It will bring down the prices for nursing and allow more people who previously couldn't afford health care to afford it, theoretically.

▲

arrowleaf 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

No? Prices are market-driven in our society, not necessarily a function of labor costs. In the very long-term best case scenario, the increased profits going to the company from these efficiency gains may encourage more competitors to pop up, and either drive prices down or offer more for what you pay.

▲

greedo 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Healthcare costs (what I assume you mean by prices) are the least market-driven items in the US economy. And as much as the medical community would have you believe, the primary driver of costs are labor costs. If we had twice the number of doctors, PRNs, PAs, and nurses, their annual income would drop dramatically. But since they're constrained by a guild system, it's not going to happen.

	▲	win311fwg 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> If we had twice the number of doctors, PRNs, PAs, and nurses, their annual income would drop dramatically. Yes, but the parent is saying that the middlemen will still charge the patients the same and pocket the difference. The patients have already shown what they are willing to pay. There is no reason to charge them less, even if your labor costs are now lower. Theoretically competition will eventually squeeze the middleman, but it's not exactly straightforward to build a hospital on every street corner like you can a restaurant. There is somewhat of a natural monopoly there. Maybe less so for basic clinic care, but where the infrastructure needs are complex...
	▲	2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[deleted]

▲

MentalM 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> Prices are market-driven in our society, not necessarily a function of labor costs.

Yeah, but market itself is a function of labor costs.

▲

Gud 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean, “our society”?

How do you know we live in the same place.

Perhaps where I live, efficiencies are to the benefits of everyone?

	▲	ndarray 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You live on Mars?

▲

snovymgodym 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> theoretically

In case you haven't noticed, all that our current system is able to do with increased efficiency is cutting staff and/or increasing the percentage of money that gets siphoned up to capital holders.

▲

thrance 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Healthcare prices are not dictated by labor costs, but by how much the leeches who own everything are willing to charge people for it. For example, insulin is dirt cheap to make, yet billed at exorbitant amounts.

	▲	FuriouslyAdrift 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		At least in the US, the ACA recalibrated how insurance companies get re-imbursed. Their margains are set as a percentage of the payment that goes to direct care. If the prices go up and their margin ratio is fixed, then it is in their best interest for charges to go as high as possible. Same as everyone else in the supply chain. Everyone is suddenly making money hand over fist and the insured can't say no to the premiums. https://www.moneygeek.com/insurance/health/aca-medical-loss-...