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.

> 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.

Excessive testing to protect against legal liability, also.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Great point. We need parental controls for throttling non-critical notifications.

Study: Average teen received more than 200 app notifications a day https://www.michiganmedicine.org/health-lab/study-average-te...

Alibaba, maybe

Relevant https://www.co-buildings.com/

I think what this "smart tank" does is mix the super-hot with cold.

If the automatic mixing feature malfunctions to super-hot, then it could be risky...

This would never be implemented I realize but here is a possible solution:

New law: driver's phone must be in semi-disabled mode

The phone can already infer it is inside moving vehicle. The bigger challenge is, how to determine the phone belongs to the driver?

Say N passengers in car (including driver), each with cell phone.

When phone infers moving vehicle, it attempts to mesh with other phones in the vehicle.

If N=1, driver is solo, phone semi-disables

If N>1, phones ask users to vote on who is the driver.

Result: 1 phone disabled (Voting tie disables both/all)

The only inconvenience here is to a passenger with a phone-less driver.

I would imagine this is how it works for the President and Cabinet