LogFAQs > #884515966

Transcendentia posted...

The same type of incentive system exists in socialized healthcare where the government needs to employ a ton of doctors and nurses and hospital staff. If people get healthier and stop going to the doctor, that sector of the economy tanks.

B-but, socialism!

Seriously though, I sort of see what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. Basically, your argument is that as people get healthier, less doctors and nurses are needed, therefore there are less people paying taxes, which means lower tax receipts for the government and less for them to spend, right?

My contention with this argument is that:

1. These changes don't occur overnight. They happen over a long period and can be anticipated in advance to a certain extent. You don't just fire a bunch of doctors and nurses that go on to unemployment. What happens instead is that you tweak your training policies. OK, we're not going to need as many nurses, so let's train fewer (although I doubt that's the case in many places at the moment).
2. The economy is not static. Other sectors can expand or contract as needed. Again, these things don't happen overnight and can be anticipated by government, businesses and individuals and affected by government policy.

Also, there are obviously benefits to a healthier populace that can cancel this out at the very least. Admittedly, there are potential issues too (e.g. with people living longer, you need to provide more of end-of-life care), but I think having a healthier populace is a good "problem" to have.

Another argument against UHC that I can sympathize with a bit more is that when people's healthcare is being paid for, they have less incentive to take responsibility for their health. However, when you look at the health of the US population compared to other countries with UHC, I'm not sure that holds much water either. I think there are a lot of other factors there, e.g. attitudes to health in a society, poverty, lack of education, etc.