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

Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

peri.umass.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 111 posts

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#31

Post by maxxxxx »

zjaffee wrote: post #7

My biggest fear of a bill like this is even should we have the most progressive anti corruption government implement this law originally, whats to prevent this from becoming incredibly wasteful just like our military is. I.e. we spend a trillion dollars over decades trying to develop some drug that turns out to take us nowhere, while enriching pfizer shareholders this time instead of lockheed martin ones. I absolutel…

Maybe US citizens should demand better government instead of wasting time on the never-ending partisan warfare. There are plenty of countries with regulated healthcare markets that work very well for their citizens and are cheaper than the US system.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#32

Post by jayd16 »

ekianjo wrote: post #24
thatfrenchguy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And a lot of this is administrative overhead. Coming from a country outside of the US, I was also shocked by the price of medecine, every medecine magically seems to be 5-10x more expensive in the US.

The prices help pay for the huge cost involved in developing drugs. How many drugs were developed in France in the past 10 years compared to how many were developed in the US? You know the answer.

This is pretty specious reasoning. The US is a leader in a lot of industries that aren't healthcare.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#33

Post by api »

pdq wrote: post #29

Hypothetical economic studies and analyses are almost worthless. In normal science, you need something to be testable, verifiable, and reproducible. I'm quite sure none of these are possible. Just as a counterpoint, the US public primary school education is state run and funded, and has both poor outcomes and is the most expensive in the world [1]. Just because something is run or controlled by the state does not mea…

America seems to have a huge problem with everything it does being incredibly costly. It's definitely true in the public sector and universities and also in large areas of the private sector.

American healthcare being more expensive than anywhere else fits the pattern. It also apparently costs more to build a rail line or any other work of infrastructure here than anywhere else in the world.

I'm not sure why this is, but health care is not exceptional.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#34

Post by monocasa »

gmueckl wrote: post #27
agumonkey wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course, but the interface and connectivity part of that EKG machine wasn't even up to 2005 cellphones standard. On that point, it's a scam.

So you would trust a random baseband chip to never ever in a thousand years lie to you about the success or failure of its operation or its internal status? Or to behave in an unexpected way that interferes with the core function of the device? E.g. by suddenly sending random junk to the main CPU? How do you verify that the display controller is not acting up and not blanking out a region of the display that contains…

If only. I work in the same town as a big medical device manufacturer, and several co workers over the years had worked there and immediately nope-ed out on moral grounds. Stuff like panics on anything out of the order in a morphine pump that defaults to full on while resetting. Apparently those killed a few people.

Meeting the FDA guidelines is more about finding the cheapest way to technically meet the spec rather than trying to build something safe.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#35

Post by Analemma_ »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #3
entee wrote: post #2

One thing that sometimes gets lost in the "health care is inefficient" discussion is that one person's inefficiency is another person's living. The cost controls the paper appears to advocate for literally mean someone is making less money, that someone will advocate strongly against it. I've spent the past 3.5 years in healthcare, everyone is convinced they're not the problem, that they're underpaid or overworked or…

> One thing that sometimes gets lost in the "health care is inefficient" discussion is that one person's inefficiency is another person's living. You are not entitled to a living as bureaucratic waste. We should of course help retrain those who lose their jobs, just as we're doing for coal workers who are going to be out of a job within the next five years. I want my healthcare dollars going to healthcare providers (…

You’re missing the point. The parent isn’t suggesting this situation is good, or that we shouldn’t eliminate bureaucratic waste. They’re saying that there are a ton of people highly incentivized to keep the system as it is, because it pays for their salary. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#36

Post by prostoalex »

jorblumesea wrote: post #16
entee wrote: post #2

One thing that sometimes gets lost in the "health care is inefficient" discussion is that one person's inefficiency is another person's living. The cost controls the paper appears to advocate for literally mean someone is making less money, that someone will advocate strongly against it. I've spent the past 3.5 years in healthcare, everyone is convinced they're not the problem, that they're underpaid or overworked or…

This is the problem with a for-profit healthcare system. Meaningful reform is almost impossible because there's jobs on the line and therefore voters to contend with. More importantly, they are also probably highly educated and well paid voters. Doctors, software engineers, sales, etc. How much white collar employment comes from healthcare inefficiencies? Probably a good percentage of the sector. These workers will n…

US has a host of not-for-profit providers, they’re not drastically cheaper.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#37

Post by anarchimedes »

aczerepinski wrote: post #17
ribble wrote: post #13

| Medicare for All could reduce total health care spending in the U.S. by nearly 10 percent, to $2.93 trillion, while creating stable access to good care for all U.S. residents. how? by taxing a few earners to pay for everyone else not earning. is that fair? in that light, a ten percent reduction in cost is meaningless.

High earners were on average raised by high earning parents. Is being born rich fair? Which stages of the game should be fair?

(C'mon downvotes!) I thought the idea of paying your "fair share" was in relation to the services provided by the taxes paid. I can take an extreme example that I've tried to steel man to hold up this point: Bill Gates.

Does Bill Gates the man use more taxpayer provided military/healthcare/infrastructure.. than anyone else? Of those things that he does use more of, if he taxed by the volume of those services used (example: water/sewer) and therefore paying his fair share?

What difference does it make if her was born to rich parents? How does that make it right to make him pay more money?

I am asking respectfully and I sincerely hope that you do not take this as an attack.

edit: spelling

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#38

Post by dragonwriter »

maxxxxx wrote: post #31
zjaffee wrote: post #7

My biggest fear of a bill like this is even should we have the most progressive anti corruption government implement this law originally, whats to prevent this from becoming incredibly wasteful just like our military is. I.e. we spend a trillion dollars over decades trying to develop some drug that turns out to take us nowhere, while enriching pfizer shareholders this time instead of lockheed martin ones. I absolutel…

Maybe US citizens should demand better government instead of wasting time on the never-ending partisan warfare. There are plenty of countries with regulated healthcare markets that work very well for their citizens and are cheaper than the US system.

> Maybe US citizens should demand better government instead of wasting time on the never-ending partisan warfare.

Never ending partisan warfare is what you get when people demand better government but disagree deeply on what is necessary for better government.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#39

Post by s3r3nity »

bedhead wrote: post #14
entee wrote: post #2

One thing that sometimes gets lost in the "health care is inefficient" discussion is that one person's inefficiency is another person's living. The cost controls the paper appears to advocate for literally mean someone is making less money, that someone will advocate strongly against it. I've spent the past 3.5 years in healthcare, everyone is convinced they're not the problem, that they're underpaid or overworked or…

Like, the living of some drug middleman who is a leach on the system and only exists because of some lobbying or other screwed up structure?

More like the doctor who has dropped six-figures + a crazy amount of years in education and certification to work very long hours seeing a lot of patients, many of whom think you're a quack and trust an online forum over anything you say.

Oh and don't forget the high premiums for malpractice insurance, as you're working crazy hours without breaks, and if you make a mistake you're sued up the whazoo.

And that's just describing a PCP - never mind a surgeon, EHS driver, hell even the nurses (though the latter are most likely unionized.)

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#40

Post by DubiousPusher »

It seems to me that industrialized countries the world round have different ways of organizing the relationship between patients, payers and providers. There's nearly 100% public models like the NHS in the UK and hybrid market systems like those in Singapore and Switzerland.

But the one thing they all seem to do the same is how they keep costs down. They give the payer, whether that's the government or separate insurers a legal framework for setting prices.

I know correlation is not causation but until some country shows strong price performance while implementing a different scheme it seems wise to defer to the one that is ubiquitous.

Post reply on HN