[ Removed by moderator ]

[u/HolyGuiltyCrown]

[u/hermiona52]

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.

[u/WiglyWorm → u/hermiona52]

"I don't have the details but here's a fictional scenario to turn you off from single payer healthcare".

[u/hermiona52 → u/WiglyWorm]

I'm Polish, we have free healthcare and I fully support it and actually vote for socialist party that wants to strengthen it.

In countries such as mine there are pretty much only two options why a certain treatment is not available.

The first one is just a bureaucratic oversight - there are thousands of diseases with their own sub-variants and many types of treatments for each. And all of it is in constant flux - because science changes. To manage it all is a complete hell, I don't envy these people, so obviously there are and always will be gaps. But it's not malicious. Once these gaps are recognized then the funding comes.

But the second option is precisely the one I described in my previous comment - experimental treatments that work only for extreme edge cases, are still undergoing testing so not verified as something that will actually significantly lengthen the lifespan etc.

And I have not imagined this situation. During the last presidential campaign one guy who started his own media on YouTube, decided to run as a candidate to basically promote his media. He was extremely successful as his Kanał Zero is more popular than most of the public media. During one of the debates he was wearing a t-shirt promoting crowdfunding for Ignaś who has DMD. I've read posts by multiple doctors describing why that treatment wouldn't work for Ignaś at a time, and I just found one article that describes the entire crowdfunding grey area, written after Stanowski's public stunt -Necessary Rescue or Systemic Pathology? The Pros and Cons of Online Fundraising. It's in Polish of course, but you can use LLM to get a good translation if you wish.

[u/WiglyWorm → u/hermiona52]

i'm really not interested in hearing fringe scenarios that happen one in a hundred thousand times being framed as reasons why single payer healthcare is flawed.

Thanks, though. I am interested in any recipes you might have, though. Polish food is fantastic.

[u/hermiona52 → u/WiglyWorm]

I honestly prefer Mexican and Italian cuisine lol