4 ms·
Some good ideas, but mostly revolting. He's basically trying to preserve a system where the wealthy get better treatment than the rest. (See items #3, 9, 14, an
by pwnstigator 17y ago
Some good ideas, but mostly revolting. He's basically trying to preserve a system where the wealthy get better treatment than the rest. (See items #3, 9, 14, and 15.)
Realize that screening doesn’t save money for society.
Um, link? Although current screening practices may be overly aggressive-- I have no idea-- this is different from saying that screening is an unconditional money-loser, which is what the OP strongly implies.
Notice this, as well: Dan Field is a physician with The Permanente Medical Group.
So, at least he discloses the pocket he's in.
- tsuraan 17y agoYeah, the bit about name-brand drugs being only for those who an afford them out of pocket is especially bad. Drug patents are 20 years, so the peasants would be getting 20-year-old cancer treatments, while the select few would be getting actual modern medicine. Besides the ethics, though, what would the cost of modern medicines be for those few thousand who can actually afford them? Today, plenty of middle-class people get modern drugs because their insurance pays for it, so the cost of research, clinical trials, manufacturing, etc is distributed among a large population. What would the price of a pill be if only the richest of the rich could afford treatment?