PieFedWhich one of your views gets you labeled as "the other"?
submitted by
Broadly speaking, you probably agree with the large majority of the views commonly attributed to whichever group you identify with - what are the exceptions? Something that if you mention without a caveat immediately makes people jump to conclusions or even attack you?
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
I’m all for healthcare “rationing”, that is cost-effectiveness analysis for both public and insurance-funded healthcare and setting a cap that will exclude even some evidence-based interventions.
Why though?
Why I think so or why it gets me weird looks?
Healthcare is expensive. For public healthcare, it’s always a balancing act between how much to tax, and how to distribute taxed funds. I don’t want sky-high taxes (already live in Finland, not exactly a tax haven); and 100k€ spent on e.g. education is better than 100k€ on a treatment that will likely give someone a year more of life.
For insurance, same, I just don’t want to pay as much as “truly full coverage” would cost. I’m fine dying if a year of keeping me alive would cost over 50-100k$ to the shared pool, whatever it was, and would want to share the pool with others who feel like me. I wouldn’t grudge more costly premium plans for other people though.