4 ms·

It certainly is a complex topic, with no perfect solution. My personal answer to how much we should be willing to pay for little Timmy's cancer is "whatever it

It certainly is a complex topic, with no perfect solution. My personal answer to how much we should be willing to pay for little Timmy's cancer is "whatever it costs". By "empirical fact", I meant that our socialized healthcare system here in France seems to do a better job than America's in two key metrics: cost (we dedicate a lesser part of our income to healthcare than Americans, through taxes) and life expectancy (ours is slightly higher). The one caveat I would concede is that we have less access to experimental treatments for rare diseases, but we eventually get most of them. And at a better bargain than Americans too. For electricity, we had a very cheap, clean grid thanks to our nuclear reactors. It started going downhill the instant Europe asked us to "liberalize" our national monopoly. "Private companies" began reselling electricity for a premium. These are essentially useless parasites. Price got up, all else equal. As for housing, I know we already have more vacant homes than homeless people (from our national statistics agency). So the issue is only one of repartition. I don't care about any rationalization or gesturing about "market forces" or whatever. We ought to distribute housing to those that lack it. I'll read your article, thanks.

Plasmoid 2y ago
> whatever it costs This isn't an appropriate answer because it can't be applied to the whole of society. You can't spend an unlimited amount of money on everyone and suggesting shows a certain amount of naivete. Every medical systems grades treatments based on life extensible compared to cost. If it's over the limit you can't have it. You need to do the most good for the most people and you don't have unlimited funds.
- thrance 2y ago
  By "whatever it costs" I meant that we all get a shot at chemotherapy, at the very least. We don't refuse the treatment to a 65 years old who just retired because his death would alleviate strain on our retirement fund, if it's what you think.
  - robocat 2y ago
    > We don't refuse the treatment to a 65 years old We certainly do: because they have unlimited demand for healthcare so there needs to be a budget. I've had indirect experience with the New Zealand healthcare system avoiding treatments due to cost. Cost is often not given as the reason, instead waiting lists and other palatable reasons are given. NZ spends 11% of GDP on healthcare. Health NZ’s cost pressure uplift is 6.2% across all of Health NZ's operating budget Higher than inflation or tax increases. The unsupportable trend is towards 100% of taxes being used for healthcare? It is unrealistically idealistic to pretend we can afford infinite cost pressures. The wealthy pay the majority of the taxation base so they mostly fund public healthcare. People that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles are often the recipients (e.g. my poor friend with COPS from smoking). Not just the unlucky. > all get a shot at chemotherapy Great example. New Zealand does fund cheap chemotherapy options. There are expensive chemotherapy options that are not available through Pharmac (our public healthcare drugs purchaser). For expensive drugs you need to pay yourself either directly or indirectly via private health insurance policies (e.g. I noted a policy that covered up to $600000 for unfunded chemotherapy drugs). Two drugs that our health care system won't pay for due to expense: * Eribulin can be a useful option after ‘standard’ breast-cancer chemotherapy has failed. * Atezolizumab (Tecentriq®) useful for women with locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer that cannot be treated surgically and whose tumors are positive for a protein called PD-L1 https://sweetlouise.org.nz/drugs-not-funded-in-nz/ https://sweetlouise.org.nz/drugs-not-funded-in-nz/ I have private insurance (through a non-profit provider). The unlucky collectively get the benefit from that, and I sincerely hope I never need to benefit from it.
    - thrance 2y ago
      Why are you talking about New Zealand so much? I believe the wealthy paying for the majority is fair, after all their are made wealthy by the labor of the working class. Why should Amazon get to destroy the backs of its delivery persons and then have the workers foot the healtcare bill themselves? "People that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles". There we go, it always boils down to basic empathy. As if people rationally chose to destroy their health. What's the point of living in a society if it's everyone for themselves? I want to know that someone will always have my back whatever sad situation I fall into. My point still stands, we pay less and live longer than in America. Something true for every country with socialized healthcare.

Plasmoid 2y ago

> whatever it costs This isn't an appropriate answer because it can't be applied to the whole of society. You can't spend an unlimited amount of money on everyone and suggesting shows a certain amount of naivete. Every medical systems grades treatments based on life extensible compared to cost. If it's over the limit you can't have it. You need to do the most good for the most people and you don't have unlimited funds.

thrance 2y ago
By "whatever it costs" I meant that we all get a shot at chemotherapy, at the very least. We don't refuse the treatment to a 65 years old who just retired because his death would alleviate strain on our retirement fund, if it's what you think.
- robocat 2y ago
  > We don't refuse the treatment to a 65 years old We certainly do: because they have unlimited demand for healthcare so there needs to be a budget. I've had indirect experience with the New Zealand healthcare system avoiding treatments due to cost. Cost is often not given as the reason, instead waiting lists and other palatable reasons are given. NZ spends 11% of GDP on healthcare. Health NZ’s cost pressure uplift is 6.2% across all of Health NZ's operating budget Higher than inflation or tax increases. The unsupportable trend is towards 100% of taxes being used for healthcare? It is unrealistically idealistic to pretend we can afford infinite cost pressures. The wealthy pay the majority of the taxation base so they mostly fund public healthcare. People that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles are often the recipients (e.g. my poor friend with COPS from smoking). Not just the unlucky. > all get a shot at chemotherapy Great example. New Zealand does fund cheap chemotherapy options. There are expensive chemotherapy options that are not available through Pharmac (our public healthcare drugs purchaser). For expensive drugs you need to pay yourself either directly or indirectly via private health insurance policies (e.g. I noted a policy that covered up to $600000 for unfunded chemotherapy drugs). Two drugs that our health care system won't pay for due to expense: * Eribulin can be a useful option after ‘standard’ breast-cancer chemotherapy has failed. * Atezolizumab (Tecentriq®) useful for women with locally advanced or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer that cannot be treated surgically and whose tumors are positive for a protein called PD-L1 https://sweetlouise.org.nz/drugs-not-funded-in-nz/ https://sweetlouise.org.nz/drugs-not-funded-in-nz/ I have private insurance (through a non-profit provider). The unlucky collectively get the benefit from that, and I sincerely hope I never need to benefit from it.
  - thrance 2y ago
    Why are you talking about New Zealand so much? I believe the wealthy paying for the majority is fair, after all their are made wealthy by the labor of the working class. Why should Amazon get to destroy the backs of its delivery persons and then have the workers foot the healtcare bill themselves? "People that have chosen unhealthy lifestyles". There we go, it always boils down to basic empathy. As if people rationally chose to destroy their health. What's the point of living in a society if it's everyone for themselves? I want to know that someone will always have my back whatever sad situation I fall into. My point still stands, we pay less and live longer than in America. Something true for every country with socialized healthcare.