The main argument in '71 seems to have been that socialised medicine is wrong because it is funded by taxpayers' money.
doi.org/10.1056/nejm19…
So far, so common even today. But the truly needy are again left out of the argument. What about people who cannot afford healthcare
doi.org/10.1056/nejm19…
So far, so common even today. But the truly needy are again left out of the argument. What about people who cannot afford healthcare
on the market because the price tags are too great? Do they deserve to succumb to their malady or have to pray for a Samaritan to help them out? Under the sole argument that they should have prepared for occasional illnesses, and that their failure to do so encumbered their guilt
(question mark) Seemingly, that is the argument. The argument may be too isolated to make a sound point, as it lacks the dynamics of a society. Thus, I am ambivalent about it. I think it carried greater merit if the author elaborated this upon an example in our world. This way,
it serves populist purposes only. I was surprised to see that it was published in NEJM, whilst it is furthermore a rather sociological/politological argument rather than something dedicated to medicinal research, or anything derived from the STEM sciences.
THREAD END
THREAD END
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
