491–500 of 690 posts
Really opens my eyes to all the other politics posting accounts that have a similarly constructed profile description .. But of course, they'll never be banned and instead they get front page of HN and hundreds of upvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are extremely close to arriving at the solution, which is medicare for all. Cover everyone, then almost noone uses the insurance except when they need it, which is when they get old. If the US had the equivalence of Canadian health insurance, the spending reduction would be so big, that as a working person, your health insurance bill would go to zero, out of pocket costs to zero, and everyone would have health in…
> You are extremely close to arriving at the solution, which is medicare for all. Cover everyone, then almost noone uses the insurance except when they need it, which is when they get old. I strongly think that covering everyone in the existing system is not the best way to go. The existing system is designed to cost as much as possible, and we have way too much demand for treatment (as is) and not enough supply. ER…
We're going to need to make more doctors. To do that we'll need to identify kids in high school that would be good candidates and offer full-ride scholarships where needed. And we need to improve science education at the high school level to help with all of this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are extremely close to arriving at the solution, which is medicare for all. Cover everyone, then almost noone uses the insurance except when they need it, which is when they get old. If the US had the equivalence of Canadian health insurance, the spending reduction would be so big, that as a working person, your health insurance bill would go to zero, out of pocket costs to zero, and everyone would have health in…
> You are extremely close to arriving at the solution, which is medicare for all. Cover everyone, then almost noone uses the insurance except when they need it, which is when they get old. I strongly think that covering everyone in the existing system is not the best way to go. The existing system is designed to cost as much as possible, and we have way too much demand for treatment (as is) and not enough supply. ER…
ER wait times are long because ERs are the only place in the country where we effectively have medicare for all, albeit in a particularly perverse and dysfunctional form. Everyone gets treated at the ER even if they're broke & uninsured as long as they're willing to wait long enough. Now imagine if those folks could go to any primary care doc or even use One Medical, CVS walk-in clinic etc. That would go a long way toward fixing our overloaded ERs. We've legislated quazi-medicare for all but only in the most inappropriate part of the system.
Am I completely tripping out or does rexroad's profile use a template where they were supposed to fill in a blank but forgot? "Former [your background if relevant]". Really opens my eyes to all the other politics posting accounts that have a similarly constructed profile description .. But of course, they'll never be banned and instead they get front page of HN and hundreds of upvotes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You are extremely close to arriving at the solution, which is medicare for all. Cover everyone, then almost noone uses the insurance except when they need it, which is when they get old. I strongly think that covering everyone in the existing system is not the best way to go. The existing system is designed to cost as much as possible, and we have way too much demand for treatment (as is) and not enough supply. ER…
Who would you choose not to cover? The sick? I hate to break it to you but insurance is meant to be a tax on the entire risk pool. What changed after the ACA is we couldn’t kick anyone out of the risk pool for getting sick.
You didn't read the post.
The sick are mostly the old (if you're looking at total spending), and they are already covered by Medicare.
The sick young are a minority, and are often times covered by Medicaid.
If the state covers the tail end and assuming they aren't covered already by Medicaid, there just isn't that much spending remaining.
They can get private insurance to cover the under $10k per year - but there's not really a product that covers that effectively - so unless a new insurance evolves, it still wouldn't make much sense.
The sick, young, non-medicaid tail is VERY small compared to the rest of the tail the state already covers. Just add it in. A 1% global tariff could easily cover it. You've still got 9-14% left to spend on more bombs, tax breaks for the rich, paying people to get underwater basket weaving degrees, whatever.
The problems are so vast it is difficult to even describe to outsiders. For example, if I purchase a particular medication at a local pharmacy, it costs $25. However, my insurer mandates that I purchase it via their Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBM) Optum, which charges $125. Easy enough right, you price shop? Well then it doesnt count towards your deductible. The whole thing is an elaborate trap to not pay. Sometimes…
Health care is so broken that I think it will unbreak itself. You can eliminate most of the problem by mandating true cost billing by hospitals (get rid of their insurance mandated 500%+ markups to make it look like your insurance does anything at all besides make your care as costly as possible). As you said, it's oftentimes cheaper to buy drugs without insurance. The average person would quickly find out that insur…
Insurance is the natural solution to this, but to be effective it requires most people to not need it while still paying into it. This is what Obamacare tried to fix by mandating insurance, but healthy/young people got sticker shock and bailed.
Healthcare is the one industry we need AI or automation to take over large parts, and a hostile Uber style industry take-over. Make treatment stupidly cheap with innovations, watch the corrupt racket unfold.