Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

truecostofhealthcare.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#111

Post by mokash »

epmatsw wrote: post #68
mokash wrote: post #48

Call me naive but why doesn't the US simply switch to a healthcare system similar to the UK's NHS? I live in Britain and I live happy knowing that if I get a scratch, I won't go bankrupt.

A significant portion of Americans don't trust their government to provide efficient services. In general, we'll trust other citizens and corporations to do a better job. On top of that, you have many people who are reasonably insured and don't have to worry about it, many people who don't want to pay for other people's healthcare, and many people who are scared of socialism. Once you combine those groups, you end up…

At the end of the day, my guess is it all boils down to your FREEDOM. right guys?

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#112

Post by Ergomane »

robinh wrote: post #8
ambiate wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If necessary, I will pay the penalty. I assume the credit for health care costs and taxes charged on health care should make up for any penalties incurred by the PPACA. If I read correctly, my penalty should only be $950-1300. Inevitably, with my insurance rates, I would spend that on 2 months of health coverage for my small family. Just to break down costs: $600/mo health for wife/kid. $7200/yr. vs ~200/mo + 1000 pe…

I'm not in the USA, but 'only $950-1300'? That's more or less what I pay for a whole year of health insurance in the NL. How much does insurance cost in the USA?

Unless you have low income, you pay more than that in the Netherlands.

Payment for health care is composed of two parts:

You pay about EUR 867 to 1,140 directly to an insurance company PER ADULT depending on how much you want to pay yourself in case of required care.

Then there's the socialized income dependent part of the insurance that's either payed via your employer or by yourself, which, in the latter case, is 5,65% over up to EUR ~51 K.

A family of two, each with an income > 51K then pays between EUR 7,480 to 8,026 (atm USD ~10K) each year for health insurance, subsidizing insurance for lower income groups.

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#113

Post by rubyrescue »

rowanseymour wrote: post #110
larrywright wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they do: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients%E2...

I think you can do better than Rush Limbaugh's favorite right wing advocacy group to back up your opinions. Here's a study that puts the numer of Canadians using the US healthcare system at about 0.61%: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full.html

That's EXACTLY what i was looking for, thanks!

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#114

Post by lotharbot »

nicholasjarnold wrote: post #46
huhsamovar wrote: post #14

I am one of the lucky few who has insurance provided by their employer. Unfortunately, if I am in a car accident and rack up $100,000 in bills, I am bankrupt.

> Unfortunately, if I am in a car accident and rack up $100,000 in bills, I am bankrupt. ...or you just have to haggle with the hospital and refuse to pay their grossly inflated funny money prices. I have a good friend who incurred 30K in bills for a 2 day stay related to a broken femur. He has no insurance. Since seeing his bill, which wasn't itemized at all, he's basically refusing to pay anything until he sees wha…

The rule of thumb that I've heard (from a health cost sharing ministry [0]) is that you should expect to be able to negotiate a discount of at least 40% if you're a self-pay patient.

My sister shattered an ankle a while back, and was billed around $40,000. Between reductions, writeoffs, and charities the hospital connected her to, she ended up only paying about $5000.

[0] http://www.chministries.org/whattodo.aspx under "general information"

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#115

Post by jbooth »

seehafer wrote: post #94
jbooth wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Other countries are pretty diverse with how they implement single-payer. Britain has NHS, Canada has private hospitals with government handling the insurance. One thing in common: They all suck, yet are all much better than our system.

"They all suck, yet are all much better than our system." By what measure? If you're trying to see a specialist -- say, to get a surgeon -- soon, our system is far superior, which is why Canadians routinely cross the border to take advantage of our system. A still simplistic and incorrect but fairer appraisal would be to say that the NHS and Canada's Medicare are optimized for everyday care and our healthcare system…

By "better/equivalent average outcomes for significantly lower average cost" as a measure.

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#116

Post by larrywright »

rowanseymour wrote: post #110
larrywright wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they do: http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/09/the-canadian-patients%E2...

I think you can do better than Rush Limbaugh's favorite right wing advocacy group to back up your opinions. Here's a study that puts the numer of Canadians using the US healthcare system at about 0.61%: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full.html

I wasn't claiming that wasn't biased. It was stated that nobody was talking about it, but I don't think that's the case. I've heard it since the health care debates started in the U.S.

As for that study, I'm a little concerned that they only looked at a handful of states, and this little line at the bottom:

"The authors acknowledge financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) for this research."

My guess: both your source and mine are biased and flawed, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#117

Post by rowanseymour »

larrywright wrote: post #116
rowanseymour wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you can do better than Rush Limbaugh's favorite right wing advocacy group to back up your opinions. Here's a study that puts the numer of Canadians using the US healthcare system at about 0.61%: http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/21/3/19.full.html

I wasn't claiming that wasn't biased. It was stated that nobody was talking about it, but I don't think that's the case. I've heard it since the health care debates started in the U.S. As for that study, I'm a little concerned that they only looked at a handful of states, and this little line at the bottom: "The authors acknowledge financial support from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medica…

That's a peer reviewed academic journal. Even if the authors have a bias, it's not comparable to the bias of a right wing advocacy group that gets financial support from the Koch Brothers.

Re: The True Cost of Healthcare in the US

#118

Post by rogerbinns »

astrodust wrote: post #40
rogerbinns wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMHO the best solution would be a standard health care product paid for in a standard way (but reasonably affordable/means tested). It doesn't mean that the government has to collect all the money, or that the actual care has to be provided by the government. But what it would mean is that a baseline is available to everyone. It should also include discovering and disseminating best practises, improving overall healt…

It's probably better if the federal level of government sets standards and it's up to the states to implement them. Vermont, for example, is already ahead of the curve here.

That is why I put "discovering and disseminating best practises" in there. We can all guess what the best way of specifying and implementing the standards is, but why not experiment and find out? This ranges from the setting of the standards (eg how detailed they are), through how they are implemented. And of course all the other things (eg reducing hospital infection rates, improving overall hearth health).
Post reply on HN