4 ms·

I don't disagree with that. But if the medical industry has a certain amount of bandwidth, moving to a different organization for compensation won't increase ac

I don't disagree with that. But if the medical industry has a certain amount of bandwidth, moving to a different organization for compensation won't increase access as the paper suggested, it will just re-organize who gets access. Maybe that is a good thing on the balance, but it seems like it will come without trade-offs.

tialaramex 7y ago
There undoubtedly will be trade-offs. For example it'll be harder to exploit the working poor which is a very important benefit rich Americans rely on today. One side effect that might be popular on HN is entrepreneurship is less scary if the society you live in has promised it won't just let you die because you dared to strike out on your own rather than sticking close to the big corporation that provides affordable healthcare to its employees. But your "bandwidth" analogy seems confused. What is "bandwidth" here? Because lots of American medical professionals seem to insist they spend a lot of effort on things that aren't healthcare - things which are unnecessary in single payer systems. If the US redirects all this healthcare "bandwidth" to actually delivering healthcare, that's a bunch of extra healthcare delivered, not just re-organizing who gets access.