5 ms·

When does the gene kick in? Most government funded healthcare would probably see this as worthwhile if it affects people young enough, it's cheaper for the coun

by flukus 9y ago

When does the gene kick in? Most government funded healthcare would probably see this as worthwhile if it affects people young enough, it's cheaper for the country to pay for the treatment and have a productive citizen than it is to have them on welfare for their entire life. If no one is going blind until late in life then the equation changes though.

prepend 9y ago
This is an interesting line of thought. Blind people are not disabled though, they can have careers. It’s a false assumption that blind = lifetime welfare. I’ve worked with awesome programmers who were completely blind from birth. And quite a few who were legally blind. The comparison could be what the reduction in lifetime earnings due to being blind vs the $850k. But I think that having a utilitarian view toward delivering healthcare is frequently unethical once you start rationing care (eg, I’m 75 and not working at all, living off social security, $300k heart surgery is detrimental to society’s bottom line since if I die I stop collecting social security, etc etc)
- LordKano 9y ago
  >But I think that having a utilitarian view toward delivering healthcare is frequently unethical once you start rationing care (eg, I’m 75 and not working at all, living off social security, $300k heart surgery is detrimental to society’s bottom line since if I die I stop collecting social security, etc etc) This is what so many people fear about the possibility of single payer in the US. Eventually, people will start to be pressured to see their duty to die for the benefit of society.
  - maxerickson 9y ago
    Which is bizarre, because we already publicly fund a huge amount of end of life care.
    - alistairSH 9y ago
      And because other nations have socialized health care and don't have "death panels." And I'm not aware of any plan that would preclude a person from purchasing their own insurance to cover any care deemed of insufficient value by the national system.
      - Amygaz 9y ago
        And these nations even have strong debates about even allowing people the right to choose when to die. Morality is a big part of adopting universal healthcare. Also, I don't see how the current private and public insurance systems in the US would prevent insurers or government to decide, in the future, that certain groups of people do not deserve treatments or covereage anymore.
      - LordKano 9y ago
        Every system does. They're not called "death panels" but that's the function. There's a reason why a 97 year old with terminal cancer isn't going to receive a liver transplant ahead of a 12 year old with no other health issues. Under the ACA, we have the "Independent Payment Advisory Board". They decide which treatments will and won't be covered. Private insurance has the equivalent. Most insurance companies don't cover "Experimental" treatments. I'm unfamiliar with the details of the systems in Europe but they all have to have a body with a similar function. No system could survive with a policy of paying all of the money you want for every treatment you can find.
        alistairSH 9y ago
        Every system does. They're not called "death panels" but that's the function. True. As noted, in our current system, it's just the insurance companies making the call instead of a bureaucrat. And it's usually done at a general level, not individually (except for rare, expensive, edge cases). But, politicians in the US who oppose change would have us believe death panels are going to single out Grandma as not worthy of care. Lots of fear-mongering about this.
msochor 9y ago
One of the first patients cured in the research of this drug was a child: http://www.chop.edu/news/children-congenital-blindness-can-see-after-gene-therapy http://www.chop.edu/news/children-congenital-blindness-can-s...

by flukus 9y ago

prepend 9y ago

This is an interesting line of thought. Blind people are not disabled though, they can have careers. It’s a false assumption that blind = lifetime welfare. I’ve worked with awesome programmers who were completely blind from birth. And quite a few who were legally blind. The comparison could be what the reduction in lifetime earnings due to being blind vs the $850k. But I think that having a utilitarian view toward delivering healthcare is frequently unethical once you start rationing care (eg, I’m 75 and not working at all, living off social security, $300k heart surgery is detrimental to society’s bottom line since if I die I stop collecting social security, etc etc)

LordKano 9y ago
>But I think that having a utilitarian view toward delivering healthcare is frequently unethical once you start rationing care (eg, I’m 75 and not working at all, living off social security, $300k heart surgery is detrimental to society’s bottom line since if I die I stop collecting social security, etc etc) This is what so many people fear about the possibility of single payer in the US. Eventually, people will start to be pressured to see their duty to die for the benefit of society.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Which is bizarre, because we already publicly fund a huge amount of end of life care.
  - alistairSH 9y ago
    And because other nations have socialized health care and don't have "death panels." And I'm not aware of any plan that would preclude a person from purchasing their own insurance to cover any care deemed of insufficient value by the national system.
    - Amygaz 9y ago
      And these nations even have strong debates about even allowing people the right to choose when to die. Morality is a big part of adopting universal healthcare. Also, I don't see how the current private and public insurance systems in the US would prevent insurers or government to decide, in the future, that certain groups of people do not deserve treatments or covereage anymore.
    - LordKano 9y ago
      Every system does. They're not called "death panels" but that's the function. There's a reason why a 97 year old with terminal cancer isn't going to receive a liver transplant ahead of a 12 year old with no other health issues. Under the ACA, we have the "Independent Payment Advisory Board". They decide which treatments will and won't be covered. Private insurance has the equivalent. Most insurance companies don't cover "Experimental" treatments. I'm unfamiliar with the details of the systems in Europe but they all have to have a body with a similar function. No system could survive with a policy of paying all of the money you want for every treatment you can find.
      - alistairSH 9y ago
        Every system does. They're not called "death panels" but that's the function. True. As noted, in our current system, it's just the insurance companies making the call instead of a bureaucrat. And it's usually done at a general level, not individually (except for rare, expensive, edge cases). But, politicians in the US who oppose change would have us believe death panels are going to single out Grandma as not worthy of care. Lots of fear-mongering about this.

msochor 9y ago

One of the first patients cured in the research of this drug was a child: http://www.chop.edu/news/children-congenital-blindness-can-see-after-gene-therapy http://www.chop.edu/news/children-congenital-blindness-can-s...