Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs • Hacker News Board

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#161

Post by criddell » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 5:38 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #142

criddell wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your experience with the Canadian system is going to vary greatly depending on the kind of care you require and where you are. Frankly, the same is true in the US. > their MBAs come in an consult about how to reduce costs You don’t think the big health insurance companies in the US do the same thing?

> You don’t think the big health insurance companies in the US do the same thing? To the multiple peers who point out the US uses MBAs too. I'm pointing out that both systems use MBAs and come to the same conclusions such as "We can save n% by using n-1% less effective drug."

The US MBAs have figured out that procedures should be expensive. The health insurance industry as a whole would rather collect 15% of trillions spent than 15% of billions spent.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#162

Post by arcticbull » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 5:39 PM UTC

TheRealDunkirk wrote: post #77

an9n wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's hope you make a better fist of it than the UK - the NHS is currently unreformable to any significant degree, due to it being weaponised by the left.

We all know the answer to this. Every single person in the world. The way to fix the US system is for the health insurance market to be regulated like the auto insurance market, i.e., break up the state monopolies. Then for our employers to give us the money they're paying on our behalf. Then we could shop for a health insurance plan like auto insurance. Within a couple of years, the market would start sorting out th…

That's weird, old people sure do love Medicare. "75% of responses are either very satisfied or satisfied with their Medicare coverage. Only 6% said they’re either dissatisfied or very dissatisfied." [1]

[1] https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/seniors-love-medicare-bu...

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#163

Post by arcticbull » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 5:40 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #137

rnk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incredibly naive. I can already shop for health plans in the us, and it's a shitty result. The rest of the wealthy western world has national health insurance and it works really well. The US is the broken system with declining health of its citizens, even before COVID.

> The rest of the wealthy western world has national health insurance and it works really well. If you talk to people who immigrate to US from those countries with national health insurance, you’ll find that what you claim above is by no means a consensus. For example, I immigrated to US from Poland, and in my opinion, US healthcare is much superior to Polish socialized healthcare, in terms of quality and availabilit…

It also costs $2000USD per capita vs the US $12000 per capita. Fund it 6X and see what happens. Heck, fund it 2X and see what happens.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#164

Post by an9n » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 5:50 PM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #160

an9n wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I got this terminology straight from the horse's mouth: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jan/12/labour-refu... 'Labour has defended the way it is campaigning on the NHS – but once again refused to confirm that Ed Miliband told the BBC that he wanted to “weaponise” the NHS in the election campaign.' 'The spokesman said: “I am not going to talk about words used in private conversations. They should not be shar…

What on earth kind of weapon is it? It's a nonsense statement.

The right would argue something like it's a trojan horse for spreading socialism more widely, or a means of bashing the government with constant attacks based on exaggerating its problems, scaremongering over potential reform/privatisation etc.

But anyway, before you attack it - I'm not the one that came up with it - that was the leader of the Labour Party Ed Milliband! It caused a political storm at the time. Clearly the media, political classes etc. did not consider it complete nonsense or they wouldn't have taken it seriously - nor would the government been able to hammer Milliband/the left with it for years.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#165

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:15 PM UTC

an9n wrote: post #164

arcticbull wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What on earth kind of weapon is it? It's a nonsense statement.

The right would argue something like it's a trojan horse for spreading socialism more widely, or a means of bashing the government with constant attacks based on exaggerating its problems, scaremongering over potential reform/privatisation etc. But anyway, before you attack it - I'm not the one that came up with it - that was the leader of the Labour Party Ed Milliband! It caused a political storm at the time. Clearl…

[deleted]

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#166

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:52 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #143

cwmma wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn in months long queues or lack of supply due to government quotas. There are often months long waits for here too, try getting a dermatology appointment, we just also have the privilege of paying for it out of pocket as preventative skin care checks are not actually classified as preventative medicine so it counts towards your deductible meaning you have…

pay out of pocket is the nature of the system, so it's not really a point. What would be a good point is a discussion about if want a society where the people who pay for a procedure get better outcomes, or if we're willing to say to those who pay "You will get a worse outcome because we're also serving those who cannot pay. This comes down to cultural values and ethics.

[deleted]

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#167

Post by jansan » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:55 PM UTC

0des wrote: post #138

jansan wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At ten times the market price of Europe margins must be huge and supply should skyrocket in a free market.

Listen, Im no phlebotomist or anything, I just calls it how I sees it.

After having looked up "phlebotomist" on Wikipedia I can assure you that I did not have the intention to accuse you of being one.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#168

Post by arcticbull » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 6:56 PM UTC

maerF0x0 wrote: post #143

cwmma wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People frequently die, or get sicker, as they wait their turn in months long queues or lack of supply due to government quotas. There are often months long waits for here too, try getting a dermatology appointment, we just also have the privilege of paying for it out of pocket as preventative skin care checks are not actually classified as preventative medicine so it counts towards your deductible meaning you have…

pay out of pocket is the nature of the system, so it's not really a point. What would be a good point is a discussion about if want a society where the people who pay for a procedure get better outcomes, or if we're willing to say to those who pay "You will get a worse outcome because we're also serving those who cannot pay. This comes down to cultural values and ethics.

Again, you are ignoring that healthcare outcomes in Canada are generally the same or better and that wait times exist in both systems. [1]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2801918/

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#169

Post by ryathal » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:42 PM UTC

specialp wrote: post #89

arcticbull wrote: post #48

As always the issue with privatized social services is that the goal is to make money, not to provide a service so the incentives are fundamentally misaligned. For-profit care providers make money when the fail to provide care. When they fail to cover procedures. When they can substitute lower-quality or less effective goods and services. When they can sell you catastrophic cover with deductibles and co-pays too high…

One thing lost on people is the "for-profit" motive is not solely with insurers or plan providers. Medical practitioners in my experience are extremely motivated to provide as many services as the insurer will pay for regardless of how medically useful they are. This results in often legitimate procedures being denied. But make no mistake, the care providers billing insurance are just as likely or more likely to try…

A lot of this is also cat and mouse about reimbursements. Medicare has cut payments for a lot of visits to the point they aren't profitable, BUT if you fill out a form and e-file and do X for a visit, then you get a bonus payment and can bill a higher code so the net return is about the same.

Re: Mark Cuban's Cost Plus Drugs

#170

Post by criddell » Thu, Jun 09, 2022, 7:48 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #111

arcticbull wrote: post #48

As always the issue with privatized social services is that the goal is to make money, not to provide a service so the incentives are fundamentally misaligned. For-profit care providers make money when the fail to provide care. When they fail to cover procedures. When they can substitute lower-quality or less effective goods and services. When they can sell you catastrophic cover with deductibles and co-pays too high…

Um, what? In theory, free market healthcare should improve alignment. Insurance companies pay procedures and make money when people are less sick. Hospitals make money when they perform procedures. Insurance companies are therefore incentivised to only pay procedures from competent hospitals, the ones that won’t result in more follow-up costs. The problem is, of course, it’s not a free market - neither on the hospita…

> Insurance companies pay procedures and make money when people are less sick.

It's not as simple as that. Insurers are regulated. They can't keep any more than 20% of the money they collect. It sets up an incentive for them to collect and spend more money.