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

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

ysph.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

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

#81

Post by loeg »

cityofdelusion wrote: post #33
jonplackett wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1 trillion less profit.

Not really. Private health insurance would still exist alongside for the more wealthy (including nearly everyone on HN) that doesn’t want to wait a year for their public system MRI. Same thing that plays out in other countries. The U.S. already has a form of this in so-called concierge / premium providers too. Lots of profit to be made.

If private health insurance was allowed, UHC would be stillborn. It only works if providers don't have better options than medicare reimbursement rates.

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

#84

Post by TimorousBestie »

Tepix wrote: post #65
jvanderbot wrote: post #21

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…

> if your solution requires perpetual majority control I think once universal health coverage is established, it amounts to political suicide to try to take it away again.

I don’t think “political suicide” exists anymore.

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

#85

Post by quacked »

loeg wrote: post #71
_heimdall wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These types of studies, and the goals they aim to support, always frustrate me as solving a surface-level problem rather than root cause. The problem with US healthcare isn't who pays for it, its how damn expensive it is. As always there are multiple factors at play, my list would include corruption, lack of legal accountability/responsibility, and a population that is much less healthy than reasonable. Go after any…

Americans just consume a lot of healthcare services. Any substantial cost savings requires providing less healthcare service.

That's not necessarily true; fewer limitations on who is allowed to provide health service and manufacture medicine and health technologies would also drop prices. Competition in healthcare is very, very difficult because it's often illegal to compete.

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

#86

Post by FireBeyond »

skuzye wrote: post #32
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.

Same here in the UK. If you need to see a specialist, you regularly have to wait months, assuming you can even get a referral in the first place.

Hah, even with "platinum" healthcare in the US, urology referral, 4 months. "You should start PT immediately" after a car accident, "we can see you in 5 months".

"Oh, your septum is deviated ~90% on the right. Surgery? No, first you need to go on these nasal sprays for a few months so we can decide they didn't reshape the cartilage in your nose before your insurance will decide whether they want to "allow"[1] surgery."

[1] Insurers will always say, and have won in court, saying "We don't allow or deny anyone any care they need. We are just saying we won't pay for it."

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

#88

Post by lapcat »

brainwad wrote: post #8
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

This could equally be explained by wanting to be perceived as more moderate/centrist. Which would make sense for someone in a leadership position.

> This could equally be explained by wanting to be perceived as more moderate/centrist.

I don't think anyone perceives a flip-flopper as anything except unprincipled. There's nothing "moderate" about corruption.

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

#89

Post by nsxwolf »

ixtli wrote: post #35

This doesnt need yet another study. Instead of narrating the problem we should figure out whats actually stopping it. And people saying the ACA was universal health coverage or even an attempt at it should stop intentionally derailing this discussion.

Democracy is the biggest obstacle to universal healthcare in the US.

A lot of people do not want it, and you've thus far failed to make them want it.

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

#90

Post by bobson381 »

johndevor wrote: post #66
dsr_ wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$1 trillion more efficient in allocation of resources, freeing up money for consumer spending on everything.

Are you saying the government is an efficient allocator of resources?

it's that it's 1 Trillion less in incentivized middlemen. A la Graeber.
Post reply on HN