Live data from Hacker News

Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

metarationality.com

91–100 of 189 posts

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#91
post #43

Great article but the author is missing the fact that this is all designed on purpose. The insurance system is designed around a consistent strategy called “don’t pay out”. The USA spends more GDP on healthcare than any country on earth and the insurance companies are immensely profitable. Every company involved is making money off the status quo and wants to maintain the current system. when a patient comes along wh…

It was somewhat surprising to see the author come up with "we need standardized interfaces between actors" rather than "we solve this with public healthcare for everyone".

But to be fair, you can easily get lost in bureaucracy in public healthcare too, and private health insurance exists in countries with public health too.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#92

American healthcare is an easy target, plenty to criticize. There are complicating factors here: We culturally, societally, and philosophically don’t really know how to make decisions about end-of-life care, and death in general. We also lack an agreed upon moral framework for how to care for people with diminished cognitive capacity (the extreme being permanent vegetative state).

A lot of money is spend on end-of-life care, trying to keep someone alive on their deathbed for an extra month or two, and people don't seem to want to talk about the diminishing returns of some of that care, and the opportunity costs - the other people that could have been helped more with those resources. It's a thing, even if ignored. We're paying big premiums for that to insurance companies as part of our wages a…

But your taxes are too low. For example the Netherlands does have a good system. But a 50k car costs 120k in the Netherlands. From your 80k salary 35k goes to the state as taxes. On most products you buy 21% is tax. If someone dies his money is 50% tax. Give 100k as a present. 30k is tax. And so on.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Looks like they used both "he" and "they". My guess was that the boyfriend might use either set of pronouns.

it's pretty scary that comments that question such things get nuked before chance at a legitimate discussion even on fairly rational discourse sites like hn

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why with single payer would there not still be instances of treatment being denied? >rather than deal with faceless automata at health insurance companies Would this not be replaced with faceless automata in government? Just look at how the VA is run and complains about it. Looking at that I have exactly zero confidence in the government being able to run things better than the shit show at the insurance companies. B…

The government is mostly just there to manage contracts, the actual work would be done by the same doctors that are doing it today. You would just pare n profit-seeking entities down to one principally administrative entity. If you wish to pay for your own medical procedures out of pocket there will be nothing stopping you. That is not to say this does not have problems. Insurance is anti-competitive on top of that.…

> You would just pare n profit-seeking entities down to one principally administrative entity. If you wish to pay for your own medical procedures out of pocket there will be nothing stopping you.

Nothing except that it creates a monopoly and a monoculture.

There are many procedures you may not be able to afford out of pocket, so the only way to get them is to choose a provider that covers it. If there is only one provider and they don't cover it, you no longer have that option.

And because nobody else does either, that medical procedure stops being offered because there aren't enough patients to justify it if they all have to pay out of pocket and most can't afford it, even if you were one of the few willing to scrape together the money. Which might not have happened if some insurers had covered it, even if many didn't.

> You have a Sophie’s choice of who you want to pay to buy into this crazy system. There’s no transparency in how services are priced or provided. You as a consumer have no insight into how prices are negotiated between the insurer and providers, nor how providers are paid out.

The existing system is a dumpster fire to be sure. So why not fix it?

Eliminate even the concept of negotiating prices, as if medical pricing is something to be haggled over at a bazaar in Calcutta. Require every provider to publish their price, and then that's their price, and anyone can compare providers.

Which gets rid of the concept of "in network" and all of that nonsense. The insurance pays e.g. 90% of the median price of that procedure within 100 miles of your home, the equivalent of a 10% copay. Then you can choose any provider you want, anywhere you want, and pay their published price. The difference comes out of your own pocket, so you have the incentive to be price sensitive -- but if you want to pay a little more to save yourself an hour drive, you can do that too. And if you pick one that charges less than 90% of the median price you can put the rest in your HSA.

The thing about regulations is that the most important thing they can do is to ensure that markets are competitive. The existing healthcare regulations in the US not only don't do that, they do the opposite. But they don't have to.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#95
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just look at how the VA is run and complains about it. The VA system has on average delivers better outcomes than private insurance: https://www.rand.org/news/press/2018/04/26.html It's the usual "review effect", you only see negatives about the VA, not positives.

>when compared to commercial HMOs, Medicaid HMOs and Medicare HMOs. That's not all private insurance, just some of it. That's also talking about the average. >although there is high variation in quality across individual VA facilities ... >It's the usual "review effect", you only see negatives about the VA, not positives. You're saying in rebuttal to a negative review of private insurance, which isn't even what's at…

> That's also talking about the average.

It's worse than that. The VA can't be compared to the average insurer because all of their patients are people who could at some point in their adult life satisfy the military's physical fitness requirements, which is not the case for the population at large.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#96
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>when compared to commercial HMOs, Medicaid HMOs and Medicare HMOs. That's not all private insurance, just some of it. That's also talking about the average. >although there is high variation in quality across individual VA facilities ... >It's the usual "review effect", you only see negatives about the VA, not positives. You're saying in rebuttal to a negative review of private insurance, which isn't even what's at…

> That's not all private insurance, just some of it. There are other studies with similar results. Comparisons with HMOs is especially illuminating because of the similar models (vertically-integrated organizations). > Difficulties getting things covered and being buried in beurocratic nonsense isn't really connected to "health outcomes on average". Of fucking course it is! WTF you're even talking about? People absol…

> People absolutely get inferior care because they can't wade through bureaucracy.

But those people don't get counted in the statistics because they failed to navigate the system so the bureaucracy doesn't even know they exist.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#97

“Standardizing an interface between health care providers and insurance companies would be a huge win. No matter how badly designed, it would be better than the current mess, and save several percent of US GDP.” A new regulation was actually proposed by the federal government a year ago to do that: https://www.cms.gov/priorities/key-initiatives/burden-reduct... There’s also a new program to reduce fragmentation for d…

None of those issues address the elephant in the room. If you dismantle the incumbent system and introduce efficiencies that bring US health care spending in line with other developed countries, millions of health insurance workers would be out of their [parasitic] jobs. Which is politically untenable. The underlying issue is incentive incompatibility. The health insurance industry is a behemoth 10x the size of the a…

Not the TLC, but I agree with you. The biggest costs in healthcare are not insurance company or hospital dividends, or even pharmaceuticals. The biggest costs are the wages paid to doctors, nurses, and administrators. The sad part is that very little efforts seems to be directed to improving the patient experience, such as might be accomplished by introducing patient advocates or guides.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#98
post #43

Great article but the author is missing the fact that this is all designed on purpose. The insurance system is designed around a consistent strategy called “don’t pay out”. The USA spends more GDP on healthcare than any country on earth and the insurance companies are immensely profitable. Every company involved is making money off the status quo and wants to maintain the current system. when a patient comes along wh…

> The USA spends more GDP on healthcare than any country on earth and the insurance companies are immensely profitable.

Even Buffet commented that he should have just invested in healthcare earlier on and he would make even more money

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#99
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>They are controlled by politicians, who are directly responsible to their electorate. Brexit is a good example, using money sent to EU for NHS was one of the more influential ads. Of course, the outcome turned out to be... different. Calling out Brexit is an... interesting way to argue here. If you're proposing my options for heath care are going to be taken away and given to the single option controlled by the elec…

> Calling out Brexit is an... interesting way to argue here. Why? It's an example of directly affecting healthcare via political pressure. > If you're proposing my options for heath care are going to be taken away and given to the single option controlled by the electorate who are liable to do things like Brexit... no thank you That's the thing, it can also be fixed by the electorate. > I'll take marketplace competit…

> That's the thing, it can also be fixed by the electorate.

In theory it can but in practice it usually isn't, especially for things like this. It's all too easy for some bureaucratic rule to be killing people who have e.g. a particular type of cancer, which makes that 0.5% of people care about it very much, but it takes 51% of people caring about it to change the law.

Meanwhile some other rules are each killing some other 0.5% of people and when you add them all up it's a large-scale disaster but it's also many independent problems. The details matter but the electorate doesn't have the bandwidth to even understand, much less solve everybody's different problems.

You want as much as possible for people to be able to affect their own circumstances rather than relying on the bureaucracy to care about them.

Re: Post-apocalyptic life in American health care

#100
post #60

I recently heard that hospitals still benefit from people who don't pay off their medical debt. They sell it for fraction of the amount and use the loss to offset earnings to dodge taxes. Prices of their services are inflated for this purpose (among others). It's better to have triple price, have insurer pay third of it and sell the debt of remaining two thirds as half-price. This way you get all the income and zero…

>It's better to have triple price, have insurer pay third of it and sell the debt of remaining two thirds as half-price. This way you get all the income and zero taxes. I'm sorry but this sounds like someone invoking "they'll write it off" without knowing how write offs work. In that scenario your revenue will be 2/3rds of the list price. Taxes payable is dependent on your profit, not your revenue. Profit is revenue…

I guess you are right. Since they are creating the debt out of thin air selling it for any price is always a profit not a loss.
Post reply on HN