5 ms·
Because our (US) system is at Monty Python levels of absurdity. We waste more money with this "system" than most other countries spend as a total, and with wor
by tiffanyg 3y ago
Because our (US) system is at Monty Python levels of absurdity.
We waste more money with this "system" than most other countries spend as a total, and with worse outcomes on average [1].
Fundamentally, there are two factors, IMO, that have been conclusively proven (repeatedly, and for decades - much more strongly, recently) to be incompatible with delivering quality healthcare with some level of efficiency:
1) For-profit entities (particularly, publicly-traded / with "fiduciary responsibility" to shareholders)
2) Administrative burden / bureaucracy (partly stemming from all of the competing private entities, partly stemming from essentially impossible efforts to effectively regulate these entities and the created "market")
The manner in which the US system evolved, tying insurance to employment through basically existing tax policies, and the move by companies to take advantage of this to attract workers (IIRC), created a massive landscape of entrenched interests that works exactly like such ecosystems work. It is a "teergrube" - an absolute tarpit - where any attempt to fix problems ultimately fails.
The administrative situation is out of control, which means fraud (particularly with the turn towards "digital crime" of everyone from traditional organized crime networks to high schoolers) and waste are impossible to effectively control, adding to an already absurd situation where ever-increasing money is spent on marketing, lobbying, administrators / clerks, etc. Meanwhile, we desperately need more doctors, nurses, etc. AND, these professionals are now increasingly being politicized by "exploiters". A great many healthcare professionals are quitting, and those remaining are often trying to move away from areas that often MOST need their services!
It's amazing to watch (from the inside, so far) a country that built such "soft-power" might ... such a dominant "marketed / exported 'culture'", have those same tools (used, in any scenario, intentionally or not) turn against itself (/ be turned against it) - sowing the seeds of collapse in all sorts of systems, top-to-bottom.
There isn't a face or palm big enough for the facepalm this BS deserves.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2752664 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/27526... - only providing one of a parade of articles examining the issue in the past decade, especially
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago> We waste more money with this "system" than most other countries spend as a total, and with worse outcomes on average [1] Oh sure, if you don't measure what is obviously the most important outcome: freedom
- redandblack 3y agoHow come medicare "system" become the defacto standard
- hospitalJail 3y agoWe own a clinic and medicare pays decent enough. Medicaid isnt enough to run a business. Its like break even if you are super efficient. Private insurance is sooo cash money. If someone with private insurance wants us to get access to a pool for therapy, you got it. All 3 are good for us owners. None of it is good if you pay taxes.
- zo1 3y agoIt's funny how people casually throw out how something has "conclusively" been proven and yet it's a hot debated contentious issue that 50% of people don't agree with. Well gee, zo1, if it's been "conclusively" proven then it should be trivial to convince them to change their mind, right? Perhaps it hasn't been as "conclusively" proven as we've been led to believe.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoThe bar for conclusively proven relies upon the public to agree? Have you met the public?
- cycomanic 3y agoIt might be 50% in the US (although studies show that even in the US most (>60 % IIRC) people favor some form of public healthcare if asked in non-polarizing terms), but if you look at worldwide statistics countries that have publically funded healthcare have typically better outcomes at lower costs, which might not be "proven" in the strictest sense, but is pretty strong evidence.
- slotrans 3y ago> 1) For-profit entities (particularly, publicly-traded / with "fiduciary responsibility" to shareholders) Then why is laser eye surgery so efficient? Answer: it's not covered by insurance, so there's an actual market. The problem isn't for-profit entities, it's for-profit entities operating in the absence of markets. Rent-seeking, in short.
- isbwkisbakadqv 3y agoWhat fraction of the people who could benefit from LASIK get it? Would you be okay if cancer worker like that?
- drekk 3y agoYou're talking about the ticket price for the service when that really shouldn't be the consideration. It doesn't matter how affordable it is when most US citizens can't cover a $500 emergency with savings. It's a shameful, political choice to have people walking around with curable blindness. Or to have people rationing insulin. The body is a temple but the temple is made of meat. It's inevitable at some point that you'll be sick. We may as well bake that assumption into the social contract than try to treat it as any other good or service. Can't exactly shop around hospitals when you're in an ambulance, unconscious.