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

Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

ysph.yale.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 1001 posts

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#321

Post by dummydummy1234 »

jonhohle wrote: post #303
epistasis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACA has saved tons of lives. Due to the intense opposition, it was not structured in a way that could save money, but rather structured in the way that it could get through congress. Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibil…

Before I went indie, prior to ACA requirements I researched private insurance and found plans for around $3K. This year I’ll pay over $20K for a bronze plan for my family. 700% increase in less than a decade. Aetna left the marketplace input state and no pediatrician in a 10 mile radius takes the most cost effective ACA plan. The pediatricians we found are actually just GPs who have training in pediatric medicine, bu…

Out of curiosity what state are you in?

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#322

Post by jandrese »

The thing studies like this never take into account is the degree to which all of these administrative jobs are corporate welfare. The inefficiency means a lot of people get a regular paycheck for work that is ultimately nonproductive. If you kill off those jobs by eliminating waste there will be millions of people looking for a new job.

But the bigger problem is the current system is really profitable for the millionaire and billionaire owners of those companies. They're well connected in Congress. Attempting to change the system is extremely difficult when it means so many rich people might lose their gravy train. These people go to expensive campaign dinners. Even when the ACA came out and the first versions had universal healthcare provisions those were quickly and quietly eliminated.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#323

Post by khriss »

jvanderbot wrote: post #21

We've been down this road. ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail (it turns out that intense opposition chips away at it over time regardless of these studies). I'm of the opinion that, if your solution requires perpetual majority control of legislative, executive, and judicial branches, your solution is in fact a campaign slogan. I'm not saying that this is what is happening now , but I am saying that…

> ACA was predicated on studies like this, to no avail

ACA was also predicated on broad participation. As with all insurance, the bigger the pool, the lower the premium. Insurance of any kind is primarily a risk arbitrage business and fundamentally relies on the presence of low risk consumers. ACA was designed with this in mind and made participation in the insurance pool mandatory(whether via the public marketplace, or via private).

Unfortunately for the ACA, the individual mandate was removed in 2017 via Trump's Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced the penalty to $0, while leaving intact the ban on denials based on preexisting conditions(on it's own a good thing). The elimination of the federal tax penalty caused health insurance premiums on the ACA individual marketplace to increase by an estimated 10% annually, as younger and healthier individuals dropped coverage and left behind a sicker, more expensive risk pool.

So, while it's fair to criticize the ACA, you simply can't expect a law to work if it's intentionally altered to engineer the worst case scenario specifically.

Here's the overall timeline

* March 23, 2010: President Barack Obama signs the ACA into law, establishing the individual mandate and its future financial penalties.

* June 28, 2012: The Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate's financial penalty, ruling it a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power.

December 22, 2017: The TCJA sets the individual mandate penalty to $0. Lawmakers attached the repeal to a major federal tax overhaul package and used the budget reconciliation process that allowed the Senate to pass the measure with a simple majority vote, avoiding a filibuster.

January 1, 2019: The tax penalty officially drops to $0 nationwide, effectively eliminating the financial pressure to participate.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#325

Post by HumblyTossed »

cactacea wrote: post #210
epistasis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACA has saved tons of lives. Due to the intense opposition, it was not structured in a way that could save money, but rather structured in the way that it could get through congress. Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibil…

> These are life-changing possibilities, especially for entrepreneurs. I would quit my day job and completely focus on my side business if I didn't have to worry about healthcare.

And this is precisely why nothing will ever change. I tell everyone who will listen to me on my soap box, we will never get universal healthcare until we divorce healthcare from employment (by that I mean, make it to where businesses cannot offer benefits at all).

Personally, I would retire early. I have enough to cover bills and reasonable HC costs, but the way it is now, I'll just keep plugging away for a few more years.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#327

Post by bpt3 »

tmgldn wrote: post #255
bpt3 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people who avoid care they need because they can't afford it are a very small portion of the population that gets an outsized share of attention on the issue. Until public healthcare advocates understand this and make actual attempts to convince the majority of people who are satisfied with the current system that there are benefits, the status quo will remain.

I'm not convinced that your assumption that they are a very small portion of the population holds up, but I only have the same anecdotal evidence you likely have.

Yes it's anecdotal for specific statements, but I'm roughly basing my statement on surveys like this one: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-are-sati...

I find it hard to believe that people who would like to seek care but are unable to do so because of limits on their existing coverage would say that they are satisfied with their medical insurance.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#328

Post by lapcat »

triceratops wrote: post #313
lapcat wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what do you propose? Is there a 3rd party that has a reasonable chance of doing it? No, I propose calling out Democratic leaders for corruption, removing corrupt leaders from their leadership positions, and running primary challenges against them. As you said, Republican leaders are calling single payer "Communist". When the Democratic response is, "I no longer support single payer", they're essentially allowing…

> removing corrupt leaders from their leadership positions, and running primary challenges against them Godspeed.

> Godspeed.

Why even bother asking me what I propose then? What do you propose?

I can certainly understand pessimism, but if you're going to be a pessimist, asserting that there's nothing we can do, then at least be consistent in your pessimism. Don't pretend that you somehow have a better answer than I do. The only possible "plan" I've seen from you is "wait around for Republicans to support single payer", which IMO is vastly less feasible than challenging corrupt Democratic leaders, since the majority of Democratic voters already do support single payer, while the majority of Republican voters do not. And if the debate is one-sided, "Communist" vs. "I don't support single payer", then voters will never be persuaded to support it. Leaders need to lead, persuade, not just take a current poll. If you don't persuade, the other side certainly will.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#329

Post by pyronik19 »

slg wrote: post #175
epistasis wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ACA has saved tons of lives. Due to the intense opposition, it was not structured in a way that could save money, but rather structured in the way that it could get through congress. Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibil…

>Additionally, as somebody who was around pre-ACA, I can not tell you how much better, in every single way, the post-ACA healthcare world is. Pre-existing conditions? Access to healthcare as an individual? These are life-changing possibilities, especially for entrepreneurs. The failures and politicization of the ACA have caused us to be a little too dismissive of its successes and popularity. Protections for pre-exis…

ACA is horrible for the middle class. The only reason it retains any type of popularity is because the media refuses to associated ballooning cost to cost redistribution that it enables. Preexisting conditions? Middle class family picking that up. Subsidy? Middle class family picking that up.

Re: Universal health coverage could save $1T and 114k lives a year: study

#330

Post by pyronik19 »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #318
jonhohle wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before I went indie, prior to ACA requirements I researched private insurance and found plans for around $3K. This year I’ll pay over $20K for a bronze plan for my family. 700% increase in less than a decade. Aetna left the marketplace input state and no pediatrician in a 10 mile radius takes the most cost effective ACA plan. The pediatricians we found are actually just GPs who have training in pediatric medicine, bu…

ACA premiums are literally taxes, the price you pay has nothing to do with your health risks. You are paying more because a lot more healthcare is being delivered, to people who never used to either due to exceeding maximum benefits (we have the opposite today with out of pocket maximum), or being denied for pre existing health conditions. So to answer: >Who is it better for? My 4 year old, who has received hundreds…

[dead]
Post reply on HN