Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger • Hacker News Board

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#91

Post by danielweber » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:32 PM UTC

X86BSD wrote: post #79

njkanjsd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The healthcare system in countries like France, Canada, Germany is much more efficient and provides better healthcare to most of it's citizens than the US healthcare system pre and post obamacare. https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/46508904.pdf http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/...

Yeah I'm not buying this and never have. You're going to need to cite some kind of scientific statistics or stats or studies. When people get sick they come to the US for treatment if they can. You don't see world leaders and those with money going to Canada or Europe for treatment. Not when it's dire. The US is hella expensive for many reasons one is that we have the most bleeding edge medical technology.

> You're going to need to cite some kind of scientific statistics or stats or studies.

There are plenty of studies that support his position.

But there are also lots of studies that oppose his position.

And everyone will listen to the studies that support their prior viewpoint and say that the others are bunk.

You could have a good debate about health care if everyone gave up their priors, was willing to listen to opposing evidence, and was willing to accept their preferred system has real honest-to-God not-said-sarcastically tradeoffs. Let us know when that happens.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#92

Post by Randgalt » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

blocktuw wrote: post #81

Randgalt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The purpose of government is not to require the most efficient option. Government isn't capable of it anyway. Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. For example, in Canada (until recently) people were prohibited from using private health…

I believe your examples of public services being worse than their private counterparts is a specious argument. Most private schools are paid for by rich people. The cost to attend is higher than public school so it would reason that the quality is better. Same for USPS vs FedEx. The shipping rates for USPS are much cheaper. Some people are price sensitive. Cheaper is all they can manage to afford and are willing to a…

Where's your evidence that most private school is paid for by rich people? Anecdotally, the people that I know that use private schools are middle class. Also, if there weren't public schools there would be more varieties of private schools.

"As a healthy person I'd rather take a two percent annual increase in insurance premiums for lower quality of care since I do not have much need for services." -- And I wouldn't. Why do your views trump others who disagree?

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#93

Post by Apocryphon » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

So how can consumers respond to this corporate chicanery? In a capitalist system, the natural recourse is for citizens to turn to the private market for alternatives. Could this provide an incentive for Aetna's competitors to make it easier for Aetna's customers to switch to them?

One would assume that libertarians and free marketeers would cheer the concept of boycotts, as it is one of the mechanisms that citizens are empowered with in a laissez-faire society.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#94

Post by njkanjsd » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

X86BSD wrote: post #79

njkanjsd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The healthcare system in countries like France, Canada, Germany is much more efficient and provides better healthcare to most of it's citizens than the US healthcare system pre and post obamacare. https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/46508904.pdf http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/...

Yeah I'm not buying this and never have. You're going to need to cite some kind of scientific statistics or stats or studies. When people get sick they come to the US for treatment if they can. You don't see world leaders and those with money going to Canada or Europe for treatment. Not when it's dire. The US is hella expensive for many reasons one is that we have the most bleeding edge medical technology.

Here you go: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/...

You can find other articles and studies echoing the same conclusions.

> When people get sick they come to the US for treatment if they can.

No they don't. And many Americans go to other countries for treatment because they can't afford it in the US.

> You don't see world leaders and those with money going to Canada or Europe for treatment.

'Those with money' is a tiny portion of the population, which is why I said 'most citizens' get better healthcare in other countries (developed ones).

> The US is hella expensive for many reasons one is that we have the most bleeding edge medical technology.

Not really, US has some bleeding edge medicine, not the best for every aspect of health, and the bleeding edge stuff is only available to a very tiny portion of the population.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#95

Post by gnaritas » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

Randgalt wrote: post #29

seibelj wrote: post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

The purpose of government is not to require the most efficient option. Government isn't capable of it anyway. Government is force - nothing more. The purpose of government is to protect our rights. "Single payer" (a euphemism for socialized medicine) by definition violates rights by forcing people to do things against their will. For example, in Canada (until recently) people were prohibited from using private health…

The purpose of government is about whatever the governed of the current day decide that purpose is. Your view of government is just that, your opinion, not a fact. Liberals in particular tend to see the purpose of government as providing options for those who don't have any other options because the market fails many people. As such social programs have existed for decades, it's factually self evident that the purpose of government as decided by the majority of the population, far exceeds protecting rights.

> Are public schools better than private schools?

Yes, they are far better than private school, for those who can't afford private schools.

> Is the US postal system better than FedEx?

Yes, it's far better than FedEx for those who live in place FedEx wouldn't and couldn't operate profitably because the postal system's aim isn't efficiency, it's coverage to "everyone" everywhere, something no market solution will offer because that's not a profitable mission.

So it sounds to me like you don't understand the purpose of government and don't understand why government is necessary in such situations, because you can't think outside of your own self and realize that markets don't serve everyone.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#96

Post by sp332 » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

bcohen5055 wrote: post #15

njkanjsd wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The healthcare system in countries like France, Canada, Germany is much more efficient and provides better healthcare to most of it's citizens than the US healthcare system pre and post obamacare. https://www.oecd.org/eco/growth/46508904.pdf http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/press-releases/...

*citations needed

I was going to post this graph https://twitter.com/paulg/status/762920971078627328 but in searching for a source I found the conversation underneath was more interesting. (For reference the source was https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy/ and it's interactive.)

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#97

Post by Randgalt » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:34 PM UTC

dikaiosune wrote: post #59

eridius wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no way that we'd get single payer here because the Republican party has convinced their base that single-payer health care is socialism and that socialism is evil, which leads to the situation where poor people who desperately need health care and can't afford it still oppose single-payer even though they stand to gain the most from it.

Of course, the constituencies which oppose single-payer seem often to be composed of the same people who will vote out anyone who messes with their Social Security, Medicare, or VA benefits.

That's an excellent point. Medicare and SSI are equally bad programs that should be phased out.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#98

Post by danielweber » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:35 PM UTC

eridius wrote: post #34

VonGuard wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no benefit. The benefit is for the legislatures who passed the law. There was no way that we'd get single payer here in the US because our Congress is very much in the pocket of the health care industry. As such, the markets were a compromise measure enacted by congress to make it easier for people to choose health care. Before Obamacare, it was sort of a black box where only HR people could figure out prici…

There's no way that we'd get single payer here because the Republican party has convinced their base that single-payer health care is socialism and that socialism is evil, which leads to the situation where poor people who desperately need health care and can't afford it still oppose single-payer even though they stand to gain the most from it.

The situation is not helped when proponents of single-payer say things like "there will be no denial of claims." I think there are things to support about single-payer, but it really, truly, I swear to fucking God, has trade-offs, and since it has been sold as not having any honest trade-offs, we can't actually implement the hard parts of single-player.

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/17/10784528/bernie-sanders-single-...

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#99

Post by msbarnett » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #24

seibelj wrote: post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

It's hard to tell if there are inefficiencies and waste or if health care is just simply really expensive. Health care is done by the Provinces in Canada, with transfers from the Federal Government to help out. The most recent Alberta budget[0] puts the cost of health care at about $20B. This represents approximately 40% of Alberta government spending. Is that due to waste or inefficiencies? I honestly have no idea.…

> Health care is done by the Provinces in Canada, with transfers from the Federal Government to help out. The most recent Alberta budget[0] puts the cost of health care at about $20B. This represents approximately 40% of Alberta government spending.

Worth considering:

Per http://www.chcf.org/publications/2016/05/health-care-costs-1...

> US health spending reached $3.0 trillion in 2014, or $9,523 per capita, and accounted for 17.5% of gross domestic product (GDP).

The Population of Alberta is around 4,196,457 per a statscan estimate for 2015.

4,196,457 * 9,523 = 39962860011

So we're spending ~20,000,000,000 CAD = ~15.5 Billion USD, versus 39,962,860,011 USD for the same population in the US.

edit: The US number seems to include prescription drug spending. Per http://www.statista.com/statistics/436305/medication-spendin..., it's $867 per person in Alberta, or $3,638,328,219 CAD -- so it's closer to $18.5 Billion USD for health spending in Alberta.

That's a better deal any way you look at it, especially when you bear in mind that Canada has better overall outcomes than the US.

Re: Aetna CEO Threatened Obamacare Pullout If Feds Opposed Humana Merger

#100

Post by rayiner » Wed, Aug 17, 2016, 6:36 PM UTC

seibelj wrote: post #2

Can anyone succinctly explain the benefits of having a market for private health insurance companies, rather than a single provider of health insurance (government, aka "public option")? Can a capitalist case be made for their existence? Does the lack of a large private insurance market in countries with government-provided health insurance cause lots of inefficiencies and waste?

From the point of view of people opposed to single-payer, you're not even asking the right question. It's not about which is more beneficial on the balance. It's about whether the private sector solution is so broken as to overcome the presumption against a government-run solution.