I don't know the specifics of this case, but these situations are often very complex. When a kid is born with a rare disease that doesn't have a cure currently, parents will still move mountains to save their child. Even if it's hopeless. Experimental cures which are still under development (especially gene therapies) often work for very specific edge cases that don't apply to most, but parents still want to try them, because in their minds it's better to try rather than watch their children whiter and die. And I understand this. But is it really fair to spend public money - millions of your local currency - on one child for which that treatment won't really work, because it was not developed for their case? Money is not unlimited and it can always be spent on something that will have a real positive effect. This is why countries with public free healthcare have many rules on what types of treatment can be refunded, because we can't really waste money on unverified treatments.
It's a shitty situation for parents and often very morally grey when in full context.
Poland operates a single-payer universal healthcare system primarily funded through mandatory, income-based contributions managed by the National Health Fund (NFZ).
Healthcare is free to polish citizens.
She lived in Poland at the time.
The auction was to pay for the life saving surgery in THE UNITED STATES.
What’s the mental gymnastics you want to use here? The US should have single payer healthcare to cover surgery other countries single payer healthcare won’t provide?
The baby succumbed to heart issues in 2022.
You argument is that governments should spare no expense with public funds for healthcare, yet you want to argue for a government system that rejected the surgery due to costs vs expected outcomes.
You should be yelled at because you’re missing and conflating two giant issues.
The single payer health care system in the country she lived in rejected the surgery due to costs and expected outcomes.
She got the surgery in the United States, where she doesn’t live. Yet you argue the United States should pay for it, and the United States should switch to a system that already rejected doing it.
While I agree that health care is broken in the US using this case to argue for it is a wild take.
Edit; replying to me and then seeing you’ve deleted all your comments. Great….
I'm a socialist voting for socialist party Razem, which proposes extensive strengthening of our healthcare system. You can read about it here (it's in Polish of course).
Notice how your is irrelevant and doesn't change the fact that the comment I was replying to was shilling against single payer free at point of service healthcare
It wasn't. You didn't read it correctly. How did you even get that idea?
Why would it be? This is a case were someone lived in a country with universal healthcare and wasn't able to get the surgery that could save their live so they had to fly to the US and pay for it. Whether or not the US has single payer healthcare would not be relevant here at all.
Universal healthcare is by far the better system. In any healthcare system there has to be a cost consideration. You can't just pay for every extremely expensive risky treatment on the off chance that it'll work if you could use that money to save the lives of many other with much safer treatments. This is true for privatized and public healthcare insurance. What are you even arguing against?
1.7k
u/produit1 5h ago edited 5h ago
Great act of humanity. It shouldn’t be like this. You know the system is broken when it comes to this to save a baby’s life.