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

Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 206 posts

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#81

Post by specialist »

prostoalex wrote: post #2

> One is that administrative costs average only about 2 percent of total expenses under a single-payer program like Medicare, less than one-sixth the corresponding percentage for many private insurers. That story needs to come with a caveat that Medicare's anti-fraud efforts are covered by law enforcement budgets, namely FBI https://news.google.com/news/search/section/q/medicare%20fra...

Switching to a single payer would reduce fraud. Because simplified rules are easier to adult. A cynic might even say the USA's healthcare system is purpose built to maxmize fraud.

https://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Fraud-Auditing-Detection-G...

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#82

Post by ravitation »

buckbova wrote: post #38
ravitation wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But not everyone dies a needless death, which was his point. It is not irrational to point out the cost of ongoing debate.

> In the meantime, Americans will die needless deaths from not receiving basic healthcare No, it's the typical appeal to emotion nonsense that got the ACA passed to begin with. Now that's going to fail before it's even completely applied.

Making an emotional appeal is not inherently nonsense, so you will have to provide a little more of an argument as to why it's not a valid point to make.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#83

Post by peterhadlaw »

dv_dt wrote: post #25
peterhadlaw wrote: post #12

The word "negotiation" is a euphemism here: > The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. If there are no other options for clients, it's essentially the government telling doctors how much their services are worth.

It's not just doctors, its drug and health insurance companies, etc... but really? Is the argument is that we as a nation should pay double what other modern nations pay so doctors can be well paid? Edit: Here's a deal, lets pay for doctor's educations, implement universal healthcare and call it even.

You're still telling people what their time and efforts are worth rather than if there were no artificial restrictions.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#84

Post by krupan »

galeaspablo wrote: post #57
shortstuffsushi wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This simplification seems disingenuous. Would switching to single payer solve your last sentence / quote from the article? Aka, would putting the US government in the middle make things simpler and more efficient (and cheaper) for the end user (health care patients)? I can't say I'm convinced. Compare with the current system, where any given user is still effectively dealing with a single payer -- their insurance pro…

I want proof. I only see numbers. Everything else is conjecture. Transparency in healthcare + Single payer (by the government) = Efficiency (see sources and explanation in my original comment) So yes, putting the US government in the middle is what I'm suggesting. Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?

"Or is the US government not a leading force in fighting corruption anymore?"

Um...

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#85

Post by luxuryballs »

leepowers wrote: post #15

> It thus makes no sense to reject single-payer on the grounds that it would require higher tax revenues. That’s true, of course, but it’s an irrelevant objection. > The most important source of cost savings under single-payer is that large government entities are able to negotiate much more favorable terms with service providers. I agree these objections are not relevant for the overall system. But certain individua…

Yeah, and we ban people from public roads for bad behavior. Will we ban people from public healthcare for bad health choices? Do we really want to give the government that kind of exclusive control over a service while giving up control of our bodies?

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#86

Post by rayiner »

flavor8 wrote: post #53
cortesoft wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with a 'each state do their own thing' solution is the very problem with health care in this country in general - the freeloader problem. If California implements a single payer system, it would make people in other states more likely to choose not to get healthcare; if they get sick, they can just move to California. This is the reason the ACA has the 'individual mandate' to go along with preventing the…

I'm not convinced this is insurmountable. How do countries with single payer handle this? Surely you could require an newly established resident who wants treatment to pay a portion since they hadn't been funding it directly via taxes, and then add a further penalty if they move back out of state within a certain period of time (to discourage moving in-state just for treatment).

It would be unconstitutional for a U.S. state to treat newly-established residents differently than long-established ones with regard to a welfare benefit: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supco....

Countries like Germany don't have this problem because they have the power to control their borders. Accessing Germany's healthcare system requires being a German resident. That, in general, requires applying for immigration, which the government may or may not grant. EU citizens can, of course, become German residents without applying for immigration, but every EU state has universal healthcare so there is no incentive to free-ride.

And there's a push within Germany and other countries to limit access to welfare benefits for new residents, even ones from other EU countries: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/12/german-governm.... U.S. states don't have the power to do that.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#87

Post by cortesoft »

luxuryballs wrote: post #77
cortesoft wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anytime one person saves money, it is also costing someone else money (the person or people that money was going to). Saving money on healthcare will cost money for people who are currently making money from the excessive costs of healthcare. This is not a secret, and not really a conspiracy; the groups that make money from the current system are always the ones opposed to change. It just sucks because there aren't n…

But the 'rest of us' can only gain for as long as those people stick around to pay for it. There is a lot of wealth in this country, for now. If you wanna really see things go down hill then watch the wealth scramble out of the country as soon as we tell them they're going to have to fund the healthcare of everyone else.

I was talking about people making money off of the health care industry, not wealthy people in general. We aren't asking them to fund the healthcare of everyone else, just not make profit off of waste.

Also, scramble out of the country.... where? There are very few places they can 'run off to' that don't already have a single payer health care system. People don't seem to be 'fleeing' those countries.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#88

Post by galeaspablo »

bradleyjg wrote: post #71
galeaspablo wrote: post #20

How do we compare apples to apples (between countries)? Compare health expenditure per capita (public and private) with multiple health indexes. I.e. get the bang for buck . In the list of nations with the best bang for buck healthcare programs, you will notice that top 20 healthcare programs are mostly single payer. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/paper30.pdf But there are single payer healthcare systems with bad heal…

"And now to quote the original article... 'It is a bedrock economic principle that if we can find a way to do something more efficiently, it’s possible for everyone to come out ahead.'" That's a really important "possible" though. It is a near certainty that if were to transition to single payer healthcare we would not do the transfers to hold everyone profiting from the current system harmless (e.g. health insurance…

That's a matter of policy.

You can set a cap of how much tax someone pays for healthcare, such that rich people don't get screwed.

The question here is what's more efficient... And the numbers are there. Single payer + Healthcare transparency = Efficiency.

(see sources and explanation in original comment)

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#89

Post by dsfyu404ed »

verelo wrote: post #21
nostromo wrote: post #9

I imagine both single-payer and a truly free market health care system would be substantially cheaper than the current system -- which has none of the benefits of either approach. With the federal government unable to act, turning healthcare back to the states to test a number of different solutions seems entirely reasonable. Let California try single-payer and Texas try something different -- after a few years see i…

Which would mark the second time in 241 years those states agreed upon something... In all seriousness, state run healthcare is a great idea, but the government is just such a big stakeholder in having a healthy population that I do not see a good reason for it [at some level] to stay out of that line of business. Single payer works, so much better than the current setup...why not start there and try iterate?

That would all be fine and dandy if it weren't for that pesky 200yr old document that explicitly denies the federal government the right to micromanage except in very specific circumstances.

Re: Why Single-Payer Health Care Saves Money

#90

Post by luxuryballs »

cortesoft wrote: post #87
luxuryballs wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the 'rest of us' can only gain for as long as those people stick around to pay for it. There is a lot of wealth in this country, for now. If you wanna really see things go down hill then watch the wealth scramble out of the country as soon as we tell them they're going to have to fund the healthcare of everyone else.

I was talking about people making money off of the health care industry, not wealthy people in general. We aren't asking them to fund the healthcare of everyone else, just not make profit off of waste. Also, scramble out of the country.... where? There are very few places they can 'run off to' that don't already have a single payer health care system. People don't seem to be 'fleeing' those countries.

Those countries have way less population who can't contribute. The US is huge, there's so many more people who need healthcare but don't pay any taxes.
Post reply on HN