Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Computer Model Reveals Escape Plan From Poverty's Vicious Circle

Soulskill posted about 8 months ago | from the stop-buying-lottery-tickets dept.

The Almighty Buck 356

KentuckyFC writes "Infectious disease condemns poor countries to an endless cycle of ill health and poverty. Now a powerful new model of the link between disease and economic growth has revealed why some escape plans work while others just make matters worse. The problem is that when workers suffer from poor health, economic output goes down. And if economic output goes down, there is less to spend on healthcare. And if spending on healthcare drops, workers become less healthy. And so on. So an obvious solution is for a country to spend more on healthcare. But the new model says governments must take care since the cost to a poor country can send the economy spiraling into long term decline. By contrast, an injection of capital from outside the country allows spending on healthcare to increase without any drop in economic output. 'We find that a large influx of capital is successful in escaping the poverty trap, but increasing health spending alone is not,' say the authors. And the amount required is relatively little. The model suggests that long-term investment needs only to be more than 15 per cent of the cost of healthcare. But anything less than this cannot prevent the vicious circle of decline."

cancel ×

356 comments

Healthcare (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#45556505)

Keep your people healthy and they'll live longer, work longer and pay more tax.

What kind of idiot hasn't realised this yet? (obviously, America)

Re:Healthcare (4, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about 8 months ago | (#45556521)

'We find that a large influx of capital is successful in escaping the poverty trap, but increasing health spending alone is not,

Pretty much, we spend more money on HC in america than any other country yet our care is no where near good by any stretch of the imagination. Throwing more money at it like the current admin wants to do, according to this study anyway seems to be a waste of money

Re:Healthcare (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556575)

Throwing more money at it like the current admin wants to do, according to this study anyway seems to be a waste of money

It's not the money you spend, it's how you spend it.

The US healthcare system is mired in being a for-profit operation controlled by large multi-nationals and insurance companies.

They have no interest whatsoever in providing good health care, they care about maximizing corporate profits.

Basically, America's system can't ever work, and never really will except for the rich. Everybody else is expendable and 'surplus population'.

Re:Healthcare (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556757)

In a for profit health care system like the US has profit is maximized by having sick people paying for care. Profit is mimimized by having a healthy population that does not need the care.
Guess where the economic factors are going to push the health of the population?

Re:Healthcare (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557243)

In a for profit health care system like the US has profit is maximized by having sick people paying for care because our lawyers put in loopholes which allow us to avoid paying out claims. Profit is mimimized by having a healthy population that does not need the care and has not bought our product.

You weren't wrong, so this isn't a FTFY. But I felt it could be expanded upon some.

Re:Healthcare (5, Interesting)

torkus (1133985) | about 8 months ago | (#45556799)

Very true. Talk to people in the healthcare field and they'll be able to list tons of examples of wasted money. Any patient on medicaid/medicare gets more treatments, pills, devices, etc. because the hospital, dr, or specialist can bill for it.

Example: 80-something comatose man in the final stages of lung cancer being given a colonoscopy ... just in case he might have ass cancer too. Seriously.

Healthcare is for-profit and must-CYA. Those are the two primary factors 90+% of the time. That's not to say there aren't doctors who care. Many do. But they're stuck working in a system that leaves them little choice but to go along if they want to continue practicing medicine (and paying off their insane student loans).

 

Re:Healthcare (5, Informative)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | about 8 months ago | (#45557213)

Any patient on medicaid/medicare gets more treatments, pills, devices, etc. because the hospital, dr, or specialist can bill for it.

You grossly overestimate how much medicare (and medicaid) provide, and ignore the cost of what you receive. Being on medicare, a chunk of your Social Security income is taken for part A. For me, that amount is almost $200 a month. I only get an allowance of ~$630 dollars a month to spend on the hospital/PCP/specialist. A trip to the hospital, and I owe out of pocket. If I visit my PCP (primary care physician) AND have a psychiatrist appointment, or a physical therapy appointment in the same month, I owe out of pocket. Essentially, I get a "free" ~$430 to throw at my medical care and the rest is up to me to cover.

Medicare Part B (drugs) is optional. It can cost anywhere from $120 to $300+ dollars a month, depending on what and how much you want. It is only beneficial to have if you are on a regimen of costly drugs that would normally go above what you would pay without it. Even if you opt to purchase part B, not everything is covered, and you have a varying copay.

Re:Healthcare (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556847)

The US healthcare system is mired in being a for-profit operation controlled by large multi-nationals and insurance companies.

I want to add "not-profit hospitals turning huge profits" and "chargemasters [wikipedia.org] " to this list of reasons why healthcare is so screwed up. Time magazine again exposed this problem very well earlier this year. Total BS...

Re:Healthcare (1, Troll)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 8 months ago | (#45556877)

America's system can't ever work, and never really will except for the rich. Everybody else is expendable and 'surplus population'.

Well... 47% of us [google.com] anyway, if recent memory serves...

Re:Healthcare (1, Troll)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 8 months ago | (#45557099)

Yeah, how's that intuitive choice of a savior working out there? Truth hurts, eh?

Re:Healthcare (-1, Flamebait)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 8 months ago | (#45557227)

Yeah, how's that intuitive choice of a savior working out there? Truth hurts, eh?

Um... what? Other than Romney being a rich, old, self-entitled, uncaring Republican white guy, I don't know what you mean.

Re:Healthcare (2)

Belial6 (794905) | about 8 months ago | (#45557159)

Most misquoted line of the election. The whole thing makes the Democrats look worse than the Republicans.

Re:Healthcare (3, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 8 months ago | (#45557217)

Most misquoted line of the election. The whole thing makes the Democrats look worse than the Republicans.

Misquoted as in quoted directly from the video?

Re:Healthcare (4, Insightful)

znrt (2424692) | about 8 months ago | (#45556885)

It's not the money you spend, it's how you spend it.

this, and it's not just medical resources. it's education too, to a great extent.

and regarding the article, I would like to point out that injection of money from the outside would in most (or possibly all) cases not be even necessary: just get the rich in the country to pay their fair share of taxes, that would be more than enough.

Re:Healthcare (4, Interesting)

Solandri (704621) | about 8 months ago | (#45556907)

Actually, the U.S. already spends more public money per capita on health care (via Medicare/Medicaid) than Canada does. So the problem cannot be attributed entirely to private health insurance.

I'm fairly certain the problem is the combination of private + public money used to pay for health care. If you go with completely public health care, there is just one payer. When you go with completely private health care, there is also just one payer (the person/insurer paying for a procedure). When you combine private + public, there are two payers. And just like government subsidized school loans end up driving up the cost of tuition, having two payers drives up the cost of health care. (I'm only "fairly certain" because the two conflate through a complicated mix of different patients paying different amounts for the same procedure, and doctors/hospitals cost-shifting in the accounting books to even everything out).

Re:Healthcare (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557223)

Actually, the U.S. already spends more public money per capita on health care (via Medicare/Medicaid) than Canada does. So the problem cannot be attributed entirely to private health insurance.

Sure it can.

Because likely around half (or more) of every dollar being spent is simply lining the pockets of the insurance companies and the middle-men. There's simply no room to get savings from economies of scale, and the vendors can just gouge for every piece as they go. Because if those vendors don't show a steady (and unrealistic) profit, they will be punished by the speculative investors running the stock markets.

As it exists, your system is hugely wasteful because every asshole in the middle is taking his cut and contributing absolutely NOTHING to patient care.

Everything in the middle is just mark-up and waste -- which is why your system as it stands can never actually work for everyone.

The US health-care system is the economic equivalent of trying to build a car by purchasing all of the parts directly from car dealers, and then paying a bunch of mechanics to do the assembly. All you're doing is throwing money into the gaping maws of the middle-men.

The cost of your procedures and case is so high because you need to offset the sheer quantity of money you've been bilked out of in the process. And then all of those other absurd line-items in the bill amount to "because we fucking can".

Essentially, your system is designed to be ineffective and wasteful, because that's how the private companies want it. When insurance companies decide on the 'appropriate' level of medical care, it's a sucker's game from there.

The fact that you spend more money per capita mostly means you are wasting more on the structural problems in your health care system.

Re:Healthcare (3, Interesting)

denzacar (181829) | about 8 months ago | (#45556931)

Basically, America's system can't ever work, and never really will except for the rich.

Doesn't that actually imply that simply throwing money at the problem actually works?

US health system is built to accommodate most those who can afford it - clearly it works splendidly for that purpose.
Keep your rich healthy and they'll live longer, work longer and grow richer.

Re:Healthcare (1)

hazah (807503) | about 8 months ago | (#45557267)

It also implies that it's not sustainable. Evolution provides the evidence.

Re:Healthcare (-1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45557031)

"America's system can't ever work"

Dumb ass hippy comment.

The system can work, but you need to put the right controls in place to insure that corporate interests align with the patients interests.

Re:Healthcare (4, Insightful)

compro01 (777531) | about 8 months ago | (#45557083)

put the right controls in place to insure that corporate interests align with the patients interests.

At which point is is no longer the American system.

Re:Healthcare (5, Interesting)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 8 months ago | (#45557207)

I live in Australia which has a hybrid UHC/Private system. Basically everyone pays for "medicare" (Which I guess would be called "medicaid" in the US) as a small addition to tax. Totally transparent, its just part of income tax and the contribution is income dependent. On top of that we have a private health system where you can get private health cover AS WELL which gives access to private hospitals (although in my experience the private hospitals are inferior to the excellent government ones, especially in emergency care). You have a choice here, but the govt system is largely excellent, however there might be waiting times to see specialists , sometimes in the months range for non essential stuff, and thats where private health cover is advisable. Fortunately private health insurance is well regulated and the doctor, not the health insurance companies , have final say in approving treatments.

Anyway, as you can imagine, when we have progressive governments, funding for the public system increases, and when you get conservative governments, that funding decreases.

But it backfires horribly to defund it, and ironically the actual costs increase.

I can giive an example. Under state labor, my local hospital had the 4 hour rule. In emergency, you would be seen within 15 minutes of ariving (or less if its urgent) , and within 4 hours either be seen by a doctor and sent home (maybe with medication or bandages or whatever) or admitted to hospital. In the case of borderline cases like Influensa, a patient would be sent to an Accute observation ward for overnight assessment. Its a great system that works brilliantly.

However in the last few years our state has had a conservative government that has systematically tried to defund the hospital. The end result is that waiting times have blown out to be multiple hours for non trauma cases in the emergency ward, and doctors are increasingly overworked and stressed out.

Last time I was admitted to emergency ward I was in with internal bleeding. Because I didn't *look* unhealthy it took 3 hours to see and diagnose me. This happened when I finally vomited blood and collapsed in the waiting room unconscious. I required surgery and a few weeks recovery. The doctor told me that if I had been diagnosed within half an hour of being admitted, it would have been a simple procedure and I would have been home within a day. As a result of underfunding, I cost the government *vastly more* in treatment costs then had I not. This is not a case of malpractice, the reality was the hospital was overworked and it took 3 hours to see me because thats how long it took to free up a doctor from all the other emergency cases.

It might seem paradoxical that properly funding universal healthcare is cheaper than not properly funding it, but it actually makes sense when you remember that prompt adequate treatment is almost always cheaper than trying to patch up some poor sod who's condition has been made worse by not treating it.

Re:Healthcare (1)

operagost (62405) | about 8 months ago | (#45557375)

I didn't know that doctors, nurses, administrators, etc. all worked for free in the rest of the world.

I didn't know pharmaceutical companies were all non-profit, and researchers worked for room and board.

Everyone makes money off of health care; the only question is whether the profit goes to the hard working people or if the government bureaucrat gets the biggest slice.

Re:Healthcare (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | about 8 months ago | (#45556583)

Spending money on cosmetic surgery, and the amount of money you literally PISS AWAY into insurers and intermediaries is the cause of your problem.

You're not spending money on making people better. You're spending money on keeping huge pharmaceutical companies in their monopoly on ineffective treatments.

How much do you think it *really* costs to diagnose and treat a broken leg? Now find out how much your insurers pay (who aren't "insuring", because they only charge you for your own personal expense, at great "middle-man" profit).

Stop pissing about, through out this "private" medical practice with insurers and so many middle-men, and put in place a national health service who offer any treatment that is effective and extends life / quality of life, which everyone contributes to from taxation, and everything else you pay for out of your own pocket.

You'll pay less tax. You'll never pay health insurance again unless you want to for something cosmetic. And you'll be healthier.

Come join the rest of the fucking first- and third-world.

Re:Healthcare (5, Informative)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 months ago | (#45556631)

Spending money on cosmetic surgery

Huh? That's not part of the US's problem at all. Cosmetic surgery isn't covered by insurance, it's at-will and paid directly by those who want it. It's totally irrelevant to the problems in the healthcare industry in America. In fact, if anything, it's probably more cost-effective and efficient because it cuts the insurance companies out of the equation.

and everything else you pay for out of your own pocket.

Yes, that's already how we do it for cosmetic surgery. It's everything else that's a disaster.

Re:Healthcare (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | about 8 months ago | (#45556985)

Re:Healthcare (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 months ago | (#45557051)

Things like this are not the norm in America, and certainly not for private-sector employees. There's all kinds of weird crap going on in the government sector, but a few things like this are significant to the national economy as a whole.

Re:Healthcare (1)

khallow (566160) | about 8 months ago | (#45557069)

That's a Buffalo, New York problem not a US problem. There aren't enough teachers in New York wanting plastic surgery to throw the US market.

Re:Healthcare (1)

bagorange (1531625) | about 8 months ago | (#45557349)

In serious discussions about medicine and its funding, I really wish newspapers would know the difference between plastic (treating those with disfigurements from accident or birth etc) and cosmetic (my hairline and or tits have changed since I was 19, poor me!) surgery

Re:Healthcare (1)

bagorange (1531625) | about 8 months ago | (#45557351)

According to the linked article the problem arises from blurring of the line between plastic and cosmetic interventions.

Re:Healthcare (2, Insightful)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45556677)

Private evil this private evil that.. look, insurance companies are manipulative and profit seeking, but having the state manage it is no better. They have the power to dictate your behavior the moment you receive care. You can bet they will, once obamacare takes off. Fuck that.

Pay less? I doubt it, especially over the long term. It doesn't matter if we overpay the insurance companies or the state..both are experts at wasting other people's money.

Re:Healthcare (5, Informative)

mcrbids (148650) | about 8 months ago | (#45556829)

Pay less? I doubt it, especially over the long term. It doesn't matter if we overpay the insurance companies or the state..both are experts at wasting other people's money.

The USA Spends more per capita (by far) than any other nation on earth. [theguardian.com] Yet our actual life expectancy is just 33rd. [wikipedia.org]

Doubt all you want. I prefer to get some facts and base my opinions on them rather than "gut feelings".

Re:Healthcare (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557029)

But the facts that you state say little about the quality of the health care. USA is for example the most obese industrialised country. And if you believe that is free in terms of life expectancy you better review your facts. In Japan (where people have the longest life expectancy) there are only 5% obese adults (BMI >= 30) while the USA have 33% obese adults. If you don't factor in such important determinants for life expectancy you cannot evaluate the quality of the health system. For all that we know your health system can be excellent since you manage to be 33rd even though one in three americans are fat.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2228rank.html

Re:Healthcare (1)

bagorange (1531625) | about 8 months ago | (#45557211)

your health system can be excellent since you manage to be 33rd even though one in three americans are fat.

Reducing obesity rates is part of preventive medicine, so by definition such high rates are evidence of an at least partly failing healthcare system. In that you are unable to stop such grotesque obesity that the fat scooter is actually a thing.

Re:Healthcare (1, Flamebait)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45557191)

I'm sure it is.. It's a well known fact that living 'correctly' results in longer lifespans but at sharply reduced enjoyment, so the only way to get there is to restrict liberties. No thanks. If you're interested in facts surrounding controversial topics, you'll probably have to go collect them yourself as media outlets like the guardian are notorious for not giving the full picture. All you're really doing is picking your favorite bandwagon to side with.

I don't buy into any of the given excuses for crazy wealth redistribution. In fact, I'd probably want to die sooner, having more than half my life's work siphoned off, while only eating what the state tells me to eat so that it can save money on my health to spend on other stupid shit. I do not want to be one of its cogs. Freedom is as important to health and wellbeing as diet and exercise.

I suppose it's not difficult to provide 'ok', cue-based care when the population's income is taxed over 50%, but I wouldn't call that a success story. Unfortunately, here in the states we tax almost as much (income+sales) and manage to have the money siphoned off into other bullshit, making it obvious that the last people we want spending our money are the current crop of politicians.

Re:Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556827)

Spending money on cosmetic surgery, and the amount of money you literally PISS AWAY into insurers and intermediaries is the cause of your problem.

...Literally??

Re:Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557115)

Sorry bud, but literally is an autoantonym now. It has been for years, whether or not your dictionary has caught up.

Re:Healthcare (1)

EddieBurkett (614927) | about 8 months ago | (#45557327)

So literally no longer literally means literally?

Re:Healthcare (2)

GrahamCox (741991) | about 8 months ago | (#45556869)

the amount of money you literally PISS AWAY

While passing those coins can be rather painful, surely the solution is to put some sort of filters in urinals? Or they could be plumbed directly into the treasury. I dunno why anyone hasn't thought of it before.

Re:Healthcare (5, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 8 months ago | (#45556559)

Oh we're quite 'healthy' - not at the highest level but more than healthy enough to be able to weather serious disease as best as possible. TFA is talking about real malnutrition / lack of clean water / lack of vaccines level healthy.

Now, how we go about spending money on 'health' is another topic that we've attacked numerous times and is much more complex. But, barring small pockets of severe poverty, we're pretty healthy.

Going back to TFA

How much cash does a country need to escape a poverty trap? Goerg and co say their model suggests that the money should be equivalent to halving the cost of disease treatment and prevention.

But this level of investment is not needed in the long term. Goerg and co say the same outcome can be guaranteed if the long term investment is equivalent to only 15 per cent of this cost.

I wonder if they're talking about nutrition / basic sanitation in theses costs. While not terribly high dollar, it's often hard to get levels of basic nutrition and clean water to really poverty stricken places and create the infrastructure to keep the resources up over time. That might be more expensive. Still and all it gives groups like the IMF a spread sheet number that they can plug in to force countries to do something other than create a mega dam for the Chinese.

Self-assured ignorance. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557169)

That this is said without irony when the United States currently has a large malnutrition problem. Food deserts -- where grocery a stores are not found, but there is plenty of nutritionally devoid (but tasty and cheap) fast food nearby.

How are you completely ignorant of the obesity epidemic and the circumstances driving it?

Re:Healthcare (2, Insightful)

g0bshiTe (596213) | about 8 months ago | (#45556563)

Mod Insightful.

How you can help. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556565)

Effective, sustainable anti-poverty measures begin here. [doctorswit...orders.org]

Poverty-stricken countries remain poor because they cannot produce enough to sustain themselves. They cannot produce enough because their workforce is sick. Give them medicine and you break that cycle without putting local farmers or manufacturers out of business. Doctors without borders is a good start.

Re:Healthcare (1, Informative)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45556635)

Which apparently requires many intrusions on freedom and liberty, rapidly driving down the quality of life to the point of not worth living status. For what? To pay of the crazy debt the government has accrued over the last 5 decades? Fuck them. I didn't ask for this nor did I vote for it.

The last thing I want is the state telling me what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise, how much I must work, and when and where I may travel. Of course, all of this is required in order to 'live longer, work longer, and pay more tax.' Fuck that.

Re:Healthcare (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556875)

The last thing I want is the state telling me what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise, how much I must work, and when and where I may travel. Of course, all of this is required in order to 'live longer, work longer, and pay more tax.'

They do? It is? Shit, here I am and I've been doing it all wrong my entire life! Do you think if I ask my local government official he can still issue travel documents and papers retrospectively? Of course I'll need to find out who my local government official is first I guess. I never even knew...damn, this socialised medicine is tricky stuff!

Re:Healthcare (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45557233)

That's ok. Keep your head in the ground, ostrich. If it's not happening to you RIGHT NOW, it must never happen, or ever will happen. Also, since I don't know anything about your life, I have no idea if, indeed, you have been living that way or not.

It depends doesn't it? In the case of places paying over 50% tax, maybe they haven't needed to yet, as they have the money. It's when funds get tight that they'll push for behavior modification. Even before obamacare passed, here in NYC, bloomberg already pushed for that stupid soda ban. Down the road, the left WILL demand it in order to save obamacare money when that shitpile inevitably goes into the red.

Re:Healthcare (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 8 months ago | (#45557143)

You're just screaming at the voices in your head. No one in the real world is saying that the US government should tell you "what I may eat, how much, when and where I must exercise" etc.

Of course, this brings up another big flaw in American healthcare: the disgraceful state of mental healthcare.

Re:Healthcare (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45557247)

I'm supposedly the mental patient, yet all you have is ad hominem? I didn't say it was that way, now. I'm saying it is very likely it will be that way in the future. The money will have to come from somewhere, and if it doesn't, which is likely, costs must be cut.. This will result in legislation. It is NOT an unreasonable assumption.

Re:Healthcare (1)

ewieling (90662) | about 8 months ago | (#45557249)

The total dollar amount of debt is not important. What is important is the radio of debt to GDP which started skyrocketing in the USA only since 2001. Current tax rates also concern me. Maybe moving marginal tax rates back to the rates in the 1950s or 1960s would be a good thing?

Re:Healthcare (1)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | about 8 months ago | (#45556701)

Keep your people healthy and they'll live longer, work longer and pay more tax.

What kind of idiot hasn't realized this yet? (obviously, America)

I'm pretty sure we now have a national healthcare system of some sort these days. Maybe you missed all the pissing and moaning in the papers. Understandable if you aren't from the US.

Re:Healthcare (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556911)

Spending on healthcare in America was basically nothing until the mid 20th century. Yet, America was an economic powerhouse and a world leader by that point. That says a well functioning economy relies on individualism, capitalism, free market economies, low government regulation, etc. Health care spending would seem to be the least important, or low enough not to matter.

And, your America bashing would seem to make you rather ill-informed and more reactionary than Insightful. But this is Slashdot, and ratings have more to do with emotion than facts, logic, or rationality. Enjoy your day.

Re:Healthcare (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 8 months ago | (#45556919)

America has a good health care system. The only thing is it is financed by private companies, and less by government.

We have a strong health care infrastructure, Hospitals, Dr. Offices, Clinics. Access to advanced medical equipment.

However our system take a capitalistic approach to health care, the more money you got the better your care.
Now this has its advantages.
1. Being that the rich are willing to pay for better services, it allows institutions to have better equipment.
2. Being that health care is on the persons dime (either directly or threw insurance) they are more likely to make decision if a particular care is worth it or not to take care of. Vs. a single payer system, where some procedures will be deemed by a higher authority as not worthy.

And it has its disadvantages.
1. Unequal quality of care
2. Basic services are more expensive.

But this study is about countries with out a proper health care network. And your obvious statement is only obvious after the evidence is shown, before that it was just a theory. Health Care may have a less impact, as the money saved in not spending on health care can go toward other things, to improve life. Or the amount of investment may be lower at 5% or higher say 25%

Re:Healthcare (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 8 months ago | (#45557239)

I can appreciate your comments. However, the expectation that health care will ever be equal among everyone is fairly unrealistic. Somehow I think the Jay-Zs and Bill Gates of the world will always have better of everything.

Re:Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557065)

What kind of idiot doesn't understand actuarial data, basic economics and wealth creation?

When people live longer past retirement age, they consume more tax revenue, both for healthcare, public pensions, and Social Security.

When you tax working people and employers so heavily that they can't save for retirement, and choose to work less or not at all, they become dependent on the state, and the economy contracts, providing less tax revenue.

Re:Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557097)

The research as written in the article seems a bit specious to me. It seems to be they built their conclusion into their assumption:

Having created this model, Goerg and co introduce a disease which spreads through the population preventing sufferers from fully participate in the work force until they are cured.

I question that assumption, do diseases really typically behave that way in 3rd word countries in that they prevent sufferers from participating in the workforce and that negatively ipacts the economy? In a developing economy I would tend to think you generally either survive or don't. And that assuming input vs output is effectively zero (ie you likely only produce enought to keep your self alive) that losing people wouldn't tend to have an overall impact to the economy.

Also their use of oil rich countries as examples of a reversal of this is also specious. "We find that a large influx of capital is successful in escaping the poverty trap" Duh, but just because they were wealthier and healthier, doesn't mean the two are tied together or that the increased health also increased the already increasing wealth.

Obviously people not dying is a nice thing, however, I didn't really read anything that would lead me to believe that it is really having a significant impact on developing GDPs

Re: Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557303)

Computer program solves poverty. Answer, get more money.

Africa (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556507)

This clearly is working for Africa.

Can you be serious? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556517)

So the solution to poverty.. is for other countries to just give you some money?

What the hell kind of solution is that?

Re:Can you be serious? (2)

Grantbridge (1377621) | about 8 months ago | (#45556529)

As a one-off payment to kickstart better healthcare, which results in better health of workers and then more output, so you can spend more on healthcare...etc.

Re:Can you be serious? (1)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 8 months ago | (#45556639)

Sounds great, but how do you convince some other country to be your benefactor? Usually, when countries get loans, there's all kinds of horrible strings attached which only serve to keep that country crippled in perpetuity.

Re:Can you be serious? (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45556703)

It will go right into the coffers of the corrupt politicians running those countries. Just like here in the states..except we can hide it better through multiple layers of bureaucracy. Those countries have it bad because we helped them move beyond their self sufficiency point. Giving them more resources just causes them to pump out more thugspawn. Enough already.

Re:Can you be serious? (1)

Sarius64 (880298) | about 8 months ago | (#45557283)

Because clearly outstanding retired politicians, like Chris Dodd, continue make salaries like $2.4 million acting as the CEO of a lobbyist group, show us the roadmap for morals within our own superior American bureaucracy.

Re:Can you be serious? (1)

pezpunk (205653) | about 8 months ago | (#45556601)

you seem to have missed the point. try reading it again.

Re:Can you be serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556687)

I read it again, and um, nothing has changed. It still says the escape from poverty is achieved by an injection of capital from outside the country.Well, how, exactly, do you intend to receive such an injection? How will you motivate the wealthholders outside the country to inject capital into you? You won't. That's how.

Re:Can you be serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556859)

Don't you think that the Bill Gates and Warren Buffet fund could start doing this one country at at time and see if it works? Start with the small countries, then move up as the system is proven to work?

Charities had it right all along? (1)

mevets (322601) | about 8 months ago | (#45556539)

Who would have thought? Well I guess WHO, CARE, Red Cross, Oxfam, ...
But, now we know the reason...

Re:Charities had it right all along? (2)

KRL (664739) | about 8 months ago | (#45556585)

Yep... Haiti is a perfect example of how throwing money at a problem really helps... oh wait...

Re:Charities had it right all along? (2)

mevets (322601) | about 8 months ago | (#45556825)

Not throwing money, focussing on the health and wellbeing of the people. In Haiti, that has been a success, due to the hard work of Haitians and international volunteers in providing health care, food, shelter and supplies.

The problem you are alluding to, that money for Haiti has been used by intermediary groups and governments as an in-and-out scheme to launder money and prop-up domestic business failures is quite different. The responsibility for first world corruption should remain in the first world.

So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556547)

They are concluding that socialized health care while also allowing a competitive economic environment actually can work?!!?! but nutjobs form left and right keep telling me that's utter bullshit and a conspiracy!

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556653)

They are concluding that socialized health care while also allowing a competitive economic environment actually can work?!!?! but nutjobs form left and right keep telling me that's utter bullshit and a conspiracy!

Too stupid to read the letters in the mail telling you that you're going to get a 2X or 3X hike on your premiums? Typical of the voting populace that elected the people who put this system in place.

What is the first thing the World Bank and IMF do? (1, Flamebait)

plopez (54068) | about 8 months ago | (#45556607)

Demand cuts in social programs including health care. The World Bank and IMF are evil.

Re:What is the first thing the World Bank and IMF (0)

epyT-R (613989) | about 8 months ago | (#45556741)

Just a bit disingenuous, no? The countries with the socialist bias are almost always about to run out of money, even with crazy tax rates (eg sweden). While I'm sure the world bank brats would love never to have to pay any tax, they do have a point. Take it too far either way causes too much power to be focused on too few people, with little oversight.

It boils down to who has control of the money, right? Whether it's the world bank, or the state, both are rife with corruption.

Re:What is the first thing the World Bank and IMF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556779)

Demand cuts in social programs including health care. The World Bank and IMF are evil.

That's because it's full of the same kind of people who caused the financial melt-down and continue to believe in absurd things like trickle-down economics and that the 'market' will solve all problems.

When your economic decisions are made by people who only understand how to make the rich get richer, everyone else gets fucked in the process.

Plan to escape from poverty? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556625)

Eat the Rich?

Awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556629)

Another model of some type of human system basically follows the second law of thermodynamics.

sending aid doesn't help, stop raiding countries (5, Insightful)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about 8 months ago | (#45556655)

Most "poor" countries to which we send aid, are being plundered just as hard, or even harder. Every time we send food aid to some poor African or central American country, the local farmers get no money for the little food they produce and the local market is ruined, stopping local production of food instead of encouraging it.

Every time we demand the lowest price for all the stuff we import from those countries, we make them find ways to produce even cheaper, lowering the standard of life there. This results in pricing that is so low that our own economy can't compete and we put import taxes on these goods. This results in the foreign producers being forced to lower their prices even more, again ruining their economy and health.

Instead of "sending aid" every time a famine or natural disaster strikes one of these countries, we should stop plundering them. Micro credits for local businesses there have helped a lot, investing in farming for local food supply helps. These people are perfectly capable of helping themselves, given half a chance.

Escape Plan From Social Science's Vicious Cycle (4, Insightful)

Baldrson (78598) | about 8 months ago | (#45556659)

This study is just more social pseudo-science. Social science is incapable of effectively dealing with the "correlation doesn't imply causation" trope we've all been taught in statistics 102.

In real science control groups are required to establish causality.

Social scientists are as terrified of real control groups testing causal hypotheses in human ecology as were the Jesuits of independent interpretations of the Bible. This is because social science is essentially a pre-enlightenment theocratic discipline:

If the powers-that-be oppose your social "science" then no matter how much data you gather, some variant of "correlation doesn't imply causation" will be trotted out to ignore it.

If the powers-that-be like your social "science" then the NYT will take one data point -- perhaps even one anecdote about one person at some point in history and base public policy on it. With the mass media holding mass and preaching said sermons the pious slaves to intellectual fashion, generally those with college degrees from the seminaries known as "colleges", and and with IQs below 140 who like to pretend to be morally superior "thought leaders" (knowing they have safety in numbers from hearing sermons at "mass") will then to the dirty work on the street.

Moreover, this theocratic sophistry, imposing social theories on unwilling human subjects, locks into place powerful interests that oppose any truth-discovery.

From Machiavelli's "The Prince" chapter 6:

"It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them."

If we are ever to escape this vicious cycle driven by the social sciences, the Enlightenment must penetrate them through Sortocracy:

Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

Fortunately, like the Protestant movement's impetus to independently interpret the Bible due to the Gutenberg press, the Internet is now letting people have direct access to and independent interpretation of data about human ecologies -- and the demand for freedom from imposition of social theories on unwilling human subjects will increase until freedom from theocratic forms of government -- and their social scientist theologians -- will win the day.

In the process, as with the wars for freedom of religion that lasted over a century, we cannot expect this penetration of Enlightenment values into the social sciences to take place without a struggle [sortocracy.org] .

Re:Escape Plan From Social Science's Vicious Cycle (-1, Troll)

Suiggy (1544213) | about 8 months ago | (#45556777)

Watch out, the Sociopathic Social Justice Warriors will downvote you for your thought crimes.

Re:Escape Plan From Social Science's Vicious Cycle (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556955)

In the process, as with the wars for freedom of religion that lasted over a century, we cannot expect this penetration of Enlightenment values into the social sciences to take place without a struggle [sortocracy.org] .

I'm sorry, but - is it possible you are unaware of what the Enlightenment was?

The principle belief is the Tabula Rasa Myth, which has been thoroughly disproven by over a decade of genetics research. Literally thousands upon thousands of studies have proven that for any behavioral attribute that can be reliably measured, there is a genetic component. We have the Soviet Union, founded upon your religion, that executed scientists who did not believe, and that tortured and indoctrinated millions with the belief that conditioning can change people significantly.

Social science today, is beholden to these views and is unable to grasp genetics.

This very topic would be demonstrative of this religion. What do we know about all the people they are describing who are impoverished? They have IQs of less than 80. Disease has affected every society, obviously that is no hindrance to civilization. A minimum average intelligence however appears to be required.

You undoubtedly recoil at this fact, just as all sociologists who continue to promote Marxist theory. Many people reading this will probably want to moderate my post down.

But, that's how it goes. Most believers can't accept challenges to their beliefs. Yours is a curious way of dealing with however.

Re:Escape Plan From Social Science's Vicious Cycle (1)

Baldrson (78598) | about 8 months ago | (#45557369)

The conflation of cultural determinism with the empiricism was an obvious intellectual error that afflicted not just Enlightenment philosophers but Islamic and classical Greek philosophers as well. It has no more bearing on the priority of evidence over theory (particularly theology posing as theory), that was the bedrock of the Enlightenment, than do other widely-held erroneous beliefs that persist throughout the ages.

The Camelot Effect (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556665)

Am I the only one who, when I read "a new computer model", thinks that the whole thing is a load of crap?

I've made computer models, and they're the working definition of "garbage in, garbage out". How anyone can put their faith (and that's precisely what it is) in anything coming out of them is beyond me.

It always reminds me of the scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:

Sir Lancelot: Look, my liege!
[trumpets play a fanfare as the camera cuts briefly to the sight of a majestic castle]
King Arthur: [in awe] Camelot!
Sir Galahad: [in awe] Camelot!
Sir Lancelot: [in awe] Camelot!
Patsy: [derisively] It's only a model!
King Arthur: Shh!

Spending on Prevention always more cost effective (4, Insightful)

acroyear (5882) | about 8 months ago | (#45556707)

So long as we just focus on *treatment* of the sick, costs will continue to spiral.

A general influx of cash doesn't just focus on treatment of those sick - it starts to alleviate the issues that allow disease to spread in the first place (lack of hygene, lack of vaccination, lack of clean water, lack of balanced food (and complete meals), and lack of general preventive care, and lack of birth control - ALL things people in poverty already lack).

Health care costs get under control when the focus is on prevention rather than treatment: you spend FAR less money when fewer people get sick. When you use the capital to address the causes of disease rather than just treating it, you spend much less on treating the ones that got away.

Relatedly, this is why insurance companies love birth control - a pill a day and a box full of condoms is far cheaper to them than the thousands of dollars for examinations, the birth, emergency natal care, and having to cover the kid for the next 26 years.

Re:Spending on Prevention always more cost effecti (1)

acroyear (5882) | about 8 months ago | (#45556735)

(and gee, many of our problems in Education go away when one addresses the poverty issue that makes education impossible rather than constantly trying to change the education system that has otherwise worked for generations)

bah, next you'll claim MDs better than paperwork (1)

raymorris (2726007) | about 8 months ago | (#45556811)

Bah. I bet you think it would be more effective for doctors to spend 20 minutes with the patient rather than 4 minutes with the patient and 16 minutes on t government paperwork.

I bet you also think eating healthy foods like vegetables and whole grains works better than eliminating $15 copays by exchanging them for $163 tax expenditures.

Socialism, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556773)

People helping others.

after RTFA (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556841)

TL;DR Bill Gates is wasting his money?

Stating the obvious, isn't it? (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 8 months ago | (#45556881)

"If [an injection of cash from outside the economy] is large enough and sustained for long enough... [W]e find that a large influx of capital is successful in escaping the poverty trap"

That should generally be true anyways... for individuals as well as for poor nations.

What Bullshit! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556903)

HealthCare does NOT mean healthy people. Sorry.

Capitol influxes that fix corrupted food supplies and increase dietary education will do a whole lot more good than extra white coats.

The HealthCare industry in the USA is overloaded with people who are dying from eating the Standard American Diet. Not because there's some massive "LACK" of healthcare.

Morons... we're surrounded by morons!

Read more on my blog at TheCleanGame [.] net

Keep it Clean! :D

Laugh (1)

koan (80826) | about 8 months ago | (#45556935)

"'We find that a large influx of capital is successful in escaping the poverty trap, "

No shit Sherlock, every time someone gives me a billion dollars I don't feel the poverty any more.
How about this, mandatory birth control for your out of control population growth... you think that would help your health issues?

No, instead you go looking for outside investment which will hurt you even more in the long term.

waste of space (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556945)

What a dumb study. Everything you need to know about it is summarized in the "fits" of Fig. 2. I'm supposed to believe ANYTHING based on that? Then they marry it with the SOLOW MODEL?!?!? Clickbait "science" at its worst.

YOU? FAIL IT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45556947)

provide sodas, it was fun. If I'm it waS fun. If I'm series of exploding

Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie (-1, Flamebait)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 8 months ago | (#45557037)

What I take from the summary (and based on the summary I will NOT read the article) is a claim that no third world country can help itself, and it must be given at least that magic 15% to join civilized society. Even though they may be freely given knowledge such as medical research that the developed world has spent money to develope. I reject that as complete liberal bullshit. I further reject the implication that if the money is given that it will help, and not be stolen by the few in power. I've seen over and over again that things just don't work that way.

Re:Gimmie, Gimmie, Gimmie (1)

DogDude (805747) | about 8 months ago | (#45557321)

I reject that as complete liberal bullshit.

I reject your rejection.

How's THAT for an argument?

out one and into another (1)

AndyKron (937105) | about 8 months ago | (#45557121)

Out of the poverty trap, and into the corporate consumerism trap.

Or it could be GENES... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557177)

Which cause lower IQs...

I wish it was as simple as that (1)

submain (856941) | about 8 months ago | (#45557193)

Yes, just dump more money into it, and see it vanish into the pockets of those who are in power while they build a clinic that costs as much as three hospitals. And one year later, even that will start to fall apart, because the dictator's/president's/king's yacht has priority over the budget.

Poverty is not an economic/health issue, it is a cultural one. If you don't change how the people and their leaders think, countries will remain poor.

I came from a poor country, and lived there for 23 years. Enough time to see how things truly work.

Like few other things (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 8 months ago | (#45557299)

The amount spent on care is completely disconnected from the benefit or real cost of care. There are few other fields where cooperating state-sanctioned monopolies conspire to drive up cost and deprive a minority of service entirely. It is not good for health. I doubt it will ever change.

water is wet... (1)

192_kbps (601500) | about 8 months ago | (#45557319)

"an injection of capital from outside the country allows spending on healthcare to increase without any drop in economic output." Well, dang, ain't that just the statement of the century.

Opposite page headline (1)

russotto (537200) | about 8 months ago | (#45557323)

"Computer Scientists and Statisticians Demonstrate That Computer Models Can Demonstrate Anything You Like"

Healthcare (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 months ago | (#45557329)

Well there is so many Health Alternatives, food and medicines worldwide, why do we still struggle with this kind of things? Poverty starts with the mind of those whos responsibility is managing a country, Please wake up!

Love the People [megacomerciales.com]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...