4 ms·
Okay, I think I see where you are coming from. Let me clarify what I said. > you suggested that spending a larger fraction of gdp on healthcare was a bad thin
by all 16y ago
Okay, I think I see where you are coming from. Let me clarify what I said.
> you suggested that spending a larger fraction of gdp on healthcare was a bad thing.
I was probably in a rush when I wrote 'do more' and so apologise for any confusion. My meaning was not communicated well. If the data say anything, it is that the way the money is spent counts more than how much money is spent. That being said, getting the medical establishment and Big Pharma to take a pay cut is a Herculean task.
> "military spending" is the typical reply
I suppose for some it is, and the US does spend plenty on war. But I would agree with what I understand as your underlying point: The money needs to be spent better before more money is spent on anything.
- anamax 16y ago> That being said, getting the medical establishment and Big Pharma to take a pay cut is a Herculean task. Apart from the obvious cases of fraud (which seem to be concentrated on govt programs) and reducing some of the monopolies (including things that should be OTC), it's not clear that they're significantly overpaid. (Yes, I know about the "marketing" argument, but that includes free drugs to poor people and it's how folks find out that what they have is treatable. I see both as good. And allowing old people to have sex is a good thing.) We want people buying Cadillacs (and Mercedes) because that's how we get good things in Toyotas. A lot of US health spending is triggered by things that are outside the healthcare system. The only thing that the healthcare system can do is refuse coverage, and no one will admit to that.
- all 16y ago>A lot of US health spending is triggered by things that are >outside the healthcare system. Can you give examples of this?