| ▲ | The healthcare market is taxing reproduction out of existence(aaronstannard.com) |
| 165 points by Aaronontheweb 2 hours ago | 160 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | susiecambria 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Perhaps if non-poor people start speaking out on a regular basis to elected and appointed officials, the media, and policy wonks, we might make some progress getting a better healthcare system. I've spent 30 years as a policy and budget analyst and advocate on health and human services issues. If electeds and appointeds were going to make decisions based on the lives of poor people it would have happened already. Folks need to make some noise. |
|
| ▲ | emmelaich 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Related: Car Seats as Contraception https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/731812 > We estimate that these laws [mandating safety seats] prevented fatalities of 57 children in car crashes in 2017 but reduced total births by 8,000 that year and have decreased the total by 145,000 since 1980. |
| |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I actually thought about including this in the piece (and how car sizes become a problem once you hit 4+ kids) but decided to keep it more focused on just the healthcare costs | |
| ▲ | Apreche an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s not the car seats that are the contraception, it is the cars themselves. |
|
|
| ▲ | losvedir 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. Presumably, you'd be paying those even if you didn't have the child. That said, the cost of health insurance for a family is pretty outrageous. My premiums are along the same lines as the ones here (although less noticeable since they're paid by my employer). |
| |
| ▲ | BeetleB an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > Hmm, counting the insurance premiums 100% towards the birth of the child is a bit misleading. I see your point, but do you not think that if you're a family of 4, having to pay $40K before insurance kicks in is ridiculously expensive, and out of reach for most Americans? I'd wager that most self employed folks in the US almost never benefit from insurance (except for things covered by Obamacare which come nowhere near justifying the premiums). The deductibles can be so high that you're pretty much always paying out of pocket. | | |
| ▲ | PaulDavisThe1st 5 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'd wager that most self employed folks in the US almost never benefit from insurance (except for things covered by Obamacare which come nowhere near justifying the premiums). Self-employed here. My wife and I paid $470/month last year, $618/month next year, for a gold insurance plan than has a $3400 deductible with typically a $20 co-pay. It covers 3 prescriptions, therapy sessions for each of us, various older age diagnostic checks, and almost all office visits. In addition, if either of us develops cancer or is hit by a truck, we will not be rendered bankrupt. So I'd say ... nah. | |
| ▲ | avgDev 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The problem is the healthcare cost is insane. You will go through $40k after a good injury that may need a major surgery or few smaller surgeries. Average cost for hip replacement is $40k. I've had a sports hernia and the bill was about $30k. | |
| ▲ | gishh 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | I am a male breast cancer survivor. I had a mammogram the other week. $620. No, nobody benefits from insurance in America. Well, nobody ill. | | |
| |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I only keep this plan because we're planning on having children, so yes, it's included in the pricing decision. | | |
| ▲ | evanelias 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying your health insurance premiums would be $0 if you weren't planning on having children? | | |
| |
| ▲ | CommenterPerson an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Had the same reaction when I saw how the 40K was calculated (BTW I strongly believe in Medicare for all to control costs and to pay for civilization. To be paid out of progressive taxes on all income). If Aaronontheweb had the misfortune of getting seriously sick, required surgery .. he would pay $7,150 for something that could easily cost $100K+++. Saying he's paying premiums just for having a baby really feels like weaselly logic .. so he thinks he or the rest of his family will absolutely never fall sick? What if a cancer diagnosis hits one of you out of the blue (I hope it doesn't, but that's what insurance is for). | | |
| ▲ | gishh 6 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Which bits cost 100k? The $75 ibproufen? The $47 towel? The $19,563 bed charge? Oh, the $32,925 imaging that NFL players get instantly? Insurance in America is a fucking joke. |
| |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Why do you need to get insurance for your child to be born anyway? Isn't the hospital already insured? Isn't that kind of janky? | | |
| ▲ | kirth_gersen 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In America, you basically need insurance to act as a larger stronger party in the negotiation of prices with the hospital on your behalf. Without the bargaining power of the insurance company the prices you'd pay can be significantly inflated. So paying for the insurance is the slightly lesser of two evils. Supposedly. From your question it seems perhaps you live somewhere with a saner system in place. I'm envious. |
| |
| ▲ | mhb 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Also not a big impact on the message, but $200/mo for a phone is a bit disingenuous. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Claiming $200/month for a phone makes one wonder which numbers are valid. I'm not saying everyone needs to make a $100 phone last 5 years and use a $15/month plan, but I'm not even sure how I would get to $200/month in phone bill, even including financing an iPhone 17 Pro Max. | | |
| ▲ | kirth_gersen 7 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | $200 doesn't seem that crazy if they are buying several phone lines. I assume he pays at the least his wife as well, so that's two. If they have home internet bundled in as well, that would easily explain that figure. All to say, AT&T. He may also have a home phone line for a fax machine. It is perhaps a bit disingenuous to bundle it all together, but it also isn't the main point of the article. | |
| ▲ | izacus 41 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Focusing on some minor detail to discredit the whole point is what paid astroturfers do. Why are you attacking a minor detail that's not even close to the point of the overall story? | | |
| ▲ | sokoloff 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s also what critical thinkers do when evaluating “what percentage full of shit do I think this author is?” If a glaring innumeracy or terrible estimate is in the article, why did the author include that? What was their angle? Does they make me trust the rest of the article more or less? | |
| ▲ | Analemma_ 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Because it indicates dishonesty and/or innumeracy which calls the accuracy of the rest of the piece into question. "Checking if the author can actually count" is basic media literary stuff, not some sinister agenda. |
| |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I pay that at least much for my family, hence why I used it | | |
| ▲ | toast0 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | When you say > I pay that at least much for my family, hence why I used it and your article says > Having a $200/mo smartphone is now a participation cost for many things such as getting access to your banking information remotely, medical records, and work / school. It sounds like you're trying to communicate that you pay at least $200/month per smartphone for your family? Or you don't value precision in communication. I know you've got a lot going on with a small business, and a new kid... but if money is important to you, maybe spend the time to switch to prepaid phone plans. There's lots of options [1], whatever network you need, you can do direct operator plans, MVNO owned by the operator, or like actual MVNO. If you're short on time and T-Mobile's network works for you, MintMobile has a promo going right now where $180 pays for 12 months of "unlimited" which is $15/month if you divide it out. > I also pay $1250 per month to TriNet for the privilege of being able to buy their health insurance in the first place - sure, I get some other benefits too, but I’m the only US-based employee currently so this overhead is really 100% me. Do you live in a state with a reasonable healthcare exchange? You might want to shop and see if an off the shelf plan from the exchange is better than paying TriNet to get access to their insurance; it may well be, but you should check. If you only have one US employee, and it's you, there's a lot of expense for not a lot of value IMHO. It's not really Apples to Apples though --- I think a lot of the TriNet plans have out of state coverage where a lot of exchange plans don't. [1] https://prepaidcompare.net/ | | |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb an hour ago | parent [-] | | > It sounds like you're trying to communicate that you pay at least $200/month per smartphone for your family? Or you don't value precision in communication. You're moving the goal posts here. You have to have service, realistically, in order to use it like a real person. | | |
| ▲ | toast0 23 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm trying to figure out what you're getting for $200/month. Is it for "a smartphone" with service, and presumably financing the phone as well? Or is it the total for all of your family's smartphones, which is how many phones/lines? |
|
| |
| ▲ | AstroBen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mint or US Mobile are ~$15-20 a month. You're massively overpaying | |
| ▲ | ianferrel an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | How many phones do you get for that? My family has two phone lines for $50/mo, plus we buy two ~2 year old iPhones every 3-4 years, which adds maybe another $20/mo average to the cost. | |
| ▲ | BeetleB an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Consider changing your plan? I pay $70/mo for 2 phone lines. Unlimited everything (well, OK, 5 GB data cap before slowing down). |
|
| |
| ▲ | estimator7292 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | I pay about that much for a family of 2. | | |
| ▲ | mhb an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I pay $127/mo for a family of 4. $800 for 4 refurb iphones amortized over ~5 years so add another $15/mo. | |
| ▲ | aliceryhl an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | How? |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | dzonga a minute ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| at certain times - you can't fight the system but vote with your feet. keep running US business, but live in a different country n get private healthcare. |
|
| ▲ | godsinhisheaven an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| A lot of this is an issue of insurance no longer being "insurance" in the classical sense. Insurance covers all sorts of things, my HSA pays for all sorts of things that I never would have even considered, and while that sounds great, it helps to drive up costs. It's somewhat counter-intuitive, but if you dropped all government funding of healthcare tomorrow, healthcare plans would get cheaper. It'd also be total chaos, so I get why we don't do that. But the situatuon is a lot like student loans, colleges know they can charge more because the government will lend 5-6 figures to just about anybody, so the colleges do so. And once that person is educated, you can't just "take back" the education if they don't pay. Same deal with healthcare, government subsidizes it for most of the population in lots of ways, healthcare providers know this, they increase prices to match. And you can't just take back the surgery to fix that broken arm or undeliver the baby. There's not a single silver bullet that will fix everything, but there are definitely concrete changes that can be made to improve the situation. One of them would be to make people healthier. I know, easier said than done. But by God it would make health insurance cheaper. Same way in that if everyone was a safe driver, we'd all be paying less in car insurance. Another way would be to remove that regulation or rule or something that makes it so like a hospital can't open too close to another hospital. Another would be to just, train more doctors! What I'm trying to say is, just as the problem is multi-faceted, the solution must necessarily be as well. |
| |
| ▲ | autoexec an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > but if you dropped all government funding of healthcare tomorrow, healthcare plans would get cheaper. I doubt it. Hospitals charge $15 for a single pill of Tylenol because they know insurance will pay for it, and that includes private insurance. The best thing we could do is ditch the private healthcare industry to the extent that the rest of the first world has and cover everyone with government plans. Those plans can then negotiate for much better prices and refuse the kinds of insane charges we're seeing. The cost of plans would also drop because prices would be spread out over every taxpayer. Having primarily a single provider for insurance would make everything easier and less expensive for hospitals and doctors offices too. The billions in profits private healthcare companies rake in all comes at the expense of everyone else one way or another and they have every incentive to make as much money in profit as they can. Without that excess fortune in profits being skimmed off and stuffed into pockets a government funded insurance plan which covered everyone could get the job done taking in closer to what it actually costs to deliver the services we want and no more. | |
| ▲ | adleyjulian an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The majority of spend is in the last few years of life. A man dying of a stroke during the night at age 50 is much cheaper to the system than the same man living to 90 having fought cancer for 10 years. I'm not advocating against health nor preventive care, however they don't decrease costs nearly as much as you'd expect. | |
| ▲ | AnnaPali 39 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Christian healthcare sharers do precisely this. By restricting services and the population addressed (your pastor or priest must sign off on your application), everything's extremely affordable. In particular, as we don't drink, do drugs, use contraceptives etc. we don't pay for coverage of them or their side effects. Obesity's also less of an issue. There's also the trick of telling the hospital you'll pay "in cash" and getting a 10x lower bill from the hospital, then getting that reimbursed/covered by your private or alternative insurance. | |
| ▲ | 3D30497420 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Unfortunately, most of what you suggest would get in the way of many people making a lot of money. |
|
|
| ▲ | shermozle an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The first sentence is your answer. The third word even. The healthcare market.
MARKET Healthcare shouldn't be a market. That's why you're paying $40k. |
| |
| ▲ | mattcantstop an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I have the opposite viewpoint, and I lean heavily progressive in most of my views. Healthcare in the United States isn't a market, and that is why it is so terrible. For instance, there is no reasonable ability to compare prices of services. Prices are entirely hidden. Then there is the "with insurance" price vs cash prices. Healthcare doesn't function as a market, to our detriment. | | |
| ▲ | Sparkle-san 39 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Healthcare doesn't function as a market because the nature of it is largely at odds with the principals of an efficient marketplace and perfect competition. Not to mention the tens of billions of dollars being pocketed by middlemen every year. | | |
| ▲ | beej71 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | In some places, free market healthcare is great. Dermatologists, dentists, chiropractors, things like that. And part of the reason it's great is because you get to shop around and people fight for your business. In other areas, like heart attacks and strokes, you do not get to shop around. And you pay whatever they say you will pay. When those are the circumstances, there is simply no free market. And since no one is competing for your business with lower prices in that case, you do not get to see lower prices. They charge whatever they can maximally wring out of you. |
| |
| ▲ | fancy_pantser 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Prices are entirely hidden Recent legal changes have made pricing more transparent. In 2020, the federal government issued the "transparency in coverage" final rule under the Federal No Surprises Act. This limited the expenses for emergency care when out-of-network and a few other things, but even more exciting is that hospitals and insurers are now required to publish a comprehensive machine-readable file with ALL items and services. They have to provide all negotiated rates and cash prices for the services and include a display of "shoppable" services in a consumer-friendly format. The machine-readable files are impractical to process yourself for comparison shopping (picture: different formats, horribly de-normalized DB dumps), but many sites and APIs have emerged to scrape them and expose interfaces to do so. | |
| ▲ | venturecruelty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sorry, I'm not going to Google "cheap MRIs near me" when I'm bleeding out on the floor having an emergency. Healthcare is not expensive because you can't see how much a doctor visit costs, it's expensive because that's how a lot of people make a lot of money, and they get very upset when that is threatened. | | |
| ▲ | celeritascelery 39 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Most medical care is not an immediate emergency. If I could compare MRI prices and it would impact how much I pay (either as an insurance copay or out of pocket) I would absolutely do that. But I have no opportunity to do that so there is not price feedback like there is in a market. | | |
| ▲ | Sparkle-san 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Even if it's not an emergency, many medical events come with a lot of unknowns. Like having a baby. No way to say how long labor might be, if there will be complications, how long you'll need to stay afterwards. MRIs are actually pretty easy to shop around for and MRIs don't make up a huge part of healthcare. | |
| ▲ | venturecruelty 32 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Sorry, this is simply not true. Every 1-3 years, I get a simple diagnostic procedure to make sure I don't get cancer. Without it, I'm at a very real risk of developing cancer that would quickly kill me. There is no universe in which it doesn't cost around $10,000. None. It is simply impossible for me to get out of paying that. My options are: 1. Use insurance, and hopefully it's covered. 2. Pay out of pocket. 3. Skip it and hope I don't die. That's it, those are my options. I can't "shop around" for this, and I shouldn't have to. This is basic medical care available to everyone in a developed nation. Ours is the only one for whom this is apparently an intractable problem, and I am, frankly, tired of being gaslit about it. | | |
| ▲ | jay_kyburz 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I wonder if you could pay a few air fairs and have the procedure done overseas and still come out ahead? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sofixa an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | In economics 101 one of the first things they teach you is supply and demand, and inelastic goods. Food and healthcare are the two main examples of inelastic goods, where demand is heavily disconnected from supply. There are of course nuances (you can eat just beans and rice, or do the bare minimum of healthcare/medicine to survive), but both are not things you have a lot of choice to consume or not. |
|
|
| ▲ | ecommerceguy an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Theres alot of forces tugging at American "healthcare" - lawsuits, uninsured non-payment, subsidiation of 3rd world drugs, heterogeneous population, over eating, under exercise... usa practices reactive medicine. and maybe part of that is due to hectic modern life, but it certainly adds to the cost, time and money, that could potentially be avoided or at least reduced in a more preventive, educated system. that being said, one can certainly find cheaper insurance (a policy to limit liability) if one knew where to look. for instance a self employed single male, 27, queens new york, healthy non smoker, can have a national network $300 deductible, aca qualified policy, $329 a month. |
|
| ▲ | bmandale 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| So to summarize: a. you're paying that for health insurance, not for the birth of the child. If you, your wife, your children had any other diseases then those would be covered as well. This is a significant benefit. b. all the systems that subsidize health care for those less well off don't apply because you're wealthy. So you are bearing the full cost of extremely high quality health insurance in a western country. |
| |
| ▲ | estimator7292 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | How come other countries have better healthcare at lower real costs? Basically every developed nation has better healthcare outcomes than the US. All other nations have cheaper healthcare. America is not special, we've just brainwashed our less-observant citizens into believing that solutions the entire rest of the world uses will never and can never work here. There's nothing special about our population or economy that would prevent accessible healthcare. The only thing standing in our way is healthcare companies who want their 6000% cut of every procedure and politicians who will do literally anything to give billionaires another dollar. | | |
| ▲ | throwaway150 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | As someone who has lived in several countries, I do not believe every developed nation achieves better healthcare outcomes than the United States. Many European countries, as well as Canada, offer some form of universal coverage with free general treatment but waiting times for appointments and procedures can vary widely. That said, I still think universal healthcare is preferable, as these systems tend to prioritize urgent cases effectively and ensure that emergency treatment is fully covered for free. I think, it's only the Asian countries who have got cheap, easy, and effective healthcare where you can not only get appointments quickly but you can get treatment for cheap too but their emergency services are not always as streamlined as those in more developed systems. There is no clear overall winner. Some places excel in certain aspects. Others perform better in different areas. | | |
| ▲ | IsTom 25 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > As someone who has lived in several countries, I do not believe every developed nation achieves better healthcare outcomes than the United States. Is that true for a median-wage earning person? |
| |
| ▲ | hypeatei an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | When I went to Canada, I talked to someone who said the Canadian government will subsidize trips to the US for certain treatments because it's not available at all in Canada or has insane waiting times. It's one data point, I know, but generally I think it's true that quality and availability of care in the US is much better. | | |
| ▲ | rimbo789 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I’m a Canadian and I’ve worked in health care. This is only done for very specialized treatments where the province (they run the health care delivery) doesn’t have the treatment and/or the American resource is closer than a Canadian treatment location. For example Nova Scotia will send some complex paediatric cases to Boston. They could send them to Toronto, but Boston is closer. Same with Manitoba but they use Minneapolis. Canada is only 40m people and almost half that is in one province. The smaller provinces simply don’t have the population to justify having every possibly medical bell and whistle. Point is when province sends Canadians for US treatment is isn’t actually about better quality as not all provinces have the same in house capacity and often the next largest city with such capacity is an American city. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | sofixa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > So you are bearing the full cost of extremely high quality health insurance in a western country. Overinflated imaginary cost* There is no way that a medical consultation of 15 minutes actually cost $32k. Examples like this are aplenty, but only from the US. My favourite one was an itemised bill for birth that included a $1k for skin contact with the newborn. | |
| ▲ | fun444555 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > high quality health insurance in a western country This is less true than it used to be. You obviusly dont insure a family of 5 and I suspect dont actually use the healthcare system. |
|
|
| ▲ | MandieD 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My scheduled C-section (which my insurer likely didn't question me about because I was 40 and have other health issues) plus three-night hospital stay was about 5,000 EUR, all paid by my health insurance (private, so I know that 5,000 was the "retail" price), in a fairly prosperous part of Germany. Not that the German health system isn't facing down some of the same demographic issues the rest of the well-off world is, but comparing wait times for specialists now that I'm on public (more like, very strictly regulated) insurance with my dad back in Texas on a combination of Medicare and supposedly good supplemental plan, I'm still in a better situation. A strong public/heavily regulated independent insurers system gives the private insurers enough competition to keep prices in check. Plus, I don't know of an insurer here, public or private, who also owns clinics or employs physicians, and they don't own pharmacies. |
|
| ▲ | tboyd47 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The corruption is so entrenched and so out of control, the only way out of this mess is for regular people to just stop using the health care system. Yes, there's no alternative, and yes, it means living a riskier life. It sucks, and it's not what we want to hear, but they can only charge us if we show up and purchase the product, and that's the last lever of power we can wield. |
| |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I've discussed just opting out of health insurance altogether and doing CrowdHealth with my wife, thinking along these same lines. | | |
| ▲ | hparadiz an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm a single contractor and can't really justify it. It saves me about 8k per year and this would be a bronze plan through MediCali if I got it. People would say "well what if you get a cancer or something" and yea that may be true but in that instance not only would I be out that premium but also the deductible and it won't even cover everything so maybe I'm actually better off stacking cash until the inevitable. | | |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb an hour ago | parent [-] | | I'm right there with you - this is a case study in "perverse incentives." There is zero benefit to "paying into the system" to be had under the current model. Better to chance it and then sign up for a plan at the last minute since insurers can't deny you based on pre-conditions. |
|
| |
| ▲ | venturecruelty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "Healthcare too expensive? Have you considered dying?" Sorry, what are you going to do when you get into a car accident and they rush you to the hospital? Assuming you're even conscious. "No, I'm voting with my wallet!" flatlines Come on. What if we used our collective power to fix the system? (Up to and including replacing it with something that works for the majority, and not the minority.) |
|
|
| ▲ | shirro an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This is a question of priorities. Identify a problem, decide to fix it, then execute. It isn't about the particular solutions. Australia's gun control would not translate to a country like the USA and perhaps neither would its health care. First decide to put a person on the moon. Then execute. Only one country did that. It isn't that they can't solve problems like school shootings or affordable healthcare. There is no real will to do so. Not sure why exactly. It is a very strange place that defies expectations of how a developed country would behave. |
|
| ▲ | jopsen 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| An American PPO with a $10 co-pay is pretty awesome. The only downside is that it's too easy to get a procedure you don't need :) I've tried tellings doctors in Denmark I wanted X, Y, Z test and getting told, nah, the outcome wouldn't change your treatment so we don't want to order those tests. Generally, healthcare is decent, but no doubt a good PPO plan does not compare :) Public health care seems more like HMO, you have to use a provider within network. Sometimes you need a referral from your primary physician, etc. You can pick your doctor, but not everyone can take on more patients. |
| |
| ▲ | digi59404 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That second paragraph is what scares me the most about pure public healthcare options. The following isn’t to compare/contrast systems.. it’s just a viewpoint. My cardiologist went “tests look fine, heart looks fine, there’s no reason for you to take colchicine. No clue why you have issues, everything is fine. Just take this brand new beta blocker to manage your heart rate.” Meanwhile, there’s no answer why my heart rate rises 30-40BPM randomly when I stand. Why my heart rate drops to a very difficult detectable rate when I sleep. No answers as to why two sips of wine causes my body to go into shock. - All resulting post-Covid. That same doctor told me to discontinue colchicine; yet without colchicine most medications, inc. ADHD, are maybe half as effective. These are items which deserve answers. Not an answer of “just take another pill”. Some of those “unnecessary” tests can provide inclusion/exclusion information. Yet just refusing that knowledge denies answers. In the US I can just find new doctors. But in other systems it’s either difficult or impossible. | | |
| ▲ | jeeeb 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | At least in the systems I’ve experienced (Australia and Japan). You can just go to another doctor. There’s no “insurance networks” and no visitation limits. You can go to _any_ doctor nationwide. I’d be curious to know where you had that experience and what the limits are on finding a different doctor .. | |
| ▲ | fragmede 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > All resulting post-Covid Find a long Covid specialist, those things aren't normal but are known to be effects of long Covid. |
| |
| ▲ | syntaxing 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Minus the costly premium and not all employer offer PPO or its so expensive that it’s priced out as an option |
|
|
| ▲ | snikeris 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Nearly 2 in 5 Americans are covered by Medicare or Medicaid. TANSTAAFL. The other 3 bear the burden. At some point Atlas shrugs and decides welfare is a better deal. |
| |
| ▲ | o11c 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The amount of money the US Government pays just for that 40% should be enough to cover all 100%. We know this is possible because it happens in other countries, which have shorter waits and more coverage since that talking point keeps being brought up despite collapsing in the face of reality. | | |
| ▲ | peter422 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. Whether that quality is necessarily (or good) is debatable, but we are getting something for the money. You also are just completely wrong in your main point. We cannot provide the same efficacy of healthcare as we are now for 60% less. We are the richest country in the world, labor costs more here than other places. | | |
| ▲ | ikr678 4 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | If you define quality as range of treatment options available, sure. If you define quality as range of treatment options that are accessible, absolutely not. | |
| ▲ | hollandheese an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. Yeah, I'm gonna need a citation for that. Because it sounds like a health insurance propoganda rather than the actual truth. | | |
| ▲ | jopsen 31 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I tried an American PPO with $10 co-pay and no deductibles. It was awesome :) Nobody could tell me what anything would cost, or if the insurance would cover it. But I always ended up paying $10, whether it was a few pills or an expensive MRI I didn't need.
Oh, yeah the downside is you can accidentally convince your doctor to get procedures you don't need. Health care in Denmark is decent. But I've been told, no when I wanted to run some tests. That would never happen on an American PPO :) I have had go wait, while unpleasant, it's fairly harmless (otherwise they don't let you wait). So if you're on an great PPO plan in the US, healthcare is great. Whether the outcome is better for the average Joe, is probably a different question. |
| |
| ▲ | AstroBen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. Do you have any evidence of that? | | |
| ▲ | peter422 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | 15 out of the top 50 and 4/6 top hospitals in the world are in the US: https://rankings.newsweek.com/worlds-best-hospitals-2025 Again, I’m not saying the health care outcomes are better, or the value is better. I’m saying the hospitals are nicer, the doctors are the best, etc. Perhaps this is the wrong thing to optimize for! But we are getting something. | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > 15 out of the top 50 and 4/6 top hospitals in the world are in the US Outliers do not say much about the overall quality of healthcare in a country. Rather obvious lesson in statistics. Reminds me of the Russian mathematician who moved to the US after the fall of the Soviet Union. Most of his essays were criticizing American students, but in one essay he was quite frank: Russians who graduate with math degrees are better than Americans who do so, by a wide margin. However, the average American is better at math because they still get access to some math education in university and do not need to be a top student for admission. Whereas in Russia, if you didn't meet a rather high bar, you simply couldn't get admitted as an engineering/physics/math program, and thus couldn't further your math education (I believe he said the cutoff was even before university). Country with the top mathematicians, but country with worse math outcomes. | | |
| ▲ | peter422 an hour ago | parent [-] | | Perhaps my language was too imprecise. My argument is that specifically the best care in the US is the best in the world. We have the best doctors and the best technology and the best treatments. This is not completely universal but it is also generally accurate. Whether or not this care is accessible or the median quality is care is good, that is different. I’m just saying we do get something for the money, it’s not like it all gets thrown down the drain. The best and brightest come to the US to get some of the huge spigots of money in the US healthcare system and it does drive innovation. | | |
| ▲ | AstroBen 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | So you're saying the US optimizes entirely for the best of the best care, without regard for what happens to the 2nd tier? (that the majority of the population actually use) |
|
| |
| ▲ | vunderba an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Quoting you: > "The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world." Common Wealth Study of 10 Western Countries (U.S. lags far behind the other countries) https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2... Peterson-KFF Research https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/quality... Numbeo Health Care Inex https://www.numbeo.com/health-care/rankings_by_country.jsp?t... On an anecdotal basis, I relied on the Taiwanese National Health (NHI) for years and found it vastly superior in terms of quality and cost to the United States. Perhaps a more accurate claim might be: The quality of the health care system in the U.S. is unparalleled provided that you are in the 1% that can afford it. |
| |
| ▲ | venturecruelty an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | "My healthcare outcomes are great, which means American healthcare is good." |
| |
| ▲ | healthy_throw an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It is also significantly more expensive: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health... | |
| ▲ | vkou an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Expenses are definitely higher, and doctors and hospital CEOs and med school CEOs do drive nicer cars and have bigger summer dachas, but I can't say the same about quality. Six month waits for a specialist, every PCP and shrink you'd want to visit not taking on new patients, ER wait times comparable with other developed nations, worse overall outcomes... Maybe the top 0.5% is getting better care, but I really wouldn't shed a lot of crocodile tears for them. | | |
| ▲ | peter422 an hour ago | parent [-] | | See what the wait times are for the specialists in other countries, if they even exist! The US is also the 3rd biggest country in the world. It’s very hard to solve these things are such a massive scale. | | |
| ▲ | vkou 20 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > See what the wait times are for the specialists in other countries, if they even exist! I assure you, they exist, I have been to them, and the wait times were about as long. > It’s very hard to solve these things are such a massive scale. That's goalpost-shifting nonsense that doesn't justify the outrageous cost of healthcare. And most of these problems become easier to solve with a higher population and density and larger economy, because you have way more slack in the system, and you have way more economies of scale that you can put to work. I'm also not complaining about healthcare in the middle of Alaska, 50 miles from a highway (or deep in the poverty belt). I'm talking about overpriced, underachieving care in wealthy metro areas. |
|
| |
| ▲ | sofixa an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The quality of health care in the US is significantly higher than anywhere else in the world. Health outcomes do not support that statement. | |
| ▲ | mystraline an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Citation definitely needed. Ive been to doctors in different countries including the USA. Theres nothing special with general practitioners with the USA. Or if you end up in China, you can get blood panels for like 10RMB, MRI for 30RMB, and damn near automated to boot. Go to Mexico for dental work. What costs you here $30k costs you $2k, and they take your insurance. The US citizens are being gouged, because our government has been bought out by corporate interests who bribe, err, campaign donate to both parties. And thats across every economic activity. Medical is just an egregious one, alongside academics. |
|
| |
| ▲ | denkmoon 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In Australia 5 out of 5 people are covered by Medicare, and 5 of them bear the burden. (at some point in their life. assuming they become a tax payer, which seems likely for most.) | | |
| ▲ | sien 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | On top of that, 53% pay for Private Health Care as well. https://www.health.gov.au/topics/private-health-insurance/re... On top of that many things that are 'not urgent' you have to pay for yourself. I have recently paid over 20K for back surgery. Prior to the back surgery I could barely walk. This was deemed 'not urgent' and had I would have had to have waited at least 18 months for surgery via Medicare. I also have private health cover. So, it's important for non-Australians to understand, our health system is far from a panacea where taxes pay for everything. Currently 778 K Australians are waiting for 'elective surgery' . https://www.aihw.gov.au/hospitals/topics/elective-surgery | |
| ▲ | antonymoose 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What percentage of Australian society is net-positive tax payer? That’s your real number, not this pretend 5 out of 5 as you claim. | |
| ▲ | prawn an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | More info on Australia from a quick search. - Public hospital birth is about $0-1k USD.
- Private hospital with health insurance: $2-3k USD
- Private without insurance: typically up to $13k USD
Private health insurance is nowhere near $40k here. Can be down around US$100/mo for a single or US$300ish/mo for a family, depending on inclusions. | |
| ▲ | AstroBen 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The burden of this isn't a big one to bear. I just compared tax rates for a $65k USD income in Australia vs the US. You'd be taxed ~$800 less in Australia. | | |
| ▲ | abigail95 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | There's no way that's true - include the employer side payroll taxes. Whether PPP or nominal my napkin math gives me 40% more tax payable in Australia Edit: I'm too dumb to know whether to include superannuation as a tax or not so I'm not sure if I'm right or not. | |
| ▲ | etchalon an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Pointing out the myth of "socialism just means higher taxes and less freedom" will only draw the pitchforks to your door. |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I guess your health industry is not raping you with outrageous costs? | | |
| ▲ | defrost 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | From the top: Health spending in 2023–24
In 2023–24, Australia spent an estimated $270.5 billion on health goods and services– an average of approximately $10,037 per person. In real terms (adjusted for inflation), health spending increased by 1.1%, or $2.8 billion more than spending from 2022–23.
In 2023–24, health spending accounted for 10.1% of the gross domestic product (GDP) in Australia, approximately 0.2 percentage points higher than in 2022–23.
~ https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/health-welfare-expenditure/h...From the bottom: In Australia, 15% of all expenditure on health care comes directly from individuals in the form of out‐of‐pocket fees — this is almost double the amount contributed by private health insurers.
There is concern that vulnerable groups — socio‐economically disadvantaged people and older Australians in particular, who also have higher health care needs — are spending larger proportions of their incomes on out‐of‐pocket fees for health care.
A 2019 study identified that one in three low income households are spending more than 10% of their income on health care.
~ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10953298/There's little to no public advertising of prescription drugs, cheap generics are widely available from federal scale bulk negotiation deals. Health outcomes are greater life expectancy than the US, national scale cancer survuival rates are better by a few percentage points (IIRC - they are close but higher). Australia has long had an innate "we're all in this together" society built on individualism. It's not great, it's not perfect, but the first instinct is generally to look after our own - across the board. | |
| ▲ | abigail95 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | When I was in the USA just paying for things like a GP and a single specialist didn't seem outrageous coming from Australia. If I worked in the US, I would have health insurance and would be paying lower out of pocket costs than I would in Australia. Combined with the higher salary and cheaper housing that's a pretty good deal. Edit: We allegedly have universal healthcare but that doesn't cover any actually competent specialist (need private healthcare for this) so paying $400 for 25 minutes of a psychiatrist every 2 months and $95 for 7 minutes of a GP is common. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gdulli 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Fortunately, a good number of people in the 3 of 5 population have the imagination to see that they or people they love will someday be in the 2 of 5 population. | |
| ▲ | vkou an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Weird, I've seen a lot more people bitch about welfare and how easy people on the dole have it, than actually give up their nice jobs and lifestyles to go try living it. | | |
| ▲ | matmo an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't think the critique is that "welfare is objectively preferable" to a high paying career, but rather that the effort:reward ratio isn't scalable to society at large (without some level of social cohesion, I guess). |
|
|
|
| ▲ | trentnix an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Our first two children were born at the hospital. Both were induced. Everyone was healthy, but looking back each was a miserable, expensive, condescending experience. After those experiences, my wife then went on a journey to learn everything she could about childbirth and healthcare. The more she learned, the more she became convinced that the entire system is flawed. The pressure to get an epidural, induce (conveniently between 8-5 on a weekday), or to use a C-section is immense. While each intervension is tremendously important in high-risk and edge cases, they are utterly unnecessary in the vast majority of births. But they are used for the majority of births, anyway. Some argue they may even have some damaging effects to the mother and child, but I concede that's not the medical mainstream opinion. When my wife became pregnant with our third child, the delivery was during the Covid lockdown. Hospitals refused visitors, demanded masks, and were even more impersonal than normal. Although I was initially skeptical, she convinced me that we should use a birth center and a midwife. The birth center was practically next door to a hospital and we talked through how to mitigate risks if something went wrong. It was a fantastic experience in nearly every way. Our son was born at 7:45 AM and we were home by 11:00 AM. It was substantially more affordable than a hospital birth. My wife just had our fourth child earlier this year. Once again we used a midwife but this time we had a home birth. You couldn't have paid me to accept a home birth when we were new parents. I wish I knew then what I know now. I know it's not for everybody (and especially those dealing with high-risk scenarios), but a midwife and home birth is an option if you want to avoid the hospital racket. It's significantly less expensive, more convenient, and every bit as safe for the vast majority of births. |
|
| ▲ | _-_-__-_-_- an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Please note that this is the natural birth of an otherwise healthy child. In Canada, provincial healthcare and private insurers have not kept pace with the needs and advancements in the areas of alternative methods of conception (IUI, IVF...). Yes, a naturally born baby wouldn't cost the parent(s) much medically. But, if you cannot have a child naturally, medication and procedures (lab testing, blood testing, artificial insemination...) are only partially covered and the amount corporate or union-backed insurers will pay varies widly by doctor and by patient. A couple struggling to conceive will easily pay 15-40K per child after the first procedure. Funnily enough, friends who have jobs in the USA, but live in Canada often have better insurance that fully covers all of the costs after the deductible. It ends up costing much less to have IUI or IVF procedures with Canadian doctors using American insurers (of course they will take the money). |
|
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| "The essential theme of Green’s piece is that “participation costs” - the price of admission you pay to simply be in the market, let alone win, have grown out of control. Food and shelter are participation costs for living. Having a $200/mo smartphone is now a participation cost for many things such as getting access to your banking information remotely, medical records, and work/school." No shit. He mentions food, shelter and a smartphone — might as well add higher education and a functioning car if you're in the U.S. I struggled being tossed out on my own at 18 with no support from parents. Working at a pizza restaurant, riding a bicycle to a community college for an education, renting a room from a woman (she may well have been renting as well—renting a room to me to take the edge off). Winter came and riding the 10-speed to college (in Kansas) became a challenge… Thank god no smartphone or internet plan was required then. (When I eventually split an apartment with two other roommates we lost power for stretches from time to time because we were unable to come up with the money to pay the electric bill — oh well.) They were hard times (that I somehow enjoyed—perhaps because I was young and was finally beginning to have a fulfilling social life). These days it has to be even harder. |
| |
| ▲ | IshKebab an hour ago | parent [-] | | I doubt it's much harder because of phones or internet. A smartphone can be very cheap. WiFi is pretty much everywhere and even in America there are very cheap esim plans. |
|
|
| ▲ | wlerijt 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| American "healthcare" is pushing many things outside the achievable range. I have garden-variety hemorrhoids. All I need is one or two 30-minute in-office procedures to treat these things. I'm a senior software engineer working for a FAANG company with "top-tier" employer-sponsored health insurance. I've been trying to get this stuff treated for eight months. I've gone to at least seven or eight appointments with several different offices and I've already spent $3000 out of pocket, and I might actually start treatment in January. That's fucking insane. The next time I need a minor in-office procedure, I'm seriously going to consider flying to Mexico instead of wasting almost a year of my life fucking around with the ass-wipe US healthcare system. |
|
| ▲ | yen223 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Over here in Australia, the most expensive part of my kid's birth were the AUD$200 antenatal classes. The prenatal checkups, hospital stay, and postnatal midwife home visits were all covered by Medicare. The flip side is that I lose ~30% of my pay to taxes. That's fine by me |
| |
| ▲ | BeetleB an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I pay almost 40% in the US (including state and payroll). Federal tax rate is 22-24% for most people. State can be anywhere from 0 to over 10%, depending on the state and income level. City taxes may exist. And then social security + Medicare. | |
| ▲ | christina97 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | NYC effective tax rates exceed 30% (if earning in excess of $100k). | |
| ▲ | vkou 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > The flip side is that I lose ~30% of my pay to taxes. That's not a flip side, that's what you'd be paying in the US, too, once you account for all your payroll taxes. Maintaining 11 carrier strike groups and a global empire don't come for free. | | |
| ▲ | alistairSH an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | If only we paid only 30% in the US. If you're in the 24% bracket, you probably have an average rate around 18%. 7% personal FICA witholding, another 7% employer match, and state income tax. Then, if you're in the mood, add your health insurance premium and any college savings for you or your kids (or the difference between what we pay and what you'd pay in [insert some other country here]). | |
| ▲ | EA-3167 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Our military spending is enormous, but it's dwarfed by what we spend on healthcare. The problem with our healthcare system isn't that we have a military, it's the gross and intentional profit-seeking behavior of insurers and many others in the system. They see the government as a bottomless pit of money that they can tap with lobbying, and the result is that we pay stupid prices for absolutely everything, on the assumption that it will be negotiated down somewhat by private or public insurance. If you look at how $1 of public spending on healthcare is used in the US vs countries with better healthcare, it becomes obvious where the problem is, and it isn't in the ocean. An anti-military ideological stance is one thing, but you don't need to inject it into this. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | itsinsurance 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Clickbait. I too think insurance costs are too high, but the author included their annual insurance premiums in the calculation. |
| |
| ▲ | projektfu 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Fair, he's lucky enough to have not been in a major car accident that year, so he can attribute it all to the cost of giving birth. What would have been the out-of-pocket cost of a normal birth without health insurance? It's still your choice to go without. | | |
| ▲ | okhobb 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No one is forcing you to give birth in a hospital. Rational people do it at home all the time to this day. | | |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | My wife had to have an emergency C-section the first time around when they lost the heartbeat on our first baby, so we've stuck with planned C-sections - so yes, we are somewhat constrained in terms of our choices there. | |
| ▲ | boredatoms an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Many would say thats not rational | |
| ▲ | hu3 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Rational people do it at home all the time to this day. I had to read again 3 times. Are you serious? If there is any complication, you're risking 2 lives. | | |
| ▲ | swalberg an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Father of 3 here, first two were home births, the third had complications and ended up being a hospital birth. I was initially skeptical for the same reasons but the first meeting with the midwife convinced me that they were taking every precaution and had the training to deal with whatever might come up. The majority of births are simple if you let them be and the midwives go to great lengths to make sure the conditions are right for a successful event. In the case of our third we hit some conditions leading up to the delivery date that disqualified us for a home birth so we seamlessly transitioned into the hospital system (where the midwife still delivered the baby) | | | |
| ▲ | a_tartaruga an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Home birth is absolutely a rational choice in many cases. The author had a very strong reason to require hospital birth but in scenarios with lower risk it is safer in some respects to avoid the hospital. It will still cost you 5 - 10k for a good midwife and you'll still want to be insured in case you need to transfer. So it only knocks off 5-10k from the total. | | |
| ▲ | ErroneousBosh 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Why are you paying to give birth at home when there's a hospital right there, that has all the equipment in case anything goes sideways? |
| |
| ▲ | timthorn an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, it's routinely done. The NHS has this to say: https://www.nhs.uk/pregnancy/labour-and-birth/where-to-give-... |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | tacker2000 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | yea, 40k is not the "real cost" of the birth, if he includes his + the wife's health insurance premiums in the calculation. $25,680 premium + $14,300 deductible = $39,980 annual cost So actually if we compare this with a European country, it would be an almost similar amount in the end: there is no deductible, but health insurance/social security taxes can absolutely reach around 2k-3k per month if you earn enough. | | |
| ▲ | MandieD 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | But those social security taxes (theoretically) cover your future pension, and at least in Germany, health insurance also covers your sick days, which is why only true workaholics show up to infect the office. |
| |
| ▲ | tifik 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Yes, and? Without it, the total paid would be at least the same or more. | | |
| ▲ | dexterdog 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Would it? When I have been uninsured I paid less for bills because the group gave me the cash price. When they are billing an insurance company they bill much more. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | observationist 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because they can. For profit hospitals subsidized and enforced by the leviathan, what could go wrong? How much does something cost? Whatever the seller can get people to pay for it. Hospital B charges 6 figures for the delivery of a child? Wow, that's expensive, they must be really good to be able to charge that much. All the dark patterns, negative dynamics, perverse incentives of bad government, stupid healthcare policy, and humans being shitty combine to form for profit hospitals. Those determine how other institutions have to run in order to operate at all, and they're not being managed by well meaning, good faith citizens looking out for the patients and the public. There's a reason mangione became a cult phenomenon, and $40k babies, multimillion dollar ambulance trips, and other bullshit are exactly why. Good luck fixing that mess. I don't even know how to conceptualize where you'd even begin to try to fix American healthcare. It's so tangled up and beholden to all the other problematic elements in modern life that it looks nigh on impossible to repair, so my goal in life is to minimize contact with any element of the system as much as humanly possible. |
| |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Completely removing the U.S. Government from the health care market (Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, uncompensated care, etc) would be a great start. | | |
| ▲ | BeetleB an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Why not go to the other extreme, as most other developed countries have done (and have lower healthcare per capita)? Do you know any countries that have no government involvement in healthcare that has good health outcomes? | |
| ▲ | teachrdan 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Could you explain how this would help? I'm struggling to understand where you're coming from here, besides perhaps a reflexive libertarian reaction to government. | | |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Massive government subsidies for health care consumption not only eliminate, but disincentivize price discovery. If your biggest consumers of health care (seniors) have access to the best health insurance plan in the world (Medicare), that's going to drive costs up | | |
| ▲ | peter422 an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Your whole argument is that the health care system should be optimized for the most productive members of society (like you, right now). You are perfectly fine to have that belief, but the majority of people disagree with you, which is one of the primary reasons the system is designed as it is. | | |
| ▲ | Aaronontheweb an hour ago | parent [-] | | I think the market can do a better job of optimizing than central planning ever can - the problem is we have both the costs of capitalism and socialism concurrently with the model we have now. A worst of both worlds scenario. | | |
| ▲ | peter422 an hour ago | parent [-] | | A struggling business can go under. When somebody is sick we generally save them even if the cost/benefit is poor. No market is going to solve this if you want to save sick people who don’t have a lot of money. There is no place in the world where health care is solved, it’s one trade off vs another. The US system is also far far from perfect but your solution is quite shallow and unlikely to fix things in a way society wants. |
|
| |
| ▲ | hollandheese an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | You know what actually drives costs up? The fact that healthcare doesn't work as a market. I can't shop for medical care. I don't have the knowledge and it's usually extremely time sensitive. This is a ridiculous statement that's only parroted by the most market-pilled right-wing economists. |
| |
| ▲ | silexia 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Healthcare was a far smaller percentage of US GDP prior to heavy government regulations and especially limits on the number of new doctors a year. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | mindslight an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| While not an answer to the general problem, one pragmatic avenue OP missed is to not have gotten married. Then he can have assets including a business, while his wife-in-spirit is on-paper poor and gets a subsidized plan (which then also covers the child's initial birth as an extension of her). AFAIK this wouldn't help after the children are born though (unless maybe you're willing to leave your name off of their birth certificates, which seems like a much higher level of norm rejection and outright misrepresentation). In general corpos spend a good chunk of resources making new legal entities to escape liability and legibility - something that is simply not available to most individuals. Getting married takes your two naturally-existing legal entities and basically collapses them into a single one - throwing away much flexibility. So it seems like a poor idea in the current legal environment which has been thoroughly corrupted to extract wealth and channel it upwards. |
|
| ▲ | smitty1e 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I'm relatively confident that reproduction occurred both long before, and will continue long after, the existence of the market in question. |
|
| ▲ | silexia 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| We desperately need to increase the number of doctors to decrease the cost of medical care. We also desperately need to cut down on regulations so we can reduce the number of healthcare administrators. |
|
| ▲ | oldgregg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is tons of fear-mongering around a natural process-- I had a 24 yo friend deliver his first child off grid by himself. There are also a ton of independent midwives out there where you can deliver either at home or a midwife center for a fraction of the cost. |
|
| ▲ | beefnugs 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You are absolutely right meatbag producer! Your brand new bundle of joy is expensive, but who can put a price on love? The system is designed to keep you in debt and near poverty as long as possible. But do not fret! If the meatbag is properly trained up to a point, and no further. It will be a hard working productive member of DisneyAICORP. And after working very hard and following instructions it may someday be able to afford its own meatbag production schedule, affording one more production unit each full year of employment! |
| |
| ▲ | edm0nd an hour ago | parent [-] | | Cant pay your child birth bill? Easy solution! You can just name your child after one of our pre-approved corpo sponsors and we'll take care of the rest. - Cinderella - Moana - Mulan - Cruella - Mark (property of Meta™) - Ariel | | |
|
|
| ▲ | dexwiz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| My hope is that GenX doesn't fall for the socialist panic tactic like Boomers do. Until then we are going to be stuck with this situation for at least another decade. |
|
| ▲ | mystraline 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > If your answer to “I can’t afford to have children and run a business” is “then don’t,” you are building the political conditions for extremism. This is how every revolution starts: a critical mass of people who conclude the system offers them nothing worth preserving. They don’t just want change - they want revenge. Its "not afford to have children", but instead "not afford to live". And we're already seeing these strong signifiers of extremism everywhere. Shooting CEO's is halfway acceptable, if they are sufficiently horrible (and yes UHC was horrible). Violence is more and more routinely considered the only answer that works. Corruption isn't something hidden, but instead openly done. And this is at all levels, from petty theft, up to 'let's rearrange government to screw the other party'. Look at how much tax dollars you pay in, and what you get for that. Its more and more a socialist country amount of tax, with low/no benefits to the citizenry. And no, shoveling billions to Israel or Ukraine, or project of the week does NOTHING to help me, my friends, and people around me. It is pretty bleak. Has been for quite some time. I can understand why some might want to vote for Trump- he did and is still making good on his promises. Terrible promises, sure. But he's doing them. Far as I can tell, none of the candidates are for the public, and willing to do and help the public. Just feels like a corrupt-o-cracy where if you're not in the In group, you're screwed. And yeah, extremism, revolution, and revenge is spot on. |
|
| ▲ | panny an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Why Am I Paying $40k for the Birth of My Child? All part of the plan. Gotta get that world population down to 500 million somehow. You've had three children? That's above replacement! Shame on you for contributing to the overpopulation problem. /s |
|
| ▲ | johanneskanybal 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean if revolution isn't in the cards this term I don't know what would get you there. |
| |
| ▲ | JKCalhoun 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Maybe a tax on tea or something. ;-) Seriously, though, I suspect it has to get a lot worse. 23% unemployment might be something. |
|
|
| ▲ | CTDOCodebases 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Because children don’t contribute to GDP. |
| |
| ▲ | SunshineTheCat 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Breaking news! There are no products or services in existence for anyone under the age of 18! lol | |
| ▲ | mikeocool 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Having a child definitely more than doubled my contributions to the GDP. | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Because children don’t contribute to GDP The simplest model of GDP is productivity per capital times population. And the simplest model in finance is moving cash flows around in time. | |
| ▲ | makapuf an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Apart from being 100% a product of people which are almost often a former child. | |
| ▲ | geldedus 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not yet. This is why countries that are not shitholes take care of their children. | |
| ▲ | idontwantthis 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Of course they do. Everything a parent buys for a child increases GDP. |
|
|
| ▲ | geldedus 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because you live in the wrong country. |