Hacker News Reader

Comment by danjayh | Hacker News Reader

The insurance company's methods of establishing the pool are far less coercive and destructive than the state's. Additionally, people can opt not to participate with an insurance company (or at least they used to be able to), so they have some motivation to be efficient and provide a basically decent level of service ... this is not true of the state. So establishing that large, mandatory pool has a downside.

View on HN

Sometimes innovation is about figuring out ways to make more money, not by lowering costs to attract more consumers, but by limiting choices, creating illusion of choice, denying coverage, cheating consumers. Not all corporate innovation is good thing. Certain industries the possibility for real innovation is practically non-existent, and the 'innovation' that occurs is not in the public interest.

>>Additionally, people can opt not to participate with an insurance company (or at least they used to be able to), so they have some motivation to be efficient and provide a basically decent level of service.

You have the same backwards concept of Healthcare as everyone else who is rich; it's only for me. Healthcare is for everyone, it is a right. It is not a privilege that you only get if you can afford it. Health insurance is THE PROBLEM.

If you don't have car insurance, you might be financially strained. If you don't have flood/fire insurance, you could loose your stuff. If you don't have health insurance (in this country) you could die. If you think these things are the same, there is no hope.

I agree with what your saying but I'm bothered by the use of "right" -- I wish there was a better word. The US has the bill of rights and they're all effectively about "the right to be left alone".

In the case of healthcare it is effectually a demand of the government. Because language frames the debate it would be nice to have a better word to describe this.

I disagree with him, but agree with you, healthcare is not a right. As you stated, the natural rights enumerated by our constitution make no demands on others - in fact, they are the opposite - they guarantee protection from coercion by others. Anyone who believes in healthcare as an entitlement believe, effectively, that they are entitled to demand that others serve them without compensation. While there are cases where this is necessary at the federal level, healthcare is not one of them, and it's why it's not specifically mentioned in the constitution. Generally things like healthcare are better handled at the state level (and indeed, states were beginning to try before the feds stepped in). Handling these issues at a federal level enables people in the midwest to force people on the coasts to do things they'd rather not do, and vice-versa. Eventually, this leads to the kind of strife we've been seeing lately in the form of protests regarding healthcare.

Seeing how states often want to apply their rights (denying marriage equality, outlawing abortion, etc.) I don't trust them more than the Feds.

What's interesting about the current "health care reform" taking place is that there doesn't seem to be any discussion of how to actually decrease costs other than denying coverage.

There's a fundamental problem - the medical industry has made all kinds of decisions based on the assumption of high cost - doctors take on $300,000+ student debt, hospitals have built huge new facilities, and pharma has poured billions into R&D on the assumption of high cost. Rolling it back now will be difficult and will surely screw over some group of people, whether it's the elderly, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, or hospital owners (which, due to 401(k)s, is you and me).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com