All these blanket treatments and tests just paper over the fact that there are wide impacting subpopulations with poor health in our populous driving the need for these things in the first place.
Sure, some portion of people in distress contribute overall very disproportionately to health care cost. This includes people who make poor health choices (over-consumption of sugary beverages, unhealthy drug and similar things), people who are homeless and people who chronic health problems (through work-related injuries, random chance or actual poor decisions).
There seem to be two reaction: "OK, then just don't allow them health care, problem solved" or "we need to prevent people from getting into that position in the first place."
I would say the first reaction is counter-productive, poorly thought-through and morally indefensible. Obviously, I think the second approach is crucial (obviously requiring quite a bit of effort). The first position is very common, however and it's kind of sad, for both the people who think this way but much more for the consequence.
I think the only reason people jump to the first position is: A. The situation is presented in isolation and these people aren't considering the consequences. B. There's a human tendency to jump to a belief without fully exploring the evidence. C. Defending a belief often just makes the defender more defensive, especially since changing would make them admit they holding a fairly cruel and immoral position.
I think the article from a couple days ago about human belief formation is very relevant for this discussion.
Sure, some portion of people in distress contribute overall very disproportionately to health care cost. This includes people who make poor health choices (over-consumption of sugary beverages, unhealthy drug and similar things), people who are homeless and people who chronic health problems (through work-related injuries, random chance or actual poor decisions).
There seem to be two reaction: "OK, then just don't allow them health care, problem solved" or "we need to prevent people from getting into that position in the first place."
I would say the first reaction is counter-productive, poorly thought-through and morally indefensible. Obviously, I think the second approach is crucial (obviously requiring quite a bit of effort). The first position is very common, however and it's kind of sad, for both the people who think this way but much more for the consequence.
I think the only reason people jump to the first position is: A. The situation is presented in isolation and these people aren't considering the consequences. B. There's a human tendency to jump to a belief without fully exploring the evidence. C. Defending a belief often just makes the defender more defensive, especially since changing would make them admit they holding a fairly cruel and immoral position.
I think the article from a couple days ago about human belief formation is very relevant for this discussion.
see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvebjL48f-w&feature=youtu.be