4 ms·

It's not greed, it's a consequence of health insurance. Get rid of health insurance and prices would drop 10x.

by pravda 13y ago

sdoering 13y ago
Would they? Or would the poor middle class people not being able to afford cancer-treatment/heard surgery just have a considerably lower life-expectancy? I am not sure, so I really would love to see the numbers/facts supporting your statement. Would love to learn of this magic fact. [cynicism end] [Edit]: Typo [Edit 2:] In Germany, with full health-insurance the cost for a Cardiopulmonary bypass are round about 30k €. So a lot cheaper, than in the US, despite health insurance. Just wanted to present a fact, not let my comment stand as cynicism only.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- pravda 13y ago
  First of all, I am sure the 106K figure is a phony 'list price' figure and not reflective of how much is actually paid. Second of all, you ignore the incredible sums of money taken from the 'poor middle class' and handed over to the health industrial complex. For most of this country's history [the USA], there was no such thing as health insurance. The poor got charity care and the middle class were able to pay. Why do you think cancer treatment has to be expensive?
  - sdoering 13y ago
    I am not stating, that it might drive prices down. As I would not be stating, that it might drive prices up. I wouldn't do this, because I do not have the necessary facts to make such a claim. If a health-insurance system would work right, the health insurance agency might have a lot of more leverage in this highly regulated market, then any individual paying for its own. But that is just an assumption. Well your next statement regarding my ironic "poor middle class" is just that: a statement, without any facts to support it. I was asking for facts to support your statements. I even did some preliminary research into the costs of comparable healthcare in Germany (where I am from). I just wanted to learn, if a "no health care" system might work better and be cheaper, but I will not just believe your statements, as that would just go against everything, I value. So I really beg you, to show me verifiable facts substantiating your statements. Please?
  - riahi 13y ago
    Your suspicion is correct. It is the price charged to Medicare. Medicare only reimburses $26,898.
  - refurb 13y ago
    You are correct, look at the post by riahi. The hospital may charge $106K, but Medicare only reimburses them for $15-25K.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
hackerboos 13y ago
I think you don't understand the purpose of insurance.
seanmcdirmid 13y ago
If everyone had health insurance, and charity care that the hospitals currently eat the costs for now went away, then health insurance prices will drop. That is the whole point of the mandate.
cygx 13y ago
That's a convenient fiction. Care to back that up with some evidence? In particular, how do you account for the fact that more health insurance (Europe, Japan) is less constly than the abomination known as the US healthcare system?
Steko 13y ago
"Get rid of health insurance" ... and people would start up health insurance again because it's absolutely needed. Silliest thing read on HN in weeks.
- GFischer 13y ago
  The concept of health insurance is a bit fucked up in the U.S., since everybody needs healthcare. My country has a system that, while bad, sounds absolutely awesome compared to the U.S. . It's a socialist system that is called Mutualism. The best explanation I could come up with after some Googling is: http://www.hmg.gov.uk/media/60217/mutuals.pdf http://www.hmg.gov.uk/media/60217/mutuals.pdf "Mutual organisations do not have external shareholders - they are controlled by their members. Members may be users of the mutual, employees, other stakeholders or a combination of these Mutual organisations are either owned by and run in the interests of existing members, as is the case in building societies, cooperatives and friendly societies, or, as in many public services, owned on behalf of the wider community and run in the interests of the wider community" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) It does have several downsides - mutual healthcare institutions are strongly discouraged from doing any healthcare on non life-threatening situations, waiting lists for surgeries are way too long, there's corruption and doctor bribing and queue-jumping and strikes... but it "works", most people have good healthcare and don't get bankrupt if they need surgery, for just about U$ 100 per month, and their families have coverage too. PD: see also http://books.google.com.uy/books/about/Mutualism_and_Health_Care.html?id=tDvqCN5aUdUC&redir_esc=y http://books.google.com.uy/books/about/Mutualism_and_Health_...
replicatorblog 13y ago
Another way to say this: Decouple catastrophic health insurance, what we use to cover actual medical emergencies, and routine health care costs. This is roughly the model in use in Singapore and similar to what people in the US with high deductible plans live with. I work in the medical products field and it's amazing how much distortion is introduced into the system when "insurance" is used to pay for everyday consumables. Products that go from RX to OTC drop 80-90% overnight.

It's not greed, it's a consequence of health insurance. Get rid of health insurance and prices would drop 10x.

by pravda 13y ago

It's not greed, it's a consequence of health insurance. Get rid of health insurance and prices would drop 10x.

Would they? Or would the poor middle class people not being able to afford cancer-treatment/heard surgery just have a considerably lower life-expectancy? I am not sure, so I really would love to see the numbers/facts supporting your statement. Would love to learn of this magic fact. [cynicism end] [Edit]: Typo [Edit 2:] In Germany, with full health-insurance the cost for a Cardiopulmonary bypass are round about 30k €. So a lot cheaper, than in the US, despite health insurance. Just wanted to present a fact, not let my comment stand as cynicism only.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
pravda 13y ago
First of all, I am sure the 106K figure is a phony 'list price' figure and not reflective of how much is actually paid. Second of all, you ignore the incredible sums of money taken from the 'poor middle class' and handed over to the health industrial complex. For most of this country's history [the USA], there was no such thing as health insurance. The poor got charity care and the middle class were able to pay. Why do you think cancer treatment has to be expensive?
- sdoering 13y ago
  I am not stating, that it might drive prices down. As I would not be stating, that it might drive prices up. I wouldn't do this, because I do not have the necessary facts to make such a claim. If a health-insurance system would work right, the health insurance agency might have a lot of more leverage in this highly regulated market, then any individual paying for its own. But that is just an assumption. Well your next statement regarding my ironic "poor middle class" is just that: a statement, without any facts to support it. I was asking for facts to support your statements. I even did some preliminary research into the costs of comparable healthcare in Germany (where I am from). I just wanted to learn, if a "no health care" system might work better and be cheaper, but I will not just believe your statements, as that would just go against everything, I value. So I really beg you, to show me verifiable facts substantiating your statements. Please?
- riahi 13y ago
  Your suspicion is correct. It is the price charged to Medicare. Medicare only reimburses $26,898.
- refurb 13y ago
  You are correct, look at the post by riahi. The hospital may charge $106K, but Medicare only reimburses them for $15-25K.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

hackerboos 13y ago

I think you don't understand the purpose of insurance.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

If everyone had health insurance, and charity care that the hospitals currently eat the costs for now went away, then health insurance prices will drop. That is the whole point of the mandate.

cygx 13y ago

That's a convenient fiction. Care to back that up with some evidence? In particular, how do you account for the fact that more health insurance (Europe, Japan) is less constly than the abomination known as the US healthcare system?

Steko 13y ago

"Get rid of health insurance" ... and people would start up health insurance again because it's absolutely needed. Silliest thing read on HN in weeks.

GFischer 13y ago
The concept of health insurance is a bit fucked up in the U.S., since everybody needs healthcare. My country has a system that, while bad, sounds absolutely awesome compared to the U.S. . It's a socialist system that is called Mutualism. The best explanation I could come up with after some Googling is: http://www.hmg.gov.uk/media/60217/mutuals.pdf http://www.hmg.gov.uk/media/60217/mutuals.pdf "Mutual organisations do not have external shareholders - they are controlled by their members. Members may be users of the mutual, employees, other stakeholders or a combination of these Mutual organisations are either owned by and run in the interests of existing members, as is the case in building societies, cooperatives and friendly societies, or, as in many public services, owned on behalf of the wider community and run in the interests of the wider community" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) It does have several downsides - mutual healthcare institutions are strongly discouraged from doing any healthcare on non life-threatening situations, waiting lists for surgeries are way too long, there's corruption and doctor bribing and queue-jumping and strikes... but it "works", most people have good healthcare and don't get bankrupt if they need surgery, for just about U$ 100 per month, and their families have coverage too. PD: see also http://books.google.com.uy/books/about/Mutualism_and_Health_Care.html?id=tDvqCN5aUdUC&redir_esc=y http://books.google.com.uy/books/about/Mutualism_and_Health_...

replicatorblog 13y ago

Another way to say this: Decouple catastrophic health insurance, what we use to cover actual medical emergencies, and routine health care costs. This is roughly the model in use in Singapore and similar to what people in the US with high deductible plans live with. I work in the medical products field and it's amazing how much distortion is introduced into the system when "insurance" is used to pay for everyday consumables. Products that go from RX to OTC drop 80-90% overnight.