> If a clear majority of voters support a project or policy
thing is, projects run into reality. if a majority voted to build the starship enterprise today would it make sense to do it just because a majority wanted it
heres a radical thought, if a group of people, be it 2, 5 og 250 million wants to build the starship enterprise, how about we say "sounds fun, have at it", and let them mind their own business? and in this pristine new reality, how about we DONT let them put their grubby fat hands into the remaining peoples pockets to fund it? In exchange, when the naysayers to the enterprise projects wants to make something, the enterprise fans will also not loot pockets.
and how about regimes where people think they have a right to other peoples life? history would suggest that this mindset means that people are outright gonna get slaughtered.
buy a gun and bearspray, if you dont want to have bears invade your property, put a fence. If someone doesnt want to pay for that and risk it, well, I am kinda okay with that too. If someone breaks their legs and needs help to complete their bear fence, I will help them too, but if they DEMAND and insist they have a god(=government) granted right to force me to help them with their fence under the threat of imprisonment, I will not, and I will consider them criminals as they are
yes and believe it or not healthcare runs into real constraints and concerns about equity, etc.
suppose a rare disease is only well researched in a few white families. lets say, the mennonites. curing the disease is possible, but expensive. should everyone else be forced to subsidize it? what if the markers are known and parents choose to have kids anyways even though they have the markers.
does the situation change if its sickle cell anemia?
This is a good point. If you imagine that by healthcare people mean an imaginary expensive Mennonite disease instead of the ability to see a doctor and receive treatment for common diseases and injuries it becomes very murky indeed.
Combining the two seems a design flaw. The one requires research, experience, training, labs, clinical trials etc etc. The other little more than a database.
yeah i should have said ashkenazi instead of mennonite, but i didn't want to come off as or attract a certain type of comment.
this is a real thing. Gaucher's disease, while anyone can get it in principle, is almost entirely a disease that afflicts ashkenazim. the treatment is cerezyme, which is one of the most expensive drugs, and you must take it for life.
and you missed the comment about sickle cell (only affects west africans and people of west african descent). which is now curable, but VERY expensive to cure.
I didn’t miss anything. You can substitute in any real or imaginary rare and expensive disease if you want to define “healthcare” as something that excludes the general ability to see doctors and receive treatment for common illnesses and injuries.
If you’re dead set on arguing about an arbitrary imaginary definition of a word, the world is your oyster. You can say sickle cell or Methuselah Syndrome or Tandy’s Malady, it’s all gravy if you can convince your mark that whatever you’re talking about is the same thing as the broad concept of healthcare.
what does it mean if healthcare doesn't include the corner cases though? where do you draw the line? is cancer treatment healthcare? what if you have a rare cancer?
im not the one arguing from a made up definition here. almost ANYONE would consider cancer, rare cancer, sickle cell treatments, and gauchers treatments "healthcare". its disingenuous to put those outside the bag of things called healthcare just because its inconvenient to your worldview
thing is, projects run into reality. if a majority voted to build the starship enterprise today would it make sense to do it just because a majority wanted it