5 ms·

> And that's fine. Societies can only function if the yield from the people it invested in is higher than the investment. This is why socialized healthcare is t

> And that's fine. Societies can only function if the yield from the people it invested in is higher than the investment. This is why socialized healthcare is tricky. If you invest too much, you might be wasting resources and endangering all of your society. If you invest too little, you might be leaving people who would otherwise be productive once the investment is made. This is quite evidently not how most socialized healthcare systems work. Thankfully so, because you paint a nightmarish picture of people being left to die or suffer if there is no hope of them recouping an investment in their health. In fact, taken to the logical conclusion it would mean killing retirees instead of paying them pensions (imagine what society could spend all that money on, right?).

leetcrew 5y ago
> In fact, taken to the logical conclusion it would mean killing retirees instead of paying them pensions (imagine what society could spend all that money on, right?). only a logical conclusion in a very simplistic sense. if you kill all the retirees, it will be hard to persuade the working population to produce any surplus.
bhelkey 5y ago
>> This is quite evidently not how most socialized healthcare systems work. This is how socialized healthcare systems work. In an ideal world, everyone would get the healthcare they needed whatever the cost. We live in a world with finite resources. A single payer healthcare system is not free from these constraints. The British socialized healthcare system for example will allocate up to $25K-$40K to buy a year of healthy life. > [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] uses a unit of measurement called the "Qaly" - the "quality-adjusted life year". It gauges drug effectiveness in terms of how much it would cost to give you a year of healthy life. >[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] aims to spend less than £20,000 to £30,000 per Qaly. That is not a hard limit; it will go almost twice as high for end-of-life drugs [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924
- MauranKilom 5y ago
  > The British socialized healthcare system for example will allocate up to $25K-$40K to buy a year of healthy life. "a year of healthy life" != "a productive member of society" GP talks about "yield" from people as a measure for whether to help someone, which is decidedly different from Qaly. Yes, healthcare puts a price on life (it has to). No, that price does not primarily derive from the productivity of that individual. You could """optimize""" society by spending more on healthcare for able-bodied than for "unproductive" people, but walk too far along that road and you get euthanasia.
csomar 5y ago
> In fact, taken to the logical conclusion it would mean killing retirees instead of paying them pensions (imagine what society could spend all that money on, right?). I'm strictly talking about people who are getting support but didn't chip in. Most retirees have saved up for their pension in the past, in the expectation that they'll get it in the future.

leetcrew 5y ago

> In fact, taken to the logical conclusion it would mean killing retirees instead of paying them pensions (imagine what society could spend all that money on, right?). only a logical conclusion in a very simplistic sense. if you kill all the retirees, it will be hard to persuade the working population to produce any surplus.

bhelkey 5y ago

>> This is quite evidently not how most socialized healthcare systems work. This is how socialized healthcare systems work. In an ideal world, everyone would get the healthcare they needed whatever the cost. We live in a world with finite resources. A single payer healthcare system is not free from these constraints. The British socialized healthcare system for example will allocate up to $25K-$40K to buy a year of healthy life. > [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] uses a unit of measurement called the "Qaly" - the "quality-adjusted life year". It gauges drug effectiveness in terms of how much it would cost to give you a year of healthy life. >[National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] aims to spend less than £20,000 to £30,000 per Qaly. That is not a hard limit; it will go almost twice as high for end-of-life drugs [1] [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924 https://www.bbc.com/news/health-28983924

MauranKilom 5y ago
> The British socialized healthcare system for example will allocate up to $25K-$40K to buy a year of healthy life. "a year of healthy life" != "a productive member of society" GP talks about "yield" from people as a measure for whether to help someone, which is decidedly different from Qaly. Yes, healthcare puts a price on life (it has to). No, that price does not primarily derive from the productivity of that individual. You could """optimize""" society by spending more on healthcare for able-bodied than for "unproductive" people, but walk too far along that road and you get euthanasia.

csomar 5y ago

> In fact, taken to the logical conclusion it would mean killing retirees instead of paying them pensions (imagine what society could spend all that money on, right?). I'm strictly talking about people who are getting support but didn't chip in. Most retirees have saved up for their pension in the past, in the expectation that they'll get it in the future.