16 comment  view:16   blogger:0 view

  1. CaptainHappen

    So the cure for homelessness is…giving people houses? It's funny that as an advanced nation we figured out how to put a probe on Mars but we haven't figured this out.

  2. Opinionated Ape

    Dump money into broken systems and expect a positive outcome. Give the money back to the people.

  3. Frisco Cruise

    I would love to see how the price of individual healthcare services fluctuated in response to social services being offered, because private healthcare industries are motivated to maintain income even when there are less healthcare needs

  4. SaucerJess


  5. Koby Dunham

    Very interesting conclusion, but I'm not too surprised. Social programs and healthcare spending are both super high-volume expenses, and it's pretty optimistic to assume that they have a negative correlation. Many populations are aging, and it's well understood that the elderly are the greatest burden on healthcare spending; so even if we allocate more public funds to social programs for the young and middle-aged, the elderly population will still require more spending.

    But, as you pointed out in your conclusion, I agree that social programs are beneficial in ways other than reduced healthcare spending. A healthier, more educated population is better for everybody.

    Thanks for these videos 🙂

  6. Aaron Bear

    They need to stop giving tax cuts to the elites and stop bailing out walstreet. They need to bail out the middle class.😤

  7. Anna Reese

    Run for president

  8. harshbarj

    I'd also like to see more studies. Anytime you have multiple studies that show one outcome, then have a new study that shows something else, you have to be skeptical. Perhaps it's right. But it's also possible there was an error in the study of some kind. Before tossing out the old data, we need to make sure the new at least is replicatable.

  9. TacComControl

    I see a lot of things that study left out when determining what it did.

    1: How does each country stack up on a per-procedure basis? Which is to say, does greater spending on social programs result in a reduction in a number of procedures?

    2: How does each country stack up on a preventable deaths basis? Which is to say, how many social programs let people seek out medical attention for life threatening conditions that may have otherwise been ignored, which might help determine whether the social programs were effectively using their money and supplying funding to those in need in such a way that you could actually USE that money in order to get the help you're looking for?

    3: How does each country stack up on a direct finance basis? Which is to say, how much of the social program is going directly into cash or cash-equivalent programs, such as section 8 housing, SNAP assistance, or TANF cash assistance, rather than just job counseling services?

    4: How does each country stack up in terms of non-life-threatening but necessary procedures, such as dental spending, more consistent diagnostic information and testing for those in need or at risk, vision coverage, or seeking out medical treatment that could not have otherwise been afforded?

    5: How does each country stack up in terms of composition of the needy, i.e. how many people who needed home assistance were also, say for instance, disabled veterans with severe, untreated post traumatic stress, who may end up ending their own lives, which would of course lead to a worse "health outcome" score? Because that seems like a uniquely United Statesey problem, which may in turn push our own numbers outside of the norms and skew results.

    6: How does each country stack up on direct patient education among the needy, such as demonstrating the life threatening nature of what may be thought of as a non-life-threatening condition, and how does each country stack up in terms of referring those patients to the services they may be better served by, such as substance use disorder treatments or otherwise? And how does each country stack up in terms of ensuring that those services are available to the patients in need in a timely and effective fashion?

    It seems like the study gathered a little bit of Data, and people are trying to convert that into Information without NEARLY enough additional data to nail anything down in a concrete way.

  10. Mark Hancock

    The pattern is pretty clear from the NASA budget. Government spending (budget) for NASA is not about outcome, it is about reelection (which is usually about jobs).
    Why would we expect Government spending (budget) on medical and social services to be any different? We spend a lot on medical not for outcome; but, because it supports that industry. I think this is a better explanation of medical and social depending amounts that outcome based studies.

  11. pax und peace

    In the US approximately 30% percent of the households are poor and didn't even bring home 60% of the Median income.

  12. stringX90

    Stop taxing me.

  13. PSquared1234

    Those were very unexpected conclusions (at least to me). Appreciate you all passing them on.

  14. Michael Wade

    My good sir, are you somehow implying that there is anything more important than the almighty dollar?

  15. Keelia Silvis

    Question: Did the researchers break down health expenditure by type?

    Hypothetical example, ER visits from overdose among pop.s w/ untreated addiction in USA would be VERY different from more frequent usage of therapists in Denmark. Both lead to increase spending, but overall outcomes/social impacts are different.

    Thanks in advance to anyone who answers, I've got a bunch of projects this week and don't have time to read the source material. 😓

  16. Karl Tanner from Gin Alley

    No public spending at all! If you can't afford healthcare, not my problem, should have saved your money instead of wasting it on silly things! NATURAL SELECTION!

leave me a message

Copyright@Springever inc. © China All rights reserved.  

User login ⁄ Register