Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:Overregulation (Score 2, Insightful) 72

Not writing AI system to predict crimes based on race/appearance is not exactly a great regulatory burden. US companies will go right ahead, and they are welcome to turn US into shithole straight from a dystopian SF novel. Have fun. However those companies will not operate in EU and Trump’s screeching will not change that. It’s like whenever “EU” and “AI” appears in a title, some dumb monkey writes pretty much the same dumb comment.

Comment Re:Death panels (Score 3, Insightful) 175

Removing insurance companies isn't going to create more doctors or equipment.

Not spending a shitload money on useless middleman will certainly allow to buy more equipment and hire more doctors. After all insurance companies profit come directly from the money spent on healthcare system.

OECD countries spend more federally on healthcare, but they have different budget priorities. Apparently, the primary purpose of the US is to be the world police.

That's really unrelated to the discussion. My point is that US spends a shitload of money on healthcare per capita while getting pretty poor outcomes out of that. In short, it is using that money very inefficiently.

Insurance companies should work by amortizing risk across the population, but that's not how insurance is used in the US. Instead, insurance is treated as an optional health spending account. Insurance will never work that way.

I am not sure if I understand this your point correctly. But if insurance don't work to amortize risk across the population, then I think it is not fit for purpose and should be replaced with a different system. It's not even required to invent that system - just look at other OECD countries.

And as to your last point, a fair number of people in the US aren't comfortable with the government making decisions about who lives and dies.

That of course is their choice. It puzzles me that they are more comfortable with private companies making decisions about who lives and dies, but to each their own.

Comment Re:Death panels (Score 4, Interesting) 175

You are setting up a strawman here - nobody can in good faith argue that resources are infinite and yes, some people will be still denied care. That's obvious for anybody with a working brain.

However they are completely correct in thinking that removing insurance companies from the picture will create an enormous pool of resources because it can be trivially proven by looking at other OECD countries - how much they are spending vs health outcomes. The simple truth that US medical system is incredibly inefficient, mostly because you have a big, fat parasite sitting in the middle of it. Insurance companies provide no added value in the medical system beyond sucking out money and transferring it to shareholders.

So yes, maybe 10 people will be denied experimental therapies that cost $10 million a month, but millions of people won't be afraid to call ambulance when they are bleeding all over the floor or have their finances ruined because they were taken to 'out of the network' hospital.

Comment Death panels (Score 5, Insightful) 175

Whenever there is discussion about single-payer healthcare (the model that's used in vast majority of developed countries) invariably you have some murican chiming in with fantasies about 'death panels' that supposedly operate in Canada, UK, etc. The funniest part of that is that US already has those 'death panels' - they are called insurance companies and if they think condemning you to die will make $1 more for their investors, they will happily do it.

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Working...