undefined | Better HN

0 pointsrichcollins16y ago0 comments

You are assuming that we would get the same value for the new amount spent.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

anonjon16y ago· 2 in thread

You are assuming that we are getting anywhere near optimal value from the 2.3 trillion that we already spend. Clearly we do not. Compared to other countries there has got to be absolutely TONS of wastage.

We die sooner, we spend more of our own money and we spend more government money.

lose/lose.

richcollinsOP16y ago

I didn't make that assumption at all. I assumed that we will get less value for our money the less competition and more regulation that there is. Current regulation already keeps us far from receiving optimal value for our money.

anonjon16y ago

Your assumption is wrong, as clearly indicated by the data. Countries with less competition and more regulation at least appear to receive closer to optimal value from their money (in the realm of healthcare).

Healthcare doesn't make sense when viewed as a market economy.

First off, there is a potentially infinite demand for healthcare. (How much will you pay to live a little longer? As death approaches, the amount you will pay can be seen as an asymptote towards infinity. You have to be a particularly well balanced individual for this not to happen.)

Competing for actual finite resources (hospital beds, doctors, nurses, medications, the drafty-but-fashionable hospital-johnny), with a number of people who are going to die anyway, but are willing (if not able) to pay non-finite sums of money, clearly points us towards a conflict. The only conclusion is for the price of the finite resources to increase indefinitely.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse