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

191–200 of 206 posts

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#191

Post by pas »

krath94 wrote: post #105
dv_dt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sounds like a great deal for everyone but the taxpayer

???

Look at other countries, where taxes are higher, but total income expenses (tax, plus healthcare costs) are lower (with better level of care).

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#192

Post by pas »

coredog64 wrote: post #107
donmatito wrote: post #63

I would like to understand better what is meant by "single payer". I think I know what it should mean, but then I see France as an example of single-payer system. France has a complex system of insurance bodies (public entities, privates companies, some weird stuff in between)... If I understand correctly the biggest savings come from the mandatory nature of the coverage - everybody is covered at least partially by t…

When I see it in the NYTimes, I assume it means that the health care fairy pays for it. As you've noted, very few people are wonky enough to be able to discern any difference between the systems in the UK, France, Germany, and Switzerland. Instead, they're all lumped into "European single payer" regardless of the level of truth or correctness.

That's just bad faith.

There are pretty well graspable differences.

Germany has both private and public krankenkasse-s (sick people funds, so healthcare insurance providers).

The UK has NHS, a big public insurance system.

And so on.

The economics are pretty well understood, so like climate change, it's not 100%, because it's big and complex as fuck, but a lot more certain, than a 50-50 coin flip.

Of course people will have to still pay. The question is, what's the fair amount to ask from people. And it seems a progressive healthcare tax would be fair.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#193

Post by JustSomeNobody »

warcher wrote: post #54

It's still absurd to me that we make the false differentiation between taxes and insurance premiums. If you've got a family, neither is negotiable. If you have a job that pays, I promise you it affects your check in nearly identically the same way as payroll taxes do. There's a tradition in America where the price isn't actually the real price, we artificially advertise fake prices to get you in the door and stuff a…

Gasoline pricing is the only thing that comes to my mind that doesn't do this. $2.49 / Gallon already includes the tax[0].

[0] Everywhere I can remember purchasing gas, that is.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#194

Post by dv_dt »

methodover wrote: post #129
dv_dt wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is it that the USA is paying more than we should? Or is it that other nations are paying less than they should? Also, doctors aren't the only thing we should be talking about. That's probably the easiest subject to think about. It's much, much more difficult to talk about drug and device prices. Should the government dictate how much a new drug or device costs? What are the risks and downsides of doing that?

The risk is that compared to single payer universal health care in other nations, thousands of people die in the US who aren't covered or poorly covered due to their inability to pay for their health care. Millions probably endure worse health than necessary with cost discouragements to getting the care they already pay to carry as insurance. Should profit margins dictate how much a new drug or medical device costs?

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#195

Post by dv_dt »

tvchurch wrote: post #36
prostoalex wrote: post #2

> One is that administrative costs average only about 2 percent of total expenses under a single-payer program like Medicare, less than one-sixth the corresponding percentage for many private insurers. That story needs to come with a caveat that Medicare's anti-fraud efforts are covered by law enforcement budgets, namely FBI https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/medicare%20fra...

Here's the other thing about administrative costs: Medicare's patients cost a lot more per person than private insurance. In other words, if it costs you $500 in administration costs and one patient has care that totals $5,000 and another has care that totals $10,000, then their administrative costs are 10% and 20%. And yet we think that if we shifted more people onto a Medicare-like system, we'd save money.

Medicare is also currently prevented by law from negotiating for drug prices. If we shift more people onto Medicare, we need to fix that problem too. The overall structure of a single payer/administrator is most likely to save money, but we need to be vigilant about the specific rules it is imposed with too.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#196

Post by undersuit »

DrScump wrote: post #181
undersuit wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>“I think the missing element in this is Republican votes and identified Republican support,” said Brian Kelly, secretary of the California State Transportation Agency. >California’s reliance on gas taxes to repair its transportation network is becoming less and less tenable. Increased fuel economy standards have led to less spending on gasoline Why stop at saying it's a funding problem? (Allegedly) Obstructionist Re…

Republicans have no power in CA. Democrats hold the governorship and have supermajorities in both the Assembly and Senate. CA infrastructure doesn't have a funding problem. It has a spending problem.

Hey man, I'm just repeating what the article said. If the article is wrong go after the poster. They included an article link in their argument that it was a funding problem, and the article doesn't say that.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#197

Post by sailfast »

DrScump wrote: post #180
sailfast wrote: post #35

> "Of course, having to pay taxes is itself a mandate of a sort, but it’s one the electorate has largely come to terms with." Some taxes maybe? The whole "mandate vs. tax" argument was at the core of the opposition to the Affordable Care Act. I would argue that this issue is not decided by a long shot and a great deal of people are still upset by this. Further, this article addresses aggregate costs but doesn't ackno…

I would argue that this issue is not decided by a long shot On the contrary. The SCOTUS defined this already. ObamaCare still exists only because it is a tax and, therefore, pre-emption applied.

Certainly, the legal issue of a tax vs. a mandate is decided, but Americans' comfort with this tax to cover other Americans as a matter of preference is not.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#198

Post by warcher »

pas wrote: post #189
warcher wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically yeah. I bought a car last month and I paid an extra... twenty percent before I walked out the door. Drives me nuts. That and fucking tipping, man. Enough already. Just put the price on the menu- I'm good for it, I swear.

Tipping is. Meh. If you're broke, don't do it. It's not compulsory/mandated by law. (There are states where waiters don't get compensated, if patrons don't tip enough, but you're still broke, so don't feel too bad.)

The problem with tipping is that it's spreading, as wages aren't keeping up with cost of living, but employers won't hand out raises. Uber driver? Tip. Sandwich shop? Tip. Coffee shop? Tip. Pizza delivery? Delivery fee plus tip. Have I been in drive-throughs with a tip jar? You better believe I have.

Enough already, guys.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#199

Post by pas »

warcher wrote: post #198
pas wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tipping is. Meh. If you're broke, don't do it. It's not compulsory/mandated by law. (There are states where waiters don't get compensated, if patrons don't tip enough, but you're still broke, so don't feel too bad.)

The problem with tipping is that it's spreading, as wages aren't keeping up with cost of living, but employers won't hand out raises. Uber driver? Tip. Sandwich shop? Tip. Coffee shop? Tip. Pizza delivery? Delivery fee plus tip. Have I been in drive-throughs with a tip jar? You better believe I have. Enough already, guys.

Drive-through with tip jar. Wow. Anyhow, I can't really condemn them for trying, and you can understand why management won't either.

Yeah, it's just annoying, and it'll take a loooot of time to fix these small annoyances.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#200

Post by warcher »

pas wrote: post #199
warcher wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with tipping is that it's spreading, as wages aren't keeping up with cost of living, but employers won't hand out raises. Uber driver? Tip. Sandwich shop? Tip. Coffee shop? Tip. Pizza delivery? Delivery fee plus tip. Have I been in drive-throughs with a tip jar? You better believe I have. Enough already, guys.

Drive-through with tip jar. Wow. Anyhow, I can't really condemn them for trying, and you can understand why management won't either. Yeah, it's just annoying, and it'll take a loooot of time to fix these small annoyances.

It's never going away, I don't think. Workers love getting extra money, and most food industry operations are barely staying alive as it is. I'm annoyed enough to whine, but I still tip.
Post reply on HN