Forget everything you've thought concerning the health care debate (or keep them in mind and be aware of them) and read this article by bioethicist Peter Singer in The New York Times Magazine. It's five Web pages long, so give it some brain space. You'll be glad you did, whatever conclusion you come to. Once you finish, you're welcome to provide reactions or comments under "Tangents."Let the reasoned debate / mudslinging begin. (Please err on the side of reasoned debate.)
Ah, another manifestation of unlimited wants/needs versus limited/scare resources.
ReplyDeleteI'll read through the Australian numbers again and see if I like them, but at first glance it seems ok.
The only factor that I don't see considered anywhere in this article is the amount of effort individuals put into their personal health. I strongly believe (maybe because I'm one of the people) that those who maintain healthy lifestyles should pay lower premiums. I find that this is not always the case in the health insurance industry, especially the public sector.
Thanks for the great read!
I agree. There should be some sort of incentive to convince people to take good care of themselves. Just like figuring out QALY, though, it would be really hard to decide what exactly that incentive should be.
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome! I saw someone else link to it on Facebook, and the title immediately caught my eye.