3 ms·
>I’d say there’s an argument to be made that we all aught to be okay with a small fraction of people getting healthcare that far outstrips their contribution vi
by thfuran 3y ago
>I’d say there’s an argument to be made that we all aught to be okay with a small fraction of people getting healthcare that far outstrips their contribution via taxes – given that we never know if that one day may be us.
Yes, but that still must have limits. Society certainly should not pay one trillion dollars to care for a single patient. That’s too inefficient.
- fragmede 3y agofor every single patient, sure, but if that's the cost of the treating the first patient (it being a revolutionary new procedure and all), and it goes down from there, then why shouldn't we?
- thfuran 3y agoPaying to develop and scale a significantly improved treatment for a condition that affects many people is an altogether different proposition. > then why shouldn't we? Ultimately, there's only so much economy to go around. What percentage of it are you willing to dedicate to treating that one condition? What about everything that can't be funded or produced as a result of that allocation?