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

361–370 of 431 posts

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#361

Post by giraffe_lady »

greenavocado wrote: post #335
cal_dent wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow. this thread is microcosm of how wild and polarised the internet can be.

It's pure facts. I used to live in a city where me and my wife were terrorized by homeless people on the light rail. Now we live far away from public transportation and no longer have to worry about the safety of ourselves or our children and our neighbors are fantastic people. Car dependency and castle doctrine is essential in a low trust society with a legal system that puts violent offenders right back on the stre…

Moving in a private vehicle is statistically the most dangerous activity an otherwise healthy young person routinely participates in. Your family is almost certainly at higher risk of death and serious injury now because you based this decision on your perception of safety rather than evaluating the reality of it. Speaking of "pure facts."

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#362

Post by kasey_junk »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #325
tptacek wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have non-ACA insurance? One explanation for why your costs are so much higher than the national average is that you're on a non-complying plan (you can also still buy plans that will exclude preexisting conditions --- they just can't be sold on the ACA marketplace). I'm pretty confident KFF isn't making these numbers up. As for your second question, one easy response is that prospective parents in other health…

While I might not have been happier income-wise when I was on Medicaid vs now, I was much happier with my medicaid insurance than I have ever been with any private insurance. I could see basically any provider and didn’t have to deal with any of the typical insurance bullshit. Also when you’re beyond the Medicaid threshold but not that much beyond it absolutely sucks. One year I was paying for dramatically worse insu…

I too am nearly universally irritated with my health insurance (due to reasons I’ve had 4 employer sponsored plans in the last year).

But I recognize I’m in the minority. And it’s not close. Most people with private health insurance like it.

tps://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/kff-survey-of-consumer-experiences-with-health-insurance/

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#363

Post by ceejayoz »

kasey_junk wrote: post #362
hellotomyrars wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I might not have been happier income-wise when I was on Medicaid vs now, I was much happier with my medicaid insurance than I have ever been with any private insurance. I could see basically any provider and didn’t have to deal with any of the typical insurance bullshit. Also when you’re beyond the Medicaid threshold but not that much beyond it absolutely sucks. One year I was paying for dramatically worse insu…

I too am nearly universally irritated with my health insurance (due to reasons I’ve had 4 employer sponsored plans in the last year). But I recognize I’m in the minority. And it’s not close. Most people with private health insurance like it. tps://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/kff-survey-of-consumer-experiences-with-health-insurance/

> Most people with private health insurance like it.

Most people don't use it all that much, and in the common case of employer-paid premiums, the actual cost is significantly masked. As your link notes, the more care you need, the less likely you are to enjoy the experience. They dig their heels in more; sometimes egregiously so. https://www.propublica.org/article/unitedhealth-healthcare-i...

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#364

Post by ceejayoz »

BeetleB wrote: post #192
wampwampwhat wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i'm 36, self-employed. silver plans in my state are ~800/month next year, with 8k deductible, no out of network coverage at all, with no in-network providers out of my state, so god forbid I get injured while traveling to visit my in-laws. the marketplace is a joke and health insurance in this country is pointless.

> no out of network coverage at all I thought they'll all cover ER visits out of network. Is that not required by law?

As usual, they find ways to limit that.

https://www.emergencyphysicians.org/press-releases/2017/10-1...

> In a controversial decision, health insurance giant Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield is warning policy holders—in Georgia, Kentucky and Missouri—that they may have to pay for their trips to the ER. The company has developed a secret list of diagnoses that they will not pay for, such as "chest pain on breathing" and blood in the urine, even if the patient thought it was a medical emergency.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#365

Post by BeetleB »

machomaster wrote: post #342
BeetleB wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is akin to him saying that average American needs X money for the car to participate in society, and you suggest that his numbers don't math because one could: 1. Walk around everywhere (Idaho, Iowa) 2. move to New York (with ok public transportation) Mobile phone and unlimited high-speed internet are requirements for participation in society.

Not at all. Most people don't use 5 GB in data each month. Most people do drive.

> Mobile phone and unlimited high-speed internet are requirements for participation in society.

Sadly, I have to agree with you about mobile phones, due to 2FA. But unlimited high speed just for when you don't have Wifi a requirement? Nonsense.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#366

Post by xphos »

GeoAtreides wrote: post #358

[flagged]

You need downvotes for this kind of behavior haha. Maybe I need to be more important for that feature :)

The parent thread is right though medicare for all would definitely be cheaper. Larger pool to spread the risk. But more importantly we make every N healthcare provider work with M insurence. NxM complexitiy is scaling the cost of healthcare. There are simplifications but the the M insurence providers are the producer of all complexity not the N healthcare providers so basically all that bueracractic overhead also kill costs. Arguablly that wasted bueracracy equals quite a few healthcare insurence employees which I think politically complicates M4A in a stupid way.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#367

Post by [deleted] »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #163
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…

> 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 near justifying the premiums). Self-employed here. My wife and I paid $470/month last year, $618/month next year, for a gold insurance plan than has a $3400 deductible with typically a $20 co-pay. It covers 3 prescriptions, therapy sessions for each of us, various older ag…

[deleted]

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#368

Post by eddd-ddde »

refurb wrote: post #240
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 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).

You forgot option 3. Private companies stop profiteering from healthcare.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#369

Post by ArtDev »

Look up how much hospital administrators make and then calculate the massive grifting from every contractor/subcontractor and pharmaceutical company and you will get an idea of the scope of the problem.

It will require nothing short of a full revolution and violence is never ideal.

I think the solution is to create a new parallel medical system, that can slowly replace the old system. Start with medical schools that train Doctors and Nurses that are affordable/free but also require working at this new parallel medical system. They would earn less but would avoid massive loans and have less bureaucracy.

When for-profit hospitals go under, which happens all the time, they can be folded into this new system.

Re: The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence

#370

Post by aleksejs »

hellotomyrars wrote: post #323
tptacek wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently insured Americans would likely be worse off under any plausible M4A plan.

Based on what? Why even leave this comment if you’re just going to say “would likely be worse off” without giving literally any evidence or even suggestion of why. Insurance is a pool. The bigger your pool the more you spread the risk/load. It’s brain dead simple. Medical care is a human right, beyond that. Nothing about our system makes any sense and it is built to pad so many pockets in entirely opaque ways between…

> God forbid you have an accident and you end up at the wrong hospital when the one down the road is in-network but the one they took you to is out-of-network and you wake up owing thousands of dollars.

If you examine the statement of benefits for your plan, you will find that it says something similar to this:

> Emergency Services are covered at the in-network cost-sharing level as required by applicable state or federal law if services are received from a non participating (out-of-network) provider.

> The member is responsible for applicable in-network cost-sharing amounts (any deductible, copay or coinsurance). The member is not responsible for any charges that may be made in excess of the allowable amount.

Post reply on HN