431–440 of 549 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and we should also think of the blacksmiths and the elevator operators, milkmen and horse carriage drivers, who will unfortunately be out of a job if we make our society more efficient.
Why not go further still. Smash a window so that window makers can make a living, slash someone's tires so that tire companies can employ more people.
USA Healthcare is 19.5% of GDP. Canada + Australia + UK + (a few similar countries) average 10.5% of GDP. The USA healthcare price gouges via run away prices. Healthcare corporations corrupting congress is the fuel that forces this on people (and breaks a free market).
I’m a Canadian, and I would never want to give up our single payer system. That being said, Canada has a huge health care problem right now. Frequently they need to close emergency services in major (& minor) cities at night due to staff shortages. The wait times for basic diagnostics is on the order of months (not days or weeks). For example, a relative of mine has lost 90 pounds since the start of the year, complai…
The crazy thing to me about this is, most Americans simply skip medical procedures, or tests due to cost.
So American wait times aren't lower because their hospitals are better, they just server a much smaller pool of people due to so many being priced out of being healthy.
And honestly, the longer you go without doctor visits, more expensive, complicated and involved the process is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google healthcare cost per capita vs life expectancy. Last time I checked, Canada, for example, spent 1/3rd less than the USA and Canadians lived a few years longer. IIRC, of the "universal coverage" systems, Switzerland's ACA-like system had the highest per capita, but still less than USA's system. Much has changed these last few years. eg Our life expectancy in the USA has fallen.
Life expectancy is a terrible measure for quality of healthcare. It ignore so many other factors. The only way it could be a suitable measure if you assumed every human in every country was the same except for the healthcare they receive. It's pretty clear they aren't - lifestyle, smoking rates, alcohol and drug abuse, accidents, suicides, genetics. You’re far better to look at things like “survival after cancer diag…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Doctors often do 2-6 years of excess schooling residencies learning areas of medicine that will never be relevant to them. Where in the world did you hear this? Don't trust anything else that person told you. Aside from some low-income clinic hours for certain specialties (which is objectively a societal good, not to mention typically specific to a given specialty, e.g. OBs have an OB clinic not primary care) no do…
> Don't trust anything else that person told you. You just said what he said, but with emphasis on 100 hour weeks for years on end being good instead of bad. Why did you disagree with me, then go on to list how much doctors work before the get to practice on their own? His point was they get too much training, with much of it being irrelevant (not all). If you're this angry and reactive, you really shouldn't be a doc…
The closest thing to "extra training" they get is fellowship-related rotations, but even this is all things they'll see in practice so they need to know how to handle it initially, if for no other reason than so they know when to offload it to a specialist.
> They are often done by age 24, and ready to help.
I'm sure this is fine for whatever the equivalent is to an urgent care doctor in the UK (bottom of the barrel family med in the US, probably not board certified - e.g. failed the exam or not qualified to take it - or doing transitional residency because they didn't match anywhere), but I'm not really interested in my orthopedic surgeon or neurologist just getting through their training as quickly as possible.
There are lots of ways the US could increase the pool of doctors, and most doctors are probably paid way too much (paradoxically, probably most egregiously at the low end of skill), but "cut out a bunch of training" is a dumb way to do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But looking from another perspective - if healthcare is 20% of GDP, an awful amount of people are therefore paid directly due to this "waste". Any improvement in efficiency would mean those people lose out on jobs. A new use for them must be found, or there will be massive unemployment (at least, short-medium term).
Two economists are walking in a forest when they come across a pile of shit. The first economist says to the other “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The second economist takes the $100 and eats the pile of shit. They continue walking until they come across a second pile of shit. The second economist turns to the first and says “I’ll pay you $100 to eat that pile of shit.” The first economist takes the $10…
You used a wrong allegory to try to demonstrate a point that noone was making.
This data is already available cleaned here. https://turquoise.health/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your opinion, what would be the lowest hanging fruit that could be changed to have the largest positive impact?
People are rarely satisfied with this answer but its demonstrably true and was proven time and time again at the facilities ClearHealth managed. 1) Feverent, almost religious, adherence to hand washing. 2) No neck ties or dangly sleves whatsoever in buildings that house patients. 3) Change from stainless steel hardware for doors and travel touch surfaces back to "brass/copper". Those are simple, virtually free, thing…
Am I the only one who finds copper/brass much more aesthetically pleasing than plain and boring stainless steel?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming the US healthcare system isn't equally underfunded. The US has massive doctors shortages (especially in rural areas), and that's not counting all the care the US just doesn't do because people instead just die since they can't afford to go to the hospital.
> You're assuming the US healthcare system isn't equally underfunded. You don't have to assume. It costs twice as much as the most expensive health systems on earth, but delivers Afghanistan-level life expectancies. The problem isn't that we're spending too little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming the US healthcare system isn't equally underfunded. The US has massive doctors shortages (especially in rural areas), and that's not counting all the care the US just doesn't do because people instead just die since they can't afford to go to the hospital.
> You're assuming the US healthcare system isn't equally underfunded. You don't have to assume. It costs twice as much as the most expensive health systems on earth, but delivers Afghanistan-level life expectancies. The problem isn't that we're spending too little.