> Does this seem spectacularly unreasonable ?
Like everything I guess it depends on your political views. Personally I think it's fine if medical care and research is a massive black hole of funds that the tax payer foots the bill for...
Like everything I guess it depends on your political views. Personally I think it's fine if medical care and research is a massive black hole of funds that the tax payer foots the bill for...
I don't see where the gain for society is there. Not everyone can be saved/helped, and medicines/drugs are probably too greatly overestimated now in my opinion.
Also it's sad but some organisms are just not fit for some tasks (or sometimes even for life), and I don't think throwing money without any supervision or afterthought about it is a very wise answer as a society. Like, maybe we can just have blind people.
As futile as it would be, before I had a child, I thought that in the event of a end-of-humanity catastrophe, I would get as close to the source as possible and admire the end. Now with a kid, I am going to hold the fort has long as possible, cook my own hand and serve it, just it case this isn't the end.
So do you want the extreme rare condition that some important congresscritter's daughter has consume 80% of the medical budget ? This is the way to go.
> So do you want the extreme rare condition that some important congresscritter's daughter has consume 80% of the medical budget ? This is the way to go.
People would scream bloody murder if that happened.
I don’t know what the solution to medical funding should be. It’s clear to me that the current situation (medicine for profit) does not work. It’s also clear that the current economic system is prone to waste and inefficiencies.
For all I know, maybe people should be able to get a grant for certain situations. The normal economic forces would then work to incentivize the grant holders to exchange grant funds for goods/services. The funds would still funnel the way they currently do, but grant holders would have gained some measurable benefit along the way. Presumably the grant holders would have made their choices based on perceived needs. (Ie if they have 2 chronic illnesses but only one is life threatening then the life threatening illness will be allocated most resources.) this is just a thought experiment.
Edit- another idea: change the funding for the DHSS to include funding for basic medical research and treatment with a set % of the GDP. I’m thinking that ratio should be based on disease rates.
I'm not advocating for unlimited healthcare funding - just against expecting healthcare to fund itself.
If you care about saving lives, you want to allocate budget in the most cost-effective way, which means putting money where a marginal life saved costs the least.