3 ms·

The problem with over promising with healthcare is that you can't walk it back and healthcare becomes the most expensive or second most expensive thing on the g

The problem with over promising with healthcare is that you can't walk it back and healthcare becomes the most expensive or second most expensive thing on the government budget. The other problem with government healthcare is that you're basically giving the government some control over your body. It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills.

naveen99 8y ago
That’s my point. If it’s an investment it’s not a cost center, but a profit center.
jogjayr 8y ago
> healthcare becomes the most expensive or second most expensive thing on the government budget. Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance. > It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills. First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right? Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  >Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance. Yes, this is the case in the UK.[1] Public sector spending for 2019 is around £842 billion for the UK. £256 billion is spent on "social protection" and €166 billion on public healthcare. That's 18-19% of the total budget being spent on healthcare. Keep in mind though that healthcare in the US would be much more expensive. US healthcare workers earn more compared to GDP per capita than UK healthcare workers.[2] I think it would be rather likely that healthcare such as this would rival social security in terms of cost if it applied to everyone. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-documents/budget-2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-docum... - under section 1.7 [2] https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-do... >First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right? I think it's likely that it will increase, but now the government has more of angle to argue why they should have the right to control your behavior. >Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that. Most people don't want to be told that they're not allowed to eat X, because a bureaucrat living a thousand miles away says it's bad for you, especially when the evidence isn't stellar. It also allows for corporations to lobby harder on laws around people's habits. If the government finds that using "a screen" for more than 8 hours per day is bad for you, you probably wouldn't like it if the government would now argue that they should be able to monitor your usage of screentime and potentially penalize you in some way, right?
lucas_membrane 8y ago
We are now facing the consequences of many decades of inaction to deal with the looming healthcare catastrophe. Now that a majority see a serious need for action, we will get an avalanche of progress. If the Clintons had been a little less ambitious back in the early 1990's and proposed lowering the age for Medicare coverage by 1 year each year, we could have learned gradually how good an idea this is. If that had worked well, everyone over 40 would now be in (way more than 50% of the health care money), and we could have some confidence that Medicare covering everyone would be a good idea. The course of urgent progress is seldom smooth.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  And then once you put it into place you realize that your system is not sustainable, just like every other country's healthcare system due to demographics. Now you have a big problem on your hands and the only real solution is to cut back on spending.
  - toomuchtodo 8y ago
    Only in America can we have a military bigger than the next 10 countries combined, but universal healthcare is untenable financially. If your demographics suck, use technology to increase healthcare productivity. If your practitioners are too expensive, train more so their wages are in line with other developed countries. These are not unsolvable problems, and I do not trust anyone who says they cannot be solved.
    - lucas_membrane 8y ago
      I agree, but I do not think that we can write an acceptable, realistic, and unambiguous definition of 'solved' before we start, because fighting with a bear always involves some learn-by-doing. It will take a long time for people to accept that a new healthcare system is anywhere close to good enough, and we cannot confidently anticipate now what will be politically acceptable as 'good enough' after people get accustomed to living and dying under the new system. This could certainly be a project that could organically generate some shared values as a by-product, if it is done with political wisdom and skill, but that is just another aspect of a very rich strengths/weakness/opportunities/threats environment that must be navigated.
kalleboo 8y ago
> It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills. This seems more like a pro than a con, considering currently through lobbyists the government is more likely to encourage to you indulge in too much sugar, etc.
- Mirioron 8y ago
  But are you sure we're going to get things right this time as opposed to all the other times? I have my doubts about that, which means that we could have the law try to promote "healthy food" that actually isn't healthy. The same goes for all kinds of other activities. Would you be alright with the government restricting how many hours a day you can use a computer?

naveen99 8y ago

That’s my point. If it’s an investment it’s not a cost center, but a profit center.

jogjayr 8y ago

> healthcare becomes the most expensive or second most expensive thing on the government budget. Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance. > It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills. First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right? Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that.

Mirioron 8y ago
>Has that happened in other advanced economies? Genuinely curious - I don't know what share of the UK national budget the NHS consumes, for instance. Yes, this is the case in the UK.[1] Public sector spending for 2019 is around £842 billion for the UK. £256 billion is spent on "social protection" and €166 billion on public healthcare. That's 18-19% of the total budget being spent on healthcare. Keep in mind though that healthcare in the US would be much more expensive. US healthcare workers earn more compared to GDP per capita than UK healthcare workers.[2] I think it would be rather likely that healthcare such as this would rival social security in terms of cost if it applied to everyone. [1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-documents/budget-2018 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/budget-2018-docum... - under section 1.7 [2] https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-doctors-in-other-countries-make/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/how-much-do-do... >First off, this happens to a small extent already with private insurance companies. Companies do "wellness fairs" for employees, insurance companies give people discounts for going to the gym etc. It could increase in future right? I think it's likely that it will increase, but now the government has more of angle to argue why they should have the right to control your behavior. >Second, I think most people want to be healthy, regardless of who's paying the bills, because your quality of life is so much better. I could see many people not changing their oil on time and driving terribly if they were guaranteed free car repairs forever. But healthcare isn't like that. Most people don't want to be told that they're not allowed to eat X, because a bureaucrat living a thousand miles away says it's bad for you, especially when the evidence isn't stellar. It also allows for corporations to lobby harder on laws around people's habits. If the government finds that using "a screen" for more than 8 hours per day is bad for you, you probably wouldn't like it if the government would now argue that they should be able to monitor your usage of screentime and potentially penalize you in some way, right?

lucas_membrane 8y ago

We are now facing the consequences of many decades of inaction to deal with the looming healthcare catastrophe. Now that a majority see a serious need for action, we will get an avalanche of progress. If the Clintons had been a little less ambitious back in the early 1990's and proposed lowering the age for Medicare coverage by 1 year each year, we could have learned gradually how good an idea this is. If that had worked well, everyone over 40 would now be in (way more than 50% of the health care money), and we could have some confidence that Medicare covering everyone would be a good idea. The course of urgent progress is seldom smooth.

Mirioron 8y ago
And then once you put it into place you realize that your system is not sustainable, just like every other country's healthcare system due to demographics. Now you have a big problem on your hands and the only real solution is to cut back on spending.
- toomuchtodo 8y ago
  Only in America can we have a military bigger than the next 10 countries combined, but universal healthcare is untenable financially. If your demographics suck, use technology to increase healthcare productivity. If your practitioners are too expensive, train more so their wages are in line with other developed countries. These are not unsolvable problems, and I do not trust anyone who says they cannot be solved.
  - lucas_membrane 8y ago
    I agree, but I do not think that we can write an acceptable, realistic, and unambiguous definition of 'solved' before we start, because fighting with a bear always involves some learn-by-doing. It will take a long time for people to accept that a new healthcare system is anywhere close to good enough, and we cannot confidently anticipate now what will be politically acceptable as 'good enough' after people get accustomed to living and dying under the new system. This could certainly be a project that could organically generate some shared values as a by-product, if it is done with political wisdom and skill, but that is just another aspect of a very rich strengths/weakness/opportunities/threats environment that must be navigated.

kalleboo 8y ago

> It will be the government's business whether you're out of shape or overweight or indulge in too much sugar etc, because the government is paying the medical bills. This seems more like a pro than a con, considering currently through lobbyists the government is more likely to encourage to you indulge in too much sugar, etc.

Mirioron 8y ago
But are you sure we're going to get things right this time as opposed to all the other times? I have my doubts about that, which means that we could have the law try to promote "healthy food" that actually isn't healthy. The same goes for all kinds of other activities. Would you be alright with the government restricting how many hours a day you can use a computer?