6 ms·
The tail end of your argument is the broken window fallacy. On every conceivable metric the vast amount of bureaucracy and paper-pushing required by the unique
by jpatokal 8y ago
The tail end of your argument is the broken window fallacy. On every conceivable metric the vast amount of bureaucracy and paper-pushing required by the uniquely dysfunctional US healthcare system fails to deliver any benefit proportionate to its gargantuan costs.
Put another way, if healthcare costs and the amount of insurance paperwork doubled yet again overnight, would that be "fuel to the economy" or "dead weight"?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- andy_ppp 8y agoThis is the strange think about market fundamentalism, market efficiency doesn’t really exist but it seems end stage capitalism isn’t about efficiency so much as people who believe they deserve it.
- BartBoch 8y agoThe question will be then if the increased amount of uninsured people will affect the economy badly (by the inability to access professional health services) and if this will result in creating a new market for more efficient, low-cost health providers. This will be controlled by the government as always by relaxing the laws. Once again - this is from a non-emotional point of view. I am not saying this is good. The way the US works and the way they push towards more "dead weight employee" rather than "social beneficient" works for now well enough to keep it as it is apparently. Otherwise, there will be a much stronger push for change.