I could see it going either way.

With free access, people would be more inclined to go to the doctor for simple and small things, but in return would probably catch more serious issues early and have better access to treatment, therefor reducing the need for intensive and specialized healthcare.

Without, people avoid going to the doctor for small stuff, but end up having to go in with more complicated issues later on.

    • jeffw@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Eh, this is like “how to lie with data 101”. You want YOY growth, not cumulative since 1970. All this says is we had very few, if any, managers in 1970. Also, we need that green line to move more

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        You’re defeating your own point while trying to prove it.

        There were no managers in 1970, and then, as a result of the HMO Act, an entire (and entirely unnecessary) middleman industry was created and filled with people.

        The comment you’re replying to isn’t “lying with data”. It’s illustrating that healthcare in the US had an explosion of unnecessary and parasitic bureaucracy as a direct result of the HMO Act.