4 ms·

At a societal level, it isn't that ridiculous to look at worse outcomes as a cost. Like only counting dollars is a bad way to run a society.

rayiner 4y ago
It is because it’s not a cost of the policy, it’s a benefit. You can reframe any benefit of a policy as the “cost” of not doing the policy. In practice it’s just a right-brain advocacy-speak way to double count the benefit in the equation: “people will be healthier, and it will reduce costs.” That’s not a good way for intelligent people to communicate.
- carapace 4y ago
  I dunno, it sounds to me a little bit like the concept of "opportunity costs"?
  - gruez 4y ago
    That's a real thing, but counting the benefits and the opportunity cost of not doing it is still double counting
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It is like saying you will have the savings of being healthy plus avoid the costs of being sick. How would you show that on your balance sheet?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
lostlogin 4y ago
> Like only counting dollars is a bad way to run a society. Absolutely. But one measure everyone understands is money, and you can convert a lot of situations into money. Poor health = missed work, missed rent payments, drugs needed etc. It’s not a nice measure, but it works.
- uoaei 4y ago
  I think one of the points of this entire thread has been to make it clear that "it works" only applies to people who have money, which means of course that it doesn't work.
  - lostlogin 4y ago
    I live in New Zealand, and we have a healthcare system that’s free to use (YMMV). It’s creaking, but the situation in the US really doesn’t seem to suit anyone, nor even the rich.
    - polygotdomain 4y ago
      New Zealand is incredibly beautiful, I just wish I could go back. The US healthcare system suits the rich quite well. The companies that the rich people work for tend to offer significantly better plans that cover a lot of what you hear a bunch of people complain about. High earners and C-suite execs typically get offered a different plan then the rest of the proletariat do. They can cover the out of pocket costs just fine, and cover the elective procedures themselves. They generally have access to better doctors as well just based on location, flexibility with working hours, plans that will pay for them, and/or it being easier to handle the out of pocket costs. Universal healthcare actually means a downgrade in the experience for these people, which is one of the reasons why they don't want it. Yea, they might want to make sure that people don't get sent to the poor house just because they came down with some random disease, but god forbid they have to wait their turn behind some plebe in the doctors office.
      - lostlogin 4y ago
        > Universal healthcare actually means a downgrade in the experience for these people But it also means a much higher cost. I know these people are wealthy, but they are getting fleeced. Many (all?) socialised systems also have a private system along side, so the wealthy can avoid the great unwashed.
tptacek 4y ago
That's as may be, but you can't just change the common definitions of terms to win the argument.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  I suppose if I had written a longer comment I might have gone on about how lots of times advocates choose bad positions (so like here, the trope is trying to argue that preventative care reduces medical costs when there's a better position arguing that the benefits of preventative care outweigh the costs). It's not really very interesting to discuss the bad position at any length, except maybe as a launching point into some more interesting adjacent discussion.
  - DoreenMichele 4y ago
    so like here, the trope is trying to argue that preventative care reduces medical costs That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Everyone arguing against me is trying to claim that and then say it's a dumb position. Try arguing with my actual point in the future. I'll grant you I could have stated it more clearly. My bad. I also clarified, yet this assertion lives on. Whatever.

rayiner 4y ago

It is because it’s not a cost of the policy, it’s a benefit. You can reframe any benefit of a policy as the “cost” of not doing the policy. In practice it’s just a right-brain advocacy-speak way to double count the benefit in the equation: “people will be healthier, and it will reduce costs.” That’s not a good way for intelligent people to communicate.

carapace 4y ago
I dunno, it sounds to me a little bit like the concept of "opportunity costs"?
- gruez 4y ago
  That's a real thing, but counting the benefits and the opportunity cost of not doing it is still double counting
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  It is like saying you will have the savings of being healthy plus avoid the costs of being sick. How would you show that on your balance sheet?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

lostlogin 4y ago

> Like only counting dollars is a bad way to run a society. Absolutely. But one measure everyone understands is money, and you can convert a lot of situations into money. Poor health = missed work, missed rent payments, drugs needed etc. It’s not a nice measure, but it works.

uoaei 4y ago
I think one of the points of this entire thread has been to make it clear that "it works" only applies to people who have money, which means of course that it doesn't work.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  I live in New Zealand, and we have a healthcare system that’s free to use (YMMV). It’s creaking, but the situation in the US really doesn’t seem to suit anyone, nor even the rich.
  - polygotdomain 4y ago
    New Zealand is incredibly beautiful, I just wish I could go back. The US healthcare system suits the rich quite well. The companies that the rich people work for tend to offer significantly better plans that cover a lot of what you hear a bunch of people complain about. High earners and C-suite execs typically get offered a different plan then the rest of the proletariat do. They can cover the out of pocket costs just fine, and cover the elective procedures themselves. They generally have access to better doctors as well just based on location, flexibility with working hours, plans that will pay for them, and/or it being easier to handle the out of pocket costs. Universal healthcare actually means a downgrade in the experience for these people, which is one of the reasons why they don't want it. Yea, they might want to make sure that people don't get sent to the poor house just because they came down with some random disease, but god forbid they have to wait their turn behind some plebe in the doctors office.
    - lostlogin 4y ago
      > Universal healthcare actually means a downgrade in the experience for these people But it also means a much higher cost. I know these people are wealthy, but they are getting fleeced. Many (all?) socialised systems also have a private system along side, so the wealthy can avoid the great unwashed.

tptacek 4y ago

That's as may be, but you can't just change the common definitions of terms to win the argument.

maxerickson 4y ago
I suppose if I had written a longer comment I might have gone on about how lots of times advocates choose bad positions (so like here, the trope is trying to argue that preventative care reduces medical costs when there's a better position arguing that the benefits of preventative care outweigh the costs). It's not really very interesting to discuss the bad position at any length, except maybe as a launching point into some more interesting adjacent discussion.
- DoreenMichele 4y ago
  so like here, the trope is trying to argue that preventative care reduces medical costs That wasn't the point I was trying to make. Everyone arguing against me is trying to claim that and then say it's a dumb position. Try arguing with my actual point in the future. I'll grant you I could have stated it more clearly. My bad. I also clarified, yet this assertion lives on. Whatever.