←back to thread

129 points geox | 9 comments | | HN request time: 0.793s | source | bottom
Show context
brandonb ◴[] No.44604783[source]
The ACA was originally designed as a "three-legged stool" of nondiscrimination (insurance companies can't charge higher rates to sick people), the individual mandate, and subsidies.

If you remove one of legs of the stool, the market becomes unstable and you see price spirals like this.

Jonathan Gruber (MIT econ professor, and one of the designers of the Affordable Care Act) gave a fairly detailed talk about how and why they designed the ACA the way they did, learning from a similar law in Massachusetts: https://youtu.be/2fTHqARiV_Q?si=SRC6Np-rjgUgAe4Z&t=679

replies(3): >>44604870 #>>44604881 #>>44604934 #
1. getnormality ◴[] No.44604934[source]
My hope, perhaps naive, is that 95% of what happens in this Rube Goldberg machine basically amounts to the government paying private insurance companies to pay doctors, which is inefficient but ultimately straightforward.
replies(1): >>44604962 #
2. potato3732842 ◴[] No.44604962[source]
>which is inefficient but ultimately straightforward.

That's an understatement on the order of saying WW2 was a rebalancing of geopolitical power.

Healthcare is what? 20% of GPD. Likely half of that is paper pushing compliance checking rubber stamping that likely ought not to exist.

replies(3): >>44605004 #>>44605023 #>>44605082 #
3. pjc50 ◴[] No.44605004[source]
Unfortunately there's a fraud problem, NOT by patients but by various entities claiming for unnecessary or never-performed procedures. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25068880/
4. getnormality ◴[] No.44605023[source]
I was going to push back against this, but when I googled "what percent of American health care is administrative costs" I got back numbers ranging from 15-34%, which is pretty darn high. Much higher than the last number I heard, which was something like 8%. The factor of two variance is kind of disturbing in itself.
replies(2): >>44605438 #>>44606705 #
5. dgfitz ◴[] No.44605082[source]
According to: https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/feder...

22 % Social Security

14 % Net Interest

14 % Medicare

13 % Health

13 % National Defense

10 % Income Security

5 % Veterans Benefits and Services

2 % Education, Training, Employment, and Social Services

2 % Transportation

1 % Natural Resources and Environment

3 % Other

replies(1): >>44605135 #
6. bpt3 ◴[] No.44605135{3}[source]
That's the budget of the federal government, which thankfully isn't 100% of GDP.
7. zdw ◴[] No.44605438{3}[source]
All this means is that for insurance companies to maximize their administrative costs they push up the overall price - from their perspective making 10% of $10M is way better than 10% of $5M.
replies(1): >>44606134 #
8. potato3732842 ◴[] No.44606134{4}[source]
Drives me up the wall that the same people who can correctly identify when nominal nonprofits like rich people's charity organizations universities or even hospitals are pissing away money on officer salaries, perks, facilities, etc. because "nonprofit" think that somehow being a 10% or X% profit capped organization can't do the same thing with whatever expenses they aren't capped on.
9. orwin ◴[] No.44606705{3}[source]
In my country, social security and universal healthcare administrative cost are 8-11% depending on the year.

Compare that to Swisslife, my previous private healthcare insurance: for every 100€ I gave them, 66-72€ were paid to insure in need while I had them. Of course the mandatory dividends were pretty high before COVID, and reinvestment/marketing/sales has to take a bite of that, so perhaps only half of the 30% they take from customers are admin costs, but still, I'd rather give more to my country national healthcare if I could.

Probably the variance you have could be caused by non-admin costs being counted as admin costs.