3 ms·
And nobody's saying that L1 health support should be uneducated (no dedicated schooling), unaided (no need for patient records indicating allergies etc.), or al
by solatic 9y ago
And nobody's saying that L1 health support should be uneducated (no dedicated schooling), unaided (no need for patient records indicating allergies etc.), or all-powerful (including, say, the ability to prescribe powerful doses). The argument is that there's plenty of room for people who went through a (significant) fraction of the time it takes to complete traditional medical school to earn a (significant) fraction of a doctor's earnings in order to reduce overall system costs and improve overall availability of care.
- inopinatus 9y agoThat argument comes from the wrong direction. It may indeed reduce system costs and improve overall availability, but those things are crippled by the commercial construction of US healthcare not the expense of doctors salaries. Fix that by adopting healthcare systems from overseas, rather than increasing the mortality rate.
- flukus 9y agoCountries with socialized healthcare are facing the same issue, ballooning healthcare costs, just less acutely.
- inopinatus 9y agoThat is wrong. For example, the UK's cost of healthcare as a percentage of GDP is actually declining. The US has double the healthcare expenditure by %age of GDP vs comparable nations such as the UK or Australia, and this order-of-magnitude difference is entirely explainable as systematic inefficiencies of the insurance-led market and uncontrolled drug pricing. All that cost - and it doesn't even cover everyone. Future generations will study the basket case that is today's US non-single-payer insurance system and write it up under chapter titles like "What the hell were they thinking" and "How not to do it".