4 ms·

Why is the life of a person with money more important that somebody without? Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a

Why is the life of a person with money more important that somebody without? Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a priority order?

twblalock 6y ago
> Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a priority order? Because if we handle it right, we can get the wealthy to pay for the vaccine production for everyone else, or plow that money into state governments to prevent the cuts to social services that are coming.
- georgebarnett 6y ago
  Governments have already paid for the production. Rich people paying hospitals would funds hospital coffers and not go further. If you think the states should get the money, then taxes are a better approach. Giving this to rich people does nothing to further immunity in vulnerable sectors of the population - it weakens that goal.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    I have suggested, in another comment, directing the money to states rather than hospitals. We don't need to take the narrow view that hospitals are the only way to do this. Let the states run the show, let them take the money, and let them use the money for social services, or to reimburse hospitals for vaccines, or whatever else that will make a positive impact.
    - georgebarnett 6y ago
      I find it ironic, that in a nation that complains so bitterly about its healthcare system and the associated costs of care, there are so many willing to exponentially increase the costs of an item just because people need it and some can afford it. Your approach baffles me.
      - twblalock 6y ago
        I'm just working in the real world. If you can wave a magic wand and bring socialized medicine to the United States I'd take it. Until then we must rely on market-based solutions.
        georgebarnett 6y ago
        With your actions, you build the world around you. Saying you would take socialised medicine and yet prioritising actions which oppose this goal mean it’s not what you actually want and so you’ll never get it.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- georgebarnett 6y ago
  The whole reason the cost is high is because there is scarcity. You’re not “getting the rich to pay” - you’re preventing the poor from accessing the drug, placing vulnerable less wealthy peoples life’s in danger because you prioritised doses for people who can pay (who would _get it anyway_ if they had a risk factor). You’re literally trading a risk on one persons life for somebody elses money. Not to mention the moral issue of “how many doses are set aside?”, because why not sell all of them for $25k if that’s the price you can get?
  - kazinator 6y ago
    No, what you're literally doing is trading a risk on one person's life for a risk on another person's life (who has money). A person is vaccinated either way. All else being equal, rationality says you should choose the path lined with money.

Why is the life of a person with money more important that somebody without? Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a priority order?

twblalock 6y ago

> Why is this an important signal, given healthcare teams have already decided on a priority order? Because if we handle it right, we can get the wealthy to pay for the vaccine production for everyone else, or plow that money into state governments to prevent the cuts to social services that are coming.

georgebarnett 6y ago
Governments have already paid for the production. Rich people paying hospitals would funds hospital coffers and not go further. If you think the states should get the money, then taxes are a better approach. Giving this to rich people does nothing to further immunity in vulnerable sectors of the population - it weakens that goal.
- twblalock 6y ago
  I have suggested, in another comment, directing the money to states rather than hospitals. We don't need to take the narrow view that hospitals are the only way to do this. Let the states run the show, let them take the money, and let them use the money for social services, or to reimburse hospitals for vaccines, or whatever else that will make a positive impact.
  - georgebarnett 6y ago
    I find it ironic, that in a nation that complains so bitterly about its healthcare system and the associated costs of care, there are so many willing to exponentially increase the costs of an item just because people need it and some can afford it. Your approach baffles me.
    - twblalock 6y ago
      I'm just working in the real world. If you can wave a magic wand and bring socialized medicine to the United States I'd take it. Until then we must rely on market-based solutions.
      - georgebarnett 6y ago
        With your actions, you build the world around you. Saying you would take socialised medicine and yet prioritising actions which oppose this goal mean it’s not what you actually want and so you’ll never get it.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
georgebarnett 6y ago
The whole reason the cost is high is because there is scarcity. You’re not “getting the rich to pay” - you’re preventing the poor from accessing the drug, placing vulnerable less wealthy peoples life’s in danger because you prioritised doses for people who can pay (who would _get it anyway_ if they had a risk factor). You’re literally trading a risk on one persons life for somebody elses money. Not to mention the moral issue of “how many doses are set aside?”, because why not sell all of them for $25k if that’s the price you can get?
- kazinator 6y ago
  No, what you're literally doing is trading a risk on one person's life for a risk on another person's life (who has money). A person is vaccinated either way. All else being equal, rationality says you should choose the path lined with money.