4 ms·

Healthcare has become a huge portion of our economy, in fact the largest at 18%. Doctors account for about 750k jobs in the US, compared to 16 million in the se

Healthcare has become a huge portion of our economy, in fact the largest at 18%. Doctors account for about 750k jobs in the US, compared to 16 million in the segment total: they account for only 4.5% of healthcare jobs. Healthcare is also the fastest growing employment sector. There are huge inefficiencies in the US healthcare system. We pay more to provide equivalent service as other first world countries. However, switching to a single-payer system with a snap of one's fingers will not solve those inefficiencies, and will create massive upheaval in just about every Americans life, and our economy in general. The article is pointing out that if the government sets prices at which all companies decide they cannot profitably render services, 20% of our economy and 16 million jobs just vanished. No candidate has addressed this issue.

Ancalagon 7y ago
First I just want to point out that I really do not think healthcare should be a jobs program. Second, turning medicare on for all will NOT destroy the entire industry, we would not lose 16 million jobs from a 20% cut in healthcare pricing. Healthcare insurance providers would definitely be in for some hurt. Bloated administrations would be out. 20$ ibuprofen would be out. The market would start to function as a market should.
- oflannabhra 7y ago
  I'm not saying it should be a jobs program. I was pointing out that the impact would be far greater than doctors. I think the point that you are missing in the article is that for any company offering medical services, Medicare/aid is subsidized by other revenue. That is, from the companies perspective, it is offered at a loss. If that subsidization goes away, the company can no longer afford to offer that service. The economic impact of such an event would be massive, and a serious proposal requires far more detail than hand-waving.
pwinnski 7y ago
I find it hard to believe that someone who has spent a large chunk of their life in the field of medicine is going to choose unemployment over continuing to practice with less remuneration. If the jobs you describe are necessary, then they will continue. If they are not, they might go away. That's how things work. We've had a long time to find these inefficiencies you describe, and yet all they've done is multiply. Cutting rates means leaving less room for inefficiencies, and is the most certain precursor to eliminating them that I know of.
- oflannabhra 7y ago
  Those conclusions are taking the available detail of the current proposals to conclusion. I seriously doubt that any proposal would pass that results in such a conclusion. The point the article is making is that the proposals need to consider the facts that result in that conclusion (ie, current Medicare/aid rates cannot support the current industy), and need to offer proposals to counter act such a conclusion. Any proposal that doesn't is not a proposal, but a platitude.
  - pwinnski 7y ago
    Supporting the current industry is not the goal. The current industry is failing too many people. Proposing too many details before a candidate is even elected would be foolish. Any particular detail can be distracting from the overall goal.

Ancalagon 7y ago

First I just want to point out that I really do not think healthcare should be a jobs program. Second, turning medicare on for all will NOT destroy the entire industry, we would not lose 16 million jobs from a 20% cut in healthcare pricing. Healthcare insurance providers would definitely be in for some hurt. Bloated administrations would be out. 20$ ibuprofen would be out. The market would start to function as a market should.

oflannabhra 7y ago
I'm not saying it should be a jobs program. I was pointing out that the impact would be far greater than doctors. I think the point that you are missing in the article is that for any company offering medical services, Medicare/aid is subsidized by other revenue. That is, from the companies perspective, it is offered at a loss. If that subsidization goes away, the company can no longer afford to offer that service. The economic impact of such an event would be massive, and a serious proposal requires far more detail than hand-waving.

pwinnski 7y ago

I find it hard to believe that someone who has spent a large chunk of their life in the field of medicine is going to choose unemployment over continuing to practice with less remuneration. If the jobs you describe are necessary, then they will continue. If they are not, they might go away. That's how things work. We've had a long time to find these inefficiencies you describe, and yet all they've done is multiply. Cutting rates means leaving less room for inefficiencies, and is the most certain precursor to eliminating them that I know of.

oflannabhra 7y ago
Those conclusions are taking the available detail of the current proposals to conclusion. I seriously doubt that any proposal would pass that results in such a conclusion. The point the article is making is that the proposals need to consider the facts that result in that conclusion (ie, current Medicare/aid rates cannot support the current industy), and need to offer proposals to counter act such a conclusion. Any proposal that doesn't is not a proposal, but a platitude.
- pwinnski 7y ago
  Supporting the current industry is not the goal. The current industry is failing too many people. Proposing too many details before a candidate is even elected would be foolish. Any particular detail can be distracting from the overall goal.