Live data from Hacker News

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

ysph.yale.edu

901–910 of 1001 posts

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

#901
post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And someone else's bottom line is also the wages of friends and neighbors. Last I heard healthcare is like the only employment sector that's seeing real growth right now.

Actual healthcare delivery is a growing field because boomers are getting old and dying and advances in health care mean that people that would otherwise die (eg people with cancers) are now receiving treatments that keep them alive. Note that this is a Good Thing. The issue with US (and privatized) healthcare delivery is that there is an incentive (by insurers) to deny treatment, as well as an incentive for healthca…

Is there any reason to believe less healthcare professionals would be employed under a universal system? Insurance claims adjusters and call centre scripted finance deciders, sure. But actual health delivery agents?

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

#902
I think the evidence is quite clear that universal health care reduces aggregate costs, but the public cost in aggregate is enormous.

1. This means large new taxes for everyone. For those on lower incomes, they might end up better off. For those on middle-upper+ incomes, they will unequivocally end up paying more.

2. The U.S. already has unbelievably high deficits and debt. This would make that worse without significant spending cuts elsewhere, and without very large new taxes. And before someone says "just tax the rich!", even if every billionaire in the U.S. had all their wealthy confiscated today, it would barely cover U.S. federal spending for *one year.* Then the party's over and the government collapses. "Just tax the rich" is an absurdly superficial position. European taxation is broad and deep. Everyone pays high tax - even those who do not earn much.

3. U.S. society is built on rugged individualism. Acceptance of immigrants under the premise that they will work hard and contribute. For this reason, U.S. success at integrating immigrants is better than anywhere else in the world, by a wide margin. Our issues re immigration in Europe are numerous and unbelievably contentious. Should the U.S. become a "welfare state," like European countries, it would no longer have a natural filter for immigrants. It would realise the type of immigration that we get in Europe, where for many groups, a majority refuse to work - for life. For this reason, it would require a MUCH tougher filter on immigrants - much more so than what the current administration is doing.

I do not see the U.S. materially reducing spending in other areas, including the military. I do not see general public support for large taxation increases across the board. I do not see public consensus on strict new immigration requirements and enforcement. For these reasons and more, I do not think public health care is a realistic prospect for the foreseeable future.

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

#903

Switzerland has the system closest to the US in my experience, but with universal coverage. As individual, you buy basic insurance costing roughly $500/month with a $2500 yearly deductible (LAMal/KVG). Applicants must be accepted even with pre-existing conditions. Post-deductible, you pay 10% co-insurance capped at roughly $800/year (no medical bankruptcy). Insurers operate basic plans as non-profit. They make their…

So basically as long as someone is alive in Switzerland they need to pay an insurance company $500/mo?

Isn't this how socialized healthcare works in every country? Whether they realize it or not the principle is generally the same, an amount (usually bundled under "social contributions") goes from people's gross salary to pay for the health insurance.

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

#904
post #901
post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual healthcare delivery is a growing field because boomers are getting old and dying and advances in health care mean that people that would otherwise die (eg people with cancers) are now receiving treatments that keep them alive. Note that this is a Good Thing. The issue with US (and privatized) healthcare delivery is that there is an incentive (by insurers) to deny treatment, as well as an incentive for healthca…

Is there any reason to believe less healthcare professionals would be employed under a universal system? Insurance claims adjusters and call centre scripted finance deciders, sure. But actual health delivery agents?

No, if anything there will be more because some of the funds freed up can be spent on healthcare delivery.

But you will lose endless billing departments at general/specialist practices, hospitals etc, because actual consumers would not engage. Hospital administrations will be driven by the government setting reimbursement rates for services that are transparent, so the argy-bargy between someone paying cash, someone getting insurance etc will disappear (mostly).

I'm in Australia, and the billing departments, even at private hospitals are minimal. Ditto at general practices. Reimbursements for GP/specialists that are not "bulk billed" (ie paid at the government rate) are automated into a nominated bank account and are usually instant.

Medicare for All in the US would move the 2/3rds that are not covered by Medicare, VA, etc into the same systems, with the reduction in overhead from 10-20% to the 2-5% of the current government run health systems.

Allowing Medicare to negotiate both drug prices (as a large purchaser) and health services will also dramatically reduce costs, because the government has the purchasing power to drive hard bargains.

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

#905

Switzerland has the system closest to the US in my experience, but with universal coverage. As individual, you buy basic insurance costing roughly $500/month with a $2500 yearly deductible (LAMal/KVG). Applicants must be accepted even with pre-existing conditions. Post-deductible, you pay 10% co-insurance capped at roughly $800/year (no medical bankruptcy). Insurers operate basic plans as non-profit. They make their…

I think they do asses for pre-conditions, if say you enter the country via immigration.

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

#906

As a person living in Germany I find it insane that this hasn't been solved by the US of A. What the actual hell is going on?

Plenty of bribes to go around. For politicians, press, "think-tanks".... They make sure system is not changing.

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

#907
post #904
post #901

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to believe less healthcare professionals would be employed under a universal system? Insurance claims adjusters and call centre scripted finance deciders, sure. But actual health delivery agents?

No, if anything there will be more because some of the funds freed up can be spent on healthcare delivery. But you will lose endless billing departments at general/specialist practices, hospitals etc, because actual consumers would not engage. Hospital administrations will be driven by the government setting reimbursement rates for services that are transparent, so the argy-bargy between someone paying cash, someone…

I was responding to a thread I thought implied economic downside in employment, as a fellow Australian I'm a strong believer in national health.

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

#908
post #901
post #891

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actual healthcare delivery is a growing field because boomers are getting old and dying and advances in health care mean that people that would otherwise die (eg people with cancers) are now receiving treatments that keep them alive. Note that this is a Good Thing. The issue with US (and privatized) healthcare delivery is that there is an incentive (by insurers) to deny treatment, as well as an incentive for healthca…

Is there any reason to believe less healthcare professionals would be employed under a universal system? Insurance claims adjusters and call centre scripted finance deciders, sure. But actual health delivery agents?

The UK has a "universal system" as does Germany and the inevitable reality is that if administration does not limit/deny overuse of the system then it requires setting prices artifically low to limit costs. --> Causes Doctors to earn less wages and be overworked (many med cases). Ultimately, less doctors. =(

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

#909
post #595

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…

"Insurance is a scam that lets the rich get richer. All insurance should be non-profit." Such empty platitudes never made for a good argument.

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

#910
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.

this is a great example. What a horrible human... https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article...

This is largely misunderstood. At the time the government went after many hospitals for what it perceived as "fraud" in a politically driven campaign. The hospital group he led was the largest at the time and targeted as such. While there are/were bad actors in the system is extremely complicated so try not to generalize. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1115078/
Post reply on HN