3 ms·

> but then the added productivity is used to justify fewer on-staff nurses Lower staffing levels per unit of care performed makes medical care cheaper for pati

> but then the added productivity is used to justify fewer on-staff nurses Lower staffing levels per unit of care performed makes medical care cheaper for patients. If the goal of a healthcare system is to make healthcare more accessible (rather than be a jobs program), that's a success.

lbreakjai 1mo ago
If, and that's a huge if, the savings are actually passed on to the customers rather than the capital owners.
- submain 1mo ago
  Which is why we need competition. Which is almost non-existent in US healthcare as comparing prices is near impossible.
  - lbreakjai 1mo ago
    The incumbents can just swallow the competition and consolidate further. The end state of crony capitalism is always a monopoly.
- dgellow 1mo ago
  Or any of the middlemen
leto_ii 1mo ago
> Lower staffing levels per unit of care performed makes medical care cheaper for patients. Based on how neoliberal capitalism tends to work it will simply lead to more profits for hospitals etc.
pasquinelli 1mo ago
> Lower staffing levels per unit of care performed makes medical care cheaper for patients. yeah yeah, sure sure
jackdaniel 1mo ago
Lowering prices or raising wages due to increased productivity is not a given, and often does not follow. There is more to pocket by shareholders though.
- bpodgursky 1mo ago
  So it's OK to roll out AI to nurses in the NHS and Canada? Their hospitals don't have shareholders, so that's a minimum baseline that meets all of your goals.
  - jackdaniel 1mo ago
    I did not state any goals, I've only falsified your naive claim.
teeray 1mo ago
> makes medical care cheaper for patients I think you misspelled “increases profit margins for hospitals” if you’re talking about US healthcare.
asdff 1mo ago
Everything is theoretically cheaper for the patients/customer/stakeholders if you just didn't employ anyone at all to do whatever it is you are doing. The thing is, your customers are paying customers because, drum roll, some one pays them to do something. And of course the only argument against this is "uhh maybe ubi" and that's rich that we will just come up with a nice tidy sum for everyone that will cover all their food, healthcare, housing, wants and needs, while we can't create programs to cover any one of those things today. Can't wait to see the GOP proposal.

lbreakjai 1mo ago

If, and that's a huge if, the savings are actually passed on to the customers rather than the capital owners.

submain 1mo ago
Which is why we need competition. Which is almost non-existent in US healthcare as comparing prices is near impossible.
- lbreakjai 1mo ago
  The incumbents can just swallow the competition and consolidate further. The end state of crony capitalism is always a monopoly.
dgellow 1mo ago
Or any of the middlemen

leto_ii 1mo ago

> Lower staffing levels per unit of care performed makes medical care cheaper for patients. Based on how neoliberal capitalism tends to work it will simply lead to more profits for hospitals etc.

pasquinelli 1mo ago

> Lower staffing levels per unit of care performed makes medical care cheaper for patients. yeah yeah, sure sure

jackdaniel 1mo ago

Lowering prices or raising wages due to increased productivity is not a given, and often does not follow. There is more to pocket by shareholders though.

bpodgursky 1mo ago
So it's OK to roll out AI to nurses in the NHS and Canada? Their hospitals don't have shareholders, so that's a minimum baseline that meets all of your goals.
- jackdaniel 1mo ago
  I did not state any goals, I've only falsified your naive claim.

teeray 1mo ago

> makes medical care cheaper for patients I think you misspelled “increases profit margins for hospitals” if you’re talking about US healthcare.

asdff 1mo ago

Everything is theoretically cheaper for the patients/customer/stakeholders if you just didn't employ anyone at all to do whatever it is you are doing. The thing is, your customers are paying customers because, drum roll, some one pays them to do something. And of course the only argument against this is "uhh maybe ubi" and that's rich that we will just come up with a nice tidy sum for everyone that will cover all their food, healthcare, housing, wants and needs, while we can't create programs to cover any one of those things today. Can't wait to see the GOP proposal.