Re:Single Payer Is Not a Principle- the Principle Is Univers...
by candiodari on Wednesday August 16, 2017 @12:58AM
(#15025037)
I think you will find that there is a much more important issue that defines all the other issues:
1st and last) What does it cover ?
Because today the answer is "everything", and that's where a lot of troubles come from. If we just said "lung cancer because of smoking ? You're on your own", that would save multiple percentage points right there.
More generally, if we said, let's take 3-4 nines of all issues a human body can have, and solve those in a standard way BUT if you have anything else palliative care and/or pain control is all we offer, that would fix most healthcare issues (and put Shkreli out of business).
Of course nobody's going to do that. There'll be a very sick baby every 2-3 months or so on TV with an illness that's essentially incurable, but could have a very painful 10-year life if we just pay 1 million $ for every month of that life. And we all know the message on the television will focus on how she could have a "short, but normal life" and not on the fact that there is no such thing as a painkiller that makes 3 chemo treatments per year anywhere close to a normal life.
This decision determines how much it costs, which makes the question who pays for it easy to answer, as well as who has access to it.
Our answer today is very simple "everything, no matter the cost, and no matter the outcome (and no matter the resulting patient discomfort)". The result is perfectly predictable.
But of course changing that would require you to acknowledge that you do not have a right to health, and society does not owe you a healthy life, especially not in cases where that's impossible. Society will provide a certain level of service, but will only expend limited resources to keep one individual alive. If your problem falls outside of that service, society will provide some help in taking away the pain.
1st and last) What does it cover ?
Because today the answer is "everything", and that's where a lot of troubles come from. If we just said "lung cancer because of smoking ? You're on your own", that would save multiple percentage points right there.
More generally, if we said, let's take 3-4 nines of all issues a human body can have, and solve those in a standard way BUT if you have anything else palliative care and/or pain control is all we offer, that would fix most healthcare issues (and put Shkreli out of business).
Of course nobody's going to do that. There'll be a very sick baby every 2-3 months or so on TV with an illness that's essentially incurable, but could have a very painful 10-year life if we just pay 1 million $ for every month of that life. And we all know the message on the television will focus on how she could have a "short, but normal life" and not on the fact that there is no such thing as a painkiller that makes 3 chemo treatments per year anywhere close to a normal life.
This decision determines how much it costs, which makes the question who pays for it easy to answer, as well as who has access to it.
Our answer today is very simple "everything, no matter the cost, and no matter the outcome (and no matter the resulting patient discomfort)". The result is perfectly predictable.
But of course changing that would require you to acknowledge that you do not have a right to health, and society does not owe you a healthy life, especially not in cases where that's impossible. Society will provide a certain level of service, but will only expend limited resources to keep one individual alive. If your problem falls outside of that service, society will provide some help in taking away the pain.