4 ms·

A lot of people feel that broad welcome in a policy means fewer resources to share with more people. If you're in an advantaged position, it may make sense to o

A lot of people feel that broad welcome in a policy means fewer resources to share with more people. If you're in an advantaged position, it may make sense to oppose such broad social care measures.

rootusrootus 6y ago
There is some merit to that argument, because we have artificially constrained the supply of doctors in order to sustain their high salaries. Perverse is a polite word for the situation.
- vkou 6y ago
  There is no country in the world that does not have an 'artificially constrained supply of doctors.' Yet most of those countries have cheaper/better/cheaper and better health outcomes. 'The supply of doctors is constrained' is largely a red herring.
  - bumby 6y ago
    Not disagreeing necessarily, but I’m not sure the 1:1 comparison works with “most of those countries”. For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. It’s a complex problem and overly simplified comparisons don’t often offer a real fix
    - vkou 6y ago
      > For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. This doesn't explain the disproportionate costs of decades-old medications and procedures still using decades-old methods. You can maybe justify high drug costs based on that, but drug costs are a small fraction of overall medical costs.
      - bumby 6y ago
        To an extent, it does. Particularly when other countries have cost control regulations, the companies are incentivized to make up those R&D costs elsewhere. Today’s drug profits are funding tomorrow’s novel medicine. Note in not saying this is ethically fair or optimal, just that it’s a consequence of the particular system
        vkou 6y ago
        Again, drugs are a only a small part of overall health costs. They only make up 14% of healthcare spending[1] in the US. For contrast, they make up ~15% of healthcare spending in Canada, and ~16% of healthcare spending in the UK. Your theory does not explain why the other 86% is so bloated. [1] https://www.drugcostfacts.org/us-healthcare-spending https://www.drugcostfacts.org/us-healthcare-spending
        bumby 6y ago
        All my comments were deliberately couched to specifically not pretend there is a simple answer to healthcare cost bloat in the US. It is merely a testament to a single factor that increases costs while also inhibiting naive comparisons. The US healthcare system is awfully complex to even scratch the surface about causal factors in a forum post. Beyond that, you may be conflating prescription costs with drug research, which is not the same. The fact that prescription costs take up roughly the same percentage of total healthcare costs seems to support my point. An equal percentage of a bigger pie would indicate they are inflated. My personal stance is that the US optimized for access and quality at the expense of cost. As the saying goes, you can only have two. R&D spending is a large part of this. The US contributes over 40% of the worlds medical R&D, effectively subsidizing other nations. It’s not a bad thing and it doesn’t explain away all healthcare costs but it does create systemic ramifications. It’s been awhile since I’ve viewed the numbers, but the US had the highest health access and quality scores for a country of comparable size. Off the top of my head, I think the next closest was Russia. Again, the point being simple comparisons are harder than one may think when dealing with complex systems.
  - mbroncano 6y ago
    The point in my opinion is lost, because in those countries you might be referring to, the doctors earn a fraction of what they do in the US.
    - vkou 6y ago
      Well, if it comes to making a choice between better health outcomes, weighed against doctors only making six figures a year (and medical schools only charging five figures per year), I think the choice for most of us would be pretty simple.
danaliv 6y ago
This only "makes sense" if such a person believes that their personal advantage is more important than other people. It makes no sense whatsoever from a Rawlsian perspective.

A lot of people feel that broad welcome in a policy means fewer resources to share with more people. If you're in an advantaged position, it may make sense to oppose such broad social care measures.

rootusrootus 6y ago

There is some merit to that argument, because we have artificially constrained the supply of doctors in order to sustain their high salaries. Perverse is a polite word for the situation.

vkou 6y ago
There is no country in the world that does not have an 'artificially constrained supply of doctors.' Yet most of those countries have cheaper/better/cheaper and better health outcomes. 'The supply of doctors is constrained' is largely a red herring.
- bumby 6y ago
  Not disagreeing necessarily, but I’m not sure the 1:1 comparison works with “most of those countries”. For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. It’s a complex problem and overly simplified comparisons don’t often offer a real fix
  - vkou 6y ago
    > For example, the US is burdened by a disproportionate amount of R&D which helps to lower costs in other countries. This doesn't explain the disproportionate costs of decades-old medications and procedures still using decades-old methods. You can maybe justify high drug costs based on that, but drug costs are a small fraction of overall medical costs.
    - bumby 6y ago
      To an extent, it does. Particularly when other countries have cost control regulations, the companies are incentivized to make up those R&D costs elsewhere. Today’s drug profits are funding tomorrow’s novel medicine. Note in not saying this is ethically fair or optimal, just that it’s a consequence of the particular system
      - vkou 6y ago
        Again, drugs are a only a small part of overall health costs. They only make up 14% of healthcare spending[1] in the US. For contrast, they make up ~15% of healthcare spending in Canada, and ~16% of healthcare spending in the UK. Your theory does not explain why the other 86% is so bloated. [1] https://www.drugcostfacts.org/us-healthcare-spending https://www.drugcostfacts.org/us-healthcare-spending
        bumby 6y ago
        All my comments were deliberately couched to specifically not pretend there is a simple answer to healthcare cost bloat in the US. It is merely a testament to a single factor that increases costs while also inhibiting naive comparisons. The US healthcare system is awfully complex to even scratch the surface about causal factors in a forum post. Beyond that, you may be conflating prescription costs with drug research, which is not the same. The fact that prescription costs take up roughly the same percentage of total healthcare costs seems to support my point. An equal percentage of a bigger pie would indicate they are inflated. My personal stance is that the US optimized for access and quality at the expense of cost. As the saying goes, you can only have two. R&D spending is a large part of this. The US contributes over 40% of the worlds medical R&D, effectively subsidizing other nations. It’s not a bad thing and it doesn’t explain away all healthcare costs but it does create systemic ramifications. It’s been awhile since I’ve viewed the numbers, but the US had the highest health access and quality scores for a country of comparable size. Off the top of my head, I think the next closest was Russia. Again, the point being simple comparisons are harder than one may think when dealing with complex systems.
- mbroncano 6y ago
  The point in my opinion is lost, because in those countries you might be referring to, the doctors earn a fraction of what they do in the US.
  - vkou 6y ago
    Well, if it comes to making a choice between better health outcomes, weighed against doctors only making six figures a year (and medical schools only charging five figures per year), I think the choice for most of us would be pretty simple.

danaliv 6y ago

This only "makes sense" if such a person believes that their personal advantage is more important than other people. It makes no sense whatsoever from a Rawlsian perspective.