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

261–270 of 431 posts

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#261

Post by vel0city »

jopsen wrote: post #141
hollandheese wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. Yeah, I'm gonna need a citation for that. Because it sounds like a health insurance propoganda rather than the actual truth.

I tried an American PPO with $10 co-pay and no deductibles. It was awesome :) Nobody could tell me what anything would cost, or if the insurance would cover it. But I always ended up paying $10, whether it was a few pills or an expensive MRI I didn't need. Oh, yeah the downside is you can accidentally convince your doctor to get procedures you don't need. Health care in Denmark is decent. But I've been told, no when…

I've had PPO insurance for a few decades. I've been denied tests and procedures many times, even when I had radiologist exams that supported the surgery according to their own rules. I've been forced to wait for procedures on many occasions.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#262

Post by vel0city »

peter422 wrote: post #112
BeetleB wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 15 out of the top 50 and 4/6 top hospitals in the world are in the US Outliers do not say much about the overall quality of healthcare in a country. Rather obvious lesson in statistics. Reminds me of the Russian mathematician who moved to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union. Most of his essays were criticizing American students, but in one essay he was quite frank: Russians who graduate with math degrees are…

Perhaps my language was too imprecise. My argument is that specifically the best care in the US is the best in the world. We have the best doctors and the best technology and the best treatments. This is not completely universal but it is also generally accurate. Whether or not this care is accessible or the median quality is care is good, that is different. I’m just saying we do get something for the money, it’s not…

> the best care in the US is the best in the world

For a few Americans. Not for all Americans, and probably not even for most Americans. There's far more to the United States than New England and Southern California.

Don't get me wrong, if I had some rare cancer or other strange disease, chances are I'll want to try and get in to one of these few rare ultra premium hospitals. But if I break my leg or get some normal infection or have a child or any of the other normal kinds of issues people have? Will that still be the best tier of care?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#263

Post by bmandale »

machomaster wrote: post #233
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...

Health care could be more evenly distributed, of course, but the health care that OP is receiving is definitely very high quality. General statistics about the entire population cannot speak to that.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#264

Post by Aaronontheweb »

codingdave wrote: post #260
Aaronontheweb wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the $14300 is the family out of pocket max You know they charge you, separately, for both the mother's care AND the infant's during a delivery right? Those count as two people. I am, with 100% certainty, going to hit the out of pocket max - I have every time. Like I've paid for three kids all on the same plan, including one born in January so my deductible got spread over two different billing years. I have to ask…

I'm not defending it. I'm correcting your misinformation. You are claiming that ACA plans do not cover childbirth. They do. You are claiming that this event alone costs 40K, which is not accurate. It hits your out of pocket max, exactly as designed. It sounds like you have never looked at an ACA silver plan, which is the lower deductible/out of pocket max option. I also have a family of 5, and have a $1800 per year o…

Dude, you don't even have your own facts straight and you are embarrassing yourself. It's clear you have no experience, don't understand your own sources you provided, or any clue how child birth actually works from a medical billing standpoint.

Edit: what do I have to gain from spreading "misinformation?" I just want better / more options?

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#265

Post by BeetleB »

bonsai_spool wrote: post #207
BeetleB wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> And what the OP is pointing out is that if your injury is $30K, insurance covers nothing, because the premium + deductible is $40K. The point of insurance is to mitigate risk. If you think you have enough money to cover your risk, there's no reason to buy insurance. The sleight of hand here is first complaining that you did not incur enough hazards to offset the risk premium and then citing this as a reason the ris…

> The point of insurance is to mitigate risk.

Agreed - both to you and to society.

What's under debate is "how much risk." For most people in the US, they'll need help before they hit $40K. They can't afford paying $40K every year for medical and medical related expenses.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#266

Post by BeetleB »

machomaster wrote: post #217
BeetleB wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

5GB data cap is ridiculously low. Might as well only count the slow speed.

In over a decade, the only time I hit that cap was because I let my kid watch too many videos on it.

5 GB is pretty reasonable for the bulk of the country. The only common things that can make it go over are games and streaming - both of which really are luxuries if you simply can't wait till you have Wifi access. So yeah - of course you should pay a lot more if you insist on doing those things.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#267

Post by BeetleB »

AstroBen wrote: post #228
orwin wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't you just look at life expectancy, and life expectancy in good health? Because the data I found doesn't put the US in the top anything. Even if you're in the top decile of earners.

How does that account for a population who.. ..74% are overweight or obese ..less than 10% meet the fruit and vegetable recommendations ..25% get the recommended amount of exercise ..eat more than 70g added sugar a day Healthcare really has the deck stacked against it however you look at it

Your mistake is separating those items from healthcare, when it's part of it.

Even in the US, many (most?) insurances and healthcare systems have programs to address all those. My HMO certainly does - I can engage with them and craft a healthy nutrition plan, and my doctor can be involved in that as well. Ditto for exercise.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#268

Post by stephen_g »

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.

That's crazy, I looked it up and the average cost for a hip replacement here in the private system in Australia is about $24k (US$16k).

You can get it for basically nothing in the public system but you might have to wait a year or so if it's considered elective (emergency surgery is immediate of course), but most people with private health insurance can get the procedure done within in a few weeks and would only have to pay about $1000 (US$650) out of pocket with a $500 excess (which is pretty common), because the anaesthetist and surgery are usually invoiced separately. Some plans do have lower excesses (like $350) though if you pay higher premiums.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#269

Post by BeetleB »

hn_acc1 wrote: post #200
BeetleB wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, but does the CEO's wife have to be on the same plan?

I suspect needing to make a lot of international calls may be the culprit.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#270

Post by bmelton »

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…

> that regulation or rule or something that makes it so like a hospital can't open too close to another hospital

You're referring to certificate of need laws, but it's worth pointing out that they're not universal. More than a dozen states have repealed them (or don't have them) and everywhere I've looked, there's strong evidence that their removal has increased healthcare access, which has put downward pressure on cost of service

> Another would be to just, train more doctors!

Bill Clinton placed a cap on GME funding in the 97 Balanced Budget Act, freezing the number of residency slots that the federal government would provide funding for, so this effectively froze the number of residents there could be, which effectively limits the number of doctors possible

Post reply on HN