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

What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 132 posts

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#81

Post by FireBeyond »

devereaux wrote: post #56
onychomys wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to be rough on you if you're hit by a car in Chicago and you only have insurance in France. There's a world of difference between emergency endoscopic surgery and a trip to the ED (or ER, or A&E, or whatever your country calls it).

My spouse had a trip to the ER at one of the most expansive hospital in Spain: 700 Eur, so about $900, all inclusive (radiology + seeing 2 doctors + bandages + the various fees they sprinkle the bill with). Top service. No delay. No hassle. They even provide a translator to follow you around in the hospital and make sure you get a great experience and come back again. Considering the medican income in Spain in around…

The other thing to note is that travel insurance is typically "Only for emergency care while traveling". You cannot use it to travel abroad for non-emergent surgery, nor for anything that might require LTC (long term care).

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#82

Post by NicoJuicy »

devereaux wrote: post #77
NicoJuicy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the article, family situation and not profession related. The amount of narcism you seem to have is astonishing. I'm not sure if you are very young or just don't know many people outside IT. I'm happy that my non IT-friends are also able to afford healthcare when it goes wrong. Not everyone does IT and only cares about their own situation. You mention that the wages are a lot more, but here we don't need a schol…

> You need to be a Belgian to get the government to repay you I don't expect to pay the same price as you. I will pay more. If it is still less than the US price, so I will buy from your country. And yes, there are private for-profit insurance in some countries aimed at non nationals.

The entire article is about payable health care and the unpayable US health insurance.

We have a social system for healthcare for Belgians. You are not Belgian.

If you can travel to here and pay the additional cost, you are not a discussed group of people in the article.

Coming to here won't solve the problems for the people that can't afford US health insurance, which is what the article is writing about.

Your argument doesn't make any sense.

You don't grasp the concept of a affordable health insurance, where everyone can afford it, everyone is insured and only a small percentage needs it. Thanks to the government.

Edit: Old comment adjusted, summarized: Mentioned travelling abroad and going to eg. India for everything is delusional. What about family, does your wife come along, what if you need to stay for 9 months therapy, ... Many variables haven't been taken into account.

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#83

Post by benmaraschino »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #7

I've tried to understand the circumstances preventing socialized medicine in america. I understand there are arguments against socialized medicine, but they make no sense to me on their face (eg. the idea that long wait times would occur, when wait times for USA and wait times for other first world countries with socialized medicine isn't very differe. The idea that socialized medicine would cause less medicine resea…

I honestly don’t get it either. Medicare takes care of some of the sickest and most complex patients—the elderly and those with ESRD—and manages to do it with an administrative overhead of 2%, compared to 17% for private insurers, and appears to be more efficient overall as well.[1] That’s a simple fact. Expanding Medicare to cover all Americans would substantially increase access and drive down costs for everyone, simply by adding younger and healthier individuals to the risk pool.

[1]: https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20110920.01339...

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#84

Post by krapp »

nopriorarrests wrote: post #79
tshaddox wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be interesting if Trump suddenly announced support for single payer Medicare for all. Republicans would think it's the best thing ever and Democrats would suddenly be against it... I think you’ve got this wrong. I think that in most cases partisanship and hero worship is a lot stronger than support for specific policies. I think you’d find that people wouldn’t change their stated views on single-payer, the…

Well, if you are a gun nut, your only options are to support Trump or support his opponents who want to restrict guns in a very serious way. Naturally, you still support Trump even after bump stock ban. This is perfectly rational. Nothing partisanship about it, IMO.

Supporting Trump even when he bans bump stocks when one would oppose Democrats doing the same, and believing Democrats will always be worse than Republicans on gun control, is the definition of partisanship.

The actual truth is both parties believe in gun control and both parties believe in the Second Amendment. One side just panders to gun owners and the NRA more than the other.

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#85

Post by henrikschroder »

devereaux wrote: post #71
henrikschroder wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're basically saying "fuck you, I got mine". Yes, medicine is a business, an industry, and obeys the same rules as other businesses. But the goods it produces, "healthcare", are not like other goods. Demand is infinite, supply is scarce, and on a national level it makes sense to make sure it is distributed on a needs basis instead of a can-afford basis, because that leads to a healthier and more productive populat…

> it makes sense to make sure it is distributed on a needs basis "to everyone according to their needs" - that reminds me of some political movement! Joke aside, I just disagree. It is not the "FYGM" you said. It is reasoning about the problem. Some countries have higher costs. Some have lower cost. Specialization of labor is wonderful - everyone gets richer, even if a country has a net advantage in productivity in a…

If the best option for healthcare in a country is for the citizens to leave the country, then that country is a complete failure. Healthcare isn't a luxury, it's a basic necessity for making sure your workforce is competitive, along with education.

And the results of this failure are visible in statistics, in the US the average life expectancy is dropping, unlike in other first-world countries. That's bad for the US economy as a whole, which in turn is bad for you as an individual, which is why you should care.

Also, healthcare is not just large interventions and procedures where travel cost can be offset by the ridiculous treatment costs in the US compared to another country, but the most important part of a healthcare system is the regular checkups and just having access to someone to look at you and talk to you, and make sure you can prevent larger problems in the future. Medical tourism can't supply that.

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#86

Post by bitrrrate »

SolaceQuantum wrote: post #17
jmalicki wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by socialized medicine? If you mean government required and subsidized, like the systems of France and Germany, which have great healthcare systems, that sounds wonderful . If you mean single-payer healthcare, like Canada and the UK, screw that disaster.

What makes single-payer healthcare, like Canada and the UK, a disaster? I'm from Canada and currently live in the US. I don't have many complaints about the canadian healthcare system. I got a suprise bill yesterday in the US healthcare system for routine bloodwork.

I'll second that. Due to a couple of significant illnesses growing up my family would have been bankrupted two times over if we lived in the US. Also, when one of my parents passed after a couples months of hospitalization, emergency room visits and an ambulance ride, they didn't owe a single loonie (Canadian dollar coin) for the care.

If it was the US, my bereaved parent would not only owe thousands but they would have to be on guard to verify the accuracy of each bill, negotiate with the provider and then setup a payment plan stretching into infinity.

The US healthcare system is another area where capitalism and the 'free market' is failing the consumer.

Frankly, when I hear see someone stridently decrying socialized medicine or single-payer healthcare I wonder if their tune would change after their first medically induced bankruptcy or not being able to afford medication that would keep them alive.

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#87

Post by jmalicki »

baddox wrote: post #22
jmalicki wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by socialized medicine? If you mean government required and subsidized, like the systems of France and Germany, which have great healthcare systems, that sounds wonderful . If you mean single-payer healthcare, like Canada and the UK, screw that disaster.

Disaster compared to what? The insane number of medical bankruptcies in the United States?

Compared to dying because treatment a private health insurer pays for would simply be denied, as other payers are prohibited.

Why would you want to make medicare supplemental coverage illegal, or forced to be completely separate, which is a characteristic of single-payer health care (as opposed to multiple payer universal health care coverage)?

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#88

Post by devereaux »

NicoJuicy wrote: post #82
devereaux wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You need to be a Belgian to get the government to repay you I don't expect to pay the same price as you. I will pay more. If it is still less than the US price, so I will buy from your country. And yes, there are private for-profit insurance in some countries aimed at non nationals.

The entire article is about payable health care and the unpayable US health insurance. We have a social system for healthcare for Belgians. You are not Belgian. If you can travel to here and pay the additional cost, you are not a discussed group of people in the article. Coming to here won't solve the problems for the people that can't afford US health insurance, which is what the article is writing about. Your argum…

> How will you find a good hospital and the best doctor, if your don't speak Indian

In India, people speak English. It is one of the national languages (!!) And in the US, we have credit cards. This is money available immediately.

You are refusing to understand, your tone is inflammatory, and you are making personal claims and attack about me.

I'm done talking with you.

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#89

Post by Digory »

hathawsh wrote: post #18
SolaceQuantum wrote: post #7

I've tried to understand the circumstances preventing socialized medicine in america. I understand there are arguments against socialized medicine, but they make no sense to me on their face (eg. the idea that long wait times would occur, when wait times for USA and wait times for other first world countries with socialized medicine isn't very differe. The idea that socialized medicine would cause less medicine resea…

I think people are holding on to the hope that competition in the marketplace will control prices and bring them back to reasonable levels. I know I held on to that hope for a long time, but it's becoming clear that mere competition among insurance providers isn't a strong enough force. Medical prices are so high now that I think people are ready to consider drastic change.

People firmly believe competition will control prices.

But people also firmly believe they don't want price discrimination once they're on fixed incomes, and want government to take whatever steps are necessary to pay for that.

Healthcare costs for old people is most of the game, and those are regulated. No one is willing to challenge that.

Thus, we have a market that remains too regulated for presently-allowable-competition to make a difference.

Re: What We Learned from a Year of Americans ‘Risking It’ Without Insurance

#90

Post by nopriorarrests »

krapp wrote: post #84
nopriorarrests wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you are a gun nut, your only options are to support Trump or support his opponents who want to restrict guns in a very serious way. Naturally, you still support Trump even after bump stock ban. This is perfectly rational. Nothing partisanship about it, IMO.

Supporting Trump even when he bans bump stocks when one would oppose Democrats doing the same, and believing Democrats will always be worse than Republicans on gun control, is the definition of partisanship. The actual truth is both parties believe in gun control and both parties believe in the Second Amendment. One side just panders to gun owners and the NRA more than the other.

What are their options? Form a third party?

And, tbh, democrats do not hold NRA in high regard, so thinking that they always be worse on gun control sounds like a reasonable assumption to me.

I mean, I get your point, but guns does not illustrate it well.

Post reply on HN