4 ms·

Poor person gets cancer? Well we don’t have enough money to treat them, sorry but they have to die a preventable death through no fault of their own. Rich per

by luma 3y ago

Poor person gets cancer? Well we don’t have enough money to treat them, sorry but they have to die a preventable death through no fault of their own. Rich person does stupid, risky things? We have millions to spend on search and rescue efforts.

wyager 3y ago
How many times a year do you think people get cancer vs get lost at sea?
- azinman2 3y ago
  Not to mention that if a poor person does something stupid and gets lost, millions could still be spent in their rescue. Search and rescue isn’t the same thing as health care.
- _a_a_a_ 3y ago
  Does it make any difference?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wyager 3y ago
    Yes, since the structure of OP's complaint was whether or not we have "enough money" to do things. I'm not advocating for any particular expense policy here, just pointing out that we can easily afford to fund all rescue missions, while paying for all cancer treatment is a much larger expense, so it's not unreasonable that people don't funge those two categories.
    - Supermancho 3y ago
      > while paying for all cancer treatment is a much larger expense Not all. Additional. No moving the goalposts.
      - wyager 3y ago
        On the one hand, we have the cost of paying for "all rescue missions". On the other hand, we have the cost of paying for "___ cancer treatments". In your opinion, what is the value of ___ that makes this comparison most coherent and symmetric?
        Supermancho 3y ago
        > On the other hand, we have the cost of paying for "___ cancer treatments". In your opinion, what is the value of ___ that makes this comparison most coherent and symmetric? The symmetry would be from the (gross, hand-wavy) average cost of a cancer treatment for 1 individual * the number lost at sea. I thought this was implied. This is not relevant to private insurance and other supplemental solutions. The issue is in regard to state owned response.
    - xenophonf 3y ago
      Their complaint seemed less like it was about budgeting and more about what we, the public, valued as evidenced by what we paid attention to.
- pavlov 3y ago
  Over 2,000 people died crossing the Mediterranean last year. The nations whose responsibility it would be to help these people have been trying their best to look the other way. It seems the public expense spent on rescuing those lost at sea is very much in proportion to the net worth of the people in distress.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > nations whose responsibility it would be to help these people Who has this responsibility is at the heart of the controversy.
  - throwaway6734 3y ago
    The issue is significantly more complex than you're making it out to be
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - ipaddr 3y ago
    Two issues to unpack. The majority of people lost are people doing dangerous things for immigration/money like trying to sail from India to Australia on a plank of wood to get better pay. This was a submarine under water with alive people running out of air. The location was known and people monitoring were able to contact government immediately which gave them a chance. When a piece of wood is used to sail across the ocean and the boat capsizes rescuers don't know the location, no one is monitoring on shore to alert countries and they cannot survive days under water. Rich / poor doesn't play into this but makes a great narrative to sell a story that you bought
    - mping 3y ago
      This is the Mediterranean. I am sure most countries know the location of most vessels. If a rich guy would try to cross in wooden plank we would call him adventurer, and I'm sure the effort to rescue him would be far greater. By not saving people in the Mediterranean, it acts as a deterrent to future attempts.
- devinbr 3y ago
  [dead]
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > How many times a year do you think people get cancer vs get lost at sea? Why would the novelty of a leathal crisis influence the amount spent on the effort? I dont understand your reasoning.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Why would the novelty of a leathal crisis influence the amount spent on the effort? Frequency more than novelty, though novelty certainly brings attention. If we were launching multi-million dollar submarine rescue missions every day, we’d quickly see a system of cost controls and incentive management arise around it, too.
PeterStuer 3y ago
To be fair, even a poor cancer patient that would receive this much press attention would suddenly be showered with treatments. Lets face it, this one had the right mix of ingredients (Titanic, adventure, recklessness, tech, scams, greed, dramatics, and most of all, a 90 hour deadline clock ticking, perfect for a news cycle) to get in the limelight, and maybe there were some other breaking stories that would benefit from something else drawing away attention ...?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
albntomat0 3y ago
I've heard this argument multiple places. While I agree with the underlying sentiment, the US spent $592 billion on Medicaid in 2022. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the US medical system, and government support programs, but the lack of nuance detracts from your position.

by luma 3y ago

wyager 3y ago

How many times a year do you think people get cancer vs get lost at sea?

azinman2 3y ago
Not to mention that if a poor person does something stupid and gets lost, millions could still be spent in their rescue. Search and rescue isn’t the same thing as health care.
_a_a_a_ 3y ago
Does it make any difference?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wyager 3y ago
  Yes, since the structure of OP's complaint was whether or not we have "enough money" to do things. I'm not advocating for any particular expense policy here, just pointing out that we can easily afford to fund all rescue missions, while paying for all cancer treatment is a much larger expense, so it's not unreasonable that people don't funge those two categories.
  - Supermancho 3y ago
    > while paying for all cancer treatment is a much larger expense Not all. Additional. No moving the goalposts.
    - wyager 3y ago
      On the one hand, we have the cost of paying for "all rescue missions". On the other hand, we have the cost of paying for "___ cancer treatments". In your opinion, what is the value of ___ that makes this comparison most coherent and symmetric?
      - Supermancho 3y ago
        > On the other hand, we have the cost of paying for "___ cancer treatments". In your opinion, what is the value of ___ that makes this comparison most coherent and symmetric? The symmetry would be from the (gross, hand-wavy) average cost of a cancer treatment for 1 individual * the number lost at sea. I thought this was implied. This is not relevant to private insurance and other supplemental solutions. The issue is in regard to state owned response.
  - xenophonf 3y ago
    Their complaint seemed less like it was about budgeting and more about what we, the public, valued as evidenced by what we paid attention to.
pavlov 3y ago
Over 2,000 people died crossing the Mediterranean last year. The nations whose responsibility it would be to help these people have been trying their best to look the other way. It seems the public expense spent on rescuing those lost at sea is very much in proportion to the net worth of the people in distress.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > nations whose responsibility it would be to help these people Who has this responsibility is at the heart of the controversy.
- throwaway6734 3y ago
  The issue is significantly more complex than you're making it out to be
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- ipaddr 3y ago
  Two issues to unpack. The majority of people lost are people doing dangerous things for immigration/money like trying to sail from India to Australia on a plank of wood to get better pay. This was a submarine under water with alive people running out of air. The location was known and people monitoring were able to contact government immediately which gave them a chance. When a piece of wood is used to sail across the ocean and the boat capsizes rescuers don't know the location, no one is monitoring on shore to alert countries and they cannot survive days under water. Rich / poor doesn't play into this but makes a great narrative to sell a story that you bought
  - mping 3y ago
    This is the Mediterranean. I am sure most countries know the location of most vessels. If a rich guy would try to cross in wooden plank we would call him adventurer, and I'm sure the effort to rescue him would be far greater. By not saving people in the Mediterranean, it acts as a deterrent to future attempts.
devinbr 3y ago
[dead]
Supermancho 3y ago
> How many times a year do you think people get cancer vs get lost at sea? Why would the novelty of a leathal crisis influence the amount spent on the effort? I dont understand your reasoning.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why would the novelty of a leathal crisis influence the amount spent on the effort? Frequency more than novelty, though novelty certainly brings attention. If we were launching multi-million dollar submarine rescue missions every day, we’d quickly see a system of cost controls and incentive management arise around it, too.

PeterStuer 3y ago

To be fair, even a poor cancer patient that would receive this much press attention would suddenly be showered with treatments. Lets face it, this one had the right mix of ingredients (Titanic, adventure, recklessness, tech, scams, greed, dramatics, and most of all, a 90 hour deadline clock ticking, perfect for a news cycle) to get in the limelight, and maybe there were some other breaking stories that would benefit from something else drawing away attention ...?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

albntomat0 3y ago

I've heard this argument multiple places. While I agree with the underlying sentiment, the US spent $592 billion on Medicaid in 2022. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of the US medical system, and government support programs, but the lack of nuance detracts from your position.