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

Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

thelancet.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 407 posts

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#41

Post by elicash »

macinjosh wrote: post #30

I am sure, on paper, it is a brilliant plan. Unfortunately, reality and human behavior almost never follow the plan. Is waste, fraud, and abuse taken into account at all in this study? What about the inevitable changes to consumers' motivation, behavior, and decision making around healthcare? It will change drastically as the cost of their care is even further removed from them than it is now. People who have a procl…

Let's take smoking as an example.

You think there are people out there who will smoke, knowing that it causes lung cancer, because they figure government will pick up the tab for the chemo? Bizarre, but ok, if so, why doesn't having insurance give them the same incentive?

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#42

Post by nkassis »

jkingsbery wrote: post #11

> "Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans" From many anecdotes I've read about medicine in socialized countries, it's unwise to assume that having insurance is the same as access. Many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered cost effective by The Single Payer, and the wait time for specialists can often be long. Further, what counts as "costs" in US health industry…

The same problem you describe exist in the us system as well. Wait times are also shorter when people are cost prohibited from seeking certain services.

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#43

Post by threeseed »

fjp wrote: post #26
three_seagrass wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why the Medicare for all will still be funded, in part, through a business tax. The difference being you've removed the for-profit middlemen, so the healthcare costs are less for businesses than the privatized hybrid version we have now.

The important issue with Warren's "plan" is that it's essentially a $8,000 per year per employee head tax, so it's a regressive tax. An afterthought in the expense of hiring a very highly-paid employee, but a not-insignificant expense of hiring a lower-paid employee. Not to mention that her plan exempts contractors and business under 50 employees, so it incentivizes businesses to to lean on contract labor or reorgani…

The problem with a new business tax is that it doesn't come for free.

Increasing businesses taxes reduces international competitiveness which can reduce taxation collected in other areas. Also politically it's an incredibly hard thing to implement.

And remember you have to do this at the same time as you're implementing Medicare for All. Making it a pretty radical transition by any measure.

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#44

Post by cotillion »

jkingsbery wrote: post #11

> "Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans" From many anecdotes I've read about medicine in socialized countries, it's unwise to assume that having insurance is the same as access. Many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered cost effective by The Single Payer, and the wait time for specialists can often be long. Further, what counts as "costs" in US health industry…

I live in a universal health care country. I also had a private health insurance thru my employer which guaranteed specialist care within a certain time.

The universal health care means that the extra insurance was not very expensive at all since it only covered the speedy access part. If you have money capitalism will always ensure you have speedy access to healthcare.

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#45

Post by Loughla »

notatoad wrote: post #18
jkingsbery wrote: post #11

> "Furthermore, we estimate that ensuring health-care access for all Americans" From many anecdotes I've read about medicine in socialized countries, it's unwise to assume that having insurance is the same as access. Many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered cost effective by The Single Payer, and the wait time for specialists can often be long. Further, what counts as "costs" in US health industry…

>Many procedures are made unavailable due to being considered cost effective by The Single Payer whether the insurance is coming from a single payer or a private company, access to health care does not mean unrestricted access to any medical procedure you want. Private insurers also deny treatments that aren't considered to be cost effective.

That's what I've never understood about the arguments against single payer:

>You can't pick your own doctor

I already can't. If they're in network, I'm good, but if they're out of network - like my doctor was - then I have to find a new one.

>You can't pick your treatments

My spouse was denied medication by an insurance company because it was too new. So.

>You don't get to have all the healthcare you want

I already have to have pre-approval for anything up to and including emergency surgery according to my annual medical contract. So that's out the window, too.

And I have good insurance through a respectable company who may or may not have a name that rhymes with smue-smoss smue-smield.

Not sure what other arguments there are.

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#46

Post by pjc50 »

threeseed wrote: post #8

Pretty disingenuous study. If you move to a Medicare for All policy it would shift employer health care costs to the government. Which they would never be able to financially support especially with the challenges of an ageing population and excessive debt. And so when they say it saves $450b it's not taxpayers. It's mostly employers. There is a reason that countries that started with M4A e.g. Australia, UK have all…

The UK system is still the same from the user point of view as in 1944? It's now somewhat stretched but fundamentally you don't need to deal with insurers, billing, etc.

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#47

Post by zombieZygote »

Deregulate the business side of the industry, tell the government to govern and stop worrying about health insurance, and let the market cull the inefficient, overpriced providers.

The health care system has been jacked since government/employers got involved.

Insurance is a product. Health is ultimately up to the individual. The whole ting is a smoke and mirrors racket imo.

Re: Single-payer healthcare would save $450B and 68k lives a year: study

#49

Post by fzeroracer »

newguy1234 wrote: post #15

What I don't get is how do 37 million Americans not have health insurance when the ACA was suppose to fix that issue? All of the plans are adjusted based on your income level and you get a tax credit if you are low income. If you are very poor then you get free healthcare....

When I lost my job in 2018 and had to pay for health insurance myself, even a relatively low tier plan would cost me upwards of 400+ a month while still leaving me on the hook for a majority of the bills if I got sick or injured.

Thankfully the COBRA loophole meant I could avoid paying the costs if I ended up finding a job quickly, but during that period I was travelling with a check for the full amount of the insurance just in case.

Now imagine that but far worse for someone who couldn't actually afford any of those costs.

Post reply on HN