4 ms·

One is usually not employed in healthcare......

• prostoalex 9y ago
  "In recent years, the proportion of workers employed in private-sector health services has exceeded 11 percent." says BLS in 2009 https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2009/health_care/ https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2009/health_care/
  • YeOakAye 9y ago
    Thanks for supporting my point, in that 89% of the working population is "usually not employed in healthcare".
    • prostoalex 9y ago
      So back to the grandparent conclusion, employing 11+% of the workforce is not beneficial to the US economy?
      • dv_dt 9y ago
        It's not beneficial if the same or better output could be had with half of the inputs. I'm mostly comparing cost of healthcare in other first-world nations with universal healthcare here with the industry as a whole (as opposed to just the workforce). If you know the efficiency can be higher and you choose to operate less efficiently it's some form of the broken window fallacy - maybe the drafty window fallacy? You're basically paying people to move dirt from one place to another - with the excess of insurance claim/billing transactions as the new digital dirt. Now if you're worried about the more immediate effects on the people displaced by moving to a possibly higher efficiency way of doing things - we'll that's a bigger general problem we have to solve as the displacement rate is seemingly already moving higher than the re-employment rate, and it threatens to accelerate for more areas than just better healthcare practices...