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

191–200 of 431 posts

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#191

Post by ASinclair »

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"…

So your pastor or priest conveniently rejects you if you have a chronic illness.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#192

Post by BeetleB »

wampwampwhat wrote: post #176
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ag…

i'm 36, self-employed. silver plans in my state are ~800/month next year, with 8k deductible, no out of network coverage at all, with no in-network providers out of my state, so god forbid I get injured while traveling to visit my in-laws. the marketplace is a joke and health insurance in this country is pointless.

> no out of network coverage at all

I thought they'll all cover ER visits out of network. Is that not required by law?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#193

Post by BeetleB »

avgDev wrote: post #156
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…

The problem is the healthcare cost is insane. You will go through $40k after a good injury that may need a major surgery or few smaller surgeries. Average cost for hip replacement is $40k. I've had a sports hernia and the bill was about $30k.

> I've had a sports hernia and the bill was about $30k.

And what the OP is pointing out is that if your injury is $30K, insurance covers nothing, because the premium + deductible is $40K.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#194

Post by hn_acc1 »

mhb wrote: post #44
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).

Also not a big impact on the message, but $200/mo for a phone is a bit disingenuous.

I think he's quoting that from the other article, not necessarily computing it himself. I think that article was about the cost of broadband + smartphones.

We pay ~$100/month for 1G broadband (I realize this could be lowered somewhat), and ~$100-120 for 5 phone lines for the family (AT&T prepaid). I'd like to see you make a household with multiple lines + broadband work for less than $100-125.

And that's not even that hard - I know some people spend $300+ JUST on their phone plans, in addition to broadband. And then if you factor in amortized cost of phone replacement? It's closer to $200 than to $50 for example, IMHO.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#195

Post by rsync »

trentnix wrote: post #109

Our first two children were born at the hospital. Both were induced. Everyone was healthy, but looking back each was a miserable, expensive, condescending experience. After those experiences, my wife then went on a journey to learn everything she could about childbirth and healthcare. The more she learned, the more she became convinced that the entire system is flawed. The pressure to get an epidural, induce (conveni…

"My wife just had our fourth child earlier this year. Once again we used a midwife but this time we had a home birth. You couldn't have paid me to accept a home birth when we were new parents. I wish I knew then what I know now."

Good for you and the very best wishes.

We had all four of our children at home - two of them breech[1] - and avoided a big basket of unnecessary interventions and complications.

One of the biggest benefits was opting out of the tremendously disempowering culture of medicalized birth fostered by both male and female care providers.

An outsider would not be faulted for thinking that birth care was purpose-designed to disempower, discourage and disenfranchise women giving birth.

[1] Relax. A "frank breech" is considered a normal birth in most of the global north and is not medicalized as it is in the United States - nor does it need to be. (Not to be confused with dangerous conditions like a footling or kneeling presentation).

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#196

Post by waterTanuki »

mattcantstop wrote: post #102
shermozle wrote: post #56

The first sentence is your answer. The third word even. The healthcare market. MARKET Healthcare shouldn't be a market. That's why you're paying $40k.

I have the opposite viewpoint, and I lean heavily progressive in most of my views. Healthcare in the United States isn't a market, and that is why it is so terrible. For instance, there is no reasonable ability to compare prices of services. Prices are entirely hidden. Then there is the "with insurance" price vs cash prices. Healthcare doesn't function as a market, to our detriment.

Nor should it strive to be a market. Healthy markets can only exist where demand is elastic. If the choice is between dying to kidney failure or enduring life-crushing medical debt, you bet I'm going to do anything it takes to get that transplant. And therein lies the problem: You *cannot* have healthy markets in healthcare. Period. Demand for healthcare is fully inelastic. Anyone arguing the opposite is either profiting off the status quo or woefully ignorant of economics.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#197

Post by tialaramex »

vkou wrote: post #54
snikeris wrote: post #5

Nearly 2 in 5 Americans are covered by Medicare or Medicaid. TANSTAAFL. The other 3 bear the burden. At some point Atlas shrugs and decides welfare is a better deal.

Weird, I've seen a lot more people bitch about welfare and how easy people on the dole have it, than actually give up their nice jobs and lifestyles to go try living it.

It was likewise striking how few of America's slave owners thought that slavery was such a sweet deal that they should be enslaved. It's not always true, but it should always give you pause if you find yourself insisting that other people have it too good and yet you've been careful to ensure that you'd never have to trade places...

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#198

Post by hn_acc1 »

AstroBen wrote: post #117
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay that at least much for my family, hence why I used it

Mint or US Mobile are ~$15-20 a month. You're massively overpaying

Do they come with free mid-tier phones? What if you need 4-5 lines? What if, as a CEO, he needs a better plan than "basic prepaid, lowest-priority-subject-to-throttling"?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#199

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

BeetleB wrote: post #190
PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ag…

> My wife and I paid $470/month last year, $618/month next year, for a gold insurance plan than has a $3400 deductible That's really nice - are there state/government subsidies involved? I work for a top tier company and my premiums are not that much lower than yours. When I checked the public market's insurance options, getting a $3000 or so deductible was a lot more expensive than yours if one is not low income (i.…

Yes, those are numbers with

(a) for 2025, federal premium subsidies in effect ($19k/year of subsidy) ! (b) for 2026, NM temporary subsidies

A reminder that until the end of this year almost everyone gets subsidies. Nobody in the US, no matter their income level, should be paying more than 8.3% of their AGI for health insurance. That all changes come Jan 1st 2026, thanks to the current Congress. Our premiums would be $2531/month had NM not stepped in to use some of those sweet, sweet fossil fuel extraction taxes to help us out.

Oh yeah, deductible in 2025 was actually $2800. At our age (early 60s) and general health (good), gold plans make much more sense (if you can afford them).

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#200

Post by hn_acc1 »

BeetleB wrote: post #114
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay that at least much for my family, hence why I used it

Consider changing your plan? I pay $70/mo for 2 phone lines. Unlimited everything (well, OK, 5 GB data cap before slowing down).

So that's not unlimited.. I could imagine a CEO could burn through 5GB pretty quick.
Post reply on HN