3 ms·
> That's very.. one dimensional point of view. You can't just call something a success when you made other people worse off in the process and simply ignored i
by ardy42 6y ago
> That's very.. one dimensional point of view. You can't just call something a success when you made other people worse off in the process and simply ignored it.
Not really. It made people better off in the way it was designed to do. It was always going to cost more to give more people access to medical care (e.g. those with preexisting conditions). Rather than "making people worse off", it set the trade-off to a different point than it was before.
- perl4ever 6y agoIn theory, it seems plausible that the additional cost of more medical care was more than offset by the economic value of letting people switch jobs more easily, thus spending more time doing things they are better suited to. As well as the economic value of saving the lives/careers of people who go on to contribute to society in excess of the cost of their treatment. I'm not saying I've seen a study proving that helping sick people is a net positive for society, in dollars and cents, but it should at least be considered...?