←back to thread

US cities pay too much for buses

(www.bloomberg.com)
355 points pavel_lishin | 1 comments | 26 Sep 25 13:57 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
RobKohr ◴[26 Sep 25 19:11 UTC] No.45389953[source]▶
"Federal funding typically covers 80% of bus purchases, with agencies responsible for the remainder."

Well, there is your answer. The one making the purchase isn't the one primarily paying for the purchase. This makes them less sensitive to pricing.

Kinda like how expensive healthcare is since it is paid for by insurance.

Or how you don't care how much you put on your plate or what you choose to eat at an all you can eat buffet.

The second you detach the consumer from the price of something, even through an intermediary such as health insurance, that is when they stop caring about how much something costs, and so the price jumps.

replies(20): >>45390099 #>>45390102 #>>45390229 #>>45390477 #>>45390502 #>>45391244 #>>45391491 #>>45391504 #>>45391644 #>>45392090 #>>45392563 #>>45392764 #>>45393765 #>>45393899 #>>45394500 #>>45394523 #>>45394762 #>>45396032 #>>45396171 #>>45414686 #
ericmcer ◴[26 Sep 25 20:05 UTC] No.45390502[source]▶
It's even worse, I will use my healthcare just because it is free. I would feel like a moron not get my free physical, bloodwork and other labs every year. If it was $20 I wouldn't bother but its almost obligatory to take something "because its free".

Once I learn something is free it is like I already own it, so now I don't get it if I take it, I lose it if I don't.

replies(3): >>45390569 #>>45391204 #>>45391374 #
tehjoker ◴[26 Sep 25 20:11 UTC] No.45390569[source]▶
Preventative care is free because it saves a tremendous amount of money for the insurance company and physical and emotional hardship for yourself by catching bad things early.
replies(2): >>45390680 #>>45391678 #
nickff ◴[26 Sep 25 20:25 UTC] No.45390680[source]▶
Your view is a commonly-held one, and makes a lot of sense; unfortunately there is very little support for it. One data point to the contrary is the Oregon Health Care Study, which showed that 'free' preventative care increased healthcare spending, but did not improve lifespan or reduce long-term cost.
replies(5): >>45390722 #>>45390801 #>>45390883 #>>45391173 #>>45394587 #
1. johnmaguire ◴[26 Sep 25 20:31 UTC] No.45390722[source]▶
I'm not sure they determined that it did not improve lifespans. Here's some snippets from the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Medicaid_health_experim...):

> On average, Medicaid coverage increased annual medical spending by approximately $1,172 relative to spending in the control group. The researchers looked at mortality rates, but they could not reach any conclusions because of the extremely low death rate of the general population of able-bodied Oregon adults aged 19 to 64.

> In the first year after the lottery, Medicaid coverage was associated with higher rates of health care use, a lower probability of having medical debts sent to a collection agency, and higher self-reported mental and physical health. In the 18 months following the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid increased emergency department visits.

> Approximately two years after the lottery, researchers found that Medicaid had no statistically significant impact on physical health measures, but "it did increase use of health care services, raise rates of diabetes detection and management, lower rates of depression, and reduce financial strain."