In article <47A4E37F.4F978876@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
tributyltinpaint@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
says...
> maxwelton@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > On Jan 31, 7:48 pm, stuff_st...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > > On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 16:34:45 -0800 (PST), maxwel...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >the net worth of the patient?
> > > >What ever the market will bear?
> > > Aren't these the same? ;->
> > Many times they are not. Compare with home costs. The
> > market may sup****t $500,000 home prices in some areas.
> > A lot of people may not have that net worth, but can find
> > their needs met by a much less expensive place.
> > However, things are different when it comes to liver
> > transplants. No one no matter how rich or poor wants
> > a liver transplant unless they need one. Now there is
> > the situation where the person that can afford the
> > $500,000 doesn't need a liver transplant but the
> > person that can not afford the $500,000 does need
> > a liver transplant. The free market approach tells
> > us that only those that can afford to pay for them
> > will receive them.
> Which is why people who don't know whether or not they will need a liver
> transplant buy something called insurance. The question then becomes, if
> you don't buy liver transplant insurance, should society pay for a free
> liver transplant for you anyway, in other words should whether or not
> you chose to buy insurance matter in whether or not you get a liver
> transplant you need but can't personally afford.
In this specific case, my understanding is that, the supply of
livers is so inadequate that many people WITH insurance cannot
get one. If the insured people are prioritised, then there
wouldn't be any livers left over for the welfare cases, anyway.
The only ways that this particular resource would be available to
a non-insured American would be through Medicaid/Medicare (in
which I would have very, very little faith), or if it were some
sort of experimental research.
As far as, "should"? I dunno - that word tends have very little
relevance to what I expect from reality.
Things must be prioritised. Just because the government and
"society" as a whole have a lot more money than me, does NOT mean
an infinite amount of money. For example, a large amount of
birth control for low-income folks could be bought, with the same
amount of money as one liver transplant.
> And then we ask how it's done elsewhere, the long used example being
> places with universal coverage. The person needing a liver transplant
> (or something else) doesn't automatically get a liver transplant in
> those societies, rather a triage situation is set up by the universal
> care system. If you are deemed "worthy", by *some* criteria, of a liver
> transplant, then you might get one. If not, you don't.
Of course. If someone's liver is being destroyed by hepatitis C,
then a new one will also be destroyed. If the person is very
old, or in poor health (in addition to the liver thing), then
s/he isn't going to be prioritised ahead of a younger person with
better general health prospects.
And, yes, if someone damaged his/her liver with many years of
heavy alcohol use, then that will effect the doctors' and
administrators' attitudes about granting another liver. Mickey
Mantle had the advantage of being a celebrity, but most of us
don't. This issue is also related to the low supply, with the
aversion to granting a "guilty" patient a liver, which could then
mean that an "innocent" patient dies for lack of that liver.
> So the question then becomes, I know this is complicated, whether or not
> you want to *choose* yourself by your own actions, buying health
> insurance or not, whether or not you get a liver transplant if you need
> one, or whether you want someone else to decide for you, you're too old,
> too sick, haven't got a "Sir" in front of your name because you didn't
> pay Blair enough under the table, stuff like that.
Life ain't fair. Lots of people cannot afford private insurance.
And lots of people aren't celebrities or "Sir/Dame" tacked onto
their names.
> There might be a third way, as they call it, but it's not been fought
> for much as far as I can see.
Are you suggesting that you have a third option in mind? Or that
nobody seems to know?
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardre****t.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
|
