Hacker News Reader

Comment by anamax | Hacker News Reader

> While it's true that a handful of states have health plans, it would be advantageous to have a federal health plan, due to economies of scale.

Umm, the federal govt already runs a couple of massive health care systems. They don't do what single payer advocates promise, so why do you think that obamacare will?

I think that we should have given obama free reign wrt the healthcare of folks who currently get their healthcare from govt. Yes, military, state, local, and federal employees, Indian Health Service, Medicare, Medicaid, and so on.

We give him 2 years at the current budget then we cut 5% per covered person in the next four years. That's just over 20% which should be trivial given the promises of 30% savings.

If the covered population is better off at the end of that time, we can talk about expanding it.

View on HN

Umm, the federal govt already runs a couple of massive health care systems. They don't do what single payer advocates promise, so why do you think that obamacare will?

What are you talking about? Members of VA, Medicare and Medicaid love their programs. You'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to give up their Medicare or VA benefits.

Medicare would do what a single payer advocates, if only we didn't include sweetheart deals. For example, Medicare Advantage, signed into law by Bush, and lobbied heavily for by the Insurance industry, did nothing but funnel money into private companies for the same benefits Medicare was already offering.

These programs would do what they're suppose to, if they weren't manipulated by corporate lobbyists or gutted by party partisans. So it's not surprising that when a program is legislated into the ground, those most responsible for those changes are the first ones to advocate the program's end. Interesting how that works.

Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the armed forces, don't qualify for Medicare, and not impoverished enough for Medicaid. If it wasn't for the recently passed health reform legislation my only option would be to crawl in some corner and die.

Thankfully my President helped to change that, and for the first time in over a year I'll finally be able to see my Neurologist and get that MRI I desperately need.

> "Unfortunately, I'm not a member of the armed forces, don't qualify for Medicare, and not impoverished enough for Medicaid."

I think you mean, "unfortunately, I don't have insurance."

Getting sick without insurance is a bummer, but if you're trying to get "insurance" after you get sick, that's not "insurance", it's "charity." Not that I know your circumstances or would necessarily mind chipping in my part to your getting the medical help you need.

I didn't get sick. I was born sick. Unfortunately, I inherited my father's genetics which have already resulted in one tumor being removed from my spine (I was 21).

I had insurance, since my father worked for the city. However, once I turned 24, that was all over. I'm a co-founder of a startup, as such it would be cost prohibitive to insure me, and incur undue charges on every other member and employee. As we grow, I'm sure we'll have enough employees at some point to offset my genetics, until then the recently passed health reform law is my only salvo.

Well, I wish you good health, and based on what you've written I almost certainly don't mind chipping in. But, the point remains that you're already sick, so what you need now isn't insurance. I have extra sympathy for a kid that can't get insurance through no fault of his own, but I wonder - do you plan to have kids? Hypothetically, if there is a 50% shot of your children getting the same disease as you, and you choose to have them anyway, should everyone else have to pay the million dollar bill should they get sick?

Anyway, apologies if I sound bitter. I'm really not :)

> What are you talking about? Members of VA, Medicare and Medicaid love their programs. You'd be hard pressed to find someone willing to give up their Medicare or VA benefits.

You're overstating their satisfaction. However, since they're not paying, of course they won't give it up.

And, if you have a dispute, you're more likely to have it resolved in your favor if it's with a private company.

Medicare et al are pretty efficient at cutting a check. However, the low estimates of fraud are $50B/year.

> Medicare would do what a single payer advocates, if only we didn't include sweetheart deals.

And what makes you think that any new govt program will be any different? (Obamacare is full of such deals, so that's not a Republican thing.) You don't get to assume unicorns and puppies when the experience is very different.

That's why I wanted to give Obama free rein - to see if he could do better. However, Obamacare as passed ....

> Thankfully my President helped to change that, and for the first time in over a year I'll finally be able to see my Neurologist and get that MRI I desperately need.

Not to be rude, but "my president" isn't paying - I am.

my grandfather does not in fact love the VA, and would probably give the benefits up in exchange for just the money they spent on avoiding treating him.

based on your later comments, it sounds like you do actually have another option besides dying, which would be to stop trying to run your own business, and go work someplace large (10+ people most states?) enough that the insurance companies can't refuse you.

I'm pretty sure the promised savings were over private health care options. And the reasoning was that despite their incredible expense, the existing government systems for limited classes are more efficient than the private companies are. So give him a limited trial adding people to a government health care option for a few years and see if it is also more efficient.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com