Re:Infectious Theory of Alzheimer's Disease Draws Fresh Inte...
by scarecrowbob on Sunday September 09, 2018 @12:52PM
(#17946695)
I haven't thought or Rawls in quite a while.
The idea of a "veil of ignorance" as a mode of capturing the implications of some political position is a useful, wide-ranging, and easily digestible ethical concept; I'm going to add it back into my intellectual tool bag for when I am trying to discuss ethics with folks.
Thanks for the reminder.
There is an exploitation in waiting, literally waiting, for people to get sick to have this conversation and decision making, as if health care is a product like any other, where some people will choose to buy even a chance, and others will admit defeat even with decent odds of success just because they can't afford it.
But we also take it farther, where a bulk of the cost and the cost increases, are masked from the actual consumer by employer paid health care. Every single time I talk to people who do not buy their own "aging and sick care maintenance plan" I'm impressed by how incredibly ignorant they are of cost. Average cost for a sore throat doctor visit, $603. If you aren't shopping, or aren't able to shop, how is this in any way an informed free market? It's like we've gone both anti-socialism and anti-capitalism at the same time to come up with the world's worst possible way of doing health care.
Imagine being behind the veil of ignorance and saying: only rich people should not have to worry about their health and sickness and aging, the middle class and poor properly should always wonder. And if really bad things happen through no fault of their own, they should properly be bankrupt. And none of this should be transparent or obvious or understandable by the average person. That is a good society that builds trust.
Of course no one would say that, except maybe comedians and wicked people.