Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why YC went to DC

ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 407 posts

Re: Why YC went to DC

#391

Post by CalChris »

rayiner wrote: post #389
CalChris wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, Obamacare was modeled after the Heritage Foundation market based proposal, Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans , which was trialed in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney. https://www.heritage.org/social-security/report/assuring-aff...

That’s more of a political talking point than a fact: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2016/02/15/where-di... But you’ve got a point, it’s probably fairer to say that the ACA and the Dutch and Swiss systems are all modeled on common ideas regarding managed competition: https://jacobin.com/2016/02/gaffney-single-payer-sanders-hea... (“The 2006 Dutch reforms were based in part on a school of health policy thoug…

It's really more of an historical fact than a political talking point, as per Forbes, contemporaneously:

  ROMNEY: Actually, Newt, we got the idea of an individual mandate from you.

  GINGRICH: That's not true. You got it from the Heritage Foundation.

  ROMNEY: Yes, we got it from you, and you got it from the Heritage Foundation and from you.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2011/10/20/how-a-...

The Heritage report (1989), now disowned, antedates both the Dutch reforms and the Clinton Administration. Obama namechecked Heritage at the time.

Seriously, we lived through this. ObamaCare came from the Heritage Foundation.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#392

Post by oglop »

simonw wrote: post #13

This new essay by Jack Clark, who was at OpenAI when they made the decision not to release GPT-2 for safety reasons five years ago, feels relevant: https://importai.substack.com/p/import-ai-375-gpt-2-five-yea... > [...] history shows that once we assign power to governments, they're loathe to subsequently give that power back to the people. Policy is a ratchet and things tend to accrete over time. That means whatever…

What a pretentious way to say something simple.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#393

Post by nkhosla »

malcolmgreaves wrote: post #373
gbacon wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here’s a radical suggestion: stop calling welfare-for-doctors insurance. If you want insurance, those are known as major-medical policies under which the sniffle visits are still the patient’s responsibility — just like how insured car owners pay for their own oil changes. With “health” “insurance,” neither side has price sensitivity. Patients ask whether it’s covered and if so, back the truck up to get as much as po…

Take a look at Switzerland's medical system for how nationalized health insurance can work well. When the insurance system isn't privatized, it isn't for profit. This drives prices down to become affordable, even without insurance.

Just FYI, Switzerlands medical system is not nationalized. It is private and run for a profit (though there is centralized price setting for necessary procedures and basic insurance is mandatory and regulated well)

No one but the US considers Swiss healthcare to be affordable, and prices are certainly not being driven down. And as insurance is legally mandated, “even without insurance” is not something that can be properly evaluated here.

I am not sure where you got this info but it is very wrong.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#394

Post by wasabi991011 »

ejstronge wrote: post #343
pdonis wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I think of the last thirty years of policy in most of Europe and the US I'm thinking of a strong trend of deregulation and giving more powers to markets That's been the PR spin, but it's not actually true. It's a smoke screen to help governments avoid actual accountability. For example, the crash of 2008 was blamed on too much market and not enough regulation, but in fact it was the opposite: regulatory thumbs o…

> for example the US government wanting to encourage home ownership and skewing the mortage [sic] market and the money supply and requiring lenders to accept more default risk Are there economists who share your view on this? I don’t see how the issue of repackaging CDS and related products by a financial rating agency has anything to go with the government. If you’re saying that the government forced buyers to aband…

The book Fault Lines: How Hidden Fractures Still Threaten the World Economy makes a claim to that effect, that US government created some unfortunate incentivizes towards risky credit. It was of course not the only problem that led to the 2008 GFC, but it certainly was a part. I recommend the book, it was detailed and has a global focus, as the author was the Chief Economist at the IMF for some years.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#395

Post by scroy »

bumby wrote: post #207
candiddevmike wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remove employer healthcare plans and allow everyone to enroll in Medicare or private insurance directly.

Do the employers then pay for Medicare?

Why would they?

I think their point is this would help solve the principal agent problem so consumers can shop for service.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#396

Post by graemep »

bumby wrote: post #368
graemep wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

and with counrties in between. I very much doubt there are either large economies or diseconomies of scale in healthcare. Certainly no indication of it in spend western Europe I can see. The UK has IMO created diseconomies of scale by having a monolithic system.

I think there is some evidence of economies of scale. For example, Medicare can negotiate for better prices due to sheer number of patients covered.

Better prices on what proportion of costs?

Would it outweigh the diseconomies of scale seen in the NHS? It is pretty clear that the less centralised systems in other western European countries are more efficient, nor can I see any evidence that smaller western European countries face consistently higher costs than larger ones.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#397

Post by bumby »

graemep wrote: post #396
bumby wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is some evidence of economies of scale. For example, Medicare can negotiate for better prices due to sheer number of patients covered.

Better prices on what proportion of costs? Would it outweigh the diseconomies of scale seen in the NHS? It is pretty clear that the less centralised systems in other western European countries are more efficient, nor can I see any evidence that smaller western European countries face consistently higher costs than larger ones.

What are you seeing as the drivers of those diseconomies of scale? That might help me better answer the question.

Again, though, I think it’s an error to treat each country as if it’s interchangeable. In other words, we need to understand the systemic causes of those costs to understand the impact as it relates to other nations.

In the above example with Medicare, the cause is due to negotiating power through volume. So it’s pretty clear that scale matters there.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#398

Post by bumby »

scroy wrote: post #395
bumby wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do the employers then pay for Medicare?

Why would they? I think their point is this would help solve the principal agent problem so consumers can shop for service.

I see. Except Medicare isn’t currently an option for most people employed. I think there are some benefits to employer sponsered healthcare, particularly with large employers who can negotiate lower prices. But I’m not sure it’s better on balance.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#399

Post by JamesBarney »

hollerith wrote: post #330
rayiner wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most developed countries don’t have single payer healthcare. Obamacare is actually modeled on the system used in the Netherlands. And why is “national” a criteria? California doesn’t get single payer unless Montana also gets it? Neither Californians nor Montanans want that. It’s just political games.

Before Obamacare, if California's taxpayers became the single payer behind medical care in California, then millions of poor chronically ill people would have moved to California from the other 49 states for the free medical care --unless I am wrong in my belief that there is nothing California voters can do to prevent US citizens from moving to California.

Why couldn't they put in restrictions such as a having worked in California for x years or lived there for y years.

Re: Why YC went to DC

#400

Post by christinac »

stackskipton wrote: post #125
jacobr1 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are goldmine of enumerated attack surface. But it would likely require some kind of secondary exploit of the identified vulns. The API connections are generally scoped to read-only access of security settings. Though it wouldn't surprise me if there was some way to get lateral movement from the access these tools have to monitor an environment.

At $LastCompany, someone gave them Contributor (Create/Read/Update/Delete) access to Azure because it was easier than scoping to 5 roles they required. I wouldn't be shocked if we were not only ones. Edit: Their software should really check and refuse to work if someone does that but obviously Vanta doesn't care. They can begin scanning and billing.

Vanta cofounder/CEO here.

Thanks for the feedback. What we should probably do is take the credential, start scanning, and then nag them with a failing test about overly-permissive roles. Our own role is an easy check because we know what to expect, but there's other best practices here we can check for (and in some cases do, though not 100% comprehensively across all clouds.)

Post reply on HN