Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#21

Post by jvanderbot » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies).

I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan.

I'm not saying that this is what is happening now, but I am saying that calls for universal health coverage, no matter how correct and well supported, are going to probably face the same obstacles they did last time, so we need new coalitions and implementation proposals if we're going to give it a go again. It has to be different enough that those who would oppose it right after the inevitable pendulum swing do not want to.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#22

Post by ovi256 » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

garbawarb wrote: post #7

jonplackett wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1 trillion less profit.

That would be a massive hit to our GDP.

Not at all. Reducing a cost means the payer can spend the money on something else

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#23

Post by poncho_romero » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

afavour wrote: post #15

In a more sane world the Republican Party would be in favor of universal health coverage. How many potential entrepreneurs stay working at BigCorp because they need the health benefits? How many small businesses are crushed by the cost of providing healthcare to their employees? It would be great for business to remove any involvement they have in personal healthcare. But I suppose they are the party of big business,…

In what world is the Republican Party pro entrepreneur/small business enough to make these rhetorical questions meaningful?

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#24

Post by CurbStomper » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

[dead]

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#25

Post by brainwad » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:05 PM UTC

garbawarb wrote: post #7

jonplackett wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1 trillion less profit.

That would be a massive hit to our GDP.

Presumably not; the same national income would just be redistributed from shareholders to insurees (or shareholders of companies that pay for employee health insurance).

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#26

Post by t-writescode » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

solaarphunk wrote: post #19

What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.

Is this quality improvements including or ignoring the 30-ish percent rejection rate of the most popular healthcare system, including such gems as insulin and pre-authorizations refusing surgery for necrotic tissue when “maybe they could PT it, have you tried?”

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#27

Post by triceratops » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #3

This is why it doesn't happen: politicians get bought. "Jeffries co-sponsored Medicare for All legislation between 2013 and 2021, but in August 2026, he stated he shifted his stance and stated that he no longer supports or co-sponsors the proposal." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakeem_Jeffries#Healthcare

One of two major political parties, and the one that currently holds all 3 branches of federal government, has labelled it un-American and communist. And yet you point the finger at...a Democrat.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#28

Post by basch » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:06 PM UTC

digitalsurgeonz wrote: post #11

[dead]

or that trillion in health care isnt going into the oligarchs pockets, and could be..

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#29

Post by secabeen » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:07 PM UTC

ovi256 wrote: post #20

jonplackett wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1 trillion less profit.

Not profit, just income

And most of that income is salaries to existing healthcare administrators. Quickly ending the employment of the people working those jobs would be a significant shock.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#30

Post by poncho_romero » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:07 PM UTC

solaarphunk wrote: post #19

What about quality of care tradeoffs? In Canada, for example, you are forced to use the government system, and if it doesn't deem you important enough, there is no private option.

What about them? The Canadian healthcare system has better outcomes than the American healthcare system in several areas. Most simply, Canadians live longer.