[giantg2]

It's an incredibly complex topic and probably off-topic for this article. For example, you could in fact have lower revenues at a provider even if everyone has insurance, if that insurance pays less than today's private insurance. There certainly could be cost savings under a single payer plan, but to what degree is highly dependent on the proposed system. It's worth noting that one of the main points of contention is how to fund such a system (who to tax, from what source, how much, etc).

[ok_dad]

How is it off topic? This guy is surviving in the good graces of his former employer. Off they pulled the contract, he’d be pretty fucked. In America, this is because without a job you don’t have healthcare unless you pay out the ass for it. My comment was very on topic.

I agree it’s complex, too bad no one is smart enough to solve it.

[giantg2]

The article wasn't really covering any reforms. The article itself is probably off-topic for HN.

I think a lot of the negative response to your comment is how you framed it and the questionable content (having fewer insured people doesn't necessarily make care more affordable; in fact the point of the ACA was to increase affordability through increased coverage, although the effects on gross costs seem negligible).

Yes, things would not be as good if they pulled the contract. But Medicaid is an option, so it's not like he'd have no care at all and one doesn't need to "pay out the ass" for that.

[ok_dad]

That was my point, people think increased coverage will cost us more in aggregate, but most studies show that if everyone were covered under a large single payer or natural heath plan it would be cheaper overall!

I don’t really care about the downvotes, that’s what the button is for. I’m also neurodivergent and don’t really communicate my thoughts well so I’m used to it.