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

921–930 of 1001 posts

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

#921

Post by anonymars »

ajross wrote: post #919
anonymars wrote: post #853

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The real problem is people like you refusing to vote for the people with the policy you want, as often as not as part of a bothsidesist stance designed to get more upvote in peer forums like HN That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare nor even a public option. Nothing about that says anything about who voted for whom, where anyone even…

> That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at…

> It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican"

Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort

I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you

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

#922

Post by DrScientist »

HDBaseT wrote: post #860
DrScientist wrote: post #230

As I understand it - ~30% of US federal spending is on health care. In the UK it's about 20%. Yet apparently the UK is mostly nationalised under the NHS, while in the US there is huge additional spending on private insurance. Can somebody from the US explain to me how that's the case and why American's still put up with it?

Because the US buys medicine at absurd pricing. Something that should cost dollars, costs hundreds. [0] [0] https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/comparing-prescription-drugs

Don't believe that - not that the US doesn't pay well over the odds - that's clear - but it's the major cause to overall higher healthcare costs.

Typically health care is massively human capital intensive with like 50% on wages, and only 10% on drugs.

I suspect the blame lies with a broken market and inflated prices costs across the board ( ie the higher drug prices are a symptom of a wider systemic problem ).

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

#923

Post by ajross »

anonymars wrote: post #921
ajross wrote: post #919

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's a lot of words they didn't say. It is a true statement that Congress did not give the USA single-payer healthcare But that is what they didn't say! They said it wasn't "votable", in the sense I took that means that this isn't an issue you can get by voting. And it is, clearly. And was, in 2010, when they were within one senate vote for a "public option" in the ACA. It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at…

> It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you

> Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort

You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though. This is the second time you've tried this end-around strawman. Please engage with the discussion as it is.

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

#924

Post by anonymars »

ajross wrote: post #923
anonymars wrote: post #921

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It 100% boggles my mind that you'd look at that once again incredibly partisan voting result and decide "Oh well, I might as well vote republican" Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort I don't think you're going to convince anyone of anything this way. If anything you'll probably end up turning people off who otherwise would have agreed with you

> Who said any of this? "I" said nothing of the sort You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though. This is the second time you've tried this end-around strawman. Please engage with the discussion as it is.

> You quite clearly came in to defend someone who did, though

> "I already have universal healthcare here in Canada"

I don't think I'm the one misreading the discussion as it is.

If you take a deep breath and re-read, maybe you'll understand the point I've been trying to make is you're jumping down people's throats that aren't disagreeing with you, which at best does your own arguments a disservice. To put words in someone's mouth and say this is the fault of 'people like you' is out of line.

Have a good one

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

#925

Post by mhb »

Glyptodon wrote: post #788
mhb wrote: post #765

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your example is an edge case. Presumably sick people were once healthy. When people are spending their own money, they become a lot more discriminating.

Also, if you're looking for treatment after you're sick, that's not health insurance.

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

#926

Post by mhb »

JoshTko wrote: post #867
mhb wrote: post #761

Who Will Pay for Democratic Socialism’s $200 Trillion Cost? https://www.cato.org/blog/who-will-pay-democratic-socialisms...

ah, the Koch brother's PR firm the CATO org. Brilliant spin org.

Shooting the messenger usually works.

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

#927

Post by matthewdgreen »

JuniperMesos wrote: post #880
annzabelle wrote: post #859

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way a lot of other countries deal with this is that the government calculates out a benefit vs cost assessment for every new treatment and only covers ones that come out ahead. But, that ends up with things like new targeted chemotherapies being unavailable for years after their initial release, vs in the US where they are available to much of the population once the right prior auth is filed. There is also more…

People hate it when faceless bureaucrats decide that some health care expense is too expensive for the large faceless bureaucracy to cover, when they have a medical issue that they would like the large faceless bureaucracy to spend money on. Perhaps in that world, some insane guy with a back injury who's unhappy about the quality of his care assassinates the Secretary of Health and Human Services, rather than the CEO…

This is already how Medicare works and it covers 70 million Americans. I’m not aware of any of these hypothetical violent outcomes being a huge problem for the program.

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

#928

Post by nradov »

NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #879
nradov wrote: post #847

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a silly comment. There's a huge difference between establishing civil liability versus a criminal conviction, and rightly so. The quacks aren't going to be incarcerated.

I think instead of my comment being silly, it's just difficult for you to understand because your Overton window only allows people who agree with you but differ on how much compensation should be allowed and the particulars of how that compensation is decided and doled out. I'm used to this though.

No, you just don't understand the basics of how the US legal system works. It's always disappointing to see that level of aggressive ignorance on HN.

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

#929

Post by qup »

reverius42 wrote: post #895
Pooge wrote: post #884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yup. Premiums change depending on the deductible you choose[1] and your age. [1]: If you have the CHF2500/year deductible, premiums are cheaper but you have to pay that amount out of picket before the insurance company reimburses your expenses

Obama tried this and America lost its mind.

You have to pretend it's free, in America. People don't want to support themselves.

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

#930

Post by dbbk »

trollbridge wrote: post #914
dbbk wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to be seen immediately (even when triage determines it not necessary) you can just supplement with private insurance

But that’s not universal care. “Triage determines it not necessary” is a cold comfort to someone waiting years for a procedure they actually do need.

The triage is pretty effective though. In the UK on the NHS for example if you have cancer you'll be on chemo within 30 days.
Post reply on HN