7 ms·

Just wondering, why there's no mention of this being free, i.e. 100% government funded. Something like this essentially transforms somebody's life, allowing him

Just wondering, why there's no mention of this being free, i.e. 100% government funded. Something like this essentially transforms somebody's life, allowing him/her to work, not being reliant on others etc. Not to mention the (oh, sadly) not quantifiable humanitarian reasons.

stingraycharles 9y ago
Because it's a slippery slope. You can always argue that a blind person is able to work in some way (callcenter, software dev, etc), and/or you can argue the same for other diseases. Where do you draw the line ? That argument aside, I am of the opinion that all healthcare should (eventually) be free so that arguments like these become moot.
- kungito 9y ago
  This opinion comes around often and what bothers me a bit is this "free" in free healthcare. There is no such thing. Eventually the money for the people and things has to come from somewhere. The conversation is often about how do some EU countries have free healthcare and US doesn't. The answer is higher taxes, longer waiting lists, lower quality, no support for extreme cases and low accountability. "Free healthcare" countries often cannot afford these modern cutting edge treatments so people often end up leaving for US to pay for the treatment themselves. If US didn't have such a brutal healthcare system then who would do the research since the "free healthcare" countries cannot afford it?
  - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
    Healthcare is essential. Either you pay for the healthcare through taxes, or society does in some other way. The some other way that the US has implemented is to put layers bureaucracy of insurance and artificial "market choices" on top of the care, which removes all inefficiencies and inflates the cost dramatically. Of course the alternative is to leave people with health conditions out on the street and just ignore them, which does seem to be a common occurrence in the US
- bmmayer1 9y ago
  How does healthcare becoming free (i.e. government funded) make the question of cost and benefit moot? If anything it becomes more of an issue because now such decisions are being made by political appointees and bureaucrats.
  - chefkoch 9y ago
    Instead of insurance companies?
- whiddershins 9y ago
  I used to think all healthcare should be free. One observation changed my belief: “The demand for healthcare is effectively infinite.” There really is no limit to a person’s healthcare needs. It’s a moving target. The only way to make all healthcare free would be to start by defining exactly what is and isn’t healthcare. That’s exactly what is upsetting about the concept of government provided services. At some point someone will have to say “enough.” Who would decide that, and how?
  - albertgoeswoof 9y ago
    Elected officials with the support of experts, just like in every democracy
  - wozmirek 9y ago
    Sure thing, I think the current soft limit is set by your doctor, who will e.g. postpone your non-essential (e.g. cosmetic) treatment. Blindness is just that - blindness. I see no slippery slope here. Currently experienced three health systems: Polish, US and German; first is woefully underfunded and public, second is ultra-private, third is a properly funded public system. In Poland, I used both public and private, using private whenever I could (think dentist, blood test etc.); in US I never went to the doctor because I had to pay extra; in Germany I feel comfortable and happy with the fact that I get public healthcare for my taxes. Actually planning a string of visits to the dentist ;)
bmmayer1 9y ago
Why would making it government funded make new treatments like this 1) available or 2) accessible? Obviously it's extremely expensive to R&D something like this and no one is going to make that investment--least of all a cash-strapped government bureaucracy--unless there's some payoff. And if it were government funded, the cost to taxpayers would be many times the benefit to taxpayers for something like this; there's obviously a point at which even the proudest humanitarian has to look at the big picture. Obviously America wouldn't bankrupt itself to save one life--the price really does have to be looked at. Besides, there's nothing humanitarian about spending other peoples' money. That requires no humanitarianism, just political access to taxpayer coffers. The best way for more medical innovation like this is for it to be expensive at first. Over time, competition and demand drives prices down. Pretty much all the medical technology we now take for granted was only accessible to the rich at first.
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  > The cost to taxpayers would be many times the benefit to taxpayers for something like this Really? Do you know how expensive supporting braille is? Accessibility requirements for software? Fitting a blind person's house out with accessible features? Providing public services and transit for the blind? Income support? All of these things are costs absorbed by society, which you cover one way or another (e.g. taxes, additional costs in products & services etc.). Being blind is a major disability, the lifetime cost to society of a single blind person is many multiples of 425k per eye. > The best way for more medical innovation like this is for it to be expensive at first. Over time, competition and demand drives prices down. Pretty much all the medical technology we now take for granted was only accessible to the rich at first. What?? What if there are no rich blind people competing for this care? How is the cost going to come down then?
  - DanBC 9y ago
    But this treatment isn't going to cure all blindness, so you're still going to have to have all those adaptations.
  - bmmayer1 9y ago
gaius 9y ago
In the UK there is an organisation innocently named NICE that makes the cold hard cash decisions on whether the NHS will treat something. They are often mired in controversy.

stingraycharles 9y ago

Because it's a slippery slope. You can always argue that a blind person is able to work in some way (callcenter, software dev, etc), and/or you can argue the same for other diseases. Where do you draw the line ? That argument aside, I am of the opinion that all healthcare should (eventually) be free so that arguments like these become moot.

kungito 9y ago
This opinion comes around often and what bothers me a bit is this "free" in free healthcare. There is no such thing. Eventually the money for the people and things has to come from somewhere. The conversation is often about how do some EU countries have free healthcare and US doesn't. The answer is higher taxes, longer waiting lists, lower quality, no support for extreme cases and low accountability. "Free healthcare" countries often cannot afford these modern cutting edge treatments so people often end up leaving for US to pay for the treatment themselves. If US didn't have such a brutal healthcare system then who would do the research since the "free healthcare" countries cannot afford it?
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  Healthcare is essential. Either you pay for the healthcare through taxes, or society does in some other way. The some other way that the US has implemented is to put layers bureaucracy of insurance and artificial "market choices" on top of the care, which removes all inefficiencies and inflates the cost dramatically. Of course the alternative is to leave people with health conditions out on the street and just ignore them, which does seem to be a common occurrence in the US
bmmayer1 9y ago
How does healthcare becoming free (i.e. government funded) make the question of cost and benefit moot? If anything it becomes more of an issue because now such decisions are being made by political appointees and bureaucrats.
- chefkoch 9y ago
  Instead of insurance companies?
whiddershins 9y ago
I used to think all healthcare should be free. One observation changed my belief: “The demand for healthcare is effectively infinite.” There really is no limit to a person’s healthcare needs. It’s a moving target. The only way to make all healthcare free would be to start by defining exactly what is and isn’t healthcare. That’s exactly what is upsetting about the concept of government provided services. At some point someone will have to say “enough.” Who would decide that, and how?
- albertgoeswoof 9y ago
  Elected officials with the support of experts, just like in every democracy
- wozmirek 9y ago
  Sure thing, I think the current soft limit is set by your doctor, who will e.g. postpone your non-essential (e.g. cosmetic) treatment. Blindness is just that - blindness. I see no slippery slope here. Currently experienced three health systems: Polish, US and German; first is woefully underfunded and public, second is ultra-private, third is a properly funded public system. In Poland, I used both public and private, using private whenever I could (think dentist, blood test etc.); in US I never went to the doctor because I had to pay extra; in Germany I feel comfortable and happy with the fact that I get public healthcare for my taxes. Actually planning a string of visits to the dentist ;)

bmmayer1 9y ago

Why would making it government funded make new treatments like this 1) available or 2) accessible? Obviously it's extremely expensive to R&D something like this and no one is going to make that investment--least of all a cash-strapped government bureaucracy--unless there's some payoff. And if it were government funded, the cost to taxpayers would be many times the benefit to taxpayers for something like this; there's obviously a point at which even the proudest humanitarian has to look at the big picture. Obviously America wouldn't bankrupt itself to save one life--the price really does have to be looked at. Besides, there's nothing humanitarian about spending other peoples' money. That requires no humanitarianism, just political access to taxpayer coffers. The best way for more medical innovation like this is for it to be expensive at first. Over time, competition and demand drives prices down. Pretty much all the medical technology we now take for granted was only accessible to the rich at first.

albertgoeswoof 9y ago
> The cost to taxpayers would be many times the benefit to taxpayers for something like this Really? Do you know how expensive supporting braille is? Accessibility requirements for software? Fitting a blind person's house out with accessible features? Providing public services and transit for the blind? Income support? All of these things are costs absorbed by society, which you cover one way or another (e.g. taxes, additional costs in products & services etc.). Being blind is a major disability, the lifetime cost to society of a single blind person is many multiples of 425k per eye. > The best way for more medical innovation like this is for it to be expensive at first. Over time, competition and demand drives prices down. Pretty much all the medical technology we now take for granted was only accessible to the rich at first. What?? What if there are no rich blind people competing for this care? How is the cost going to come down then?
- DanBC 9y ago
  But this treatment isn't going to cure all blindness, so you're still going to have to have all those adaptations.
- bmmayer1 9y ago

gaius 9y ago

In the UK there is an organisation innocently named NICE that makes the cold hard cash decisions on whether the NHS will treat something. They are often mired in controversy.