“You would never say there’s a limit on the number of times your grandmother can fall ill and be taken to the...
“You would never say there’s a limit on the number of times your grandmother can fall ill and be taken to the doctor,” said Saldaña. “Just because it’s a different type of illness, a different type of problem doesn’t mean you can allow yourself to quantify the number of times someone can reach out for assistance.”
Um, actually, that's kinda what this whole debate on insurance is. You're too sick, you cost too much, you're out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-picard-ohio-overdose-victims_us_595166e8e4b05c37bb789afb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-picard-ohio-overdose-victims_us_595166e8e4b05c37bb789afb
Um, actually, that's kinda what this whole debate on insurance is. You're too sick, you cost too much, you're out.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-picard-ohio-overdose-victims_us_595166e8e4b05c37bb789afb
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-picard-ohio-overdose-victims_us_595166e8e4b05c37bb789afb
Yes, in Norway it is just under $100 000 per year. You cost the state more than that, you are basically told "We can't ask random strangers to sacrifice that much for you." Some doctors try to stretch the rules though, so there is always a deficit compared to the budgets. It's not based on whether you're in a popular or unpopular group of people though. That's the issue here, I think.
ReplyDelete(nods nods) Priority setting will always be a part of any health care system, because nobody can pay for everything.
ReplyDeleteOf course, there's a huge difference between priority setting within an health care system where efforts have been made to try to optimize for maximum public benefit, and one that hasn't; but then, that gets into the argument about whether public benefit ought to be the primary criteria at all (as opposed to, for example, maximizing opportunity for providers to make profits ).