Live data from Hacker News

Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

quillette.com

341–350 of 372 posts

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obamacare also has a huge positive impact besides just access to healthcare. Sure. On my back, and that of countless others. It's fucking highway robbery. Before Obamacare we had excellent health insurance with excellent coverage, doctors and low deductibles for $650 per month. When we were shoved into Obamacare, our rate TRIPLED to $1,800 per month. Today we are paying nearly $2,300 per month. This is equivalent t…

>Sure. On my back, and that of countless others. Yes, that was the point. People who could not afford healthcare, are now receiving it. Hence people who can afford to pay for others to get healthcare, have to pay for others to get healthcare. >However, doing it by causing serious financial harm to likely millions of families is not right, at all. There was never going to be a way to redistribute wealth without taking…

> Yes, that was the point.

No, the point was to use healthcare to buy votes.

> People who could not afford healthcare, are now receiving it.

Nobody I know has a problem with the concept of helping others. Nobody. Helping others might be to tack-on $100 per month to help cover the under-insured. We do this with auto insurance already, everyone pays a little more for uninsured motorists. A QUADRUPLING of health insurance costs is theft. It isn't equitable by any stretch of the imagination.

And then there's the fact that the US President and everyone from his party who supported this told us, promised us, families would save $2,500 per year. Instead of that, we were forced --FORCED-- by law to buy a product that today costs four times what we used to pay for a better product.

We have a situation where the US government is forcing us to pay an exorbitant amount of money for a substandard product. Forced. So much for the land of the free.

> Hence people who can afford to pay for others to get healthcare, have to pay for others to get healthcare.

What's next? Pay for those who can't afford to buy a house? By that logic one can justify just-about anything.

Sorry, that's not justification for any government to force people to buy a bad product that financially brutalizes them.

Yes, we need solutions for healthcare. Obamacare isn't even close to a solution. It's a travesty. In the long term it has actually degraded our healthcare system. The problem is it will take years for the less informed and easily impressed among us to understand this.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it isn't overpaid bloated admin, what is the cause? I worked in EDU.

Businesses that use a bachelor's degree requirement as blunt hiring filter. Loose credit that can't be discharged in bankruptcy. Colleges are in a rankings arms race instead of prioritizing affordability.

So there is an issue with the lending system, that allows the bloated admin to continue to exist.

Colleges are investing in amenities instead of quality, affordable education, because the bloated admin is useless and corrupt, so they spend on big ticket sports facilities and buildings (where does the money go?) to justify the administrative excesses (if you build a $100 million stadium it's easier to justify a few million to renovate the presidents office).

The root of the problem is the terrible leadership, that is enabled by the broken funding model. Fixing the funding model won't resolve the leadership problems.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Sure. On my back, and that of countless others. Yes, that was the point. People who could not afford healthcare, are now receiving it. Hence people who can afford to pay for others to get healthcare, have to pay for others to get healthcare. >However, doing it by causing serious financial harm to likely millions of families is not right, at all. There was never going to be a way to redistribute wealth without taking…

> Yes, that was the point. No, the point was to use healthcare to buy votes. > People who could not afford healthcare, are now receiving it. Nobody I know has a problem with the concept of helping others. Nobody. Helping others might be to tack-on $100 per month to help cover the under-insured. We do this with auto insurance already, everyone pays a little more for uninsured motorists. A QUADRUPLING of health insuran…

>Nobody I know has a problem with the concept of helping others. Nobody. Helping others might be to tack-on $100 per month to help cover the under-insured.

Apparently you do, if the help costs more than $100 per month.

>We do this with auto insurance already, everyone pays a little more for uninsured motorists.

Uninsured and underinsured auto insurance does not help anyone else, it only helps the premium payer.

>what we used to pay for a better product.

I do not see how this can be true when there were benefit maximums, as opposed to out of pocket maximums, and pre existing health condition exclusions existed.

>What's next? Pay for those who can't afford to buy a house? By that logic one can justify just-about anything.

Yes, that is the crux of politics today. How much wealth redistribution should the government perform?

Previously, a few tribes in society had it made in the shade. Old people, government employees, employees of large businesses, especially white collar or ones with large union presence. Then sufficient amount of Americans no longer belonged to those tribes, hence the political will to pass reform. Which I guess you characterize as “buying votes”.

>Sorry, that's not justification for any government to force people to buy a bad product that financially brutalizes them.

You are not buying a bad product, you are paying a tax since your premiums explicitly subsidize others, just not paid directly to the government. Also, there is no penalty for not purchasing health insurance since 2018, so the government has not been forcing anyone to pay the “tax”.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#344
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can easily see that all the health insurance companies’ profit margins are in the 5% range, which is not a lot. It is a competitive business without a lot of pricing power. But what it will do is provide consistent, reliable returns. And since more people are getting more healthcare, the magnitude of the profits will obviously be higher, hence the increase in stock price. Basically, the market caps now reflects w…

> It is a competitive business without a lot of pricing power. But what it will do is provide consistent, reliable returns. And since more people are getting more healthcare, the magnitude of the profits will obviously be higher, hence the increase in stock price. It seems like you’re theory-crafting here rather that describing what is actually happening in the industry. 1. I somewhat sloppily used the term “profits”…

Why is gross margin relevant?

>Their profit (~5% as you mentioned) comes after they pay their relatively consistent operating expenses out of their gross margins.

Just like in any other business.

>The increased number of people getting insured is not what has driven up the insurance companies profits. Those numbers don’t add up.

Their profit margin has not been driven up [0].

>It’s not competitive at all, imho. It’s an oligopoly.

In an adjacent comment [0], I posted profit margins for 7 different publicly listed multi billion dollar health insurance businesses, which excludes Kaiser Permanente. If that is not a competitive business sector, I don’t know what is. If you are claiming collusion, I would need proof.

>That said, the hospitals and insurance companies are feeding at the trough, they have established a new excessive normal, and they will fight any change to the 80/20 rule by comically pleading poverty.

How are sub 5% profit margins feeding at the trough? If that is feeding at the trough, what is Apple, Microsoft, Visa, Alphabet, etc doing?

If insurance companies had the pricing power you are claiming they have, why would the shareholders accept anemic profit margins?

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33503127

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not ideological. All you have to do is look at the results. Lending people money for college led to huge increases in tuition.

It seems ideological to me because the government was specifically mentioned. If it were a non-profit guaranteeing all college loans, would 'non-profit' have been mentioned instead of government? I doubt it.

There were and are non-profits scholarships. They simply aren't big enough to have the effect that government has.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#346
post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's not like you can't just drop it. Quite few people play it anyway.

>it's not like you can't just drop it In the US? No we absolutely can't. College football is practically a religion. Its cultural importance cannot be overstated. I don't care about it at all and never have but oh biy do other people ever. People's lives revolve around it.

Many college football programs pay for themselves and fund other sports, though probably only the best ones.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#347
post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is a competitive business without a lot of pricing power. But what it will do is provide consistent, reliable returns. And since more people are getting more healthcare, the magnitude of the profits will obviously be higher, hence the increase in stock price. It seems like you’re theory-crafting here rather that describing what is actually happening in the industry. 1. I somewhat sloppily used the term “profits”…

Why is gross margin relevant? >Their profit (~5% as you mentioned) comes after they pay their relatively consistent operating expenses out of their gross margins. Just like in any other business. >The increased number of people getting insured is not what has driven up the insurance companies profits. Those numbers don’t add up. Their profit margin has not been driven up [0]. >It’s not competitive at all, imho. It’s…

Do you have any direct experience with the medical industry? If not, do you know anyone who has?

It really seems like you are arm-chair quarterbacking your comments based on some quick online searches. I strongly encourage you to talk to folks who have worked in hospital billing pre- and post-ACA and (if possible) actuaries who work in the health insurance industry who will speak to you frankly (rather than toeing the industry line). The misaligned incentives are a complete shit show.

> Why is gross margin relevant?

If you can increase gross margin number while maintaining operation costs at about the same proportional level, then you end up with more absolute profit. So 100 premium, 20 gm and 5 profit can become 150 premium, 30 gm, and 7.5 profit.

> How are sub 5% profit margins feeding at the trough?

The percentage is not the issue. The absolute amount is.

Some examples:

- My premiums pre-ACA to now have almost quintupled. There are some good reasons to explain a small part of that increase (e.g., I’m older), but 4-5x is absurd. Way higher than inflation, and way higher than the quality of care has improved (for me specially, but also in general).

- This link (https://khn.org/news/article/surprise-bill-iv-push-hospital-...) is an example of hospitals feeding at the trough. Imagine this happening hundreds or thousands of times a day at every hospital. It’s absurd. I realize that this is basically a marketing piece by Kaiser, but the article is directionally correct based on folks I know who work in medicine, health insurance, and hospital billing. Their stories are all very consistent.

- There are many other countries with functional healthcare systems that do not charge anywhere near this much (for most people). Japan comes to mind. I have lived there. Premiums are based on a percentage of your salary, and the cost is much less than the US for 95%+ of the population. If you have no salary, it’s about $100 a year. When the US system reforms, I hope that the reformers take lessons from Japan since the transition from our current system to something like theirs will be relatively easier than many/most other options.

> If you are claiming collusion, I would need proof.

This isn’t CSI, and collusion doesn’t have to be explicit, especially with oligopolies.

Once the major players in any market in the US realize that they can take a win-win game theory approach to their pricing, they pretty much do so. They don’t have to have surreptitious back room meetings in order to realize that increasing prices more or less in step is mutually beneficial, especially in health insurance, which has a wide moat.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Honestly, I don't really understand why they aren't already: they clearly violate the 4/5ths rule. And it's hard for me to believe that some enterprising lawyer hasn't already brought suit under this theory. My guess is because 'not having a college degree' is not any kind of protected class. Not an immutable characteristic. It is a behavior choice. Do we really want to get the gov't involved in telling private com…

> My guess is because 'not having a college degree' is not any kind of protected class. Not an immutable characteristic. It is a behavior choice. Do we really want to get the gov't involved in telling private companies what qualifications they can require for a particular job? That is true. But race and sex are protected classes. And the 4/5ths rule says that if a particular requirement generates a resulting distribu…

Interesting question. https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHR/comments/h9vavc/doesnt_griggs...

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Obamacare also has a huge positive impact besides just access to healthcare. Sure. On my back, and that of countless others. It's fucking highway robbery. Before Obamacare we had excellent health insurance with excellent coverage, doctors and low deductibles for $650 per month. When we were shoved into Obamacare, our rate TRIPLED to $1,800 per month. Today we are paying nearly $2,300 per month. This is equivalent t…

My genuinely overkill for my needs private health insurance as someone living in Australia where theres a public health care system that looks after everyone... costs less than half your pre-obamacare insurance, factoring in the exchange rate. I cant fathom why the majority of Americans are ok with their weird sociopathic Job = Health Insurance based system. While not as nearly unanimous as the metric system, well fu…

> as someone living in Australia where theres a public health care system that looks after everyone... costs less than half your pre-obamacare insurance

> I cant fathom why the majority of Americans are ok with their weird sociopathic Job = Health Insurance based system.

Agree with everything in your comment. I think I can say everyone in the US wants a solution for this, including the idea of healthcare not being financially crippling for anyone.

It is easy to wrongly reduce any issue to a single variable. Politicians love doing this because they can then identify good and bad and use that to divide the population for votes. The truth is that everything in life is a complex multivariate problem. Few take the time to take a deep dive into the tree of variables in order to understand.

While not a comprehensive explanation, I'll attempt to at least provide some perspective, particularly for those not living in the US and likely, because of that, not having direct visibility into the web of issues. From my perspective, there are four macro issues that drive our cost structures. I'll keep it short. Happy to expand on any of these if interested.

  1: Education: K-12
  2: Education: University
  3: Student loans
  4: Laws, lawyers, lawsuits, liability
Like I said, there are many variables beyond these.

  Primary and Secondary Education
We send our kids to school from 5 to 17/18 years of age. After twelve years of schooling young adults come out of these institutions with no marketable skills whatsoever. Our high school graduates are only good for stacking boxes and, with training, making coffee. They are ignorant and pretty much useless without an additional 6 to 24 months of training.

They are sold the idea that minimum wage should be a living wage because we are training people who can only qualify for minimum wage jobs. Except that faulty economic ideologies is constantly eroding living standards at every level. Politicians pushed the $15/hr minimum wage as a solution for all the problems. Today, with inflation and rising cost structures (some of it driven by the doubling of the minimum wage), earning $15 per hour is likely less --in terms of purchasing power-- than it was before selling people that fantasy.

Education is at the core of a number of problems in this country. How does that affect healthcare? You are creating generations of poor people with no or low skills. This means they have trouble financially contributing to the greater good.

  University Education
If I remember correctly, the university drop-out rate is such that only about 25% (if not less) of first year students in the US graduate. This is connected to the prior issue as well as other factors. Once again, we end-up with a massive number of people who will likely suffer from financial struggles for life.

The fact that K-12 schools do not prepare students well means a significant number of them have to either take (and pay for) remedial coursework or eventually drop out. Most drop out.

In addition to this, our university programs waste student time by forcing them to take irrelevant coursework. This is particularly visible in the STEM fields. Students have to engage in about a years' worth of irrelevant non-STEM coursework. I define "irrelevant" to mean: Coursework that no employer cares about at all and will have no effect in advancing anyone professionally. We could graduate people 25% faster and with 25% lower student debt if we just excised irrelevant coursework.

What's ironic about this is that anyone would agree that someone pursuing a degree in art would be wasting their time and money if forced to take a year filled with mathematics, physics, chemistry and other STEM topics. And yet, for some strange reason, we force our STEM students to spend tens of thousands of dollars and waste an entire year taking courses like "Young Karl Marx". No bullshit, my son was forced to take this course at a major university while pursuing his degree in CS. Forced? Yes. A sociology module was required for graduation. Magically, this was the only available class for something like two quarters. In other words, he would have had to delay his graduation by half a year or "choose" to take this irrelevant and utterly useless class. And pay for it, of course.

What does this have to do with healthcare?

Hang on, we are getting there.

Re: Bloated college administration is making education unaffordable

#350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My genuinely overkill for my needs private health insurance as someone living in Australia where theres a public health care system that looks after everyone... costs less than half your pre-obamacare insurance, factoring in the exchange rate. I cant fathom why the majority of Americans are ok with their weird sociopathic Job = Health Insurance based system. While not as nearly unanimous as the metric system, well fu…

> as someone living in Australia where theres a public health care system that looks after everyone... costs less than half your pre-obamacare insurance > I cant fathom why the majority of Americans are ok with their weird sociopathic Job = Health Insurance based system. Agree with everything in your comment. I think I can say everyone in the US wants a solution for this, including the idea of healthcare not being fi…

  Student Loans
Government subsidized and guaranteed student loans cause massive increases in the cost of tertiary education. Who in their right mind would give an 18 year old with no work history or finances to justify it a loan for hundreds of thousands of dollars? The answer is: Nobody. Unless the government guarantees you'll get paid. In which case you have nothing whatsoever to lose. Young adults have no clue what they are walking into and buy into the scheme, not knowing what awaits them.

One particularly sad example I have of this is a young lady who was a member of the FRC robotics team I mentored for many years. She was duped --I have to use the word, no other way to describe it-- into accepting admission into a university that was going to charge her $300K for a degree in mechanical engineering. I and other professionals mentoring the team advised her against doing this. We explained what $300K in debt for a degree in mechanical engineering was a formula for financial slavery for three decades, or more. Well, we could not beat the marketing machine. She graduated with a little over $300K in debt and is absolutely hating life today.

This is where we make a connection that starts with K-12 and culminates with university outcomes and the healthcare systems.

An MD, depending on specialty, graduates with about $300K in debt. That's actually a bad number because it is an average, and averages are horrible metrics to apply to a population. The number can easily reach $500K, particularly when you include all elements, not just tuition.

Here's the connection: There's an ecosystem of professionals, all of whom participate in delivering healthcare through their own specialties. The MD, nurses, PA's, radiologists, etc. are the most visible layer. The next layer is likely an array of engineers, biologists, chemists and other university-degreed professionals working either directly for the hospitals or for tech and pharmaceutical companies that are an integral part of the healthcare dependency tree.

When you are on the table in an operating room, the team surrounding you likely has a collective student loan debt in the order of two million dollars, if not more. One layer removed are other nurses and support personnel at the hospital. That is also likely debt that must be serviced in the millions of dollars. The people who build the equipment in that operating room, conduct research and develop drugs and other tools represent hundreds of millions of dollars in student debt.

One can follow that cost structure tree as far as one might wish.

This means that healthcare in the US has a non-trivial baseline cost of doing business that is inextricably linked to the quality and cost of our education. That's an important baseline to understand. You cannot fix healthcare costs in the US without fixing this complex element of a complex equation. At a minimum, the government should have nothing to do with student loans. University costs should not be subsidized. Students should pay fair market value for what their degrees can actually deliver. Curriculum would also be fine-tuned as part of this process. Nobody wants to spend thousands of dollars for a course on "Underwater Basket Weaving" when it is irrelevant and has no value. Let the student decide, do not force irrelevant material on them and charge inflated rates for it.

The journey to this point includes additional variables that have not been accounted for. One example of this is the fact that K-12 education is dominated and ruled by regional teacher unions, none of which truly exists as real advocates for excellence in education. The effects of such a structure ripple all the way up into university, graduation rates and the cost of remedial education. These result also dominate life outcomes for those who either don't attend university or drop out. They leave K-12 without marketable skills that could seriously improve their lives and improve society.

BTW, my wife is a doctor; we actually live the above realities. We is over 50 years old and we still have somewhere around $80K in student debt to pay for her degree.

    Lawyers
While this isn't intended to be an exhaustive analysis of the problem of healthcare cost in the US, it is important to bring this element into it, because it isn't trivial. Doctors in the US have to spend tens of thousands of dollars per year on professional insurance to protect from lawyers. Hospitals have to spend millions of dollars per year on legal costs. Companies serving the healthcare industry have to do the same. Pharmaceutical companies have to spend billions of dollars.

The baseline costs I mentioned above are, in fact, just the tip of the iceberg. Every single element of the healthcare story in the US, be it people, supplies, equipment or drugs, has massive legal and liability costs associated with them. If your medical practice has to protect against a potential hundred-million-dollar lawsuit, there will be a non-trivial cost associated with this. Same with hospitals, the EKG machine manufacturer and even the company making the pillows you put on the beds at the hospital.

One turn of the crank and all of these baseline costs add-up to a situation where the "system" has to charge insane amounts of money for everything or it will collapse under its own weight. Doctors have to order two, three, ten times as many tests for everything, just to cover their ass in case there's a lawsuit. Companies have to spend tens, hundreds, billions of dollars for similar reasons.

When your baseline costs are driven by such cost structures, there is no amount of income redistribution that is going to fix any of it. Making me pay four times what I was paying before Obamacare does absolutely nothing --not one thing-- to fix the fundamental issue of a seriously fucked cost structure to deliver healthcare.

I'll stop here. The topic tends to be emotional for some because it is human nature to pretty much just care for self rather than to take a higher level view, explore root causes and take the pain required to actually solve problems for everyone.

Objectively speaking, in the US, we need to fix education at every level, stop subsidizing ridiculous university cost structures and curriculum, fix our laws to reduce and mitigate the horrendous costs of doing business and focus on delivery quality care for everyone at a reasonable price. At this juncture, if we fired all politicians and did the right things, it could take 25 to 50 years to see the results. That's part of the problem and an indication of just how messed-up things have become.

Post reply on HN