From: Bryan Moss (bryan.moss@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Jun 29 2000 - 11:08:05 MDT
Damien Broderick wrote:
> [public vs. private health care]
>
> I love the way such topics (from a non-US perspective) go
> instantly hysterical with fear & loathing. Might do many
> people on the list some good to spend some time in other
> First World nations where we do things differently (yet
> haven't ended up in an immiserated Gulag).
I don't think it's too presumptuous of me to suggest that
the thriving US biotech industry is due in no small part to
the lack of a government monopoly in health care. If you
accept that we are making progress and will continue to do
so, then it makes sense to emphasise research, especially
privately funded, over public health care systems. If you
accept a Singularity, or Spike, and therefore exponential
growth, it is nothing short of moralistic greed and
arrogance to divert money to helping people now when that
money, suitably invested, could help twice as many people
tomorrow. In this light, it makes absolutely no sense
whatsoever to give *any* money to provide a "safety net"
for the needy: you're simply diverting resources that could
have a far greater impact, given time. When we emphasise
the public sector we do so out of a romanticized sense of
what good should be - pure, direct, and heartfelt - rather
than a rational sense of how good is achieved.
Maintained by the NHS,
BM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:29:35 MST