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

181–190 of 407 posts

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

#181

Post by frosted-flakes »

cameronh90 wrote: post #80
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…

"eliminate copays and deductibles, something no other universal healthcare system has done." Scottish NHS has no deductibles or copays in general, dentist has an fee for some people though. English system has a flat prescription fee of £9 or so for a minority of the population up to £100ish a year. It's very close to free at the point of use, however.

Canada has no co-pays. The topic of payments never even comes up, unless you're not a resident. Prescription drugs and dental care are generally not covered, however.

In fact, I still struggle to understand the concept of a co-pay. Is it like a deductible for automobile insurance?

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

#182

Post by aqme28 »

jays wrote: post #5

It’s hard not to appreciate the cost savings, saved lives, and benefits employees and employers would see from universal healthcare. Has anyone seen any studies on the potential impact it would have on insurance and medical administration industries? i.e. lost revenue, jobs, etc.?

Yes, in the study. TLDR: extensive severance, retraining, relocation, and retirement programs for less than the amount of money saved.

"Improvements in system efficiency, such as reductions in billing tasks, will involve a contraction of the workforce. Although the country will benefit from lower costs, 936 000 administrative positions and 746 600 positions in the health-care insurance industry are estimated to become redundant. However, detailed transition plans have suggested either funding for early retirement options, extensive severance, retraining programmes, and relocation expenses for all workers in these sectors. Implementation of such a plan is estimated to cost $61·5 billion annually over 2 years, a sum which would be recouped within the first year by the health-care savings estimated here."

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

#183

Post by grayed-down »

scottmcf wrote: post #112
grayed-down wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the right thing be single-payer or what would have to replace it once the economy and the medical profession have been destroyed?

Alarmist nonsense.

We'll see. I've got enough money to survive single-payer, do you?

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

#184

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

mullingitover wrote: post #21
jays wrote: post #5

It’s hard not to appreciate the cost savings, saved lives, and benefits employees and employers would see from universal healthcare. Has anyone seen any studies on the potential impact it would have on insurance and medical administration industries? i.e. lost revenue, jobs, etc.?

> Has anyone seen any studies on the potential impact it would have on insurance and medical administration industries? i.e. lost revenue, jobs, etc.? I wonder about this in the same way I wonder about a world where we have professional window breakers, and what effects it would have on the window repair industry if we stopped having people go around breaking windows.

Unfortunately, they can protest, lobby, and, shall we say, make unfortunate voting choices even after being unemployed, so it might be wise to rethink that opinion. Any changes that are made need to be gradual enough to allow them to transition to other careers or political instability will follow.

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

#185

Post by omegaworks »

dcolkitt wrote: post #92

> Employer contributions to health insurance currently average $10446 per employee and cover 71% of a household’s premium. These employer premiums are equivalent to a 12.29% tax on payroll exceeding the first $2 million... Therefore, any payroll tax less than 12.29%, our upper bound in the SHIFT interface, would result in savings for employers. This excerpt makes it glaringly obvious that no economists were consulted…

Health care costs are one of the largest year-over-year increasing costs employers have to pay. This eliminates that risk (which could rise to 6% next year) from the cost calculations every business currently has to make.

From https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/hr-topics/benefits/pa...:

>"Health benefit costs are still rising at two times the rate of wage increases and three times general inflation, "making this [cost] trend unaffordable and unsustainable over the long term," Brian Marcotte, NBGH president and CEO, said at an Aug. 7 press conference in Washington, D.C.

Medicare is one of the most efficient ways of delivering healthcare we have in this country. With overheads of 2-5% compared to the 10+% of the private industry[2]

2. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/healthcare/reports/2...

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

#186

Post by n9 »

tropo wrote: post #56
secabeen wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fundamental challenge of any universal health care system is that to cut our spending on health care to the level of other western industrialized countries will take $1 Trillion of annual revenue out of the existing system. There's going to be a lot of disruption and people who need new jobs when that revenue goes to other things in our economy.

Roughly, that is 20 million jobs lost. (assume $50,000 each) Cutting $1 trillion is a change that affects 5% of GDP. This issue is part of why Obamacare kept the insurance companies. Killing jobs didn't go over well.

Looks like 1.7m jobs, not 20. I guess some folks make a whole lot more than 50k.

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

#187

Post by narag »

ve55 wrote: post #115
zanny wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

The reason I disagree with this is because our healthcare system is largely built upon treating someone after they have an apparent issue, instead of preventing the issue. It seems very difficult for a healthcare system to stop someone from becoming obese to begin with, or stop someone from abusing drugs that is intent on it and not seeing anyone intentionally, or stop problems like depression by their root cause ins…

Actually it happens. You go to the doctor with some side effect, like headaches or high blood pressure and they nudge you to go to the dietist. Of course you can refuse, but there are a lot of kind and caring professionals and you know it won't cost you money, so it works sometimes.

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

#188

Post by jandrese »

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.

This makes no sense. What is he going to do instead? Flip burgers? Go to Canada? Go to the UK? Go to Germany?

If he wanted to make the argument that it would discourage people from seeking surgical degrees that is something worth discussing with current students, but that guy's costs are sunk. It's too late to change now.

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

#189

Post by rdlw »

grayed-down wrote: post #95
dboreham wrote: post #6

As Churchill said... “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing. After they have tried everything else.”

Would the right thing be single-payer or what would have to replace it once the economy and the medical profession have been destroyed?

When does this collapse happen? We've had single payer healthcare up here for 58 years, it looks like Germany's had some form of it for 137 years.

Should I be buying gold to prepare for year 140?

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

#190

Post by n9 »

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…

Read the article. Look at prior art. Stop spreading FUD.
Post reply on HN