3 ms·
The problem is I don’t think it would. That logic just doesn’t scale. If one tenth of spending gave 90 of the benefit, then one hundredth of the spending should
by simonh 4y ago
The problem is I don’t think it would. That logic just doesn’t scale. If one tenth of spending gave 90 of the benefit, then one hundredth of the spending should give you 90% of that, or about 80% of the benefit. That’s not how skilled labour intensive service costs work though. It’s probably more like one tenth of the spending would get you about 20% of the benefits. That’s certainly more efficient, but it’s just not going to be acceptable.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI think my example was extreme but is closer to the truth than yours. My realistic estimate would be perhaps 25% of the cost covers 90% of the benefit. Preventative medicine is cheap as is ending broken bones in children. What is really expensive is open heart surgery and three rounds of chemo for an elderly patient. Cost x years of benefit really favors the easy interventions in the young.