Comment by yscale | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yscale | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It saddens me that some people look at travesties like this and think "fuck him, the system is great, three cheers for the status quo."

This despite the fact that any honest reading of our medical outcomes shows that America gets very average medical care, and that we pay about twice per capita what the best care in the world costs.

I mean, I know there's a lot of propaganda out there, and I know there are a lot of sociopaths who are eager to believe it... but I'd think you'd keep your dishonest pro-status-quo, anti-efficiency nonsense out of a thread like this one. Especially since your post implies an utterly nonsensical (and clearly grossly uninformed) dichotomy that the only options are pure state control or the status quo, when any informed survey of developed nations would show many other models, some of which would work well in the US.

Sadly, progress is stalled and we all suffer because there are obstructionist assholes like you, willing to ignorantly pretend that the status quo is the best in the world.

The top can get the best care for the right price, the bottom has been inadequately supported though much progress has been made with ACA, and lots of people in the middle are inadequately prepared, because given the choice, they choose a higher standard of living instead of more safety for the future. To be given that choice is engrained in a lot of American culture.

You won't find much sympathy for the middle class who choose a nicer house in a more expensive city, a newer car, or a bigger family instead of safety and security for the future.

Sure especially bad circumstances happen, and then you have the government, friends, and family to fall back on... and maybe some of these public services could be improved, but a significant positive change certainly has happened with the ACA.

Progress isn't necessarily taking choice away from the population, because ultimately health care will cost the same whether you can choose your coverage or the government chooses it for you... if there are inefficiencies and cost problems, don't think that forcing everyone to have the same health coverage will fix them... there are plenty of other problems.

My god you're a privileged, elitist, self centred... calm, be calm. The fact that you keep posting this crap on a thread about some I look up to who is DYING OF BRAIN CANCER is really upsetting. So please stop.

If you don't like discussing the costs and methods of delivering health care, downvote the parent comment which mentioned it initially, not a person whom you disagree with.

If you can't handle an opposing viewpoint without becoming extremely upset and resorting to petty insults, you are part of the broken political system that has led to many of the problems we face, not me.

I don't even live in the US, so nice try -- I'm telling you to pull your head out and show some respect for the fact that someone who is one of us is dying.

But hey, as far as you're concerned, that's okay; he should've lived out of his car or something to be able to afford it.

"You won't find much sympathy for the middle class who choose a nicer house in a more expensive city, a newer car, or a bigger family instead of safety and security for the future."

The average cymo treatment is about $75,000 a hit. So, you know anyone who is prepared for that? The top 1% are, of course. But the rest of us? Those who don't have insurance are fucked. Those that do are ok until they get a bill for services not covered by their insurance. And god help you if you want a non-standard treatment. Then it's ALL on you. And then the house is up for sale. Then the cars. Then you are applying for medicare disability. Only to be dined because you made too much money last year.

This happens all the time. My hope is that Obamacare deals this. But I have my doubts.

Tell you what.. get cancer then come back and comment. I bet you change your mind. ;) No offense of course. Just don't come to my county hospital for care.. my property taxes are high enough. ;)

The thing that seems to be missing from most people's argument is that the cost doesn't go away if you move to a single-payer healthcare system. You still pay for that $75k in the form of higher taxes and higher prices... it doesn't get erased. Wanting a non-standard treatment and not being approved won't change with single-payer... you'll still have to sell everything you own to pay for it.

Saying the cost doesn't 'go away' is deflecting from the fact that it does reduce overall, because of a number of reasons. Administrative costs are vastly reduced. Employers no longer have to negotiate individual contracts with insurers. Hospitals don't need huge administrative staff for deals with different insurers and paperwork for each one. On the whole, the cost savings from moving to single-payer take a huge bite out of the increased taxes.

http://www.pnhp.org/facts/what-is-single-payer

Under plans like H-R 676, 95% of people are expected to pay less overall for healthcare. So, no, you are not paying for 'that $75k', you are paying for much less.

" Administrative costs "

They are HUGE. I work in the field (writing software). Every insurance company has it's own forms and payments requirements. So do governments, local, state and federal. Not to mention reporting requirements. Throw in other insurances such as schools, the VA (and TriCare), Medicare, Medicare Disability (they are different by the way) and Medicaid - and the hundreds of other sources I've missed. This all equals to a administrative nightmare. A cluster-fuck. A huge expense the hospitals and doctors have to deal with. And you'd think moving to electronic medical systems would fix this.

And this is one of the big reasons healtcare.gov failed the first time out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com