] It takes at least a book to explain his reasoning (which rightfully separates political legitimacy and political obligation from each other and independent moral obligations), and I won't bore you with poor paraphrasing here.

[1] http://www.palgrave.com/page/detail/the-problem-of-political...

Post reply on HN