We could also address cost issues by taxing the negative health externalities of other markets. Tax pollution, tax sugar. It doesn't even have to be drastic or equal to its actual harm, but it would still have an impact, and will cause those industries to adjust some. And then over time you can see the effects and then adjust things (raise/lower taxes, incentivize healthier options).
Is your argument that these incentives spur investment in research? If so, I would argue we could just invest in research instead and skip the middle man.
And to be clear, I'm not saying anyone stricken with cancer shouldn't be treated. I'm a cancer survivor, after all! As cancer treatments go though, some therapies offer little additional life or quality of life but are very expensive. I would rather spend those health care dollars on other people and other things where they would do more good.
I'm also a fan of legal assisted suicide but I think establishing something like the UK's NICE is what we need here.
I'm paying for it in a 'free market' sense if my private plan covers such things, yes. We are all paying for it for people on Medicare though, I agree. My argument is that we should stop because that money can be better spent.
No, because it is more than research. It is real actual trials of the treatments and methods. Research only gets you so far. Trial by fire is much more pertinent. There are valid things to learn even if it ends up being ultimately futile. If people had that mentality decades ago, cancer treatment would not be where it is today. Yes it still has a long way to go, and yes plenty of the improved treatment likely won't help people who are already near to death for the cumulative aspects of age on top of whatever debilitating illness they have (so its not just cancer). I think especially for younger/inexperienced doctors it provides a very worthwhile training as well. There are going to be losses, there are going to be situations where the fight won't end up mattering, but learning to fight still provides tangible benefits that carry over. Plus, the loss for inexperience are less (that's not to say you treat them as disposable "lessons", in fact I think it should carry extra scrutiny so that you can help guide them; unless there was some ridiculously gross negligence, they shouldn't face much repercussions and instead use it as learning and work to improve, and a key part of that is working with the patients - learning how to address their concerns, how to talk to them about serious things, getting family involved as well, things that can get lost easily in the shuffle to try and treat as many people as you can). Maybe find some incentive for the patients as well (I'm not sure what), as some small token for their sacrifice as well.
I just feel like there's benefits that aren't necessarily being realized, and that we're kinda ignoring how it provided real tangible benefits before, but we're getting a lot less return of it due to the situation. I don't feel that warrants thinking about cutting treatment.
Unless there is actual limited resource (I don't consider money to be that in this regard, far too much of the costs are made up or don't reflect the actual cost, which that absolutely needs to be addressed as well), I don't agree. Now sure we should maybe have those people be in some hospice care or something, or even at home (which developing external treatment apparatus, where doctors could keep tabs on the patient and be able to assist them well remotely, would be pretty damn worthwhile development as well), so that they aren't taking up as much of the immediate needs in a hospital, although I don't think that's necessarily an actual issue most of the time.
I really didn't think your actual argument was the hyperbolic one that you've been kinda saying (I assume fairly tongue-in-cheek) but that you kept repeatedly pushing that way, I felt the need to rebuke it. Now maybe I'm wrong and you actually do support the over the top aspect, but I'm saying that is a very dangerous mentality to enshrine in that profession. It is skirting very dangerously with validating the so called "angel of mercy" mentality, and there's a lot of suffering that you could validate "ending" via the balance sheet.
Yes, I know there are other aspects (people left in vegetative state for instance, there was that big case with the kid where the parents wanted to take them to get some radical treatment in the US), that present other situations so where do you draw the line. But the more you let the "we shouldn't treat them because its too expensive and they're going to die anyway" argument get hold, the more it can lead to more lax feelings on what is and isn't treatable and who should and shouldn't get treatment. And singling out ones that should get their treatment cut off, will undermine any attempt to improve health care for all (its a hard sell in my opinion to go "care for all, well not those they cost too much"). I get that you might be arguing pragmatically, that you usher in medicare for all by cutting costs by reducing outsized ones like these, but I feel like there's so many other ways you should be addressing the cost issue first. I think the best route would be to offer as comprehensive of care as you can, and then work on preventative care and early detection for younger people. So I feel the costs could be made up via keeping the middle age working class healthy, so their productivity improves via improved health. And that will reduce these costs in the future. Meanwhile, we take care of the people that aren't going to get those benefits as best as we can.
Oh, and lastly, since many of these elderly on are medicare, I'm not that concerned that its going to be unfeasible cost-wise. Considering, it actually seems to show that even with their outsized costs, its still better than our current private setup that most are stuck with, where yes, people are having treatment cut off by their insurance company for costing too much. That's exactly one of the reasons I want a new system, and it fundamentally is wrong for me to want that but then say "well their old and gonna die soon anyway, I don't want to pay for them".
-----
Ugh, mostly blather on my part. Boils down to I think there's still a lot of value there, and that I don't think the costs are that troubling. Plus I want everyone to have good care (its the main factor behind me wanting a different system) and I'm not willing to compromise that over costs (that I think are addressable in other ways). Certainly I can agree that it would cause a shock and early on costs could be very troubling, but I think long term those will fall in line.
I'm realistic that it won't go perfectly smooth (I've argued before about a gradual shift to try and make a smoother transition for all), and I'm not saying costs don't matter at all (I just believe they can be reigned in to be manageable though). Heck, I think there's a lot of people that are sick and don't even really know it because they don't go to the doctor, and those will increase costs initially, but as people learn to go to the doctors for regular checkups and can get informed about addressing issues that are developing, like people with poor diets where they might be doing fine because they're younger, but it'll start to hit them hard later in life and it'll be incredibly difficult to address and change behaviors at that point. People will trot out the "who cares if you're dead when you're 50+ those parts of your life suck" - well we'll never develop the means to extend our "good" parts of life if we just keep this mentality. We will be able to extend our lives, and 50 will be like 30 some day (actually that already happened by and large). And then 70 (getting there), and then 90, and who knows after that.
Facebook
Twitter