I remember when I was 5 years old, my dad tried asking me the trolley problem.
So I took my train, and yelled at the G.I. Joes on my tracks “GET OFF THE TRAIN TRACKS, IDIOTS!!!” and ran them over. Then I backed the train up, switched tracks, and ran over spiderman. Then I yelled “FREE BONUS POINTS!!!”. Then I punched my dad in the balls, and ran upstairs giggling.
About a year ago my dad reminded me of that story. I’m in my 40s now. So I told him “I stand by that decision.”
This situation was more complicated then that. The treatment in question was histiotripy. While it might be less invasive than traditional surgery, it isn’t necessarily “better” when dealing with stage 4 cancer that failed to respond to surgery or chemotherapy. It just uses sound waves instead of scalpels.
Realistically, this guy would have died soon regardless of the treatment. It’s unlikely the technician would have been able to identify all the cancer after it’s spread throughout his body. It’s success depends on being able to target the majority of cancer cells, which isn’t easy for Stage 4 cancer.
That’s not even the point. Trying everything possible should be the norm, and it shouldn’t be dictated by some uncaring jackass with a 35th floor office. The entire little point of health insurance is to distribute the cost of those in need amongst all of the input of the whole. If you take enough of that input as profit for the stockholders and executives, there’s less available to do what the insurance is meant to do. They’re legally embezzling the investment of the whole without providing sufficient practical benefit to warrant it.
But even if you made the insurance system completely non-profit, there’s no upper bound on how much you can spend on each individual. You’d still run into cases where you have to distribute a limited number of resources.
I think the point is that while your point is broadly true, in this specific scenario the treatment might not have been available anyway. Looking up on the named procedure, it seems likely most nations would have declined to offer this treatment, considering it futile in his situation.
I’m not advocating for the US style of health insurance. I’m saying this specific case, if the medical commentators in this thread are to be trusted, may have ended up the same way in a non-profit model.
It’s like the trolley problem, except on one track is somebody’s beloved father and on the other is some executive’s 5th yacht.
I remember when I was 5 years old, my dad tried asking me the trolley problem.
So I took my train, and yelled at the G.I. Joes on my tracks “GET OFF THE TRAIN TRACKS, IDIOTS!!!” and ran them over. Then I backed the train up, switched tracks, and ran over spiderman. Then I yelled “FREE BONUS POINTS!!!”. Then I punched my dad in the balls, and ran upstairs giggling.
About a year ago my dad reminded me of that story. I’m in my 40s now. So I told him “I stand by that decision.”
This situation was more complicated then that. The treatment in question was histiotripy. While it might be less invasive than traditional surgery, it isn’t necessarily “better” when dealing with stage 4 cancer that failed to respond to surgery or chemotherapy. It just uses sound waves instead of scalpels.
Realistically, this guy would have died soon regardless of the treatment. It’s unlikely the technician would have been able to identify all the cancer after it’s spread throughout his body. It’s success depends on being able to target the majority of cancer cells, which isn’t easy for Stage 4 cancer.
If it’s recommended by the medical team, who the fuck are the insurance company to say no.
Does “not easy” make a treatment not medically necessary then?
That’s not even the point. Trying everything possible should be the norm, and it shouldn’t be dictated by some uncaring jackass with a 35th floor office. The entire little point of health insurance is to distribute the cost of those in need amongst all of the input of the whole. If you take enough of that input as profit for the stockholders and executives, there’s less available to do what the insurance is meant to do. They’re legally embezzling the investment of the whole without providing sufficient practical benefit to warrant it.
But even if you made the insurance system completely non-profit, there’s no upper bound on how much you can spend on each individual. You’d still run into cases where you have to distribute a limited number of resources.
Most of the world can pull it off. Why not the US?
I think the point is that while your point is broadly true, in this specific scenario the treatment might not have been available anyway. Looking up on the named procedure, it seems likely most nations would have declined to offer this treatment, considering it futile in his situation.
I’m not advocating for the US style of health insurance. I’m saying this specific case, if the medical commentators in this thread are to be trusted, may have ended up the same way in a non-profit model.
Fuckin’ A.
Let’s cross that bridge once we get there
I know you think you’re being pragmatic but it’s really just coming off as depraved.