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

641–650 of 1001 posts

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

#641

Post by threethirtytwo »

HEmanZ wrote: post #406
nullocator wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hospitals have an operating margin of 2-5% Very curious where this comes from and how accurate it is. For example the $37 a provider charges for an Aspirin seems like more than 2-5% margin.

You can search for more reports, because they do vary based on methodology. But the median hospital in the US makes between -1% (yes, negative, they lose money, because a huge percentage are non profits) and 4% depending on the source. When the hospital charges you $37 for an aspirin, that singular pill might have a crazy profit margin in isolation. But your entire treatment could very well be losing the hospital mon…

It's the salaries. That's where all the money is going. So that 37$ asperin, the profits... most of it is going to pay salaries. Not just of the doctors but administrators and all that.

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

#642

Post by qwytw »

mirzap wrote: post #595
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the reason hospitals have to charge so much is that they take massive losses on uninsured people in emergency rooms. Medicare for all means they don't have to treat anyone for free.

They are not taking any losses; they just charge the regular price with a very tiny profit margin. US healthcare costs are heavily inflated. Insurance is a scam that lets the rich get richer. All insurance should be non-profit. We all contribute to the pool at a time when we don't need it so we can use the money when we do, not to make CEOs or stockholders rich. That is how an insurance pool should work. Any excess m…

> All insurance should be non-profit.

Aren't their profits regulated regardless? If all insurance companies became non profit and let's say total prices dropped by 3-5% that still wouldn't change the situation dramatically?

There are many factors, e.g. amongst other things American doctors are better paid than just about anywhere else in the world.

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

#643

Post by flenserboy »

impose universal health coverage & the jockeying will commence to see who is in charge of it. medical & diet fundamentalists will rejoice at the opportunity to seize control & force everyone to take certain drugs, eat or not eat certain foods or types of foods, exercise a particular way, surrender their organs at a particular age, or whatever else their hearts desire for everyone else. there have been so many rabbit trails taken, so much malfeasance, so much misinterpreting of data, etc., which has been uncovered just in the last decade or two to give anyone the ability to harm or control entire populations in this way. the increase in suffering will be great, & the long-term effects devastating.

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

#644

Post by moralestapia »

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'm in Canada. The only time I ever needed a doctor in my life it was denied. I ended up having an issue that took ~5 years to resolve, which could have been prevented easily by any competent doctor in a 30 minute session.

I'm originally from Mexico. With what I have paid in tax here over the years I can afford to set up and operate my own small hospital over there, with new equipment, this is not an exaggeration.

"Free" healthcare, as with many other free things, turns out to be the most expensive kind of healthcare. Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really know what they're talking about or they're just stupid.

What could work, imo, and since we're all giving opinions here, is private healthcare with a ceiling on profits. Let players take 2x-5x, but not 50x which is what they do now, bring and enforce usury laws into healthcare.

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

#645

Post by rwyinuse »

flenserboy wrote: post #643

impose universal health coverage & the jockeying will commence to see who is in charge of it. medical & diet fundamentalists will rejoice at the opportunity to seize control & force everyone to take certain drugs, eat or not eat certain foods or types of foods, exercise a particular way, surrender their organs at a particular age, or whatever else their hearts desire for everyone else. there have been so many rabbit…

Universal healthcare works just fine in Europe without major issues like that. It's the American political system that is broken. Your de facto two-party political system lets idiots take total control way too easily, as we can see with current US administration.

My country has universal public healthcare, and nobody forces you, or even your children to get vaccinated, monitors what you eat, or any other form of control that you're worried of. Organ donations are voluntary too, you can opt-out easily. And if you think the system sucks, nothing prevents you from taking extra insurance and using whatever private healthcare provider you want.

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

#646

Post by tredre3 »

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…

Why do you limit it to people with children? Why do you assume that the children are beautiful and healthy?

> Medicare available for free for households making over $100,000 annually

Sure, why not try it? It's still 50% of America getting coverage.

After a few years maybe they'll realize that not having to think about health care insurance is a good thing actually (tm) and start supporting it for lower brackets of the population too.

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

#648

Post by cwmoore »

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #590
brandonb wrote: post #113

I'd like to believe this, but the study makes a bunch of really hasty assumptions. The authors derive the $1T number from $1.3T in total cost savings and $304B in incremental spend (incremental spend is due to insuring more people). The $1.3T in cost savings come from five big buckets: lower pharmaceutical prices, Medicare-level payments to providers, reduced administrative overhead, less fraudulent billing, and fewe…

A lot of the reason hospitals have to charge so much is that they take massive losses on uninsured people in emergency rooms. Medicare for all means they don't have to treat anyone for free.

A lot of the rest of the reasons are carrying the deadweight of administering regulation, and dancing with the existing and prospective malpractice suits that randomly benefit the system sometimes, but always cost everybody, and warp the practice of medicine and patient healthcare experiences.

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

#649

Post by magicalist »

fader wrote: post #635
trollbridge wrote: post #634

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, having lived under universal care, the dark side of it was atrociously long waits to see a specialist and having a GP who is obviously overworked and barely spends any time seeing you.

And yet that's exactly my experience in the US healthcare system.

Indeed: https://arstechnica.com/health/2026/08/us-wait-times-for-can...

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

#650

Post by cwmoore »

pstuart wrote: post #628
adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of the reason hospitals have to charge so much is that they take massive losses on uninsured people in emergency rooms. Medicare for all means they don't have to treat anyone for free.

It also means that emergency rooms can be used just for emergencies and ongoing and preventative care can happen in clinics. Cheaper to operate and preventing preventable emergencies lowers the load.

Usually tied to employer coverage contracts, and with strictly limited menu of offerings for patient health needs.
Post reply on HN