2 ms·

>Currently, up to 40% of all healthcare funding is wasted on operational inefficiencies Your inefficiencies are someone else's revenue. Or to say another way:

>Currently, up to 40% of all healthcare funding is wasted on operational inefficiencies Your inefficiencies are someone else's revenue. Or to say another way: Healthcare is ~20% of US GDP Reduce spending by 40% would reduce US GDP by almost 10%. That's a tough sell politically you have to admit.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> Reduce spending by 40% would reduce US GDP by almost 10%. No, it wouldn't, because most of that would go straight back to labor and result primarily in increased consumer spending, and secondarily in increased consumer investment (which leads to increased business spending.) It's not like the money not being spent on healthcare inefficiencies is going to just vanish out of the system.
- intrasight 10y ago
  I'm not sure. At what point does automation lead to a big drop in GDP?
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    Never; except perhaps when the fact that it results in greater concentration of wealth isn't mitigated and leads to destructive, violent revolution, which cuts GDP. But that's not really analogous to eliminating health care inefficiencies.
aleksei 10y ago
I doubt the money not spent on inefficiencies would equate to money effectively burnt away. That 40% would probably be spent in other, more productive ways. Not to mention you're actually making a point for not giving GDP too high a value when looking at economies.
- intrasight 10y ago
  GDP is like capitalism - a terrible measure but better than all the alternatives.
conanbatt 10y ago
Its a great sale, it means american citizens will be vastly richer. Its also a great incentive for lobby, but politically its tremendously good.
sean_appleby 10y ago
Isn't that just a classic example of the broken window fallacy? http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...
alkonaut 10y ago
That's why GDP is a pretty bad yardstick. Spending on inefficiency is spending so it raises GDP, but GDP doesn't indicate whether money was spent making people better off, or just spent. It's like a natural disaster or oil spill: there is good chance a natural disaster or actually increases GDP short term. People aren't better off for it however, since that money could have been spent better elsewhere.

dragonwriter 10y ago

> Reduce spending by 40% would reduce US GDP by almost 10%. No, it wouldn't, because most of that would go straight back to labor and result primarily in increased consumer spending, and secondarily in increased consumer investment (which leads to increased business spending.) It's not like the money not being spent on healthcare inefficiencies is going to just vanish out of the system.

intrasight 10y ago
I'm not sure. At what point does automation lead to a big drop in GDP?
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  Never; except perhaps when the fact that it results in greater concentration of wealth isn't mitigated and leads to destructive, violent revolution, which cuts GDP. But that's not really analogous to eliminating health care inefficiencies.

aleksei 10y ago

I doubt the money not spent on inefficiencies would equate to money effectively burnt away. That 40% would probably be spent in other, more productive ways. Not to mention you're actually making a point for not giving GDP too high a value when looking at economies.

intrasight 10y ago
GDP is like capitalism - a terrible measure but better than all the alternatives.

conanbatt 10y ago

Its a great sale, it means american citizens will be vastly richer. Its also a great incentive for lobby, but politically its tremendously good.

sean_appleby 10y ago

Isn't that just a classic example of the broken window fallacy? http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fallacy.asp http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/broken-window-fal...

alkonaut 10y ago

That's why GDP is a pretty bad yardstick. Spending on inefficiency is spending so it raises GDP, but GDP doesn't indicate whether money was spent making people better off, or just spent. It's like a natural disaster or oil spill: there is good chance a natural disaster or actually increases GDP short term. People aren't better off for it however, since that money could have been spent better elsewhere.