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

101–110 of 407 posts

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

#101

Post by dx87 »

Loughla wrote: post #45
notatoad wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 h…

I know it's an edge case, but there was that kid in the UK with an easily fixable, but fatal, heart condition. Their health association refused to pay for it because no doctors in the UK knew how to perform the surgery, and they weren't willing to pay for them fly to the USA where there were specialists who could do the surgery. After they started a GoFundMe to pay for the surgery themselves, and there was a lot of press about it, the government finally agreed to pay for it instead of letting the kid die. I've also read a lot of stories from people in Canada and the UK saying that it's almost impossible to get same day medical care, even from a general practicioner. Like, they'll have to call as soon as they open, and hope they aren't already booked for the day.

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

#102

Post by LordFast »

The problem has never been about what system works, that's always been clear.

The problem has been, and will continue to be about all the people that are currently employed by the dysfunctional system. Managing that situation is the meat of the challenge.

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

#103

Post by fernandotakai »

ameister14 wrote: post #87
fernandotakai wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

but... why? i mean, if i can afford it, i would want private health care because it's usually less crowded and you can have stuff done a lot faster. for example: a friend of mine had to wait 6mo to do a vasectomy through our public health care system. another friend waited 2w to do his (through private health care) if you could afford it, wouldn't it be better to pay for it? for me (and maybe i'm completely in the wr…

For the single payer system to work as Bernie has set it up, everyone must be within coverage.

i mean, i'm within coverage of brazil's public health care. i can go to any public hospital right now and get whatever care i need. no extra payment required. (you can read more here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sistema_%C3%9Anico_de_Sa%C3%BA...)

but i also pay for private health care -- because it's... well, better. and fortunately, i can afford it.

so i can go to a private hospital and also get whatever procedure i need.

if you think about it, i'm basically paying in double because my taxes go to the public health care system AND i pay for private insurance -- but i honestly don't care, because i want other people, that have no insurance, to have health care.

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

#104

Post by jeremyjh »

dx87 wrote: post #73
elicash wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

My wife's aunt has been on disability for years because she hurt her back and refuses to quit smoking. The doctors said the smoking is preventing her back from healing correctly, and 3 back surgeries later, she still hasn't quit. Because she's poor and on disability, she doesn't have to pay for any of it, and is pefectly content sitting in her trailer watching TV and taking pain killers as her health deteriorates.

Wow, she is living the dream.

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

#105

Post by mrfusion »

grayed-down wrote: post #89

My neighbor, a colorectal surgeon and very into what he does, has remarked on several occasions that if single payer ever happens, he and most of the other surgeons he knows will likely walk away from the profession very shortly thereafter. There would be no financial or professional motivation to continue practicing.

People say a lot of things.

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

#106

Post by jkingsbery »

ipython wrote: post #68
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 part I don't get about this argument is - who is outlawing the ability for physicians to practice privately? I would expect that there would be concierge-style medicine available to those who choose to pay out-of-pocket for it. You want to contract with the world-class researcher to perform an experimental surgery that is unavailable through the public system? Sure, pay the money and we'll take care of you.

I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that it is common in single-payer system to outlaw at least some forms of private practice, see for example:

http://www.canadian-healthcare.org/page6.html

> In addition to public health care providers such as primary care doctors and hospitals, many private clinics offering specialized services also operate in Canada. Under federal law, private clinics are not legally allowed to provide services covered by the Canada Health Act.

One of the EconTalk links I posted above has an interview with someone who started a hospital that takes no insurance, and the total payment for a procedure is less than the co-pay for a procedure at hospitals that take insurance (or at least, that's their claim), and their cited cost was much more than 13% less than the study claims can be done. In that interview, he discussed how people had problems getting basic procedures done in a timely and affordable fashion at other hospitals.

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

#107

Post by zanny »

ve55 wrote: post #55

I dislike how often I see justifications for the sources of inadequacies of current systems supposedly shown by comparing different countries to the US. An example of this in the paper is when they state that the US has more expensive healthcare, but yet worse metrics such as life expectancy. As the differences in healthcare systems between the US and these other comparison countries are obvious, they want to clearly…

> has significantly worse problems of obesity and drug overdoses

Which can easily be caused by a destructive and broken healthcare system leaving the ill unable to seek treatment and thus left to fend for themselves.

Even for those with insurance the costs - in time, in bureaucracy, in often money when your insurance provider refuses to cover - are unreasonable to consider seeing a doctor in a thousandfold situations that Europeans never even second guess. Because they don't need a waist deep paper trail to go to their physician, because they won't get a dozen different bill collectors harassing them in every legally gray way possible, because they don't need to break out the checkbook on the way out to pay the minimum barrier to entry extortion at the end.

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

#108

Post by onemoresoop »

pfarnsworth wrote: post #98
onemoresoop wrote: post #79

I'm paying nearly 20k (parents+child) on insurance I don't have time to use (and luckily no serious need) and once my son went to see his pediatrician and our 'private' insurance company (that i'm not going to name) sent us bill of $500, for a check-up. We disputed the charge with the insurance and they agreed to wave the payment next month. Next month comes and guess what? The same letter comes in mail. We disputed…

I was in the hospital over Christmas because of a very severe infection. I was there for 2 weeks, and am lucky to be alive. The costs were over $150k, but I ended up paying $1500 in various deductibles to Kaiser, etc. I was happy to pay $1500 and am alive because of the care that I got. I pay about $6000 a year in medical insurance per year through my employer and it ended up being totally worth it. Not a few weeks p…

Yes, I know and that's why I am still paying. But seriously, we are paying for emergencies, this should be stated when paying for the insurance. Second, why were the costs $150000?

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

#109

Post by legitster »

nbp160130 wrote: post #58
legitster wrote: post #31

The net savings would be $450B, but the total cost would still be in the 10s of trillions of dollars (Edit: 30-50 over 10 years), bigger than all of our federal spending combined. It's one thing to have as an objective, and another as a plan for getting there. The proposal they cite would make federal healthcare expenditures 69%(!!!) of the GDP (Edit: total federal expenditures). It's simply not realistic to convert…

The "10s of trillions of dollars" estimates you see are for 10 years of projected spending, not for one year.

Thanks. Good correction.

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

#110

Post by mrfusion »

megiddo wrote: post #62
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....

If you have a reasonably middle-class income, the plans are prohibitively expensive and unbelievably shitty. I'm only anecdotal, but by comparison, prior the ACA, my insurance for a family of 3 was $300/month with a $2500/year deductible. That $300/$5000 plan was considered predatory and high deductible. The first plan offered to me under the ACA was something like $700/month with an $8000 deductible. Plans this year…

I’m curious what kind of plan you have now. Where did you find it?

I thought plans had to be aca compliant.

Post reply on HN