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

781–790 of 1001 posts

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

#781

Post by tptacek »

lkbm wrote: post #743
tptacek wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Life expectancy differences between the US and other countries are dominated by just a few factors: * Car accidents, because we drive much more and are much more spread out than other countries. * Drug overdoses, though other countries are starting to catch up to us there. * Homicide, because of our gun policy and the universality of firearms (which also bears on our suicide stats). * CVD. That last item sounds like…

> Car accidents, because we drive much more and are much more spread out than other countries. Somewhat off-topic, but I think this explanation of the car accidents misses the mark. It might be part of the cause, but car accident deaths were dropping in the US and Europe until around 2010 when they kept dropping in Europe, but flatlined and then rose back up in the US. I don't think we were driving less and less and…

Sure, I'd buy any hypotheses like this. We just have way more traffic fatalities; I don't have a strong take on the underlying cause.

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

#782

Post by gigatexal »

American living in Berlin: insane to me that in the US if I would rather stick it out in an abusive or otherwise terrible job just to keep my benefits.

Taxes here are high. They pay for a lot of things. Is it the best of the best? No. There’s private insurance for that. But does it work? Yup. And it’s just another thing we don’t think or care about while we take all of August off. ;-)

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

#783

Post by oliyoung »

It's crazy that universal health is the political third rail in most modern countries but for the opposite reasons

In most of the world it's the policy that cannot be touched, just in Europe, Canada and Australia its _existance_ is invoilable, in the US the _introduction_ seems to be the unwinnable war

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

#784

Post by sghiassy »

bentt wrote: post #724

There are a lot of people making a lot of money on the inefficiencies of the US system. They won’t give up their revenue streams without a fight, and they are filthy rich on the backs of sick people. You better believe they will play dirty.

Agreed

And, there’s also a lot of people who actually believe we have a superior system because M’urica and Europe is communist or something

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

#785

Post by Glyptodon »

nijave wrote: post #776
frmersdog wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone shoots some more CEOs, they'll have a change of heart. (A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awareness to understand that this is the inevitable conclusion to, "You wanna play rough, ah?!"ing people's access to life-saving treatment. Please grok that we can preclude any more assassinations by cutting profits and letting people get the care they need.)

I'm skeptical. It will be cheaper to hire a couple security guards and buy a couple armoured cars then turn away profits. The reaction was short lived while the insurance companies figured out how to bolster security and return to the usual. Look at what's happening in California with the proposed wealth tax. >Page’s co-founder, Sergey Brin, has poured at least $45 million into the Building a Better California Super…

So I think the wealth tax is different.

The reason more CEOs getting shot might make a difference is that many CEOs care about status and being able to mention it in the right places. Historically many people love it so much that they call themselves CEOs and Presidents of companies that are small businesses.

If these same people can no longer be open about their role and status, which they value, there will be some kind of change. I'm not sure what it is, but security guards don't restore their freedom to feel thoughtless about their role and lifestyle.

Whereas with taxes... Maybe some people brag about dodging them or their suspect filings that get them big refunds. But they're mostly not public and not tied to identity the same way. And even the wealth tax isn't remotely the same as the public being vocal at large.

For it to be comparable we'd have to have modern highwaymen and Robin Hoods somehow stripping the wealth, not the tax man.

Because the weight of any changes or perceived need to change come from the social burden that public violence would create in the shooting case.

And that doesn't seem to exist near at all with the wealth tax.

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

#786

Post by sghiassy »

frmersdog wrote: post #754
bentt wrote: post #724

There are a lot of people making a lot of money on the inefficiencies of the US system. They won’t give up their revenue streams without a fight, and they are filthy rich on the backs of sick people. You better believe they will play dirty.

If someone shoots some more CEOs, they'll have a change of heart. (A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awareness to understand that this is the inevitable conclusion to, "You wanna play rough, ah?!"ing people's access to life-saving treatment. Please grok that we can preclude any more assassinations by cutting profits and letting people get the care they need.)

If people voted for universal healthcare we could get it done. The issue is that there’s a sizable, significant voting population that votes against it

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

#787

Post by Glyptodon »

shdh wrote: post #736

Legislate transparent pricing for all medications and procedures first. Paying 40 dollars for lozenges in the ER is insane. Right now the system has an opaque pricing structure which makes no sense. Force hospitals to expose API's with transparent pricing.

Won't matter unless service providers are forced to have one single rate for all payers. Which we can't even manage at grocery stores.

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

#788

Post by Glyptodon »

mhb wrote: post #765
shdh wrote: post #736

Legislate transparent pricing for all medications and procedures first. Paying 40 dollars for lozenges in the ER is insane. Right now the system has an opaque pricing structure which makes no sense. Force hospitals to expose API's with transparent pricing.

Fix the principal/agent problem by decoupling health insurance from employment by not having health insurance be paid for with pre-tax dollars.

I 100% want it decoupled from employment. But it doesn't magically make very sick people capable of comparison shopping either.

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

#789

Post by devilsdata »

sghiassy wrote: post #786
frmersdog wrote: post #754

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone shoots some more CEOs, they'll have a change of heart. (A lot of people are going to be very mad at me about this comment, without having the awareness to understand that this is the inevitable conclusion to, "You wanna play rough, ah?!"ing people's access to life-saving treatment. Please grok that we can preclude any more assassinations by cutting profits and letting people get the care they need.)

If people voted for universal healthcare we could get it done. The issue is that there’s a sizable, significant voting population that votes against it

My question is why a sizeable portion of the American (and greater Western) public seemingly votes against their interests?

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

#790

Post by looksjjhg »

devilsdata wrote: post #789
sghiassy wrote: post #786

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people voted for universal healthcare we could get it done. The issue is that there’s a sizable, significant voting population that votes against it

My question is why a sizeable portion of the American (and greater Western) public seemingly votes against their interests?

Stupidity https://youtu.be/HbQ-t8GXYTA
Post reply on HN