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

231–240 of 1001 posts

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

#231

Post by th0raway »

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…

The wonders of American healthcare really mean that it's all more expensive, and at the same time, more is consumed, because so much of what is paid is done past deductible. If you look at so many standard of care situations vs, say, Spain, the American system will do a whole lot more. Even for preventive care: For instance America wants colonoscopies every 10 years from 45. Spain will give you a non invasive fecal test every 2 years, and only consider colonoscopies after the test is positive. Every time I send my american prescribed intervention list, given my symptoms, to my family members working in the Spanish public caresystem, they look at it with their hair on fire. Very different standards. You might think US insurance is restrictive regarding what needs to be done, but most public care system are significantly more restrictive than that. It'll be for better reasons, instead of defaulting to no on everything, but ultimately still far more cautious regarding their spending.

So we fail both ways at the same time: We avoid interacting with the medical system, but when we do, far more is done, at far higher price per intervention, so we end up with more interventions for the same outcome, even though we avoid doctors more!

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

#232

Post by strictnein »

czgov wrote: post #191
strictnein wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> "Findings suggest Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act saved about 27,400 lives between 2010-22, including among younger adults."

> "Their findings show that Medicaid expansions led to a 12% increase in enrollment and significantly reduced mortality—not just among older adults, but also younger ones, who accounted for nearly half of the life-years saved."

Huh? Did you read it? My point was that we could have just expanded Medicaid to achieve this.

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

#233

Post by Someone1234 »

jandrewrogers wrote: post #133
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.

> result is known to have significant issues.

So well known you neglected to state or cite them? I'd invite you to do so now.

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

#234

Post by bcrosby95 »

_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…

I have a strong dislike for the industry as a whole. There's too many ridiculous situations I've been subject to, along with hearing of some from my friends.

My favorite was a friend who had to deliver her baby, alone, in a hallway, because they forgot about her. And the hospital billed her for it. LOL.

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

#235

Post by unnamed76ri »

sys32768 wrote: post #194
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…

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 AC…

Yep. We were promised it would save us money. Instead, healthcare care costs skyrocketed thanks to Obamacare.

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

#236

Post by jkestner »

johndevor wrote: post #190
GolfPopper wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The government does not have the peverse incentive of putting private profit above all other concerns.

The government is just corrupt politicians and lobbyists. You're fighting to give them more money and power.

The government is more directly accountable to me. The only way I have to influence what insurance companies do is through the government.

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

#237

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#238

Post by expedition32 »

bpt3 wrote: post #147
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…

The people who avoid care they need because they can't afford it are a very small portion of the population that gets an outsized share of attention on the issue. Until public healthcare advocates understand this and make actual attempts to convince the majority of people who are satisfied with the current system that there are benefits, the status quo will remain.

Half the population does not vote. This is the problem socialists have- how do you get the underclass to exercise their power against the bourgeois?

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

#239

Post by gryfft »

fragmede wrote: post #187
gryfft wrote: post #170

I wonder how many people would be on board for a program to make Medicare available for free for households making over $100,000 annually with 1-3 children. We're talking about families that are provably not lazy or sucking up handouts: taxpaying citizens with beautiful, healthy children. The job creators and professionals driving America, securing their future and their children's future. If the government were to f…

That's a very funny way of looking at the world.

Many people feel that winners should be rewarded and losers should be punished.

Systems thinkers may try to push notions of connectedness in societies, and moralists may try to push notions of universal equality of human dignity, but in the end, both are overwhelmingly outnumbered by tribal thinkers, who wish to harm the outgroup at absolutely any cost.

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

#240

Post by saghm »

boutell wrote: post #107
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…

This is exactly the argument that gave us the Affordable Care Act. It was literally a republican plan from Massachusetts. It was supposed to be broadly acceptable and that's why it was implemented with a billion compromises. But the Republicans called the Democrats commies anyway and refused to participate. And that has been their playbook ever since. That is what they are going to do, no matter what we propose. So w…

[dead]
Post reply on HN