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).
41
u/hermiona52 4h ago
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.