| |
| ▲ | stackskipton 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | >Did everyone just forget what it was like before Obamacare? Nope, I was adult working at IBM. I had very good medical insurance where it was small copay every time I saw the doctor. I had to get minor surgery on my foot and it was 50 bucks total. I think total cost billed to insurance was 500. Condition returned in 2023 and I was forced to get surgery again, I ended up paying ~750 dollars because of my Out of Pocket Maximum was not met. I found IBM health care benefits online (https://www.scribd.com/document/685377925/IBM-Benefits-Summa...) and looks like I would have paid similar if I was still working there. ObamaCare made things much better for those who could not get healthcare. For most, High Deductible plans becoming the norm left people in much worse state and that's why you see a ton of grumbling about it. Also, since it kept health insurance, it didn't fix root problem so many people are like "We have Health Care Reform? WTF did it reform?" | | |
| ▲ | Aunche 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | High deductible plans are the norm because HSAs are basically free money. Maybe Obamacare really is to blame for shittier health insurance, but it's also possible that IBM is just paying relatively less than it used to. Employers can deposit into your HSA, which effectively lowers your deductible below the minimum required to qualify as a high deductible plan. | |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > ObamaCare made things much better for those who could not get healthcare. For some people who could not get healthcare. I haven't had usable health insurance since before the AMA because it can exceed my total earnings. > For most, High Deductible plans becoming the norm left people in much worse state Which tees up my larger point (thank you). For years 3 thru 10+ of the ACA: News orgs (eg KaiserHN): 'Insured are everywhere now thanks to ACA'.
(As far as a policy was unusable, lumping those policy holders
into the insured group - this was more a lie than not.)
What I actually saw: Unusable policies due to copays.
Policy quotes that approached or exceeded total earnings ($12k/yr)
Policy quotes that went down as income went up.
(quote for $22k/yr earner cost 50% more than quote for $32k/yr)
During ACA's lifetime, news orgs, the insured and politicians haven't given the slightest crap about the many millions of uninsured.Mostly we didn't exist. Sometimes we did for 5 seconds if it was an opportunity to bash a politician we never voted for. The problem with disregarding people in a destitute state is they mostly stay destitute. When the more fortunate cease being so, the people they couldn't care about are in no position to help - or even care. | | |
| ▲ | cma 4 days ago | parent [-] | | At $12K a year you were at the poverty line, silver cost sharing reduction and you have something like $1K-1.5K max copays and deductibles. You might have not known about it and tried to buy a bronze plan instead, but the silver cost sharing reduction removes almost all of the deductible and the premium credits at the low end bring the premiums to near zero. Most of Obamacare brings max medical expenses to about 10% of income for a single person but there are a few sudden bumps like when you make too much for the cost sharing reduction, or when you fall below poverty line but your state didn't expand Medicaid even though federal government was going to pay 90% and those states probably come close to losing more just from subsidizing emergency care for people in the gap than the would have paid to expa d before the latest tax bill locked them in to never being able to expand. | | |
| ▲ | WarOnPrivacy 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > You might have not known about it and tried to buy a bronze plan instead, I always looked at every plan there was. Most of the work was getting thru the qualifications. After all that, every plan got examined multiple times. > Most of Obamacare brings max medical expenses to about 10% of income for a single person During the 2010s my wife and each brought in ~$10k/yr. That was in line with most folks we knew, in the $10k-$35k range. A typical month made 80% of minimal bills. In searching for policies in the $12/yr range there might have been 'catastrophic' policies that were just most of my income instead of all of it. I want thru the qualification 2x more for $24k and $32k. The latter being the cheapest polices I saw all that day. I took a few screenshots back then. I'm searching my archives and if I find them I'll post back. |
|
| |
| ▲ | s5300 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
| |
| ▲ | rocketpastsix 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | as someone with a pre-existing condition (that I didn't ask for), Obamacare was such a huge relief. Before I got into tech I was teaching guitar lessons and really enjoying things. My condition requires more than a once a year physical and my specialist got on me about not having health insurance because we weren't able to get the full panel of bloodwork done. I was routinely denied healthcare because of the condition. I had to pivot into tech as it was one of the few paths available that gave me health insurance. As you said its not perfect but its so much better than what we had prior to Obamacare becoming law. | | |
| ▲ | ryandrake 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Same here, but without a known pre-existing condition. Before Obamacare, health insurance companies would not even write me a policy, and they would not tell me why. Just "nope, go away". So every day, I was rolling the dice, hoping to not get seriously injured or sick. The problem with Obamacare is it didn't go far enough, the insurance companies stuck around like barnacles, leeching off the medical industry, with the government mandating we do business with them and they do business with us. I say scrap the whole lot of them. |
| |
| ▲ | cvwright 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The costs also used to be a lot lower - at least for most people who just pay the premium and don’t need much care. Now it’s not uncommon for a family’s health insurance to cost more than their housing. The people who are mad are those who are paying more and not experiencing the benefits. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The rises in health care costs were happening long before Obamacare, and if anything Obamacare reduced the rate of rises or kept them at the same level. We have chosen this to have high access, high quality care, while also choosing to reduce health with the way we subsidize our food system and force indolent lifestyle with car-dependent urban planning. The best primer on the choices that make our healthcare expensive, and where the money goes, are in this video: https://youtu.be/QqrpFICtqpQ?si=JOR3COojPD9iLn94 Unfortunately our national discussion of health care is not centered on the reality of the discussion, and is several levels of technical depth too shallow for us to have a public discussion that could reduce costs without reducing the care level for many peopl. | |
| ▲ | 9dev 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Those people seem incapable of considering that being surrounded by healthy people is a lot more enjoyable than being surrounded by the sick and poor. You don’t live in a vacuum. You interact with a lot of people every day, consciously or not, that probably earn less than you do, and clean your streets, wash your car, care for your elders and children, handle your food, serve your beer, and do a myriad of other things they can only do at good health. That’s where those benefits go - to a functioning society where everyone gets a basic shred of dignity. Is it really so inconceivable to keep a little less of your disposable income in exchange for that? | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It doesn't seem to me like the current configuration makes people less sick or poor. |
| |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | https://penncapital-star.com/uncategorized/americans-suffer-... > In 2022, UnitedHealth Group made over $20 billion in profit. Cigna made $6.7 billion, Elevance Health made $6 billion and CVS Health made $4.2 billion. All told, America’s largest health insurers raked in more than $41 billion of profits in 2022. Universal healthcare is good. America's for profit system is bad. You have to get rid of for profit insurers (to start, lots of other changes need to be made as well, PBM and private equity ownership, etc). Is there will to do that? What is it going to take to get there? Every other OECD country has a functioning healthcare system, to keep the existing system in the US is a policy choice. Edit: Absolutely wild to see the apologists who say, "This is fine." to billions of dollars being sucked out of the healthcare system as profits instead of being spent on care or reduced premiums. Investors Are Pressing UnitedHealth Group to Deny More Care - https://jacobin.com/2025/06/investors-unitedhealth-group-car... - June 10th, 2025 Democrat senators probe UnitedHealth over nursing home care denials - https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/democrat-senators-probe-... - August 8th, 2025 Revealed: UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to reduce hospital transfers - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/21/unitedhealth... - May 21st, 2025 > UnitedHealth Group, the nation’s largest healthcare conglomerate, has secretly paid nursing homes thousands in bonuses to help slash hospital transfers for ailing residents – part of a series of cost-cutting tactics that has saved the company millions, but at times risked residents’ health, a Guardian investigation has found. Those secret bonuses have been paid out as part of a UnitedHealth program that stations the company’s own medical teams in nursing homes and pushes them to cut care expenses for residents covered by the insurance giant. In several cases identified by the Guardian, nursing home residents who needed immediate hospital care under the program failed to receive it, after interventions from UnitedHealth staffers. At least one lived with permanent brain damage following his delayed transfer, according to a confidential nursing home incident log, recordings and photo evidence. As long as a profit motive exists, there will be incentives to reduce or avoid care for more profits. | | |
| ▲ | cameldrv 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I'd argue that the insurers are a big part of the problem, but not for the reason you state. Their profit is capped as a percentage of revenues by law (Obamacare). In order to get more profits, they have to increase costs, so it's the complete opposite of normal market forces. It's to their benefit that you have things like hospital monopolies that overcharge, because as long as all of the insurance companies are being overcharged equally, the insurance company makes more money with out of control costs. Now, insurance companies also play games with this law by having a common corporate parent own a PBM which the insurance company contracts with, and then the PBM receives various kickbacks from drug companies, which it doesn't pass on to the prices it charges the insurance company, thus getting larger than otherwise allowed profits for the corporate parent. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree PBMs are also a problem, as my comment mentioned. Several states are working to aggressively regulate them, but until there is more progress in that regard, people who need medication through these systems will experience maximum extraction. Inside the Mafia of Pharma Pricing - https://www.thebignewsletter.com/p/inside-the-mafia-of-pharm... | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40971553 - July 2024 > Today, as a result of these changes, PBMs are big. Really big. The parent insurance companies of the biggest PBMs top nearly $1 trillion in revenue annually, roughly 4% of the GDP of America. Just the top four equal 22% of national healthcare expenditures, up from 14% in 2016. And no other country has anything like the PBM industry. The revenue of American PBMs is larger than what France spends on its entire healthcare system [My note: !!!]. > In 2021, for instance, Kentucky got rid of its use of big PBMs in Medicaid, and saved $285 million out of $1.2 billion its program spent on prescription drugs. It even led to an attempt by the Trump administration to get rid of the ability of PBMs to engage in certain forms of secret rebating. Academics are now focused on the problem of vertical integration, and so is Congress. And there have been dozens of PBM-related hearings - the next one is on July 23 with the CEOs of the ExpressScript, OptumRX, and Caremark - and Congress is closer to passing PBM legislation than it has ever been. https://www.axios.com/2025/06/03/pbms-fight-state-regulation... https://www.axios.com/2025/01/14/pbms-marked-up-specialty-ge... https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/07/... https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/PBM-6b-Second-I... https://nashp.org/state-tracker/state-pharmacy-benefit-manag... https://www.46brooklyn.com/ |
| |
| ▲ | jrmg 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I’m no lover of the US healthcare system - other countries get better outcomes for less than is spent by the US government - and basically all their costs are borne by the government, unlike in the US. But: you have to be careful with large numbers. There are 0.3 billion people in the USA. United Healthcare says they cover 51 million. That $20 billion is $392 per insured person - a lot, sure, but hardly a large fraction of what they each pay. Compared with other countries, the inefficiency of for-profit healthcare is a far worse problem than the amount of profit they make. I agree with the gist of your comment overall. The system needs massive overhaul, which will take a lot of political will. | | |
| ▲ | ch4s3 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > and basically all their costs are borne by the government The costs are born by people paying 20-25% VAT. The government just collects and disperses those funds. This may be more efficient, but the cost is born by everyone in society. > Compared with other countries, the inefficiency of for-profit healthcare The US health system(s) are a patchwork of non for profit entities, for profits, government programs, and employer sponsored arrangements. It's definitively not a single system and not wholly for profit. No one would ever intentionally design a something this we, it's accidental, it evolved over time. | | |
| ▲ | jrmg 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > The costs are born by people paying 20-25% VAT. The government just collects and disperses those funds. This may be more efficient, but the cost is born by everyone in society. Well, yes, all costs ‘borne by the government’ are in fact borne by people paying taxes - or government borrowing. [You could follow the chain even further and say that, of course, the cost of those taxes, borne by people, is people’s income, borne by their employers (or investments) but that obviously gets pointless and ludicrous pretty fast because the chain never ends…] Anyway, that’s not my point - the point is that the US government, in per capita terms, spends more (public money collected in taxes or borrowing) on healthcare than governments of countries where (almost) all healthcare spending comes from the government (public money collected in taxes or borrowing). Private spending is in addition to this. Again, spending by the US government is more than spending by other countries governments, even though the US supposedly has a private insurance based system (that also costs a huge amount in addition to government spending!) I looked up a source… https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/health-costs-how-the-us-... …and it turns out I’m slightly wrong - US government healthcare spending per capita is beaten by the governments of Norway, Luxembourg, and perhaps the Netherlands. But even they spend vastly less than the US if private spending is also considered. The US system is unarguably hugely more expensive - less efficient - than the systems of the entire rest of the developed world, for worse health outcomes. | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Does VAT really go entirely to healthcare? If not, we'd have to compare with the total taxloads borne by citizens of compared countries | | |
| ▲ | ch4s3 4 days ago | parent [-] | | It varies country by country and funds are essentially fungible. France for example nominally has special payroll taxes that go towards healthcare. Some OECD nations have mandatory insurance schemes where you pay some premium monthly. It really varies a lot. It is however true that VAT is pretty much universal to OECD nations with single payer systems and make up a significant chunk of government tax receipts. Its essentially impossible to dodge. But when comparing most incomes levels, Americans pay much lower taxes than OECD counterparts. | | |
| ▲ | ImPostingOnHN 4 days ago | parent [-] | | What I'm saying is that the better comparison metric would be (total tax load + total direct healthcare spending) per capita |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | Taikonerd 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Compared with other countries, the inefficiency of for-profit healthcare is a far worse problem than the amount of profit they make. Yes! That's a really pithy way of saying it. The big insurers spent a lot of money internally on handling claims, administrative overhead, etc. That's because of the whole model of insurance, where each individual claim has to be reviewed. Some health systems are experimenting with simpler models, like capitation: "the insurer will pay the hospital $X per covered patient, and the hospital will handle all of that patient's health needs." That model would get us out of claims hell. | |
| ▲ | 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | Swizec 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | All you need to know about America’s health system is this graph comparing average cost to life expectancy of OECD countries. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health... USA has an order of magnitude higher cost but middling life expectancy comparable to Argentina, Poland, Peru, Colombia etc. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-international-comparis... > Unlike the U.S., similarly large and wealthy nations have long had universal or near-universal health coverage and more robust access to health care. Although the U.S. has recently reached an all-time high rate of insurance coverage, it still lags behind its peers and the ongoing disenrollments from Medicaid may cause the uninsured rate to rise. Additionally, even people who are insured in the U.S. often face such high out-of-pocket costs for medical care that they go without needed care or incur medical debt. Future policymaking in the U.S. may continue to focus on improving insurance coverage rates and addressing cost-related and other barriers to care. | |
| ▲ | GoatInGrey 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | But one can very easily argue that American health outcomes are significantly driven by the average number of steps they take per day relative to other geographic peers. Astonishingly few Americans are getting more than 15 minutes of light aerobic exercise in per day. And that exercise is largely being spent moving between seats. | | |
| ▲ | Swizec 4 days ago | parent [-] | | The actually sad part is that when you split data by race, white American health outcomes are pretty great and in some areas significantly ahead of other countries (if you have a rare cancer, America is the place to be) whereas not-white American health outcomes are ... not great. > AIAN (67.9 years) and Black (72.8 years) people had a shorter life expectancy compared to White people (77.5 years) as of 2022, and AIAN, Hispanic, and Black people experienced larger declines in life expectancy than White people between 2019 and 2022 https://www.kff.org/key-data-on-health-and-health-care-by-ra... |
|
| |
| ▲ | epistasis 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Your comment has been edited extensible since you first posted some misleading numbers, so I'm adding this new comment on one of your additions: > As long as a profit motive exists, there will be incentives to reduce or avoid care for more profits. This is reversed from reality. Insurer incentives are to increase care and costs all the time. Their profits are tied to a fixed percentage of total expenditure, so the only way to increase profits is to increase costs. Start replacing cheaper scans with MRIs, etc. Then profits rise. Look throughout the entire system, and everybody's incentive is to perform more healthcare. That's the profit incentive throughout the system, from care providers to test providers to insurance companies. That's a major (but not only) reason healthcare expenditures are such a high percentage of GDP compared to other countries, why healthcare expenditures are $5T per year in the US. | | |
| ▲ | toomuchtodo 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I mean no disrespect whatsoever, but we have no common ground if the belief is a continued for profit system or more profits are going to fix any of this, based on the overwhelming evidence. At some point, one must admit that the US has entirely failed at a functional healthcare system considering the costs compared to care delivered and outcomes. If for profit insurer incentives are to increase costs as you say, we must eliminate insurers and fulfill any need for that function through public systems, where cost controls can be implemented to drive down costs. Incentives drive outcomes. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. From another comment I posted in this sub thread: https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-international-comparis... Additional citation: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2... > Goal: Compare health system performance in 10 countries, including the United States, to glean insights for U.S. improvement. > Methods: Analysis of 70 health system performance measures in five areas: access to care, care process, administrative efficiency, equity, and health outcomes. > Key Findings: The top three countries are Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, although differences in overall performance between most countries are relatively small. The only clear outlier is the U.S., where health system performance is dramatically lower. > Conclusion: The U.S. continues to be in a class by itself in the underperformance of its health care sector. While the other nine countries differ in the details of their systems and in their performance on domains, unlike the U.S., they all have found a way to meet their residents’ most basic health care needs, including universal coverage. | | |
| ▲ | epistasis 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I literally do not care at all if there's a profit based system or not. It is completely immaterial to me. Both profit driven system and non-profit systems are successful around the world at delivering universal care. That you are more focused on profit than on providing care to people is a definite difference. It is funny that you somehow think you could be disrespecting me in this exchange, because I think that putting people first is the only defensible position, and that your position of prioritizing a particular political bent over the health of people is ultimately extremely disrespectful to people and incompatible with leftist politics, liberal politics, or basic human decency. Tl;dr putting profits over people is wrong, but so is putting profit-elimination over people. People first, everything else comes from that. |
|
| |
| ▲ | epistasis 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Big numbers with no context come across as a way to misinform. Viewed in light of total healthcare spending of roughly $5T per year, eliminating insurer profits does not appear to be even a drop in the bucket. Our healthcare costs are certainly a policy choice, but eliminating profit does not fix the system, and many far more cost effective systems around the world are fully profit based. Edit: absolutely wild to see somebody more focused on fringe political goals than caring about the health of the most vulnerable of our nation, and the bigger systemic changes that are needed. Fringe, frequently innumerate, and frequently wrong political rags like Jacobin are about politics, not about achieving better outcomes for the American precariat. | | |
| ▲ | Der_Einzige 4 days ago | parent [-] | | If maga will eat shit just so a liberal has to smell it than “communist” jacobin readers will take third world health care just to force MAGA to deal with it. | | |
| |
| ▲ | m0llusk 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | That is a sloppy generalization. The Heritage Foundation plan for market based universal medical coverage was put in place in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney and mostly works with related issues like low supply of doctors. There are many options being left of the table for political reasons and comprehensibility. | | |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 4 days ago | parent [-] | | RomneyObamacare and Project 2025 anarcho-chrony-kakisto-capitalism. Never forget Obama was a center-right figure with identity bingo politics attributes. |
| |
| ▲ | gotoeleven 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | UnitedHealth has 147 million customers, according to google. 20 billion / 147 million = $136 So they're making $136 dollars per customer in profit. That doesn't seem unreasonable to me. 136 is much less than the crazy costs that people are complaining about. Are people who like to quote these big numbers just not capable of critical thinking or is it just that they like the chance to rage at capitalism's supposed failings and they know their readers are too dumb to do division? | | |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Hard to say what a life is worth, which is part of the problem of for-profit healthcare. Their most recent quarterly call had their CEO apologize for providing too much care. | | |
| ▲ | GoatInGrey 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I don't think you're making contact with what the other commenter is saying. Explaining that a health insurer makes a little over $100 in profit per person over the course of a year is meant to disprove the argument that removing profit from the health insurance system is all it will take to make everything affordable. Philosophical arguments around the economic value of a life is separate from how to reduce costs of a healthcare system in a mixed market economy. | | |
| ▲ | burnt-resistor 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Philosophical arguments around the economic value of a life is separate No, you're missing the point that it's totally inappropriate to treat healthcare as a profit-center by arrogantly trivializing my response, gaslighting, and applying seriously sociopathic cognitive dissonance while avoiding the greater concern. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > your annual physical ... should not be covered. This is a predictable, moderate expense. You can plan and save for it, or even skip it. An annual physical is of debatable value for a young, healthy person. Insurance is for unpredictable, financially devastating expenses that you cannot avoid. If predictable stuff like annual physicals is covered, the "insurance" is just an inefficient savings account. | | |
| ▲ | poulsbohemian 4 days ago | parent [-] | | I acknowledge I'm using anecdata and deliberately telling a story to pull at your emotions, but my cousin died suddenly at 45 of a heart attack, having been skiing and surfing just weeks prior, IE: seemingly great health. But, because he had been a (successful!) self-employed person but was in a bit of a bad time (wife cheated, divorce, sudden economic shift...) he didn't have health insurance so put off going to the doctor when he had a weird symptom a week or so before he passed. I bring this up because in this country our health insurance is broken in every way. We absolutely should be investing in preventative medicine, because doing so would not only have found things like my cousin's situation, but it would also help us ward off both the disease and cost of more chronic illness. Instead most of us dwindle along with very limited access for decades until we either get some condition that forces us into very expensive and time-consuming care, or we end up gutting whatever life savings we might have on our last few months. So is an annual physical really all that big of a deal on the surface? No, but it's emblematic of how broken our approach is to care - to put it in IT terms, we have no monitoring/observability or metrics and we only take action after we've had an incident or breach, and even then we are generally only applying patches not dealing in RCA. | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 4 days ago | parent [-] | | He didn't say it's not a big deal, he said checkups are relatively predictable. Those mean very different things. Moving the predictable costs behind insurance and administration artificially inflates it because there's less pressure on providers to compete. If people weren't doing dumb things with insurance to try and socialize healthcare costs there's a good chance your friend would have been able to afford going to the doctor whether or not he was insured. |
|
| |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Heh I wasn't an adult then. All I've experienced is being forced to buy insurance with a premium so high my risk adjusted return for self insuring is actually higher. I was so happy when the individual mandate was finally killed. That was just straight theft by incompetent health care administration. | | |
| ▲ | jrmg 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > being forced to buy insurance with a premium so high my risk adjusted return for self insuring is actually higher This is how all insurance works though. Everyone pays in, and those unlucky enough to experience catastrophic problems get a way bigger payout than those who don’t. Pooling risk is the entire point of insurance. Without that, it’s not insurance, it’s just a payment system, and those unfortunate enough to have big problems have to pay more. Perhaps your views of what a society should be ‘for’ means you think that the unfortunate just having to pay more is fair, but I don’t. | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 4 days ago | parent [-] | | That infact is not how insurance works. You don't charge low risk people insane premia because it isn't fair. My car insurance is far cheaper than my sister's for this reason for example. Even if I had an event (outside something way out in the tails where I might not even want the treatment anyway if it's free because my QoL suffers too much either way) I'm coming out with a loss because I'm forced to subsidize care for high risk people as well as very bloated administration. Having the insurance doesn't make sense. even when you're one of the people that needs healthcare Insurance is an instrument for trading volatility not socializing costs. Those are radically different things. | | |
| ▲ | cloverich 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Right but you'll quickly see that analogy doesn't work in another way. With car insurance, its possible I can pay into it my entire life and NEVER have an accident (my current trajectory). I deserve a lower rate! With health insurance, you are 100% guaranteed to become sick and die, at some point. So the options are either, everyone pays in and it covers everyone, or it only covers a small subset of issues, and everyone gets dropped when they get really sick (the prior state). The latter is definitely cheaper, because its cheaper to let people die / let them suffer than it is to keep them alive / healthy. That is effectively the choice to make. | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Healthcare costs will grow without bound near the end. Your model only works if everyone choses every treatment available in the end which is just dumb because the outcome is the same. It's appropriate for premia to be very high for geriatrics. The appropriate response is to chose when you're done not to crush younger workers so you can sit in a hospital bed for an extra month. Also an exponential distribution is still a probability distribution you can trade volatility on. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | potato3732842 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | >incompetent health care administration. They're not incompetent. They looked at the laws and realized they get the same cut of a bigger number by bloating overhead costs. | | |
| ▲ | mathiaspoint 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Charging what they do for what they do and insisting it can't get lower? Yes incompetence is absolutely the correct word. Just because we can't choose to go elsewhere isn't a excuse. |
|
|
|