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

231–240 of 431 posts

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#231

Post by dan353hehe »

kirth_gersen wrote: post #155
ErroneousBosh wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you need to get insurance for your child to be born anyway? Isn't the hospital already insured? Isn't that kind of janky?

In America, you basically need insurance to act as a larger stronger party in the negotiation of prices with the hospital on your behalf. Without the bargaining power of the insurance company the prices you'd pay can be significantly inflated. So paying for the insurance is the slightly lesser of two evils. Supposedly. From your question it seems perhaps you live somewhere with a saner system in place. I'm envious.

I’ve been told that too. But I’ve done self pay for the last year, and every time I go to the hospital they instantly give me a 30% discount.

That makes me think they are artificially inflating prices so that when the insurance company negotiats their discount, well, it might be the same as what I pay

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#232

Post by outside1234 »

AstroBen wrote: post #182
venturecruelty wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Healthcare too expensive? Have you considered dying?" Sorry, what are you going to do when you get into a car accident and they rush you to the hospital? Assuming you're even conscious. "No, I'm voting with my wallet!" flatlines Come on. What if we used our collective power to fix the system? (Up to and including replacing it with something that works for the majority, and not the minority.)

If you were rushed to the hospital you'd be treated: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/your-patient-rights/emergency...

And then you would be bankrupt, because if you have any money they are going to come after you.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#233

Post by machomaster »

bmandale wrote: post #25

So to summarize: a. you're paying that for health insurance, not for the birth of the child. If you, your wife, your children had any other diseases then those would be covered as well. This is a significant benefit. b. all the systems that subsidize health care for those less well off don't apply because you're wealthy. So you are bearing the full cost of extremely high quality health insurance in a western country.

> extremely high quality health insurance in a western country

(Sigh...) Let's put some facts.

Infant mortality and under-five mortality rate (U5MR) are one of best simple indicators of the quality of healthcare. USA's mortality is x3 (!!!) of the countries on top. This puts USA around place 50 in the world, worse than Russia...

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#234

Post by postflopclarity »

xyzelement wrote: post #209
Apreche wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not the car seats that are the contraception, it is the cars themselves.

What does that mean? Plenty of people have been conceived in the backseat, and some in the front. But seriously, what are you talking about?

car-dependent infrastructure and urban design is hostile to human life.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#235

Post by machomaster »

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.

> The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world.

Simply not true.

Infant mortality and under-five mortality rate (U5MR) are one of best simple indicators of the quality of healthcare. USA's mortality is x3 (!!!) of the countries on top. This puts USA around place 50 in the world, worse than Russia...

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#237

Post by pembrook »

Sparkle-san wrote: post #134
mattcantstop wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Healthcare doesn't function as a market because the nature of it is largely at odds with the principals of an efficient marketplace and perfect competition. Not to mention the tens of billions of dollars being pocketed by middlemen every year.

If you're talking emergency medicine and old age care, yes, it's not able to function as a market.

Hence why the US already has government healthcare that covers almost half the population (Medicaid and Medicare cover the old, young, disabled, veterans, and poor people).

However, the place you give birth is, in the vast majority of cases, something people do like to have agency over, especially given the 9 months of heads up given by nature.

If healthcare weren't so perversely incentivized by the twisted triangle of regulated public/employer/private systems and their interactions, I would argue this is something that could be a functioning market.

Like Universities with their endless ability to raise prices due to the US government guaranteeing student loans of any size to anyone, a big problem in healthcare is there being no anchor to reality due to the principle-agent nightmares of the current regulated system.

In Europe, when you give birth it is not a luxury experience with a doctor of your choosing in a 4-5 star level private room where you're sent home with a big basket of freebies. If all Americans had to pay directly out-of-pocket (as Europeans de-facto do via taxation), you can bet reality would set in quick.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#238

Post by machomaster »

peter422 wrote: post #214
AstroBen wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying the US optimizes entirely for the best of the best care, without regard for what happens to the 2nd tier? (that the majority of the population actually use)

I think at least the median citizen in the US has very good access to the best possible care. It may or may not be affordable but you can get it. And yes, that is what I think we optimize for.

If care is not affordable and makes average people just one accident away from bankruptcy, then it might well not exist in calculations. This is akin to saying the USA is the richest country because it has more billionaires than any other country.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#239

Post by gatlin »

Apreche wrote: post #125
emmelaich wrote: post #49

Related: Car Seats as Contraception https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/731812 > We estimate that these laws [mandating safety seats] prevented fatalities of 57 children in car crashes in 2017 but reduced total births by 8,000 that year and have decreased the total by 145,000 since 1980.

It’s not the car seats that are the contraception, it is the cars themselves.

How so?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#240

Post by refurb »

o11c wrote: post #15
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.

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 amount of money the US Government pays just for that 40% should be enough to cover all 100%

This is true as long as the following changes are made: 1) wages for healthcare workers are scalled back ~50%, 2) many drugs and medical procedures are not longer covered (a good example is CAR-T for cancer or drugs for rare diseases).

Post reply on HN