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

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 206 posts

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#21

Post by verelo »

nostromo wrote: post #9

I imagine both single-payer and a truly free market health care system would be substantially cheaper than the current system -- which has none of the benefits of either approach. With the federal government unable to act, turning healthcare back to the states to test a number of different solutions seems entirely reasonable. Let California try single-payer and Texas try something different -- after a few years see i…

Which would mark the second time in 241 years those states agreed upon something...

In all seriousness, state run healthcare is a great idea, but the government is just such a big stakeholder in having a healthy population that I do not see a good reason for it [at some level] to stay out of that line of business. Single payer works, so much better than the current setup...why not start there and try iterate?

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#22

Post by buckbova »

typomatic wrote: post #17
nostromo wrote: post #9

I imagine both single-payer and a truly free market health care system would be substantially cheaper than the current system -- which has none of the benefits of either approach. With the federal government unable to act, turning healthcare back to the states to test a number of different solutions seems entirely reasonable. Let California try single-payer and Texas try something different -- after a few years see i…

In the meantime, Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare, but the market will win, so their sacrifice will be worth it.

> Americans will die needless deaths

First off everyone dies. Who's not receiving healthcare right now that would be ultimately saved by the government?

Secondly let's cut the hyperbole and have a rational conversation about this.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#23

Post by leepowers »

peterhadlaw wrote: post #12

The word "negotiation" is a euphemism here: > The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. If there are no other options for clients, it's essentially the government telling doctors how much their services are worth.

Yes, it's a euphemism for price controls. Which may or may not be a no-go depending on your political bent.

Another issue here is termination shock - if a provider comes up under the current system, getting into massive student debt in anticipation of a highly remunerative medical career, how will price controls effect him?

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#24

Post by ravitation »

buckbova wrote: post #22
typomatic wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the meantime, Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare, but the market will win, so their sacrifice will be worth it.

> Americans will die needless deaths First off everyone dies. Who's not receiving healthcare right now that would be ultimately saved by the government? Secondly let's cut the hyperbole and have a rational conversation about this.

But not everyone dies a needless death, which was his point.

It is not irrational to point out the cost of ongoing debate.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#25

Post by dv_dt »

peterhadlaw wrote: post #12

The word "negotiation" is a euphemism here: > The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. If there are no other options for clients, it's essentially the government telling doctors how much their services are worth.

It's not just doctors, its drug and health insurance companies, etc... but really? Is the argument is that we as a nation should pay double what other modern nations pay so doctors can be well paid?

Edit: Here's a deal, lets pay for doctor's educations, implement universal healthcare and call it even.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#26

Post by johnny99 »

fleitz wrote: post #6

A big part of this to is drs in places like Canada get training on how to save costs which generally means not providing service. I had to switch to a private system in Canada to get drs who would take a proactive approach.

Cost saving measures can also result in better care. We use Kaiser Permanente, and they often use nurse practitioners and physicians assistants to initially screen patients. It may sound like that's a lower level of care than seeing an MD, but in practice, it's much easier to be seen by someone quickly, and every single one of the providers we've seen has been excellent.

Another point: health care outcomes are better in Canada. There may be more than just health care working there (ie, lower obesity), but it's worth noting.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#27

Post by caseysoftware »

> "The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. In 2012, for example, the average cost of coronary bypass surgery was more than $73,000 in the United States but less than $23,000 in France."

A more useful comparison would be the average cost of coronary bypass surgery for someone with a employer-provided health plan versus the cost that Medicare, Medicaid, or the VA pays. And then compare the average wait times of each along with recovery time/effectiveness.

Out of pocket is only one "cost" in this picture.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#28

Post by cortesoft »

_m8fo wrote: post #16

The article makes the assumption that the goal is to save money. Perhaps the way things are keeps the status-quo alive for those who make the rules, and that's why we don't have single payer. I hate to be the conspiracy theorist, but I can't help but think that's the truth.

Anytime one person saves money, it is also costing someone else money (the person or people that money was going to). Saving money on healthcare will cost money for people who are currently making money from the excessive costs of healthcare.

This is not a secret, and not really a conspiracy; the groups that make money from the current system are always the ones opposed to change. It just sucks because there aren't nearly as many of them as the rest of us, but they just have more to lose than the rest of us have to gain - a classic example of concentrated benefits and diffuse costs.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#29

Post by larrywright »

fleitz wrote: post #6

A big part of this to is drs in places like Canada get training on how to save costs which generally means not providing service. I had to switch to a private system in Canada to get drs who would take a proactive approach.

It's also worth noting that more than a few Canadians come to the United States for treatment because they can either get treatment faster, or they can get treatments that aren't available in Canada.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#30

Post by cortesoft »

fleitz wrote: post #6

A big part of this to is drs in places like Canada get training on how to save costs which generally means not providing service. I had to switch to a private system in Canada to get drs who would take a proactive approach.

What makes you so sure the 'proactive approach' was actually better for you, health wise?
Post reply on HN