Four Million U.S. Children Had No Health Insurance in 2024

Posted by Brajeshwar 19 hours ago

Counter60Comment110OpenOriginal

Comments

Comment by freedomben 19 hours ago

For my kids, health insurance premium would have been almost $2k per month. In a typical year we spend about $1,200 total on medical stuff just paying out of pocket. Also keep in mind that premiums are not all you pay - there's also deductible and co-pays on top of that!

It's not hard to math that up and see how insane doing the health insurance would be. Yes there's the catastrophic risk of a bad accident or ER visit or something, and that's worth some cost, but even saving half the premiums in a money market account not only provides a good cushion for that, but if we don't use the money we actually get to keep it!

Comment by giantg2 19 hours ago

"but even saving half the premiums in a money market account not only provides a good cushion for that, but if we don't use the money we actually get to keep it!"

Until they require a $50k life flight or $100k brain, heart, etc surgery.

The problem is that insurance was intended to cover the large, infrequent costs - house fires, totaled cars, etc. The deductibles are intended to influence people to pay out of pocket for the smaller expenses.

The problem with health insurance is that the deductibles, premiums, and cost of care are out of control. The laws mandate significant amounts of coverage for a plan. The costs can be as high as a house fire, but happen much more frequently within the population. You can't get a plan that just covers expenses over $10k-20k per year. You can get kind of close with the super high deductibles but it still has to cover some things before the limit. Even if you could get to that, you're still looking at high costs when you consider the odds of something like 1 out of 100 people might need a $100k procedure in a year (made up numbers).

Comment by Escapado 18 hours ago

Genuine question: How does it happen that a heart surgery costs 100k? 2 surgeons (200$/h) + 6 nurses(100$/h) for 10 hours would be 10k. Where do the other 100k come from? Is it the equipment cost? Consumables? After care? Or are the margins just ridiculous?

Comment by giantg2 18 hours ago

Lots of equipment, consumable and facility costs. Catheters with realted imaging and machines to place it, meds, anesthesia, cost of the building, specialized HVAC, liability coverage, etc. Margins can also be bad since they'll charge some people more than others.

Comment by dec0dedab0de 18 hours ago

In the breakdown it's usually the anesthesia that costs the most. I think a big chunk of that goes to malpractice insurance.

Comment by ben_w 1 minute ago

Malpractice insurance? One insurance premium is high in order to pay for the cost of another insurance premium?

This seems… suboptimal.

I'm in Germany, I don't know what we spend money on here because I'm still integrating myself and have not mastered the German language to the level of having opinions about the Krankenversicherungsbeitragsentlastungsgesetz, but I do know we spend about 2/3rds per capita as the USA for better outcomes:

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-vs-health...

Comment by peterbecich 17 hours ago

Excessive testing to protect against legal liability, also.

Comment by peterbecich 17 hours ago

Well stated, and I agree completely.

> happen much more frequently within the population

I assume the high premium reflects this frequency -- a higher frequency than many people realize. I do not assume the insurance companies are price gouging, but rather pricing their plans to break even/slightly profit.

Compare health insurer profit margin to FAANG.

Comment by _DeadFred_ 13 hours ago

Reminder if you are in the Pacific Northwest/Hawaii Life Flight membership is only $85, or bit more to cover ambulance if you are in Oregon. If you drive a lot of highway miles, ski, mountainbike, hike, vacation in Hawaii it's worth thinking about.

https://www.lifeflight.org/membership/#pricing

Comment by 18 hours ago

Comment by ashleyn 19 hours ago

It would be nice if health insurance were, well, insurance, and not some bastard mix of cost sharing and collective bargaining. The closest you get to "catastrophic only" insurance is an obamacare bronze and/or a high deductible plan with an HSA. Same service, same networks, but you pay less premiums and thus keep what you don't spend.

Health catastrophes are more likely than you may think, so I would suggest a HDHP+HSA at the very least. It's very difficult to self insure against a cancer diagnosis that may blow a million dollars in a year.

I'm a fairly high net worth individual with a high deductible plan. Setting aside the deductible amount in savings (often, tax free with the HSA) and keeping it every year you have good health is OP.

Comment by patja 19 hours ago

HDHP is good advice but doesn't save anything from the prices cited above. My HDHP Bronze plan is over 2k/month for 3 people.

Comment by giantg2 18 hours ago

Not to mention, this paradigm completely fails for almost anyone with an income that isn't above the 50th percentile.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> this paradigm completely fails for almost anyone with an income that isn't above the 50th percentile

I'm in Wyoming, and our threshold is under 200% the poverty line. That's $53,300 for a family of 3 [1]. Median household income–nationally–is $84k [2]. In Wyoming, it's $75k [3].

That's a gap. But it's a workable one.

[1] https://health.wyo.gov/healthcarefin/chip/doesmychildqualify...

[2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[3] https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-income-of-a-us-hous...

Comment by 16 hours ago

Comment by BobaFloutist 17 hours ago

I don't know, I think there's some benefit to health insurance being more than insurance.

I think there's public-health benefits to subsidizing preventative/routine care, since

1. People are dumb and will decline to pay the $100-$300 it takes to decide whether something needs treating even if they can afford it

2. It's just kind of inhumane to make people struggling on the edge actually do the math on whether they should pay sticker price to get e.g. an ingrown nail treated or just wait and hope it doesn't get infected, costing them vastly more or losing them a toe, and that's even if the probabilistic and cost information was readily available.

3. Even if we assume a perfectly informed and rational populace, rational individual decisions aren't the same as rational societal decisions. For example, a lot of people actually probably shouldn't pay $1000 for a given vaccine, since their risk of infection is pretty low as long as enough other people are vaccinated and pretty high if enough other are not, whether or not they're vaccinated. However, across a society, paying ~$1,000 per head to get everyone vaccinated might be worth it to get to the break point where we go from 250 million lost workdays and 1 million deaths to 1 million lost workdays and 1 thousand deaths. And then if you're making 300 million vaccines instead of 500 thousand, you can probably get the price down to at least $500, maybe less.

Maybe these things shouldn't be a function of health insurance. Maybe we should just directly subsidize the specific care we want to be widely available. But a lot of other countries seem to have decided it makes sense to gather public health expenditure and cost-sharing into one umbrella also called "insurance," so I'm not convinced it would make that little sense for us.

Comment by anubistheta 19 hours ago

That's why I liked catastrophic health care plans. Insurance works best when it covers rare, expensive events. Otherwise, it interferes with the process. My car insurance doesn't cover oil changes or new tires, but if I get I crash and injure someone, it kicks in. Homeowners insurance doesn't cover a routine roof replacement, but it will if there's storm damage. That's how health insurance should work.

A catastrophic health care plan has low premiums and high deductibles. You also get access to a tax advantaged savings account to save up for future events. So you can take the money you saved on premiums and pay for medical expenses tax free. Or let the money accumulate to cover future medical expenses or even retirement!

Comment by giantg2 19 hours ago

"A catastrophic health care plan has low premiums and high deductibles."

Except they don't really exist anymore. You can get really high deductibles, but the premiums are still ridiculous. The plans have to cover many non-catastrophic events now by law.

The other problem is that the cost and frequency of things like auto accidents or home damage is generally much lower than for health events, and generally include much lower caps on how much they will payout.

Comment by bombcar 18 hours ago

This was the intent of the insurance agencies, they sold catastrophic plans but didn't really make a ton on them, so they negotiated basically not being able to sell them anymore.

Self-insurance is the final catastrophic plan and the numbers keep looking better every day.

Comment by patja 18 hours ago

I would like to get a catastrophic plan that doesn't cover things I would categorize as consequences of bad choices. I get that covering these things is less costly for society than just letting things run their course, but it does drive costs onto everyone else's premium.

Catastrophic plans are still quite costly because they aren't really a pure insurance product. Mine is over 2k/month for 3 people on an ACA Bronze plan with HSA.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> would like to get a catastrophic plan that doesn't cover things I would categorize as consequences of bad choices

Like what?

Comment by patja 10 hours ago

Things that are largely caused by lifestyle choices.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 10 hours ago

Could you give any examples?

The challenge with such carve-outs is it incentivises broadly defining the offending lifestyle choice. So the specifics matter, because otherwise, insufficient diet and exercise (or, for the exceptions, overexertion) is a lifestyle choice that can be positively linked to pretty much any issue for any person.

Comment by ben_w 24 minutes ago

To add to your point:

Even if everyone's fit and has a good diet, maternity care is medically important and starting a family in a free country** definitely counts as a lifestyle choice because some choose not to do it.

Human childbirth without any care has quite a high fatality rate*; no childbirth, no next generation to cover the pensions of today's taxpayers.

* I don't know if South Sudan had something weird going on to push their lifetime rate of fatal complications from maternity to 35% in the worst years, but even if they're an outlier there were plenty of other countries trending at around 10% in 1985: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/lifetime-risk-of-maternal...

** Not so in places without women's reproductive rights.

Comment by BobaFloutist 17 hours ago

Maybe if car insurance discounted new tires and oil changes on a reasonable interval, people would crash less, and insurance rates wouldn't even have to go up that much.

Comment by dboreham 19 hours ago

And this is why you can't have a system where people can opt out of paying for healthcare.

Comment by msandford 19 hours ago

I suspect that the parent does in fact pay for any healthcare that they need or that their kids need. They just aren't buying insurance because the price of the insurance far outweighs their normal spending.

This is the real problem with health insurance is that it covers relatively routine and non emergency healthcare services where you can ship around and have market forces encourage people to find efficiency.

I understand the "if I'm dying from a car crash I can't shop around" argument and I agree. But that's very different than shopping for a family doc you like for the half dozen times a year you or your family will need to see someone for a strep test and maybe antibiotics.

Comment by freedomben 19 hours ago

> And this is why you can't have a system where people can opt out of paying for healthcare.

We do pay for our healthcare. We don't pay for health insurance. I get the general point you're making and I'm not trying to be pedantic, but I do think it's important to distinguish between the two in order to have a productive exchange.

Comment by senordevnyc 17 hours ago

But you wouldn't pay for your healthcare if you had a major event that cost $500k+. The rest of us would be left holding the bag.

I don't think you're doing anything wrong, but I do think we need a system everyone is a part of paying for, via health insurance mandate, single payer, etc.

Or we let people opt out completely, to where a family like yours just wouldn't receive care if you can't pay for it, but I don't think this is the world we want to live in.

Comment by hnuser123456 19 hours ago

And how many zeros does that justify tacking onto realistic fair-market pricing on meds and procedures to force people to "opt in"?

Comment by ocschwar 19 hours ago

The value you get from the health care system isn't just from the services they provide when/if you need them.

It's from the system existing and being ready to help you.

We're not talking about widgets, onions, haircuts, or pork bellies here. You can't opt out of the system existing. And you can't opt out of the horrific consequences if the system doesn't exist.

So it's a bit silly to talk about health care like it's something that has a free market.

Comment by hnuser123456 18 hours ago

I work at a hospital, so should I get better rates than everyone who doesn't, since I'm helping keep that system ready?

Comment by Timshel 19 hours ago

You can if not every actor in your system is trying to gouge the others ...

Comment by koolba 19 hours ago

The ACA has specific language that limits insurance company profits to a percentage of gross costs of care.

It’s in their interests to have the provider costs be as high as possible as it directly limits their own profits.

To put it another way, when the private equity that bought your local doctor’s office raises their prices, your insurance company wins.

Comment by guywithahat 19 hours ago

There are programs in the US to give poor people healthcare for free; I was unemployed for a while and on one. Surprisingly simple and easy to set up.

The issue highlighted in this article seems to largely be due to illegal immigration, not due to a lack of support. If we curbed illegal immigration the problem would likely fix itself, although this article isn't very clear on who is or isn't a citizen in their numbers which makes it hard to use for anything useful

Comment by toomuchtodo 19 hours ago

https://usafacts.org/answers/how-many-people-are-on-medicaid...

https://usafacts.org/just-the-facts/do-you-qualify/health/

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-will-the-obbb-impact-medic...

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF11912

https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/5-key-fa...

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/undocumented...

> Do undocumented immigrants qualify for federal healthcare benefits?

No. Undocumented immigrants do not have access to federally funded healthcare coverage, including Medicaid, Medicare, or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). They are also unable to purchase health insurance coverage from the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace.

Comment by PearlRiver 18 hours ago

In fairness this does not work in practice. If a child is rushed to the hospital with a life threatening injury no US doctor is going to send them away. America is not really evil it just likes to LARP it.

Someone will pay the bills.

Comment by toomuchtodo 18 hours ago

Emergency Medicaid for undocumented immigrants made up only 0.4% of total Medicaid spending in 2022, a new study finds. - https://abcnews.go.com/Health/emergency-medicaid-undocumente... - October 9th, 2025

As the very piece we're discussing mentions, the care in question for children is not emergency care. I assert America is evil, because these are active healthcare policy choices. We could fix this today with enough Congressional votes, it is a choice not to.

Comment by guywithahat 18 hours ago

Right, they shouldn't have access to ACA, nor should a citizen of Denmark or India. They are foreign nationals and including them in the 4 million uninsured children in the US statistic makes the statistic worthless.

My issue with this article is it suggests there's some massive child uninsured problem in the US, but to get that number they're including foreign citizens. If we included all of south america I'm sure we could find tens of millions of uninsured people. If we included the rest of the world it might be closer to hundreds of millions. That doesn't mean there's a problem with the ACA. There could be a problem with it, but this 4 million number doesn't get us closer to an answer.

Comment by toomuchtodo 18 hours ago

So you believe this number is a material amount of undocumented children and not US citizens? Can you prove this assertion? Numbers I was able to find indicate 1-1.1 million undocumented children in the US under 18. Let us assume they are a part of this 4 million stat for the sake of argument. What about the other 3 million children? Is 3 million children not a "massive child uninsured problem"? I believe its an emergency, but I am curious what the other side of that argument is.

To be frank, through policy, we can see that the federal government hates children through Medicaid cuts and states not expanding Medicaid and making it easy to get coverage for children. This is objective fact, based on the data. Otherwise, there would be zero uninsured US citizen children. The message is clear: don't have children in the US, or get out of the US if you intend to have children and can. If you are stuck in the US by having the misfortune to have been born on the wrong soil and without means to leave, my condolences for bad luck.

Comment by guywithahat 18 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by fzeroracer 16 hours ago

Literally one sentence after your quote

> “Especially in today’s climate, there are families where the child is a citizen and the parent is an immigrant, and they’re fearful of interacting with government,” Alker says. But such fears can only explain a small proportion of those who are uninsured, she notes.

So what's your goal here? My patience level is incredibly thin for people that are very clearly taking the article out of context to push some remarkably dumb agenta.

Comment by guywithahat 12 hours ago

My point is, and remains, that you can't use figures like the one that headlines the article if it includes unrelated data like foreign nationals. The reasoning is because it ends with the exact situation we have now. What we know for sure is the US has a free health care system (ACA) for those who actually need it, I know because I've used it. What we don't know is how many children are uninsured, because the data they're relying on is worthless. Using fake data and then claiming "it's probably not off by much" doesn't contribute much to the overall discussion.

I'd also like to point out HN isn't really for political discussion, it's for technical discussion. This is a methodology issue in the article, not my personal opinions on US health care.

Comment by 19 hours ago

Comment by alexfromapex 19 hours ago

The US government should track how many Americans don't have health insurance, instead of caring so much about GDP or the stock market. It's a KPI that would clearly show how poorly the economy is actually functioning.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 19 hours ago

> US government should track how many Americans don't have health insurance

"Source: The U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (data)". FTFA. You don't even have to read it. It's the source for the first graph. The one blown up before you even have to scroll.

Comment by peterbecich 17 hours ago

The OP is claiming the country should re-align its priorities to optimize this health-insured number, not claiming the gov does not already track this number.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 13 hours ago

> OP is claiming the country should re-align its priorities to optimize this health-insured number, not claiming the gov does not already track this number

They absolutely claimed the latter.

But even to the first, they didn't make any policy claims! They said it "would clearly show how poorly the economy is actually functioning." That's not true! You can have a fabulous economy (with a well-performing "GDP or...stock market") with terrible healthcare KPIs, this is basically a petrostate.

Healthcare is measured. And it's discussed. One can debate how the total-insured figure should play into policy. That wasn't that comment.

Comment by 16 hours ago

Comment by bpt3 19 hours ago

lol, you beat me to it. Some people are so eager to be outraged they can't even bother to read anything.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

All three of you in this thread dependency committed that crime.

The first erroneously said the US doesn't track it, but the next two of you didn't read the rest of their post.

Comment by bpt3 14 hours ago

I read the rest of it as well. When the first statement is false, the rest of it isn't particularly meaningful.

It's clear to me that they were just looking for a launching point to complain about capitalism and didn't really care where that came from.

Comment by azalemeth 19 hours ago

Everyone is born and at some point will die. The costs associated with this vary hugely but the certainty of those two end points are inescapable. Almost every other developed country in the world recognises that and shares both the risks and the costs recognising that health is a golden crown worn by (and invisible to) those who have it. As someone with a spinal injury who would be most likely bankrupt and unemployed in the US I just don't understand why you don't get a proper, profit-free healthcare system. You spend the most on it in the world and don't get the greatest outcomes!

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> don't understand why you don't get a proper, profit-free healthcare system. You spend the most on it in the world and don't get the greatest outcomes

American healthcare for the top 10 to 15% (about $150k+) is the best in the world. By a long shot. (The bottom ninety-something percent of the world's top 1% get their care here for a reason.)

Another 40% are covered by Medicare or Medicaid [1] which, while nothing to brag about, exceeds the median OECD healthcare experience.

That leaves half of the population with crappy employer-provided healthcare, the VA, scams or no insurance at all. For most of them, until they have an accident, this coverage is fine.

In summary, you have a system that works terrifically for the rich, well for the poor and old, and well enough for the rest that reform is challenging.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-28...

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

"In summary, you have a system that works ... well for the poor".

You don't actually know any poor people, do you? Their lives are not governed by your theoretical models.

And as the GP said, our healthcare - not the best of the best of our healthcare, as you cherrypicked, but the kind ordinary people have - is appalling overpriced for its mediocre quality.

Comment by 10 hours ago

Comment by trimethylpurine 18 hours ago

Recently, friends and family in other countries have asked about health care in the US and I've been very surprised by what they imagine is going on here.

Let's compare notes? If I go to a hospital (emergency) for any reason, I will be seen within an hour at worst. If I'm bleeding or something I'll be seen immediately. A clinic for surgery might be same day or up to a couple of weeks, depends on severity. More specialized surgery could be 5-6 weeks. American average monthly cost for health insurance is around $600 for a family. Individuals without a family are around $450 so they kind of get screwed. The expenditures for health care, including the $600/mo are tax deductible. This number can go as high as $1200 in places like New York where income is significantly higher as is cost of living.

Overall, averaging co-payment and deductible with accidents, you should expect to spend around $3,000 / yr on average per person in total for health care as part of a family in the US. This number varies greatly by age, and both income and health care in the US is socialized so your wages determine your healthcare liability. (Make more money? Get less social services.)

This should cover everyone, but you have issues where poor people don't file taxes, and don't file for health care. Those people will still be seen in an emergency room.

Conversely, my friends and family in other countries with "free" healthcare pay roughly the same total for their medical portion of tax liability as I pay for health care in total. But their wait times are astronomically greater when it comes to receiving care.

I've often helped financially because their wait time for something like shoulder surgery might be 10 to 12 months or even longer, but the same doctor will see them in a week if it's paid privately. So I've worked out payment plans where I contribute $1k/mo for their "add-on" private care so that they can be seen in a reasonable amount of time. That's in addition to what they already paid in medical tax.

Maybe that helps to understand. From my perspective, in a lot of countries you are told that you have free healthcare, but in fact you're paying for it in taxes, and then someone in the US will still have to pay for it when you actually need it anyway. Double payment. Hope you've got friends. (Maybe that's not true for everyone, I'm just going by what I've seen and paid for myself for my own family.)

I personally think that Europe and other countries don't have better health care, it's much worse. I've lived in several countries for 1-2 months to years in each and I've never seen health care remotely on the level that I see in the US. I would venture to guess it's the best in the world.

If it's hard to understand how people live in a modern high tech country without healthcare, it's because they don't. It's just about which rich person is paying for it. Health care is very expensive, and that's true around the world. And around the world, if you don't file/register for health care, your outcomes are generally much worse. The US is no different in that regard.

Comment by piva00 15 hours ago

I believe you need to compare notes on a societal level, of course that richer Americans will have great healthcare. The quality of care is not the problem, it's the accessibility of it.

Comment by spwa4 12 hours ago

Waitlists do mean this is not as comparable as you make it out to be. With a 1-year waitlist for heart surgery ... you effectively do not have heart surgery cover, because you'll be dead before it happens.

Now of course, mostly people just lose a few years of life and have a number of very painful months due to delays, that it is the direct cause of death is fortunately rare.

Oh and before you say it, most of the difference in life expectancy is due to the the difference in overweight people, not medical care.

But of course people have voted everyone has care and can claim everything's great and they've done everything needed. That it doesn't translate into reality ... "is not their fault". Meanwhile you read there is such a doctor shortage in for example Southern Italy that seeing a doctor in under and hour is outright impossible ... because there isn't a doctor less than an hour's drive away from some villages, even without waitlists. And the doctor shortage is getting worse, not better.

Comment by piva00 11 hours ago

You need to compare Southern Italy to a similar impoverished area of the USA which might have the exact same doctor shortage. Of course different parts of a country will have different availability, seeing a doctor in Torino will be much faster than in a village like Saliano...

A 1-year waitlist for a necessary heart surgery where? Every country in Europe has their own healthcare system, each one of those have their strengths and weaknesses, exactly as it would be in the USA.

Notwithstanding there are private facilities you can pay insurance or out of pocket, the difference is no matter what you have decent coverage somehow, the richer the country the better it is, the richer the region of the country the better quality it is, exactly as in the USA...

Comment by spwa4 1 hour ago

No, all parts of Italy (and frankly all of Europe) have a doctor shortage. It just goes from "2 months waitlist for primary care physician if it's not urgent" all the way up to "over a year even for critical care". And yes, richer areas have more doctors though the country is by far the biggest factor.

And this all gets confused by the fact that countries have regulations and make their own situation, making everything complicated. So, for instance, despite bad primary care in Southern Italy, the mental care is actually supposed to be pretty good. By contrast, Eastern Europe, specifically Romania, has terrible mental care but good primary care, including areas that aren't so wealthy.

Comment by trimethylpurine 8 hours ago

So if we're comparing, I personally know only two people here without healthcare. They don't have jobs, and won't get them because they just don't want them. They live by buying and selling trash on eBay or similar. They could get free healthcare, but they don't want to file their taxes or fill out forms. I've offered to help them.

And I've known at least as many living the same way in Europe.

You can lead the horse to water, but you can't stop bureaucrats from discouraging it with paperwork.

Same, same.

To be fair, the paperwork is annoying enough that I'm actually paying a dentist $5k for one of them to get work done, just because I'd rather do that than fight this person to file their taxes and fill out the healthcare forms before their teeth rot out of their head. And it would cost at least as much to get an attorney do it for them.

It's just not worth it to fight with them, and the reality is that if it was easy to fill out the forms, then my healthcare costs would just go up anyway to cover all those additional people.

Either way, someone has to pay. There is no free lunch.

Comment by bpt3 19 hours ago

I don't disagree with anything you said, but the simple answer to your question is that most American households are happy with their current health insurance and don't want it to change, so we keep patching the current (severely flawed) system as "needed" rather than starting over with a new one or making what would be seen as radical changes.

--- Edit ---

For the kneejerk downvoters who seem very confused, this was released yesterday: https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5650010-survey-aca-cov...

This has been an issue for decades now, with countless polls to back it up.

Comment by calibas 18 hours ago

That poll doesn't say they're happy with their health insurance, it says they're at least somewhat satisfied with the coverage. You'd see very different results if you asked about health insurance prices.

The problem is the cost.

Comment by bpt3 13 hours ago

I believe most people would incorporate the value received into their satisfaction rating.

Most people also don't have any idea how much their insurance costs in total or how it compares to alternatives, so that would be a challenging question to write with any reasonable expectation of getting a coherent response.

> The problem is the cost.

You could say this about almost anything that isn't free, and could still say it about a number of things even if they were free.

Comment by colinbartlett 19 hours ago

Citation needed.

Comment by bpt3 18 hours ago

From yesterday, after a 2 second google search:

https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/5650010-survey-aca-cov...

Feel free to look at the many, many, many alternative polls over the years. This is well known to anyone who has done any research into the topic at all.

Comment by toomuchtodo 18 hours ago

Take the poll in 2026 after ACA subsides evaporate and Medicaid cuts. Highest satisfaction is for government run insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, Tricare).

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/poll-are-sati... ("Overall, 82% of Americans said they’re satisfied with their health care coverage, including a third who said they are very satisfied with their current coverage. The group that reported being the most satisfied were older adults, with 9 in 10 Americans over 65 years old saying they were satisfied. And 42% in that age group reported being “very satisfied.”. Roughly 9 in 10 of those who have public health insurance coverage through Medicare or Medicaid also reported being satisfied with coverage, compared to 77% of those with private health care coverage.")

https://www.kff.org/medicare/overall-satisfaction-with-medic...

https://www.citizen.org/article/public-support-for-medicare-... ("Support for Medicare-for-All continues to rise, whether in Congress, state legislatures, or among the American people. Recent polls indicate that six in ten Americans support Medicare-for-All. In addition, more than 60 percent believe that government is responsible for ensuring health coverage for all Americans. And nearly 70 percent of all voters, including battleground voters, identify health care as an important issue in upcoming elections.")

My comment with citations from six years ago showing the trend holds: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22550774 (March 11th, 2020)

Americans With Government Health Plans Most Satisfied - https://news.gallup.com/poll/186527/americans-government-hea... - November 6th, 2015

Comment by bpt3 14 hours ago

Yes, it's noted in the poll I linked (which is the same one as your first link) that the highest satisfaction is with government run insurance.

Not enough people are on ACA with subsidies to move the poll results that much, and Medicaid cuts aren't going to make people less satisfied with their private insurance.

I have no idea why you and so many other people seem to be taking my explanation as to why the US doesn't adopt universal socialized medicine as some sort of endorsement of the status quo.

Comment by rayiner 19 hours ago

The Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) has covered health insurance for children in middle-income families since 1997: https://ccf.georgetown.edu/2017/08/03/what-every-policy-make.... CHIP eligibility ranges from 175% of the federal poverty line in Wyoming to 405%. So how are their children who don't have coverage?

Comment by SoftTalker 18 hours ago

IDRTA but they probably are in family situations where the parents are borderline or actually incompetent. They just don't sign up, or aren't aware that it's available, when they need care they go to the ER and don't pay anyway so why do more than that?

Comment by bombcar 18 hours ago

This is the reality (and the system actually handles this "relatively" well, all things considered).

There's a reason that if you dip your toe into ANY of the various support things, they ALL immediately apply for you.

(Kids in general and for the large part are pretty healthy, the numbers of "major health issues" that aren't broken bones/scrapes/flu are pretty small overall. So if you're poor/don't care, you just roll the dice. 999/1000 it's going to come out ahead for you.)

Comment by giantg2 18 hours ago

Does CHIP include children without paperwork?

Comment by sys32768 19 hours ago

My partner doesn't even have health insurance.

My deductible is $8300, but at least it's 100% coverage once I hit that.

Comment by acuozzo 18 hours ago

I don't understand why calls to "Protect the children!" don't include health insurance.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

Because of course it's not genuine. It's always a smokescreen for policing morality.

Comment by bombcar 18 hours ago

Because the US already has CHIP and various other programs that mean the vast majority of children DO have healthcare, if they need it.

It's just not a real pressing problem for most people, because either they're covered by CHIP or similar, or covered by work, or just don't care.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

Yeah, all my friends who struggle without their desperately needed medications "just don't care".

Comment by PearlRiver 18 hours ago

Amusingly there is another conversation on HN were Americans pat themselves on the back

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46287251

In my country healthcare for under 18 is free. Just putting it out there.

Comment by kittikitti 19 hours ago

I know a real case where a child was in the intensive care unit and had their health insurance dropped because their parent missed a few days to be with them. The health insurance situation in the US is terrifying and heartbreaking.

Comment by peterbecich 19 hours ago

Terrible. COBRA would have been best option in this situation, I think. By law, (for a steep COBRA fee) no one is supposed to lose their insurance on such short notice.

Comment by freedomben 18 hours ago

COBRA lets you pay the full premium to continue. If your company has been covering 80% or more, the premiums alone will be insane. Also this comes at a time when you just lost your job...

Comment by peterbecich 17 hours ago

I realize COBRA is the full premium. My claim is that, if company coverage is lost in the middle of an expensive treatment, COBRA is more affordable than the out-of-pocket cost.

COBRA is older than ACA. Special enrollment in ACA under the job loss enrollment period exemption may be a better option than COBRA.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

Your claim is that if they are independently wealthy, OR are willing to forego food and housing, COBRA will save them from unexpected healthcare costs.

Comment by peterbecich 13 hours ago

I did not claim it would save from unexpected costs. The full premium is an unexpected cost. I claimed COBRA is more affordable than out-of-pocket healthcare if you are in the middle of an expensive treatment at the moment you lose employer coverage.

Jumping onto ACA via unemployment exemption or Medicaid could require a transfer to a different doctor, etc. in the middle of treatment.

Comment by hereme888 19 hours ago

And it's likely to get worse now that insurance prices skyrocketed.

Comment by HardwareLust 12 hours ago

Why is this flagged?

Comment by close04 19 hours ago

Someone exhausted the concern for children on other topics like identifying people on the web (so children don't watch porn), scanning the content of people's devices and communications (so children are safe from predators), etc.

They reached the bottom of the barrel just when it came to making sure children can get treatment when sick.

Comment by techdmn 19 hours ago

If only there was a party on the ballot that supported universal healthcare. (I know there are third-parties that do, but they are pretty effectively excluded from the process.)

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> If only there was a party on the ballot that supported universal healthcare

There are plenty of advocacy groups for universal healthcare. You could join them. You could also support electeds pressing for this, and call your elected to make it known it's a priority.

Civic engagement doesn't start and end at the ballot box.

Comment by chaostheory 19 hours ago

Given the age population bomb, we should reduce elderly socialized benefits and offer them to children instead. We can’t afford both.

Comment by bpt3 19 hours ago

We can afford both, because we already pay for the elderly and children are extremely inexpensive to insure overall.

Comment by toomuchtodo 18 hours ago

We cannot afford both, the elderly are too expensive current state. 1/4th of Medicare spending is someone's last year of life. So, life expectancy has ballooned spending on the elderly while not paying for child healthcare.

Medicare’s Real Fiscal Crisis Is Much Worse than Trust Fund Insolvency - https://www.cato.org/blog/medicares-real-fiscal-crisis-much-... - October 8th, 2025 ("Medicare isn’t just facing a trust fund shortfall—it’s threatening America’s entire fiscal future. While headlines warn that the Hospital Insurance (HI) Trust Fund2 will run out in 2033, the real danger comes from a different part of the program: Supplementary Medical Insurance (SMI). SMI refers to Medicare spending by Part B (doctors’ visits and outpatient services) and Part D (prescription drugs). Unlike the HI fund, SMI is set up to take whatever it needs from taxpayers—no limits, no debate. In 2024 alone, Medicare Parts B and D financed under SMI added $498 billion straight onto the national credit card. Unless Congress makes fundamental reforms to Medicare, federal healthcare spending will drive the US toward a catastrophic fiscal crisis.")

Medicare Spending at the End of Life: A Snapshot of Beneficiaries Who Died in 2014 and the Cost of Their Care - https://www.kff.org/medicare/medicare-spending-at-the-end-of... - July 14th, 2016 ("Of the 2.6 million people who died in the U.S. in 2014, 2.1 million, or eight out of 10, were people on Medicare, making Medicare the largest insurer of medical care provided at the end of life. Spending on Medicare beneficiaries in their last year of life accounts for about 25% of total Medicare spending on beneficiaries age 65 or older. The fact that a disproportionate share of Medicare spending goes to beneficiaries at the end of life is not surprising given that many have serious illnesses or multiple chronic conditions and often use costly services, including inpatient hospitalizations, post-acute care, and hospice, in the year leading up to their death.")

Comment by bpt3 13 hours ago

We have been paying for the expensive part for decades and have no plans to stop, so your claim that we can't afford it is interesting.

Is there a reason you are so argumentative about basic, seemingly indisputable facts related to this topic?

Comment by toomuchtodo 13 hours ago

Because you are not providing facts, just feelings. I am here to argue facts, not feelings. The citations in my comment you replied to literally describe why this spending is unsustainable and we cannot afford it and your response is "nah". Can't debate ignoring facts.

Comment by bpt3 11 hours ago

The facts are that we have been paying for Medicare since the 1960s and are legally obligated to continue paying for it indefinitely, as pointed out in one of your citations. That's literally all I said in my last post. In the previous post, I also said that children are inexpensive to insure, which is also empirically true.

The citations you provided are well researched, concerning, raise valid points, and include many facts, but your conclusions based on them are only very strongly held opinions.

This is now the third time you've jumped down my throat for no reason, so feel free to go harass someone else going forward. And the next time you wonder why you don't have much support for your preferred policies, look in the mirror, because I suspect I agree with you on most if not all of these matters but want nothing to do with a discussion with you about them.

Comment by bombcar 18 hours ago

> children are extremely inexpensive to insure overall

This is the key - to cover the insane costs for elderly, insurance companies have had to raise costs on the healthy, which includes children.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

Yes, but most of the wealthy are elderly and few are children.

Comment by toomuchtodo 15 hours ago

Citation:

31% of Wealth Owned by People Over 70 - https://www.apolloacademy.com/31-percent-of-wealth-owned-by-... - December 7th, 2025

Comment by chaostheory 5 hours ago

We cannot. A big portion of our national debt comes from socializing elderly benefits. They are not inexpensive.

It’s not cheap for children, but they are the future foundation of our economy.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 19 hours ago

Medicare should cover prenatal, neonatal and pediatric care for all American children. Frame it as a pro-birther initiative.

And sure, give parents a total opt out when it comes to vaccination. Just because they're dumbfucks doesn't mean their kid need run a fever into brain-cooking temperatures out of fear of an ER bill.

Comment by patja 18 hours ago

Medicare is for those over age 65. They aren't having a lot of babies.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> Medicare is for those over age 65

It's a working national health programme. Expanding it makes more sense than starting anew. My proposal is to expand its mandate to covering pregnant mothers and children directly.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

Yes, and the comment you're responding to suggests expanding that.

Comment by jalapenog 19 hours ago

Medicaid already does that.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> Medicaid already does that

The article says "many uninsured children are eligible for Medicaid," but it doesn't say all. Do you know what constitutes the gap?

My issue with expanding Medicaid is it's run by the states. That limits the opportunities for cost and messaging savings.

Comment by bombcar 18 hours ago

Some of the gap may be illegal/undocumented children.

Some of it is families in the gap where they can't get employment that pays fully for family healthcare, but make too much to qualify for CHIP/Medicaid.

Some will have been disqualified for other reasons, perhaps.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 18 hours ago

> Some of the gap may be illegal/undocumented children

Do we know what fraction? If most American children have access to healthcare–a claim I'm sceptical of–then I'm not seeing an urgent problem that has to be solved by the healthcare system.

Comment by bombcar 18 hours ago

To be precise "have no health insurance" and "have access to healthcare" are not two sides of the same coin.

Everyone in the USA has access to emergency care and stabilization, the practical results of which are that for emergencies, you get helped, payment is worked out later.

If you have no problem with having no intention of paying, the system absorbs the cost.

Comment by IAmBroom 15 hours ago

You pretend that medical-expense bankruptcy isn't a thing.

Comment by JumpCrisscross 15 hours ago

> You pretend

No they don't, they just don't address it. Neither does your comment.

Comment by frumper 17 hours ago

If a child isn't covered by medicaid for income reasons, then CHIP is a program that kicks in to cover kids at higher income levels. These are all federally backed state run programs though so it's going to be hard to figure out exact details and surely someone is slipping through some cracks. Some states combine the programs, some have both. They can vary on the income levels. There is also some level of transition as the paperwork can be cumbersome, unclear and confusing, so kids may be kicked out of the programs while these processes play out, usually with retroactive statuses of eligibility.

Comment by guywithahat 19 hours ago

[flagged]

Comment by throwforfeds 19 hours ago

Well, people who aren't citizens still use the healthcare system, regardless if they have insurance or not. All those undocumented kids aren't just not getting sick -- they'll end up using the ER as primary care, clogging up the system, just like everyone else that doesn't have insurance.

Comment by hcurtiss 18 hours ago

Substantiating the argument for remigration.

Comment by jedberg 19 hours ago

> Given there are something like 20 million people in the US illegally

You should probably check your sources on that one. That number is highly suspect and came from someone who was trying to sell you on upping budgets for ICE.

> seems counter productive to count people who aren't citizens in a article primarily about US health statistics.

Non-citizens are still people.

Comment by orochimaaru 19 hours ago

You’ll probably get downvoted here for mentioning this. But I am with you.

I think we need to get out of this bad mix of insurance and health care being a crisis. But for that to happen, state benefits need to be locked down iron-clad to only us citizens. Not to your general tax payer base but only to US citizens and that includes ACA subsidies. States subsidies should be included in “government assistance” that makes beneficiaries ineligible for citizenship and permanent residency.

That is a problem that shouldn’t need a big discussion to solve in Congress. But given the current political scenarios it won’t.