|
|
 Originally Posted by rong
So the vid in rando thread about the guy who's daughter died of cancer got me thinking.
Let's say a 5 yr old kid has leukemia and it's parents are poor. Society has several options for it's care.
1. We pay for everything it needs to give it the best chance of survival.
2. We give it a bit of care but not as much as we would a rich kid.
3. We give it some care and bankrupt the parents.
4. We say tough shit kiddy, you ain't getting Jack.
It seems to me that capitalism favours 3 and 4 where as alternative set ups may favour 1 and 2.
However much you may hate it human life has a monetary value on it. Everyone should get a basic level of health care but sometimes you just get dealt a bad hand and that sucks dick. Obviously if you had a child who had some rare disease where the only treatment cost £1 million and had a 10% chance of survival if you had the money you'd cough it up without a doubt but I don't think you should expect society to cover the cost because they can't.
Obviously this becomes a much harder as the decision gets closer, but if money was used on stuff like that then someone else has to miss out.
|
Reply With Quote