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

331–340 of 407 posts

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

#331

Post by jrs235 »

abruzzi wrote: post #305
beat wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where I think political leaders (Democrat or Republican) could do really well. It's not just making sure people are covered. It's the existential dread of dealing with opaque, unpredictable, and incomprehensible bureaucracy that can make life-and-death decisions or drop financially crippling bills in your lap, even if you have good insurance . The American health care system isn't just bad for the poor. It's…

My favorite story to tell (favorite in a horrible way) about these kind of issues is this: After an accident ~15 years ago, I had an open wound that wouldn't close because it was infected with MRSA which had lodged itself in the hardware that was screwed to my tibia. I was wearing a wound vac--a device that was attached to the open wound and maintained a constant suction to pull out any bad stuff. It was there to kee…

And the really crazy and stupid thing is why are we burdening our doctors with knowing whether someone's insurance plan covers their services? Doctors ought to focus their time and talent on treating people and illnesses, not trying to calculate bills for patients.

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

#332

Post by tptacek »

laurencerowe wrote: post #317
tptacek wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is saying there aren't real administrative savings to be had, but the amount we spend on administrative costs is something close to an empirically observable fact, and you can do the mental exercise of taking any credible number and zeroing it out to see how big an impact it would have on overall health spending. It's not huge. Which is to say that even in the most optimistic case, where single-payer forces ev…

According to this study healthcare administration costs account for the bulk of the difference between US and Canada healthcare spending. 34% of 18% of US GDP (=6% GDP) vs 17% of 11.6% of Canada's GDP (=2% of GDP). https://www.healio.com/primary-care/practice-management/news... Other studies looking at only hospital costs put it at 1.43% of GDP. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/journal-articl...

That is a much higher estimate of admin overhead than other sources, covers both payer and provider administrative expenses, and implicitly attributes all provider administrative expenses to billing/coding.

But we don't have to litigate this in the context of the Lancet article. That article derives much higher savings from pharmaceutical price reductions than from administrative savings. We know with some certainty what percentage of overall spending comes from pharmaceuticals, and it is a low number.

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

#334

Post by greedo »

Ghjklov wrote: post #266
frosted-flakes wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What happens if you're out walking down the street and stumble, fall, and hit your head. Now you have a brain bleed, and need neurosurgery to relive pressure on your brain.

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

#335

Post by spaginal »

codegeek wrote: post #97
threeseed wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly the health care costs are less for businesses. But that's not coming through efficiencies but largely through the US government picking up the tab for it. Which is completely fine because it's what happens elsewhere in the world. But there is no discussion around the impacts to budgets and taxpayers which is the challenge the faced Australia and UK for example.

You are underestimating the record profits that insurance companies make. Those will not be needed since Govt. is not in it to make money. That is another efficiency.

Government is anything but efficient, or cheap.

You will end up with multiple redundant bureaucracies overlapping the same areas, spending tax money and blowing up budgets like it's going out of style, skyrocketing our already skyrocketed national debt, and you will lose any choice in the matter.

Good luck trimming those departments and fixing the bloat once it's implemented, because our federal government cannot do that even now.

This article is pie in the sky, it doesn't reflect the realities of the bloat and cost already present in our government.

The most efficiently ran part of our government is the military, and the amount of black holes in the accounting, the cost, it makes your eyes simply boggle.

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

#336

Post by mrep »

codegeek wrote: post #301
usaar333 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We just can't deal with it, because we are exposed directly to unnecessary complexity. I'd argue though that those best adept at handling the complexity are actually winning in this model. If you are reasonably healthy already and can navigate HDHP/HSA rules, you can have a much higher take-home income + savings than in other countries with government run healthcare systems.

You are missing the point. It is not about being healthy. You are always worried about the "what if I have to go see a doctor" situation in America because you don't know what it will cost and you definitely don't know what kind of issues you will have to fight through with incorrect claims, incorrect bills and what not. If someone can address that here in US, I am willing to keep the current system as is.

My max out of pocket spending is $2,600 a year and I can put $3,500 pretax money into my HSA every year which I do. What I am supposed to worried about?

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

#337

Post by codegeek »

mrep wrote: post #336
codegeek wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point. It is not about being healthy. You are always worried about the "what if I have to go see a doctor" situation in America because you don't know what it will cost and you definitely don't know what kind of issues you will have to fight through with incorrect claims, incorrect bills and what not. If someone can address that here in US, I am willing to keep the current system as is.

My max out of pocket spending is $2,600 a year and I can put $3,500 pretax money into my HSA every year which I do. What I am supposed to worried about?

worry about the fact that your health insurance company can change or they can change the terms on you. That a starting point. Plenty more to worry about but I have typed enough on other threads here.

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

#339

Post by refurb »

n9 wrote: post #199
refurb wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found this part of the paper to be unreasonable: Available ER visits and hospitalizations can be avert through improved access to primary care

Have you ever gone to a busy urban ER? It is absolutely full to the brim 24/7 with people visiting with chronic ailments that don’t have health insurance, which is literally the most expensive possible way to treat something like asthma or chronic emphysema.

Look up the Oregon Medicaid study. Basically did a lottery, half get Medicaid, half don’t.

No change in outcomes, it just cost more.

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

#340

Post by fzeroracer »

spaginal wrote: post #335
codegeek wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are underestimating the record profits that insurance companies make. Those will not be needed since Govt. is not in it to make money. That is another efficiency.

Government is anything but efficient, or cheap. You will end up with multiple redundant bureaucracies overlapping the same areas, spending tax money and blowing up budgets like it's going out of style, skyrocketing our already skyrocketed national debt, and you will lose any choice in the matter. Good luck trimming those departments and fixing the bloat once it's implemented, because our federal government cannot do…

>The most efficiently ran part of our government is the military

I mean that's just objectively wrong. The US Postal Service is likely the most efficient among government agencies. Medicare is also very efficient even compared to private insurance.

So I'm not sure where this fear of inefficiency is coming from when we're going to leverage one of the most efficient government programs in the US. And I'm more curious as to why people even care about the national debt bullshit anymore considering we've seen one side be completely willing to blow up the deficit for the sake of giving the rich socialism.

Post reply on HN