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

The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

aaronstannard.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 431 posts

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#161

Post by gishh »

CommenterPerson wrote: post #91
losvedir wrote: post #29

Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. Presumably, you'd be paying those even if you didn't have the child. That said, the cost of health insurance for a family is pretty outrageous. My premiums are along the same lines as the ones here (although less noticeable since they're paid by my employer).

Had the same reaction when I saw how the 40K was calculated (BTW I strongly believe in Medicare for all to control costs and to pay for civilization. To be paid out of progressive taxes on all income). If Aaronontheweb had the misfortune of getting seriously sick, required surgery .. he would pay $7,150 for something that could easily cost $100K+++. Saying he's paying premiums just for having a baby really feels like…

Which bits cost 100k? The $75 ibproufen? The $47 towel? The $19,563 bed charge? Oh, the $32,925 imaging that NFL players get instantly?

Insurance in America is a fucking joke.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#162

Post by jay_kyburz »

rimbo789 wrote: post #154
hypeatei wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I went to Canada, I talked to someone who said the Canadian government will subsidize trips to the US for certain treatments because it's not available at all in Canada or has insane waiting times. It's one data point, I know, but generally I think it's true that quality and availability of care in the US is much better.

I’m a Canadian and I’ve worked in health care. This is only done for very specialized treatments where the province (they run the health care delivery) doesn’t have the treatment and/or the American resource is closer than a Canadian treatment location. For example Nova Scotia will send some complex paediatric cases to Boston. They could send them to Toronto, but Boston is closer. Same with Manitoba but they use Minn…

Canada should just join the US. (Joke <- have to be explicit these days. )

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#163

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

BeetleB wrote: post #121
losvedir wrote: post #29

Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. Presumably, you'd be paying those even if you didn't have the child. That said, the cost of health insurance for a family is pretty outrageous. My premiums are along the same lines as the ones here (although less noticeable since they're paid by my employer).

> Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. I see your point, but do you not think that if you're a family of 4, having to pay $40K before insurance kicks in is ridiculously expensive, and out of reach for most Americans? I'd wager that most self employed folks in the US almost never benefit from insurance (except for things covered by Obamacare which come nowhere n…

> I'd wager that most self employed folks in the US almost never benefit from insurance (except for things covered by Obamacare which come nowhere near justifying the premiums).

Self-employed here. My wife and I paid $470/month last year, $618/month next year, for a gold insurance plan than has a $3400 deductible with typically a $20 co-pay. It covers 3 prescriptions, therapy sessions for each of us, various older age diagnostic checks, and almost all office visits. In addition, if either of us develops cancer or is hit by a truck, we will not be rendered bankrupt.

So I'd say ... nah.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#164

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

gishh wrote: post #158
BeetleB wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. I see your point, but do you not think that if you're a family of 4, having to pay $40K before insurance kicks in is ridiculously expensive, and out of reach for most Americans? I'd wager that most self employed folks in the US almost never benefit from insurance (except for things covered by Obamacare which come nowhere n…

I am a male breast cancer survivor. I had a mammogram the other week. $620. No, nobody benefits from insurance in America. Well, nobody ill.

You had health insurance but it did not cover that?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#165

Post by ikr678 »

peter422 wrote: post #34
o11c wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The amount of money the US Government pays just for that 40% should be enough to cover all 100%. We know this is possible because it happens in other countries, which have shorter waits and more coverage since that talking point keeps being brought up despite collapsing in the face of reality.

The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. Whether that quality is necessarily (or good) is debatable, but we are getting something for the money. You also are just completely wrong in your main point. We cannot provide the same efficacy of healthcare as we are now for 60% less. We are the richest country in the world, labor costs more here than other places.

If you define quality as range of treatment options available, sure. If you define quality as range of treatment options that are accessible, absolutely not.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#166

Post by susiecambria »

Perhaps if non-poor people start speaking out on a regular basis to elected and appointed officials, the media, and policy wonks, we might make some progress getting a better healthcare system.

I've spent 30 years as a policy and budget analyst and advocate on health and human services issues. If electeds and appointeds were going to make decisions based on the lives of poor people it would have happened already.

Folks need to make some noise.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#168

Post by Aaronontheweb »

evanelias wrote: post #157
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I only keep this plan because we're planning on having children, so yes, it's included in the pricing decision.

That doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying your health insurance premiums would be $0 if you weren't planning on having children?

Did you try reading the lengthy section of the article where I answered your question?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#169

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

AnnaPali wrote: post #133
godsinhisheaven wrote: post #76

A lot of this is an issue of insurance no longer being "insurance" in the classical sense. Insurance covers all sorts of things, my HSA pays for all sorts of things that I never would have even considered, and while that sounds great, it helps to drive up costs. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but if you dropped all government funding of healthcare tomorrow, healthcare plans would get cheaper. It'd also be total cha…

Christian healthcare sharers do precisely this. By restricting services and the population addressed (your pastor or priest must sign off on your application), everything's extremely affordable. In particular, as we don't drink, do drugs, use contraceptives etc. we don't pay for coverage of them or their side effects. Obesity's also less of an issue. There's also the trick of telling the hospital you'll pay "in cash"…

I would think using contraceptives is not in the same category as drugs or liquor, though.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#170

Post by sokoloff »

antonymoose wrote: post #13
denkmoon wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Australia 5 out of 5 people are covered by Medicare, and 5 of them bear the burden. (at some point in their life. assuming they become a tax payer, which seems likely for most.)

What percentage of Australian society is net-positive tax payer? That’s your real number, not this pretend 5 out of 5 as you claim.

If everyone costs the system $10, and the five people pay $8, $9, $10, $11, and $12, respectively, I think it’s a mistake to say only the last two net-positive taxpayers are paying for the system.
Post reply on HN