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

41–50 of 111 posts

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#41

Post by maxxxxx »

nickysielicki wrote: post #26
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…

This is why the scope of government matters. I do not understand why people have this idea that it's the job of the government to do things like speculate on the economy via quantitative easing, or save money overall on healthcare costs. The federal government ought to have a few simple jobs --- the ones laid out in the constitution, and everything else can be left up to the people and to the states. I would rather l…

Medicare and social security won't be insolvent. They can go on for a long time by doing some adjustments that account for life expectancy and other factors. Unfortunately the people in DC are more interested in fighting each other than running the country in a responsible manner.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#42

Post by AnimalMuppet »

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…

Hypothetical economic studies may not be "normal science". But if we're talking about a massive new government program that is going to cost X gazillion dollars, I'd kind of like to know what X is before deciding that we should support it. I'd especially like to know whether X is greater than the actual benefits.

And who am I going to trust to decide that? Not a politician. Not someone who strongly favors one side or the other, either. And not just somebody at a bar, nor even a media personality. I want someone who actually knows some economics, and actually is attempting to be impartial. In fact, I want several independent ones of that.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#43

Post by maxxxxx »

dragonwriter wrote: post #38
maxxxxx wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't believe that people disagree along the lines drawn by parties. Most political fights are artificial constructs to keep the people busy while the the people in DC and their donors stay in power.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#44

Post by monocasa »

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.

I know that's what's pushed, but how much of that is true? Federal grants pay for a lot of initial frubt work, and drug companies spend around twice as much on marketing as they do on R&D. And that's with all sorts of tax benefits behooving them to call as much as possible of their budget R&D.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#45

Post by AtlasBarfed »

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…

The cost problem in healthcare is exactly that: many pigs at the trough, and everyone points at the other pig for being the problem.

Healthcare administrators! Drug companies! Device companies! Trial Lawyers! Insurance companies! Doctors (especially specialists)!

They're all the problem, and yes lots of them should make less money. I know cardiologists pulling down 500k+ and that is ridiculous. I can see highly skilled surgeons making that much, but pill pushers?

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#46

Post by enraged_camel »

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.

No, this is a myth. We know this because the same drugs often times cost a fraction of the price in other countries.

The real reason drug prices are astronomical in the US is because the US government is legally prohibited from negotiating drug prices. So the pharmaceutical companies can literally set any price they want.

You don’t have this problem with certain government agencies that are exempt from this prohibition. For example the VA can often acquire the drugs for much cheaper.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#47

Post by fcarraldo »

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…

Just as the state taking control of something doesn’t magically fix it, it doesn’t magically break it. The article you sourced even posits that the systemic problems could be fixed by increasing funding to improve teacher salaries and make the job competitive with industry jobs, not by privatization. These are apples and oranges comparisons, and there are countless examples of both state-run efficiency and inefficiency to support any position. If you’re asking for scientific rigor to back up economic policy opinions, perhaps that should apply to both sides of the argument.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#48

Post by erentz »

s3r3nity wrote: post #39
bedhead wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

Doctors aren’t a huge cost issue. Their pay isn’t that outrageous or out of line. It’s the pharmacy costs and administrative costs (and I think also DME costs?) that are seriously out of whack in this country.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#49

Post by dc_gregory »

s3r3nity wrote: post #39
bedhead wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

These people get paid very well in Australia.

Re: Economic Analysis of Medicare for All

#50

Post by sedor0115 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #23
ams6110 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only a few generations ago, healthcare was not so ruinously expensive in the USA. We've never had taxpayer-funded universal care. So what caused the explosion in costs?

TL;DR Lack of cost controls and unnecessary administrative costs. > In the U.S., they point out, drugs are more expensive. Doctors get paid more. Hospital services and diagnostic tests cost more. And a lot more money goes to planning, regulating and managing medical services at the administrative level. So, we're all getting a lower quality of care for a lot more money, due to how the healthcare "market" is configure…

This fails to address the elephant-sized American in the room. Any analysis of increasing healthcare costs that doesn't quantify the fiscal impact of the average American's failure to care for themselves is just beating around the bush. The obesity rate alone has gone from 10% in the 60s to 40% today. These people need more care that is harder to provide, and to not expect healthcare costs to rise significantly from that is to expect healthcare workers to work for free.

Our system is a little sick, sure, but the bulk of the responsibility for the current situation lies squarely at our own feet as individuals. This problem will never be solved before America puts down the fork.

Post reply on HN