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

261–270 of 407 posts

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

#261

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

codegeek wrote: post #148
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…

For a family of 4, I pay total of about 20K per year as well (employer + employee cost) and even after that, we have a $5000 deductible AND on top, we have to be concerned about in-network/out of network bullshit. So for me, unless $25,000 has been spent, insurance company would not even come in the picture AND I am always scared if I wil get a bill that was out of network. This madness has to end and I don't give a…

Holy crap. I am in the process of "fighting" with insurance over meds we paid out of pocket even though they were supposed to cover it.. long story. We thought we hit a wall and we contacted one of the enforcement agencies. All of a sudden, we get an individual refund form and a place to mail it to. The amount was not astronomical ($1.5k), but not something I can just ignore.

And that happens all over the country. Not everyone has my time to call, write and complain. Those are the moments I am ready to change the system. It is not really working for me. It is merely acceptable to a few.

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

#262

Post by frosted-flakes »

codegeek wrote: post #252
frosted-flakes wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people will get the care they need than currently. Right now, there's a real dis-incentive to going to the doctor or to hospital for non-critical care/injuries.

And that's a good thing I would say.

Definitely.

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

#263

Post by redler »

leetcrew wrote: post #196
frosted-flakes wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

it's not really like a deductible. it's a small fixed cost you pay every time you see a doctor or fill a prescription. it creates a small amount of friction, presumably to prevent frivolous use of resources.

There is also "co-insurance", which can be in the range of 20 to 50 percent of the billed amount, depending on one's plan. It should go without saying that 20 to 50 percent of the bill on almost any substantive medical problem can be a financial extinction-level event for many American families.

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

#264

Post by UnFleshedOne »

LordFast wrote: post #102

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.

It was never a problem when companies started outsourcing to developing countries in droves...

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

#265

Post by tptacek »

mgraczyk wrote: post #7

In the study, nearly all the computed savings comes from two sources. 1. Decrease in pharmaceutical costs as a result of better bargaining power. 2. Decrease in administrative overhead, calculated by extrapolating the overhead in medicare to the entire US healthcare economy. I don't have an informed opinion on either of these estimates, but my intuition is that #1 seems reasonable while #2 seems unlikely. The justifi…

I wrote this comment before reading the excellent comment 'wahern wrote, so I'm getting rid of my redundant point about pharma and admin as a percentage of overall spending.

Rather, I'd like to point out something that I haven't seen discussed. Maybe someone here can knock it down.

Health care spending increases drastically and nonlinearly after age 55. Medicare's admin overhead is in part a consequence of the cohort of patients it serves: they receive more medical services than everyone else, and so more of their medical spending goes to services relative to administrative costs.

Conversely, younger patients receive relatively few medical services, and the services they receive are much less expensive. Compared to that lower amount, fixed administrative costs are a higher percentage of their medical spending. Some admin costs scale directly with the costs of services rendered, but others don't.

As a result, it seems pretty clear that Medicare's admin overhead ratio would necessarily be higher if it covered everyone, and that any result taken by extrapolating current administrative overhead to the whole population would be dubious.

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

#266

Post by Ghjklov »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #260
Ghjklov wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think they'll give me free health insurance as a 23 year old who lives with a parent? I don't have any interest paying a dime for health insurance because I could use that money to eat healthily instead and try to stay out of trouble. Otherwise, I'd starve or sacrifice my diet in order to afford the health insurance. It has never made sense to me.

What happens whenyou get run over by a drunk driver? You don't get to choose when that happens, and there's little you can do to prevent it.

In that case, the drunk driver/his insurance would pay for the hospital fees, no? That is, in the more optimistic outcome where I actually survive.

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

#267

Post by usaar333 »

thecleaner wrote: post #246

The answer is simple, vote for a candidate that campaigns on universal healthcare. That candidate may not be the politically purest one.

Isn't every Democrat supportive of universal healthcare? (Which at the minimum is just ACA + technical fixes on it)

There are differences through whether it should be single-payer or not.

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

#268

Post by coenhyde »

vharuck wrote: post #76
coenhyde wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax credits don't help people who are struggling to pay day to day bills. What good is a tax credit they'll receive up to a year later? When your horizon is 2 weeks, you're going to prioritize food & accommodation before a health insurance plan.

The tax credit can be paid in advance directly to the insurance company on your behalf [0]. Basically, the federal government pays for your insurance. [0] https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/individuals-and-fami...

Thank you. I did not know that

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

#269

Post by throwawayhhakdl »

dx87 wrote: post #123
elicash wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you think if she wasn't allowed to either have private health insurance (which is subsidized by others with health insurance) or have government-paid insurance, that she would suddenly stop smoking?

I think she'll keep smoking as long as she doesn't face any repercussions for it. Right now, she keeps getting free medical care to fix anything wrong with her, so she has no incentive to get better. If she didn't have that, then she'd have to make the choice between continuing to smoke, or having to be immobile and in pain because she couldn't keep getting medication and surgery to mask the health problems she's bri…

But... she does have repercussions? She has chronic back pain and deteriorating health...

Pain pills are either A) not going to be strong enough B) harshly addictive. Probably opioids.

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

#270

Post by mochomocha »

rayiner wrote: post #210
codegeek wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but at least, Govt. is not looking to make record profits.

No, but government has strong incentives to deny claims to control costs. At least at the state level, governments have gotten extremely aggressive about money collection. E.g. $50 administrative fee for not paying a $4.00 toll.

How is that different from insurer incentives to deny coverage or to ask crazy copays because insured people can only switch plans once a year and select from a tiny menu of options that their employers have negotiated on their behalf with an oligopolistic industry? And do you honestly prefer the shady debt collectors industry to the current government money collection mechanisms ?!?
Post reply on HN