Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

kevdogger t1_j9633jy wrote

Reply to comment by ledow in Which medical specialties are future proof? by MeronDC

Huge losses in Healthcare?? So yeah Im sure that particular area will be ripe with innovation in the future.

3

ledow t1_j963iln wrote

Are you confusing healthcare provision and R&D?

I think you need to look outside the US, where insulin isn't thousands of dollars, generics are widespread, and most medical innovation occurs while also GIVING IT AWAY to the populous.

1

kevdogger t1_j96424e wrote

You can't run Healthcare at a huge loss..HUGE..and expect a viable future. Sure point to insulin that's been around a long time and generics that represent old drugs...however where are new meds and treatments that haven't even made it to market yet? Even modern day equipment..pacemakers, joint replacements, stents, robots..they all cost money.

1

ledow t1_j96rp2g wrote

Sure you can.

You run it as a service, not as a for-profit industry.

Like the majority of the developed world.

You should not be PROFITING from sickness. Break-even at best. And that's far too fine a balancing act. You SPEND MONEY on healthcare to get more productivity out of your populous... it's literally a loss-leader. Like education, the other example.

Education is a 100% loss industry. You shouldn't be charging kids to go to school, and you spend all the money you do have on their education, and combat wastefulness.

Welcome to "What life is like outside of shitty 'everything's about money' America".

1

kevdogger t1_j983rk2 wrote

Healthcare can't be a lost liter. Are you aware what percent of gdp in America Healthcare takes? It needs to break even at a minimum. Education payed for by either federal government..or mostly property taxes for grades k-12. What taxes would you like to raise to offset Healthcare losses? Nothing unfortunately is free

1

ledow t1_j9b2f94 wrote

Yes.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.XPD.CHEX.GD.ZS

More than just about every other developed country on the planet, including all of those with nationalised healthcare, even when adjusted for GDP, population, etc.

That's PRECISELY my point. You're spending shit on insurers because you want the insurers to profit, and if you just spent LESS but on nationalised healthcare, you'd do better and nobody would be profiting from sick people.

Your healthcare is among the most expensive in the world not because it's the best (far from it), but because you're the only first-world nation not to have nationalised healthcare and the only one to let health insurance dictate how it works, to their profit.

2

jazzageguy t1_j9dcg2e wrote

Here's something that's free: Single payer health care and a rational system like the whole rest of the world has would save America approximately half of the money it now spends on its stupid, wasteful, ineffective health care system. Free money in the trillions!

1

kevdogger t1_j9dd0qq wrote

Jeez I hate assumptions like this without studies or some specific economic analysis even if referenced. Obama care was supposed to save a lot of money and if you were alive around the time the bill was being debated the cbo had an extremely hard time calculating cost of the bill since they couldn't model a lot of assumptions. Estimates varied wildly and as expected when looking at the costs retrospectively the original estimates were not close to the actual costs of implementation. When the word trillions is thrown around my eyes start to glass over and say..here we go again.

1

jazzageguy t1_j9deqv0 wrote

What do you mean "even if referenced?"

"Without studies or economic analysis?" My God, what rock can you be living under, to be unfamiliar with all the published studies and analysis of this? There are literally hundreds. ALL saying the same thing. Consult Dr Google and take a look.

Or, just look at the health care systems of EVERY OTHER DEVELOPED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. They have all done what I said. They all spend less than half the money per capita of America. Many if not most have better outcomes by every measure, including longer lifespans and less chronic disease.

1

kevdogger t1_j9dg1x5 wrote

Thanks bud..you just proved my point.

1

jazzageguy t1_j9dga25 wrote

No, I just disproved your points.

1

kevdogger t1_j9dn4xc wrote

Telling someone to Google it..you sir are a true warrior..and clearly the irony was lost on you..yet again proving my original point

1

jazzageguy t1_j9slqw2 wrote

Inasmuch as your original point was that you're utterly ignorant and clueless, and determined to remain that way, I'm happy to have helped you prove your point. But really the credit belongs to you.

Seriously, what are you saying? That I should have put LINKS in my reply to spoon feed you? Would you have read the material I linked? Of course not.

1

jazzageguy t1_j9di8sq wrote

If your point was that you're completely ignorant of the issue, you already made it.

1

jazzageguy t1_j9dj94h wrote

The ACA was never intended to "save a lot of money" but to get health care to a lot of people. It worked and continues to work. Unfortunately, Republicans demanded that it "pay for itself," unlike any other govt undertaking, and thus it had to include a tax on higher income people, which inspired hysterical and deafening opposition, and probably required some "cooking of the books" because stupid Republican demands like "balancing the budget" and "paying for itself" (that they only require of Democratic projects) are impossible to achieve. (Did the Iraq and Afghanistan wars pay for themselves? Hardly!)

Trillion is just a number. It exists whether you like it or not.

1