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

691–700 of 1001 posts

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

#691

Post by tptacek »

bigmadshoe wrote: post #689
tptacek wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, and they all generally get there by paying practitioners much less than the US does (by integer multiples). Single-payer, which this working paper equates with "universal coverage", is in fact not the norm among universal systems; besides using Medicare to ration the supply of practitioners, the original sin of our system is employer-based coverage, not payer structure. Health care is an absolutely massive indu…

Why do doctors need to be paid integer multiples more in the US than every other country on earth? This is not rhetorical, I mean it sincerely. And I’m aware that medical debt is a big issue, but it seems like a chicken-or-the-egg type problem. Of course you can charge $500k for a medical degree when the doctor can make it back and then some in 5-10 years.

They don't! It's a huge problem! It's probably the problem in US health care, which, despite my own belief that single-payer is bad policy, is in fact a total shitshow.

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

#692

Post by nradov »

AuthAuth wrote: post #541
scoofy wrote: post #534

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I mention the 100° summers or the fact that people usually live 20+ miles from where they work? I agree with you generally on the incentives, but it took us 70 years to paint ourselves into this corner, and we’re not going to get out of it because of a third-order incentive.

Thats not every where nor is it everyone. Im not saying it will specifically be bikes but the government will be incentivized to have a healthier population. It could be higher tax on cigs, or sugars, it could be more annual leave it could be any number of wellbeing policies.

From a political philosophy standpoint, this is exactly why many people oppose a single-payer healthcare system. When the government is paying for everything it creates a financial incentive for an intrusive nanny state. We can argue about the positives and negatives, and maybe we would be healthier overall, but many Americans simply don't want the government telling them what to do.

https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo413854...

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

#693

Post by bhelkey »

richwater wrote: post #139

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.

Who said anything about outlawing private insurance?

The UK has a single payer healthcare system but folks may purchase (or obtain through work) private insurance.

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

#695

Post by ComputerPerson »

pyronik19 wrote: post #329
slg wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 possibilities, especially for entrepreneurs. The failures and politicization of the ACA have caused us to be a little too dismissive of its successes and popularity. Protections for pre-exis…

ACA is horrible for the middle class. The only reason it retains any type of popularity is because the media refuses to associated ballooning cost to cost redistribution that it enables. Preexisting conditions? Middle class family picking that up. Subsidy? Middle class family picking that up.

This is unfair to the ACA and factually incorrect. ACA subsidies (median household size) [1] are designed to start above the 50th percentile (income) [2].

The details matter. If you're a single person living alone at an income of $70,000.00, you're below the median household income and "picking up" other people's subsidies, but that's not indicative of the country.

[1] https://www.healthcare.gov/lower-costs/

[2] https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/p60/286...

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

#696

Post by californical »

BobbyJo wrote: post #674
Scoundreller wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fun part is when you break those numbers down between government and non-government expenditure. You’ll find that US governmental spending on health care per capita is higher than every other country’s entire (gov and non-gov) spending per capita. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025...

Could this be because US gov healthcare spending takes place mostly via Medicare, which is specifically for people 65+?

The spending per capita, unless I’m mistaken, is just “per person in the country” not “per person insured by the government”.

That means that even though government insurance in the US only covers a relatively small percent of the population, we pay more than other countries that cover the whole population.

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

#697

Post by conn10mfan »

DataDive wrote: post #661
conn10mfan wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should probably be aware that Cremieux (Jordan Lasker) is a race scientist prior to repeating his claims. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker

I did not know who that person was, but you seem to be saying none of his opinions could possibly be right?

I'm saying don't cite a neo-nazi if you want to be taken seriously, not that complicated

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

#698

Post by notahacker »

BobbyJo wrote: post #674
Scoundreller wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fun part is when you break those numbers down between government and non-government expenditure. You’ll find that US governmental spending on health care per capita is higher than every other country’s entire (gov and non-gov) spending per capita. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/health-at-a-glance-2025...

Could this be because US gov healthcare spending takes place mostly via Medicare, which is specifically for people 65+?

Per capita stats are computed based on population, not per treatment or per person eligible for treatment. The US spends more per head on giving only a fraction of them subsidised healthcare than other nations manage on universal health, [more years of] education, [more generous] welfare payments etc. Some of that is down to medical professional salary discrepancies, but some of it is down to a terrible system...

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

#699

Post by qurren »

qwytw wrote: post #642
mirzap wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The bigger factor in the American system is taxes. If everyone in the healthcare industry stack, from suppliers to nurses, is exempt from federal and state taxes, healthcare costs could come down by 70%+.

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

#700

Post by nradov »

pyronik19 wrote: post #329
slg wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 possibilities, especially for entrepreneurs. The failures and politicization of the ACA have caused us to be a little too dismissive of its successes and popularity. Protections for pre-exis…

ACA is horrible for the middle class. The only reason it retains any type of popularity is because the media refuses to associated ballooning cost to cost redistribution that it enables. Preexisting conditions? Middle class family picking that up. Subsidy? Middle class family picking that up.

In a wealthy and civilized society we have a moral obligation to care for all of our citizens. Some of them have pre-existing conditions and can't afford to pay market rates, so the middle class is going to have to subsidize them one way or another. Whether that subsidy comes in the form of higher insurance premiums or higher taxes hardly matters.
Post reply on HN