News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:SCOTUS Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Can't Keep ... by Dylan16807 on Thursday May 04, 2017 @10:39AM (#14265134)
>So for example, there's a thing going around Facebook with Jimmy Kimmel about healthcare, which has everyone saying that no one should never need to consider finances when their child is sick. This is plainly false in the general case, because it would imply infinite resources. In the real world, there will always be a point at which we must say "no more".

That's not "plainly" false, unless you know some medical treatments that cost an infinite amount of money to perform. If we assume that less than 1% of patients are catastrophically expensive, then based on actual data it looks like dropping them all would save less than 20% of total spending, possibly a lot less.

Re:SCOTUS Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Can't Keep ... by CWuestefeld on Friday May 05, 2017 @01:54PM (#14275398)
I just happened to bump into this article, describing how Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield, "the dominant company in [Iowa]’s individual insurance market", is pulling out of the market, leaving only one provider standing. Their explanation is that a primary driver is a single patient whose care is costing on the order of $1M per month.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-iowa-2...

Re:SCOTUS Rejects Guilty Until Proven Innocent – Can't Keep ... by Dylan16807 on Friday May 05, 2017 @02:26PM (#14275664)
That is a serious problem, but it's solvable. As a country we can handle these patients. Like the article says, full-on single payer wouldn't have that problem. Or we could force all insurers to pay into a pool that covers super-expensive patients.