3 ms·
Maybe it's closer to 0.15%. So what? We do things with little chance of succes all the time. As I said, I'll take my 0.15% chance of living longer and be very g
by Animatronio 4y ago
Maybe it's closer to 0.15%. So what? We do things with little chance of succes all the time. As I said, I'll take my 0.15% chance of living longer and be very grateful for it. Others might not. I still find it strange that money has a part to play in this at all. How cruel would it be to be denied life-saving treatment just because it's not 100% guaranteed to work.
- sokoloff 4y agoMoney has to play a part in it because the people and companies working to deliver the care need to be paid somehow or they’ll eventually have to stop doing it. This is a resource allocation problem. People (whether individually or collectively) work to create things of value and direct some percentage of that to medical treatment. If that is wasted in rare cases, that’s unfortunate but we accept some amount of imperfection. If it’s wasted in a lot of cases, many other people will go without needed care who didn’t have to if we allocated that spend more effectively.
- NoPie 4y agoBecause 0.15% is not a life-saving treatment but hoping for a miracle. And when people are immensely suffering they actually prefer to die than prolonging the sufferings. How could not money pay part in this? If the continued care costs, let's say $10,000/month (not unusual for the US) and you have 1:1000 chance to live that month, it means this month has cost $10 million dollars. Who is going to pay for that? In fact, taking all this money for yourself, the healthcare for other people will need to be reduced which can lead to shortened life expectation for those people.