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

'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

ft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 269 posts

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#81

Post by fzeroracer »

loeg wrote: post #38
geerlingguy wrote: post #5

I was paying around $1200/month last year (a little under that with subsidy). This year I'm paying $2100/month for a family of five, on a roughly equivalent plan. Except, none of the options in my state allow me to visit the PCP I switched to this year (since none of the plans last year covered my PCP from the year before). So I guess I'm on a primary care physician merry go round :D I am at least able to have my mai…

> But I can't imagine what people have to sacrifice to keep any kind of coverage (with high deductible and horrible coinsurance and prescription drug coverage) for their families if they don't have a decent income :( These increases are specifically a lapse in subsidies for high earners -- those with a "decent income." People under 400% of Federal Poverty Level still qualify for the subsidies. And it's a relatively r…

This is not specifically just a lapse in subsidies for high earners, this is for everyone which is telling how little people actually understand what will happen when the subsidies expire.

The enhanced subsidizes made it so people earning more than 400% FPL were also eligible for subsidies, but also more importantly increased the cap on how much income insurance could cost. In reality, most people would see their insurance costs double if the subsidys expired [1].

[1] https://www.kff.org/affordable-care-act/aca-marketplace-prem...

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#82

Post by dboreham »

choeger wrote: post #47

Where does all that money go to, though? Is there a rich caste of doctors or pharmaceutical shareholders that don't need to work and live off these dividends? Or is the system so inefficient that most people in it aren't contributing to actual health care?

Both. Also there's a culture of infinite consumption of medical services.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#83

Post by nradov »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #52

Private equity should be banned from healthcare. What could go wrong putting a bunch of finance bros at the wheel of a "Pay this amount or suffer/die" industry?

PE is a convenient whipping boy but it's not the main problem. There has been so much consolidation of health systems and other provider organizations in some regions that they now effectively have monopolies, allowing them to jack up prices. The effect is largely the same whether the owner is a PE firm or a non-profit foundation. In order to counteract that we would need much more vigorous antitrust enforcement, which doesn't seem politically likely.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#84

Post by tehwebguy »

cubefox wrote: post #54

It should be mentioned that the US has very high wages, and even when subtracting substantial health care insurance cost, the income likely remains higher than what people earn in most other countries.

If you have a high paying job in the US it usually comes with legitimate health insurance paid for by your employer, meaning most of the cost of most healthcare is covered.

If you don’t you pay a lot. Before ACA non-group plans generally didn’t cover any health conditions that predated your coverage.

ACA was just good enough to cool down demands for a true public health plan while also being just shitty enough to turn everyone else off to ever wanting one. Essentially the perfect way to prevent a public option for generations.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#85

Post by ChrisMarshallNY »

nradov wrote: post #34
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the previous administration thought everyone should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. Moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper No, but it means I can't pay for a first-class ticket while someone else survives. I'll take that deal.

I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g... I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someon…

I’m one of those retirees. It’s OK. I was prepared for this, and can afford it, but a hell of a lot of others on a fixed income, are totally screwed.

> Give the money to someone who actually needs it.

Like billionaires. They are the ones that really need it, and they get it; every time. Those yachts don’t pay for themselves.

If anyone thinks poors will be getting any help, they are fooling themselves. Helping poor people is quite unpopular, in the US (where they conveniently forget that most of them are born in the US white, but politicians make it seem as if they are all dark-skinned immigrants). Many of the hardest-hit states will be ones that enthusiastically voted for this.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#86

Post by jdlshore »

dogemaster2028 wrote: post #50
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the previous administration thought everyone should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. Moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper No, but it means I can't pay for a first-class ticket while someone else survives. I'll take that deal.

Why is buying first class tickets bad?

GP is saying that they’re okay giving up buying first-class tickets if it means someone else gets to live. (Because they pay more for health insurance, which allows someone else to pay less.)

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#87

Post by dboreham »

dashundchen wrote: post #36
buckle8017 wrote: post #8

[flagged]

What did the ACA require that shouldn't be part of healthcare in one the wealthiest countries in the world? Annual check ups? Cancer screenings? Maternity care? Basic mental health? Forcing the insurance companies to accept patients with preexisting conditions? These services should be available to everyone. If a developed country cannot provide these things to its citizens it's a failing state in my book.

"ACA required stuff" is a fox news talking point.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#88

Post by dboreham »

dogemaster2028 wrote: post #30
tired-turtle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s how insurance works. You pay for a plan you likely don’t need so everyone older than you is reasonably covered. If young people elected to get a barebones plan while in good health, who would subsidize them when they grow older?

[flagged]

You're forced to buy auto insurance.

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#89

Post by [deleted] »

zdragnar wrote: post #48
Avicebron wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Excuse me, but how in the world were you able to afford 1200/month, you know that's like cheap rent right?

If you're getting health insurance through your employer, that's a pretty standard price (counting both your contribution and your employer's together). I'm probably going to be self employed for 2026 and a cheap-ish (not the cheapest, but probably below the average) plan for my family is going to be a little under $1500 / month. It's pre-tax money, which helps a wee bit, but it is definitely expensive. If I made les…

[deleted]

Re: 'A full-blown crisis': Americans brace for a surge in healthcare costs

#90

Post by BrenBarn »

nradov wrote: post #34
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the previous administration thought everyone should be "temporarily" paying for her plan. Moving money from person A to person B obviously doesn't make anything cheaper No, but it means I can't pay for a first-class ticket while someone else survives. I'll take that deal.

I support subsidies to help low-income citizens who legitimately can't afford health insurance, but some of the temporary ACA subsidies passed in 2021 were ridiculous. They were handing out cash to early retirees as young as age 55 with incomes over 400% of the poverty line. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/10/17/aca-enhanced-subsidy-lapse-g... I don't want my tax dollars wasted on subsidizing them. Give the money to someon…

If we start to think about who "actually needs" things, we need to question whether any of the very wealthy "actually need" their wealth. I would be fine with seizing all of anyone's income (including unrealized capital gains) in excess of, say, $20 million just to give everyone else some cute stickers and lollipops. The giant flow of wealth to those at the top is a far greater misallocation than any amount towards the healthcare of anyone not at the top.
Post reply on HN