Comment on Does free healthcare access increase or decrease the need for medical personnel overall?
Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz 11 hours ago
Think about all the people involved in health care that aren’t involved in actually providing healthcare. Billing, debt collection, assessing insurance claims, denying claims, legal fighting over denied claims, advertising etc.
All that money is better spent providing healthcare.
You bring up a counter point that I’ve heard often, and my usual response is that most could probably find admin positions in the government’s system, and the rest can figure it out like the rest of us.
The last part doesn’t make for a great sales pitch, so what about those people who don’t have a job anymore?
In the UK, hospital administration still goes on. There’s no shortage of jobs for skilled administrators. There are people to assess whether you’re eligible for free treatment, people to assess what treatment you’re eligible for, people to bill patients who choose to go private and chase their debts, etc.
Plus there’s the extra layers of administration at local, regional, and national levels.
Plus there’s people moving money around to ensure bills get paid, facilities are maintained, and staff are fed. Money still moves around even when the patient isn’t the one paying it.
Keeping people in unproductive jobs isn’t an excuse to keep a drain on the the system and bloating costs of health care.
What do they do in other countries that don’t have those roles? They find jobs elsewhere or train in something else. Of course you wouldn’t be able to reform healthcare overnight, it would take a decade or a generation.
PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 11 hours ago
Image
jeffw@lemmy.world 9 hours ago
Eh, this is like “how to lie with data 101”. You want YOY growth, not cumulative since 1970. All this says is we had very few, if any, managers in 1970. Also, we need that green line to move more