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

#191

Post by czgov » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

strictnein wrote: post #131

epistasis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your linked to article does not demonstrate what you claim it does. Your reasoning is wrong.

Medicaid expansion was a big part of the ACA.

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

#192

Post by ElProlactin » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

nxm wrote: post #73

otterley wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is frequently true in the USA as well. My provider's dermatology department is pretty backed up and couldn't make me an appointment for an excision until November. Fortunately it's not urgent.

Do you have any more evidence than this anecdote - pretty much any specialist is available this week in my area. Did you check ZocDoc?

https://healthjournalism.org/blog/2024/08/in-the-u-s-wait-ti...

https://www.chiefhealthcareexecutive.com/view/hoping-to-see-...

ZocDoc isn't reflective of availability as a whole. It has a lot of depth in certain areas, like dentistry, dermatology, and primary care, and less in other specialties. Many of the providers are not physicians, they're NPs and PAs. Perfectly qualified for certain kinds of issues but not others.

ZocDoc is also, obviously, working only with the providers who are willing to pay for new patients, such as newer practices trying to build a patient base. An established practice that is booked out for the next two months obviously isn't going to use such a service.

Finally, you're not considering insurance and continuity of care.

So yeah, in an urban area, you can probably find someone to see you sooner than later if they're in network or you can afford to pay, and you're okay with seeing someone you might never see again or with whom there might not be continuity of care.

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

#193

Post by otterley » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

slibhb wrote: post #172

otterley wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is frequently true in the USA as well. My provider's dermatology department is pretty backed up and couldn't make me an appointment for an excision until November. Fortunately it's not urgent.

Anecdotes aside, here's some data: https://benchmarkcanada.org/Governing_Healthcare-Wait-Times.... The US does far better than the UK and Canada.

That's AI slop published by a think tank, not to be trusted. It's not primary source data.

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

#194

Post by sys32768 » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

Pre-ACA, I could afford family insurance. My family premiums went up ~$500 a month post-ACA, while the coverage worsened.

My afib ER trip three years ago cost me $7k out of pocket even though I left the hospital still in afib.

Today in my 50s, my deductible is now $8,500. My partner doesn't have insurance because she's not poor enough or rich enough.

We had an insurance rep come to my work last year who said after ACA they had some people whose premiums went up 900%.

So yeah, ACA is better in your world, but not in mine.

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

#195

Post by yieldcrv » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

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…

Republicans finalized things to address medical costs and chiseling at hospital billing - regulations promulgated during Democrat regimes - so I would say there is bipartisan consensus for the actual arguments, if people listened to the actual arguments instead of seeing a no-vote as an opposite nonsensical ideology.

This has been one of the opposition points - don't just give a handout to insurance companies without addressing their billing practices

The original ACA did not have consensus for some of the proposals to address the billing practices such as existing and new state healthcare programs having collective bargaining. And yeah I think the original ACA was unworkable, compromise is taught as a good thing to children in this country, but it just means "the wrong answer".

The tweaks now, alongside the original democrat led ACA, alongside the parts that were stripped out I think could have better consensus

does need a rebranding though.

The only thing that will actually lower costs in our society is healthy people. And right now, everyone is unhealthy and not doing preventative measures due to expense.

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

#196

Post by jvanderbot » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

dboreham wrote: post #135

jvanderbot wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I doubt POC would be the main issue. I do think immigration status would be front and center. They do overlap, but not entirely.

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

#197

Post by TimorousBestie » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #137

t-writescode wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Here you go, a recent survey: https://www.jgwentworth.com/resources/medical-emergency

> The survey showed that over nine in ten (92%) of insured respondents had delayed or avoided medical care because of concern about cost.

> In fact, 95% of those surveyed said a medical emergency would likely put them into serious debt even with insurance.

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

#198

Post by QuercusMax » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

jtbayly wrote: post #179

epistasis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I lost my individual healthcare plan, and I couldn’t afford the new ones. Remember when they said you could keep your plan? Yeah, that’s the one I lost.

There was never a guarantee that you were going to keep your plan anyway, was there? Insurance companies are changing plans from year to year.

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

#199

Post by saghm » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

nozzlegear wrote: post #157

TimorousBestie wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It doesn't exist for politicians who hitch their wagon to Trump and MAGA; their base rewards loyalty. For everyone else, political suicide is still very much a thing (see the various conservative republicans who've chosen to go against Trump over the years and have been cast out in favor of new loyalist challengers).

> It doesn't exist for politicians who hitch their wagon to Trump and MAGA; their base rewards loyalty.

These are the same ones who currently would be able to repeal the ACA tomorrow if they felt like it. You're essentially asserting that the reason they aren't is that they like the policy, and I don't think it's crazy to expect more justification for a claim like that if you want people to find it compelling.

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

#200

Post by consensus1 » Mon, Aug 17, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

jonplackett wrote: post #5

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.

$1 trillion less profit.

Total profits for US health insurance companies in 2025 were $50 billion. The other $950 billion has got to come from cutting:

1. money to providers

2. overall healthcare consumption

3. bureaucratic redundancy and waste

1 is going to piss off medical providers. 2 is going to piss of the general public. 3 is going to piss off the 20 million healthcare industry workers who are not direct care providers. So pick your poison. This is why it will never pass.