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

131–140 of 1001 posts

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

#131

Post by strictnein »

epistasis wrote: post #75
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…

ACA has saved tons of lives. Due to the intense opposition, it was not structured in a way that could save money, but rather structured in the way that it could get through congress. Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibil…

> ACA has saved tons of lives

It was the Medicaid expansion that has been cited as saving lives [0]. An expansion that has almost nothing to do with the rest of the ACA.

> "There's a very clear type of fallacy you are engaging ... There's no intellectual rigor or honesty in that sort of thinking"

So you're claiming that the person who posted that is not only falling into a fallacy, but they are neither intellectually rigorous or honest? I think you're reading a lot into their comment which seemed pretty benign, but possibly contrary to your viewpoint?

[0] https://news.uchicago.edu/story/new-research-shows-medicaid-...

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

#132

Post by whimsicalism »

quacked wrote: post #85
loeg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You're actually talking about the same problem. Competition in healthcare is heavily restricted by stuff like certificates of need because there is little cost-sharing with utilizers so you get overutilization & induced demand. This is Roemer's law [0]. A large part of the reason for competition restrictions is because of a hacky attempt to control overutilization without direct cost-sharing.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roemer%27s_law

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

#133

Post by jandrewrogers »

karakoram wrote: post #2

>A single-payer universal health care system could cover every American, save more than 100,000 lives a year, and still cost $1 trillion less than the system it would replace, according to a new preprint study led by researchers at the Yale School of Public Health.

FWIW, the methodology that produced this particular result is known to have significant issues. The claimed effect disappears after correcting for them. It also isn't the first time that these authors have published similar studies with these issues. They are not a credible source.

Universal health coverage may save lives and money but this study doesn't provide actual evidence for it.

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

#134

Post by hx8 »

krapht wrote: post #124
Tepix wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yep. Nobody has repealed Medicare, for example

Social Security is another great example.

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

#135

Post by dboreham »

jvanderbot wrote: post #45
poncho_romero wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think republicans could get behind some measure of portable health plans between employers. What they could not get behind is universal, in the sense of "everyone living in USA" health care footed by the US Government. The objection would be about centralization of health care funding and about, you know, who would get the benefits.

People of color?

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

#136

Post by otherme123 »

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.

I don't know about Canada, but here in Spain you have both. You have public health guaranteed, but many people also have different levels of private coverages, usually to get quicker appointments.

As I understand Medicaid, it would just be open Medicaid for 100% of the US population regardless of the income, remove Medicare (they are now under Medicaid), leave the private sector as it is. Do you think Medicaid is too slow, too low quality, too terrible in general? Pay for private insurance, but you can still go to Medicare if needed.

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

#137

Post by SoftTalker »

t-writescode wrote: post #93
loeg wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Citation needed (per capita please). Given that people constantly, literally AVOID care because they can’t pay for it until it’s such an absurd problem that it’s very, very expensive, I struggle to believe this, at all. And money amount doesn’t matter in this evidence because, again, Americans regularly avoid care until it’s catastrophic because they literally can’t afford it and/or have to wait for insurance to meet…

I think a citation is needed for "Americans regularly avoid care ... because they can’t afford it."

I think there are other reasons, e.g. they don't like doctors, or it's too inconvenient, or waiting times are too long. I have good insurance and haven't seen a doctor in probably 20 years.

I know people who are visiting the doctor for every sore throat, ache and pain or sneeze and sniffle, and that's not me at all.

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

#138

Post by lvl155 »

epistasis wrote: post #75
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…

ACA has saved tons of lives. Due to the intense opposition, it was not structured in a way that could save money, but rather structured in the way that it could get through congress. Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibil…

Let’s be honest, it was DOA. Even Gruber admitted to it later. The whole thing was basically a scam.

Edit: I will never understand why people think ACA was so great. It was a bad policy because they couldn’t get it through whole. They passed it with all the compromises that made it DOA. You can’t fix something when you are still in denial about it being bad. ACA is not a transition to universal healthcare when you allowed massive consolidation in the space with some of the biggest companies in this country. Good luck deconstructing that mess.

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

#139

Post by richwater »

There is already a healthcare program run by the US government and it's called Veteran Affairs. Veterans can't even access the care they need resulting in almost twice the risk of suicide.

I'll pass on mandated, outlaw-private-insurance government healthcare, thanks.

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

#140

Post by nsxwolf »

_heimdall wrote: post #64
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…

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…

We never attempted to solve the issue of distorted price signals that occur when customers aren't the ones paying for something. We're still charging $600 for a bag of saline.
Post reply on HN