3 ms·

I would argue than universal healthcare is a good candidate. By this table one might expect a drop in healthcare costs from 15% of the GDP to 10%, which is 700

I would argue than universal healthcare is a good candidate. By this table one might expect a drop in healthcare costs from 15% of the GDP to 10%, which is 700 billion a year: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care#Economics

ivankirigin 18y ago
Most major innovations in life extending technology come from the US. I very highly doubt waste is completely responsible for the increased spending by % of GDP compared to other western countries. Combined with the semi-evil precautionary principle in Europe, it is very important to keep this research alive. So I'm very wary of changes in the current system that aren't centered around decreased regulation.
- DaniFong 18y ago
  Could you explain more about what the 'semi-evil' precautionary principle means in practice? Many of the medical treatments I've been interested in, developed of late, have had as their proving ground Europe and South Korea. The American medical system seems a lot more conservative in some areas.
  - ivankirigin 18y ago
    In my understanding, the growing trend is to distrust new technology until it can be proven to have no harm on, for example, the environment. That is a ridiculous standard. Of course, so is banning federal funding for stem cell research, so you're right about the American system being more conservative in areas. Increased spending on medicine usually corresponds to measures that wouldn't be taken in more nationalized systems. Late stage treatment of diseases and proceeding with risky births are two examples. It's this kind of spending at the edges that matters a lot for where money and research time is spent. My big fear with a change that isn't deregulation is to remove this incentive. The accounting is obviously difficult. How much value to you assign to a technology that increases life expectancy for a certain kind of disease? If you're comparing %GDP, surely an increased survival rate has a positive affect on GDP. How can you possibly account for that? Numbers like the %GDP spent on medicine and life expectancy takes the aggregate information in a dynamic system of 300M nodes and reduces it down to two numbers that don't mean much for any given individual. For me personally, I'd like to see more research into predicting ailments, individual funding of research to fight ailments that are likely, and much more out of pocket spending on day to day treatment. Unfortunately, the national dialogue consists of many people who have no trouble paying for medical care debating how much of other people's money they should spend on the mythical set of the uninsured.
  - corentin 18y ago
    Well, just one example: until last year, Red Bull was banned in France for health safety reasons.

ivankirigin 18y ago

Most major innovations in life extending technology come from the US. I very highly doubt waste is completely responsible for the increased spending by % of GDP compared to other western countries. Combined with the semi-evil precautionary principle in Europe, it is very important to keep this research alive. So I'm very wary of changes in the current system that aren't centered around decreased regulation.

DaniFong 18y ago
Could you explain more about what the 'semi-evil' precautionary principle means in practice? Many of the medical treatments I've been interested in, developed of late, have had as their proving ground Europe and South Korea. The American medical system seems a lot more conservative in some areas.
- ivankirigin 18y ago
  In my understanding, the growing trend is to distrust new technology until it can be proven to have no harm on, for example, the environment. That is a ridiculous standard. Of course, so is banning federal funding for stem cell research, so you're right about the American system being more conservative in areas. Increased spending on medicine usually corresponds to measures that wouldn't be taken in more nationalized systems. Late stage treatment of diseases and proceeding with risky births are two examples. It's this kind of spending at the edges that matters a lot for where money and research time is spent. My big fear with a change that isn't deregulation is to remove this incentive. The accounting is obviously difficult. How much value to you assign to a technology that increases life expectancy for a certain kind of disease? If you're comparing %GDP, surely an increased survival rate has a positive affect on GDP. How can you possibly account for that? Numbers like the %GDP spent on medicine and life expectancy takes the aggregate information in a dynamic system of 300M nodes and reduces it down to two numbers that don't mean much for any given individual. For me personally, I'd like to see more research into predicting ailments, individual funding of research to fight ailments that are likely, and much more out of pocket spending on day to day treatment. Unfortunately, the national dialogue consists of many people who have no trouble paying for medical care debating how much of other people's money they should spend on the mythical set of the uninsured.
- corentin 18y ago
  Well, just one example: until last year, Red Bull was banned in France for health safety reasons.