The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding' • Hacker News Board

Re: The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding'

#351

Post by oakmad » Sun, Oct 12, 2025, 11:21 PM UTC

doctorpangloss wrote: post #261

oakmad wrote: post #243

I’ve lived under several different healthcare systems around the world as an adult. Coming from my time America, nothing felt more like freedom to me than walking out of a hospital in London, with a new child, and having had no interaction with a billing desk.

On the other hand, aren’t comments like yours about the aesthetic experience of billing exactly the problem? It’s not like you didn’t pay for healthcare in Europe, you just had good vibes about the particular way that you paid. Employer sponsored health insurance plans are popular and also give good vibes.

I never had good vibes with an employer sponsored plan. I had the same employer for eleven years in TX. Every year the insurer changed. Every year there was the paper work and trying to decipher what was included and what the copay might be. There also weren’t good vibes from the providers and the way they’re forced to operate.

Yes I agree, I pay for healthcare as part of my taxes, essentially the same amount as the guy sitting next to me. To be honest it doesn’t feel any different to paying taxes in the US.

Re: The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding'

#352

Post by OkayPhysicist » Mon, Oct 13, 2025, 9:31 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #255

OkayPhysicist wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people do not profit off their labor. 2/3rds of people are living paycheck to paycheck, which means that they are being paid approximately the same amount that their labor costs to produce. That makes their wages an exchange of equal value, and thus not profitable.

> which means that they are being paid approximately the same amount that their labor costs to produce No, "living paycheck to paycheck" means you're spending everything you get each month. There can be all sorts of reasons for that. > That makes their wages an exchange of equal value, and thus not profitable. This is true for all profit. If you lend me money and profit off the interest, we've decided between us that…

If a business makes $50,000 in revenue, and has $50,000 in costs, we don't say that business turned a profit. If a person makes $50,000 in revenue, but has $50,000 in costs, we tax them as if they profited $50,000.

Re: The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding'

#353

Post by jasonlotito » Wed, Oct 15, 2025, 12:02 PM UTC

pastor_williams wrote: post #49

jasonlotito wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Glad you agree it shouldn't be for profit, either.

I have no problem with it being for profit. The issue is the alignment of interests and the thumb on the scales by government and vested interests. If health insurance worked like car insurance I think we'd be in a better state.

> I have no problem with it being for profit.

That's not what your quote says. Quite the opposite.

> The issue is the alignment of interests

Exactly. Which is why I think we should be guided by the constitution and not greed.

Re: The fight between doctors and insurance companies over 'downcoding'

#354

Post by jasonlotito » Wed, Oct 15, 2025, 12:04 PM UTC

philipallstar wrote: post #51

jasonlotito wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Find some doctors, nurses, researchers, manufacturers etc etc who will work for no money and we can remove money from the problem. Not being for profit doesn't mean you don't pay people. Further, I wonder how the Sixth Amendment works then? So many non-profit people working for... no money? This "work for no money argument" is so incredibly weak, I had to make sure I quoted the argument so the person wouldn't chang…

Eventually everyone works for profit if they get paid. Spending time only is pure profit in money.

I like how you ignored the entire point and lied about what I said.