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

Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 101 posts

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#91

Post by ceejayoz »

wahern wrote: post #82
EvanAnderson wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely. And we should have just gone to a single-payer system. Instead we have this useless compromise that further transfers wealth from the middle class to the rich. I don't want what I had back, but I don't want what we have now either.

A single-payer system will require significantly more taxes, and those taxes will come out of your pocket. Which is exactly why we'll never get a single-payer system. Everybody wants better this or that, but nobody wants to pay for it. Which, in a nutshell, is precisely what your rant amounts to. Here's the a rundown of what single-payer would cost in California: * $400 billion total (2x the entire existing Californi…

> A single-payer system will require significantly more taxes...

We know this isn't true. The rest of the developed world spends about half what we do per-capita on healthcare, including their taxes.

We pay almost as much in taxes as they do already. We just do it tremendously inefficiently. (Or efficiently, if you consider the goal to be shuffling money off to rent-seeking middlemen.)

https://www.kff.org/health-costs/issue-brief/snapshots-healt...

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#92

Post by username90 »

einpoklum wrote: post #87
wutbrodo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, a free market might even be better than what we have (though something like single-payer would be ideal). As usual, we have the weird half-assed worst of both works policy solution that comes from neither self-consistent solution being palatable to the electorate.

There is no such thing as a "free market". Markets are inherently unfree. Money-exchange-based economic systems do not form without significant centralization of power. Also, and regardless - once such an exchange-based economy ("market") forms, wealth in general and capital in particular tends to get concentrated, and the market manipulated and slanted even relative to its own internal ideology. So, a "free market"…

But the market could be a lot freer than it is now, most issues with USA's healthcare would disappear if it was easy to open up a cheap hospital using doctors educated in Mexico in order to serve people who currently can't afford healthcare. Then suddenly the established doctors and hospitals would be forced to motivate their much higher costs, creating competition which is good for the system. Some rich people will probably choose the more expensive option still, but most poor and middle class people are probably fine with foreign level doctors.

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#93

Post by ceejayoz »

EvanAnderson wrote: post #20
chillwaves wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone can claim anything. What state do you live in? Lucky for us, there are published guidelines for which plans did not qualify.

I live in Ohio. I had this plan from 2003 to 2014. I paid a bunch of stuff out-of-pocket over the years. I also saved a lot of money in my HSA and paid off debts. Had I been paying the kind of premiums I paid from 2014 to date all those years I would have far less net worth.

The shitty plans work out really well for folks who don't wind up needing them. That's how they succeed - 90% of people are satisfied customers!

The problem is, it's like having car insurance that'll only pay out $100 if you have an accident. Fine if you never have one, but not if you do. They give you the illusion of insurance.

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#94

Post by elliekelly »

ada1981 wrote: post #71

How do folks feel about outfits like Liberty Health Share? They are positioned as an alternative non-profit shared health cost collective. I have some friends who swear by it.

I just DDG’d this because it sounds like a great idea but I wouldn’t sign those “five core statements of belief, freedom, and ethics” even if it meant I’d get free healthcare. One thing I know for certain: our health insurance system needs less religious involvement if we want to fix it, not more.

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#95

Post by Ididntdothis »

username90 wrote: post #92
einpoklum wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such thing as a "free market". Markets are inherently unfree. Money-exchange-based economic systems do not form without significant centralization of power. Also, and regardless - once such an exchange-based economy ("market") forms, wealth in general and capital in particular tends to get concentrated, and the market manipulated and slanted even relative to its own internal ideology. So, a "free market"…

But the market could be a lot freer than it is now, most issues with USA's healthcare would disappear if it was easy to open up a cheap hospital using doctors educated in Mexico in order to serve people who currently can't afford healthcare. Then suddenly the established doctors and hospitals would be forced to motivate their much higher costs, creating competition which is good for the system. Some rich people will…

This is not like consumer goods where bad quality of something you bought won’t kill you. We still need safety standards, otherwise the country will be flooded with quack doctors who are cheap but also hurt people.

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#96

Post by wutbrodo »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #76
wutbrodo wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, a free market might even be better than what we have (though something like single-payer would be ideal). As usual, we have the weird half-assed worst of both works policy solution that comes from neither self-consistent solution being palatable to the electorate.

In my view a free market can only work if participation is optional. When you have a heart attack you can't really negotiate with the ambulance or the hospital. There needs to be some kind of regulations to keep costs in check. But I would advocate total price transparency so you can at least shop around before non-emergency treatments. Also, insured and uninsured patients need to be charged the same money.

Right, my comment probably made it sound like I'm more in favor of a free market than I am. The point I was making that what we have now has so many deep flaws that it's likely that a free market would still be better, and a lot of the price stupidity you describe can be traced back to regulation encumbrance. Also note that I'm assuming some level of baseline regulation on the order of other industries, just as single-payer would still have some market characteristics (like choosing doctors etc).

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#97

Post by ada1981 »

elliekelly wrote: post #94
ada1981 wrote: post #71

How do folks feel about outfits like Liberty Health Share? They are positioned as an alternative non-profit shared health cost collective. I have some friends who swear by it.

I just DDG’d this because it sounds like a great idea but I wouldn’t sign those “five core statements of belief, freedom, and ethics” even if it meant I’d get free healthcare. One thing I know for certain: our health insurance system needs less religious involvement if we want to fix it, not more.

I don’t know if the religious affiliation impacts anything about the quality of coverage, does it?

But I get not wanting to sign something you don’t endorse or believe in.

If this model is successful for religious folks, it seems an alternative could be made for hackers or any other group.

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#98

Post by remotecool »

roland00 wrote: post #60
remotecool wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't look forward to this day. What many people don't realize is that the majority of new medicine is patented and created in the US. Once it's released, governments that have socialized health care create generics and get around these costs, mostly because they don't have to put any money into R&D. The world of medicine will be in trouble without our system, because govetnments are really not that good at innovat…

>The world of medicine will be in trouble without our system, because govetnments are really not that good at innovation. Medicine is not like building a factory, completely different capital model for Medicine is about "discovery" there is a universal truth out there (yes there is differences in genes not making it perfectly universal) , and advances in medicine is figuring out this discovery. It actually appears mo…

I`m applying top down ideology because I've never seen a socialized government industry out-compete any private pharma company by coming up with new/innovative medicine.

The reason is because you need to risk lots of money for R&D well beyond "basic research" and historically, governments arent nearly efficient enough to accomplish this.

Private industry/the free market is the perfect way to do this and historically has proven itself over and over again.

Another problem is that FDA approval takes over a decade and many billions of dollars. We need to find a way to improve this, without sacrificing quality.

A couple of good examples of the free market working in the free market is LASIK eye surgery. 20 years ago it was thousands of dollars. Competition brought it down to less than $500.

You don't get this natural competition with the government monopolizing healthcare and price fixing.

We all win with more competition, and government-run healthcare is the exact opposite of this.

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#99

Post by toomuchtodo »

remotecool wrote: post #98
roland00 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The world of medicine will be in trouble without our system, because govetnments are really not that good at innovation. Medicine is not like building a factory, completely different capital model for Medicine is about "discovery" there is a universal truth out there (yes there is differences in genes not making it perfectly universal) , and advances in medicine is figuring out this discovery. It actually appears mo…

I`m applying top down ideology because I've never seen a socialized government industry out-compete any private pharma company by coming up with new/innovative medicine. The reason is because you need to risk lots of money for R&D well beyond "basic research" and historically, governments arent nearly efficient enough to accomplish this. Private industry/the free market is the perfect way to do this and historically…

If we all win with more competition, why do so many people have to declare bankruptcy in the US from medical bills? Why are millions of people uninsured or underinsured? Why are prices so high for medical services in the US vs other first world countries with universal healthcare, while outcomes are worse?

Re: Health Insurance That Doesn’t Cover the Bills Has Flooded the Market

#100

Post by elliekelly »

ada1981 wrote: post #97
elliekelly wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just DDG’d this because it sounds like a great idea but I wouldn’t sign those “five core statements of belief, freedom, and ethics” even if it meant I’d get free healthcare. One thing I know for certain: our health insurance system needs less religious involvement if we want to fix it, not more.

I don’t know if the religious affiliation impacts anything about the quality of coverage, does it? But I get not wanting to sign something you don’t endorse or believe in. If this model is successful for religious folks, it seems an alternative could be made for hackers or any other group.

Well historically religious organizations have resisted providing adequate coverage for women’s health. So yes, religious affiliation often does impact the quality of coverage.
Post reply on HN