|
i am not sure how cost-benefit analysis gets understood as the principal consideration in thinking about this. nor do i see where the assumptions come from that inform ace's "theoretical" problem---which relies on some unspecified notion of "human nature" that is bandied about as if it was coherent and as if there was agreement on a definition. the "theory" seems to me circular: to get it started you presuppose certain types of behaviour that you remove from the aalytic problem by attributing them to this nebula called "human nature"--then you develop an abstract scenario that is fit to it, and you present it as a hypothesis.
i am not sure that the main issue in the question of universal health care is or shouldbe financial. this seems to me to already be heavily encoded politically. it seems to me that you could more directly and easily frame this as a kind of system obligation to the well being of the people who are used by and who use it. something like a human right.
the second usual move in this kind of thread is to assume that only the anglo-canadian model is operative as an alternative. you might think about france, where the state underwrites basic health care--and so the system is highly proactive, emphasizing preventative measures, etc.: there is a highly regulated private insurance sector that underwrites the costs of more major medical procedures---citizens are required to get such private insurance. but the costs are kept low.
if you have something like this model in mind, then you might consider the question of universal health care differently.
just saying.
btw: how would refusing medical care to people over 70 not amount to a kind of extermination program for the elderly?
seems like a barbaric idea.
but i suppose it would make sense from a pure cost-benefit viewpoint.
which points to the problem with the cost-benefit viewpoint, doesnt it?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear
it make you sick.
-kamau brathwaite
|