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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by analog31 »

Auracle wrote: post #978
analog31 wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's what happens in my locale. If you show up in an ER, they quickly decide whether you need emergency care, or regular urgent care, delivered in the same facility. And medicine is anything if not statistical, so they know the amount of each kind of service that they need to plan for.

In my locale urgent care is only open from like 9am-4pm on weekdays, reduced hours on Saturdays, and closed on Sundays. I could make observations about who tends to be there at either but that might rustle some jimmies.

My jimmies are hard to rustle. I'm fortunate that I have flexible hours, and can leave work if I need to visit a clinic. If either of my adult kids gets sick, they start making calls to find someone who can take their shift. So I suspect it boils down to individual or family circumstances.

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

#992

Post by platevoltage »

satnhak wrote: post #920
platevoltage wrote: post #864

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the solution is get rid of private healthcare. I agree.

And we all sit on beanbags, sing kumbaya and write poems about our feelings.

I don't know why you thought this was a clever thing to say.

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

#993

Post by alanwreath »

jaltekruse wrote: post #570
alanwreath wrote: post #481

If this were at all true, now read it like the big wig or law maker holding the on/off lever who’s eyes see “Universal Health Coversge Could reduce $1T in available/taxable income”. Did you notice the gorilla walk by? They sure didn’t.

Should The Government Stop Dumping Money Into A Giant Hole? - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JnX-D4kkPOQ

This is hilarious.

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

#994

Post by Glyptodon »

mhb wrote: post #925
Glyptodon wrote: post #788

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd tend to think the majority of healthcare is sought after something happens - car wrecks, cancer diagnosis, sports or exercise injury, stuff like ear infections or strep throat...

Healthy people without concerns aren't looking for treatment, they're visiting their PCP once a year.

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

#995

Post by LorenPechtel »

nielsbot wrote: post #983
LorenPechtel wrote: post #966

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government has a cost motive. Lower taxes. There is no such thing as non-profit, cost drives all organizations. And government can just lower the definition of acceptable service rather than provide any accountability for not providing it.

> And government can just lower the definition of acceptable service rather than provide any accountability for not providing it. but why would they? OTOH for-profit companies do this all the time.

To lower spending. People always complain about taxes.

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

#996

Post by nielsbot »

LorenPechtel wrote: post #995
nielsbot wrote: post #983

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And government can just lower the definition of acceptable service rather than provide any accountability for not providing it. but why would they? OTOH for-profit companies do this all the time.

To lower spending. People always complain about taxes.

you know who else lowers spending (at the expense of service)? For profit corps. You’re ignoring that part.

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

#997

Post by matteoraso »

onraglanroad wrote: post #988
matteoraso wrote: post #953

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? NICE sets a cost-effectiveness threshold of about £20,000-30,000 per QALY gained from a drug[0]. There was even a controversy where a drug for pancreatic cancer was denied funding for this very reason[1]. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20110925050527/http://www.nice.o... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20151225115559/http://www.pancre...

NICE is an independent body consisting mainly of medical professionals. It's not made up of MPs. That's exactly my point. How on earth are you still missing this?

It's also overseen by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care. Also, how on Earth do you think insurance companies don't consult doctors on insurance denials?

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

#998

Post by brandonb »

DesiLurker wrote: post #769
brandonb wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are two real effects, but together they wouldn't compensate for the rate cuts. About 8% of the population is uninsured. The uninsured population skews younger, with less healthcare utilization (Medicare already covers everyone 65 and older). Another comment in this thread estimated billing overhead at 8.5%. Medicare for All would eliminate some, but not all of this, since Medicare is still a claims-based system…

> .. 8% of the population is uninsured. .. this is Bogus, one of the first argument hospitals make for inflated pricing is that they have to cover the cost of uninsured. if the uninsured doesnt exist then the whole line of BS argument falls.

One source for that state is the CDC, which estimates 8.3% of people are uninsured: https://www.beckerspayer.com/research-analysis/uninsured-rat...

The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates about 26.7 million people ages 0-64 were uninsured in 2024 (9-10% of that population segment): https://www.kff.org/uninsured/key-facts-about-the-uninsured-...

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

#999

Post by onraglanroad »

matteoraso wrote: post #997
onraglanroad wrote: post #988

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NICE is an independent body consisting mainly of medical professionals. It's not made up of MPs. That's exactly my point. How on earth are you still missing this?

It's also overseen by the Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Care. Also, how on Earth do you think insurance companies don't consult doctors on insurance denials?

Which was my point. The overseeing has to do with funding not application.

But you're fundamentally dishonest here. You recognise insurance denials but are trying to pretend they don't exist.

You're not discussing honestly, you're just a useless waste of space.

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

#1000

Post by richwater »

bhelkey wrote: post #693
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.

The Bill's primary advocate...?

https://ballotpedia.org/Sen._Bernie_Sanders%27_Medicare_for_...

Post reply on HN