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

'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–269 of 269 posts

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#261

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

sharts wrote: post #258
ChrisMarshallNY wrote: post #26

Mine has tripled, but last year, I was actually getting some govt help. Not this year. I am fortunate to be able to afford it, but it’s just less than my mortgage. This month is when all hell breaks loose, because people will get their first invoice at the new rate. They already know how much, but seeing it in the form of a demand, will drive it home. Obamacare is like the NHS, in the UK. Everyone likes to bitch abou…

Isn’t obamacare what caused all these problems in the first place? NHS is public. Obamacare was just a blank check to private companies

> Isn’t obamacare what caused all these problems in the first place?

I don’t think so, but it’s a fairly poor attempt to address the industry problems. It’s a lash-up “solution” to a problem caused by our entire healthcare structure.

> Obamacare was just a blank check to private companies

And healthcare providers. No one wants to fix the real issue, so this was the only thing all those lobbyists would allow.

That doesn’t change the fact that it has actually become quite popular.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#262

Post by rstuart4133 »

geerlingguy wrote: post #5

I was paying around $1200/month last year (a little under that with subsidy). This year I'm paying $2100/month for a family of five, on a roughly equivalent plan. Except, none of the options in my state allow me to visit the PCP I switched to this year (since none of the plans last year covered my PCP from the year before). So I guess I'm on a primary care physician merry go round :D I am at least able to have my mai…

> This year I'm paying $2100/month for a family of five,

blink

Top cover in Australia for a family is about USD$400 per month.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#263

Post by UncleMeat »

shuckles wrote: post #223
UncleMeat wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

400% FPL is $62,000 for a single person. Not exactly rolling in it.

Income isn't wealth. Someone making $62,000/yr in income without working at 55 (i.e. no Social Security) is likely comfortable. That's >$1m in invested assets plus whatever is owed to them as retirement income when they reach retirement age. It's especially unclear if everyone else's payroll taxes should be spent allowing this person to retire a few years earlier. This is all before including the other large personal…

If this is your concern, why not oppose all subsidies? There are also early retirees who keep their AGI below 400% FPL.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#264

Post by ETH_start »

simianwords wrote: post #152
simianwords wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What value addition do the administrators provide? It might be helpful to understand why competing hospitals still find it useful to employ these people even if the cost is so high. If a competing hospital can provide equivalent service while also not spending so much on an administrator, why didn't they already do it?

Answering myself, apparently it is a fight between administrators on the hospital end and the administrators on the insurance company end. The insurance administrators are fighting to provide as less reimbursement as possible and the hospital administrators are fighting to provide as much reimbursement as possible. The administrators are probably doing compliance work, negotiations. I wonder whether regulations can b…

The actual problem here is the regulations that restrict insurance options to comprehensive ones and eliminate the option of getting catastrophic only insurance. This effectively leads to overconsumption of insurance. The other big problem is tax incentives that encourage people to get insurance through their employer.

To elaborate on that, when one gets health insurance from their employer, they effectively get a tax cut, and this in turn leads to larger proportion of employment compensation being paid through health insurance benefits than it needs to be, which translates to extravagant health insurance plans for those who are employed.

When people don't rely on insurance and pay out of pocket, generally prices go down over time and the industry as a whole becomes more efficient. The opposite trend has been in place in healthcare, with a growing percentage of healthcare spending being through insurance. And the result is the opposite of what's seen in more market-based industries: prices going up over time.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#265

Post by shuckles »

UncleMeat wrote: post #263
shuckles wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Income isn't wealth. Someone making $62,000/yr in income without working at 55 (i.e. no Social Security) is likely comfortable. That's >$1m in invested assets plus whatever is owed to them as retirement income when they reach retirement age. It's especially unclear if everyone else's payroll taxes should be spent allowing this person to retire a few years earlier. This is all before including the other large personal…

If this is your concern, why not oppose all subsidies? There are also early retirees who keep their AGI below 400% FPL.

Surely you are capable of thinking there are tradeoffs here where one can set a level without dealing in absolutes. Put differently why not expand Medicaid to cover every American regardless of income? 400% is just as arbitrary as 1000000%.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#266

Post by protocolture »

thrance wrote: post #181
protocolture wrote: post #108

I find the US healthcare "system" to be an interesting topic. More nuanced than people think. It honestly seems like the worst way to run anything. Like I honestly cant see who its for, other than maybe US Corporations on the list of approved medical vendors. Like, putting on my "Lives in a free(ish) healthcare country" hat, it looks bonkers from that angle. But even from a more libertarian mode, the whole thing look…

Blame the misguided belief elevated to State motto that "private is always better than public". They've shoe-horned a profiteering class of parasites into an inelastic market, free to jack up prices of literally vital goods as much as they want. And the current administration, who holds much contempt for life, is perfectly happy to tear down the last poor band-aid the previous admin half-assedly put in place.

I am honestly convinced a purely private system would work better than the weird situation in the US.

I am also convinced likewise that a more public system would also work better than the weird situation in the US.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#267

Post by simianwords »

trashface wrote: post #255
simianwords wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have changed my mind on this after looking at the data. Not much cost can be attributed to the doctors.

What data was that? Here is some from the BLS: https://www.bls.gov/ooh/highest-paying.htm Highest 20 occupations by median annual income, the bottom is pilots, everyone else is a medical specialty.

This ignores the number of administrators. You can’t assume number of doctors are equal to administrators.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#268

Post by UncleMeat »

shuckles wrote: post #265
UncleMeat wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is your concern, why not oppose all subsidies? There are also early retirees who keep their AGI below 400% FPL.

Surely you are capable of thinking there are tradeoffs here where one can set a level without dealing in absolutes. Put differently why not expand Medicaid to cover every American regardless of income? 400% is just as arbitrary as 1000000%.

I do actually think that universal healthcare is the best policy. But that will mean some wealthy people get coverage paid for by the state, which aggravates some people.

A substantial amount of discussion in early retirement communities is about how to stay below 400% AGI, which is why I found it odd to see a criticism of healthcare subsidies going to early retirees in the context of the expanded subsidies.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#269

Post by shuckles »

UncleMeat wrote: post #268
shuckles wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you are capable of thinking there are tradeoffs here where one can set a level without dealing in absolutes. Put differently why not expand Medicaid to cover every American regardless of income? 400% is just as arbitrary as 1000000%.

I do actually think that universal healthcare is the best policy. But that will mean some wealthy people get coverage paid for by the state, which aggravates some people. A substantial amount of discussion in early retirement communities is about how to stay below 400% AGI, which is why I found it odd to see a criticism of healthcare subsidies going to early retirees in the context of the expanded subsidies.

Great then you have even bigger problems to wrestle with regarding solvency. Americans won't choose cost effective treatments, and if you force them to pay out of pocket for experimental therapy you will be accused of running death panels. Good luck with that. On top of all that, they are also unhealthy due to a variety of lifestyle factors including that their primary mode of transportation likes maiming them.
Post reply on HN