Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite • Hacker News Board

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#181

Post by brazzy » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 9:09 AM UTC

clarky07 wrote: post #137

tptacek wrote: post #82

A young coworker had an ATV accident. It was ugly, but not so bad that they weren't on IM within days talking about work. Total bill: just shy of $100,000. A friend's son had appendicitis. Uneventful appendicitis. Total bill: neighborhood of $35,000. Add to this: tens of millions of people are, despite any debilitating medical conditions or even better-than-even likelihood of incurring anomalous medical expenses at a…

Just because the system is broken, doesn't mean we need socialism, and it doesn't mean that a software developer should support anything in particular. I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance. I pay plenty for mine, I have no desire to pay for yours. We can work to fix the broken system, but keeping everything the same and then taxing us more to have the government foot the bi…

"I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance."

Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#182

Post by lutusp » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 9:22 AM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #181

clarky07 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because the system is broken, doesn't mean we need socialism, and it doesn't mean that a software developer should support anything in particular. I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance. I pay plenty for mine, I have no desire to pay for yours. We can work to fix the broken system, but keeping everything the same and then taxing us more to have the government foot the bi…

"I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance.

> "I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance."

> Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance.

No, the point of insurance is not to buy into or share the risk of others, but to amortize one's own risk over time. An insurance policy can have a single applicant and still function as it should -- the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a loss, the applicant is betting that he will. An actuary sets the rate based on his best guess about the possibility of a claim.

This thesis is proven by the classic alternative to buying insurance -- self-insurance, a scheme in which an individual sets aside his own cushion against loss, or "self-insures" -- accepts risk using his own resources.

Many states will accept an alternative to otherwise mandatory car insurance -- a personal bond against claims. The advantage to the individual is that the bond can earn money as an investment while it stands as proof of personal responsibility.

So the idea that insurance means joining a pool of insured individuals may be true in many cases, but it isn't a requirement for insurance to function. And it certainly isn't "the point".

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#183

Post by TheAmazingIdiot » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 9:47 AM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #171

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slavery is not an enumerated right, to control or to tax, for federal powers listed in the Constitution. Therefore it should fall to the states, or their respective citizens. A war was fought over this very issue. States lost. Get over it. Functionally, Massachusetts Health Care Insurance Reform Law is similar to Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One is state law, and the other one federal law. Questions we…

> Slavery is not an enumerated right, to control or to tax, for federal powers listed in the Constitution. So? It is not in a paper composed 200+ years ago that we somehow feel the need to worship and treat it like a set of magic tablets given to Moses on a mountain or something. Aren't the citizens supposed to be able to change and update that as they see fit, isn't that even more in the spirit of Founding Fathers t…

In all honesty, I was just arguing with a libertarian with a strong constitutionalist mindset. And he finally got 'it' with the

" In other news, I'm up far later than I want to be debating something I have almost no control over, with someone who describes himself as an idiot."

comment. I was doing this in the middle of designing a platform and motor for my 3d scanner.

Complete aside: I believe I can modify the source for MakerBot Scanner so it can scan rooms as well as individual objects. It'd be really spiffy to print panoramic pictures of a room. Call it an early work in progress. I'll publish soon-ish.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#184

Post by tzs » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 10:40 AM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #85

forrestthewoods wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

8% sounds great. US currently spends around 16% of GDP on health care every year. I think the majority of Americans would support a universal health care system that provides far more coverage at half the cost. Instead our total spend is expected to double by 2020. Source: http://money.cnn.com/2011/07/28/news/economy/healthcare_spen...

Worth noting that the US leads Europe in outcomes for serious illnesses (particularly cancer), and the US provides access to specialists in days where other countries often have multi-week or even multi-month delays.

Careful--the US does more early cancer screening than is typically done in Europe. This boosts the US score on 5 year survival rates, but it doesn't necessarily mean we actually get better outcomes. E.g., if an American and a European each get a cancer that will eventually kill them in 7 years, and the American finds out in 1 year and the European doesn't find out for 3 years, then the American will show up in the 5 year survivor statistics, and the European will not.

We do gain some outcome advantage from earlier screening, in that it means we will catch some cancers early enough to treat that Europeans would miss, but the outcome differences aren't nearly as big as the 5 year survival stats lead some people to believe.

As far as seeing specialists goes, the US does do well, although I believe Germany and maybe Japan have us beat--showing that universal affordable coverage can be achieved without having to give up reasonable wait times to see specialists.

The thing that makes me sad about the US system is this. Take the top, say, 10 non-US systems. They have quite a diverse range of approaches, ranging from straight up socialized medicine to highly capitalistic market-based systems. All they have in common is that in most areas they have equal or better outcomes than the US, with universal or near universal coverage, for a lot less cost per patient or as a percent of GDP. Based on the evidence, it doesn't appear hard to design a good healthcare system for a first world country. Only the US seems to be able to botch this. WTF!?

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#185

Post by _delirium » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 11:10 AM UTC

TheAmazingIdiot wrote: post #148

clarky07 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point is this is a states rights issue. Massachusetts has every right to do this if they want. The federal government shouldn't be doing this.

1865 called. Said that States lost. 2006 called. Gov. Romney supports ObamaCare^WRomneyCare. 2012 Supreme Court called as well. Said ObamaCare was constitutional.

I would say 1964 is a bigger milestone. The Civil Rights Act was upheld (under the commerce clause), and its enforcement was successfully carried out with federal troops, once and for all putting down "states' rights", generally for the good.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#186

Post by _delirium » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 11:20 AM UTC

Nitramp wrote: post #180

_delirium wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately it's not the most friendly country for immigration, partly as a result of the right-wing coalition that tightened rules over the past few years (Sweden is better, as far as the Scandinavian countries go). But there are some exceptions: it's easy for EU citizens (due to being in the EU), and it's easy if you have a professional-level job offer (no US-style H1B quotas). I'm a researcher hired by a Danish…

I don't entirely understand the permanent residency for EU citizens part. As far as I understand, EU citizens have work permits and no restrictions on residency in all European countries, what would permanent residency get you on top of that?

The "free movement of labor" in the EU isn't a completely free right to live anywhere and be treated as a resident. Every EU citizen has the right to reside in another EU country for up to 3 months for any reason, and to be hired without having to apply for a work permit. But after 3 months they must register, subject to certain restrictions of the host nation, usually that the person must either have employment, be a student, or be able to show that they have sufficient funds to support themselves. In that case they get a temporary residency status that allows them to live in the country and be treated as a resident for certain purposes (such as healthcare).

Permanent residency removes any qualifying requirements, and gives the person the right to remain indefinitely in the country with full social rights (except voting), as if they were a citizen. That means, for example, that they would be eligible for the national healthcare system and state welfare system even if they found themselves long-term unemployed, which isn't normally the case for citizens of other EU countries.

Some more information here: http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dic...

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#187

Post by clarky07 » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 1:10 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #170

clarky07 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the point is this is a states rights issue. Massachusetts has every right to do this if they want. The federal government shouldn't be doing this.

Why is gambling with citizens health and encouraging predatory and extortionist behavior by hospitals and insurance conglomerates on people who are sick and vulnerable an obvious states issue, while stuff like 'right to have guns in your house' is a federal law.

Well, because the latter was specifically in the constitution, and is key to our ability to protect ourselves from tyranny. The former was not in the constitution. If you don't like it you can feel free to amend the constitution. It's been done, and it will be done again.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#188

Post by eli » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 1:16 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #169

eli wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think anyone else would take on the liability of vetting your care for you? And for free?

If a law was passed that they have to that's what. If a law was passed that any hospital billing mistake in favor of the hospital should be fined by a 10x fine of the amount on the first offence and a much higher one on subsequent offences. That kind of stuff, stuff that would protect individual citizens when they get sick and are most vulnerable. In a normal country that's what would happen.

The hospital didn't make a mistake in this case; they were indeed covered under the plan. The specialist who is not under the plan is probably not an employee of the hospital. So basically you're saying we should overhaul the way medical billing works. I totally agree, but I don't think that is accomplished by passing a law that levies fines on hospitals.

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#189

Post by startupgrrl » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 2:30 PM UTC

dwwoelfel wrote: post #119

tptacek wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, so you mean, "only if you don't live and work in one of a prohibitively small number of major metro areas in the US". For all intents and purposes, auto insurance is effectively mandatory for most Americans. It's for a similar reason that many states revoke driving privileges for parents who don't comply with child support.

You have to own a car, though. The state makes you buy car insurance because you can do a lot of damage to other people and their property with a car. They own the roads, so they're responsible for making sure you can pay for that damage. Texas, for instance, doesn't actually make you buy insurance. You only have to prove that you can be financially responsible for the damage you could cause [1]. Why is this relevant…

>The medically uninsured only pose a financial threat to themselves

Uninsured Joe has an undiagnosed medical condition which causes him to black out but won't get it checked out because he knows he can't afford it, and it doesn't happen too often so maybe it'll go away. Joe blacks out while driving to his third part time job and slams into another car, killing himself and rendering the other car's passengers permanently incapable of working. You were one of those passengers. What just happened?

Re: Greg Knauss's 10-year-old son's $23,800 bug bite

#190

Post by Confusion » Sun, Sep 02, 2012, 2:58 PM UTC

lutusp wrote: post #182

brazzy wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance.

> "I personally, won't support anything that makes me pay for your health insurance." > Um, that's kinda the point of any kind of insurance. No, the point of insurance is not to buy into or share the risk of others, but to amortize one's own risk over time. An insurance policy can have a single applicant and still function as it should -- the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a loss, the applicant is…

  the issuer is betting that the applicant won't suffer a
  loss, the applicant is betting that he will. An actuary
  sets the rate based on his best guess about the
  possibility of a claim.

Emphatically: no! The issuer is betting that in the entire group of clients the total loss will be smaller than the rates they set. Almost nobody can ever financially deal with the greatest risk health insurance insures against. Health insurance is almost never about amortizing your own risk. It is about insuring against risks you couldn't possibly deal with otherwise. Almost nobody can pay for a long stay on the IC after an accident, with months of rehabilitation afterwards. When you need the insurance, it's the money of the other clients, that with hindsight never needed the insurance, that pays for your costs.

Of course obligatory health insurance is pure socialism (not in the pure 'political movement' sense of the word, but in the 'common usage' sense of the word, meaning forced sharing of a population's resources for a specific greater good) and thank God for it. I'll take my Western European social democracy over your government any day. I gladly pay taxes to have it this way.