• I think they should split it 3 ways: - replacing old technologies, systems, buildings, and replacing old, worn out supplies (beds etc.) - medical technology research, - and health education & disease prevention.
  • No I dont. Reasons are quite alot of the medical expenses are spent on genetic problems, arthritis, cancer ect and not on things you can educate people about! Atleast imo.
  • There should be a proper cost/benefit analysis between various different ways of spending money. This is not, as far as I know, done my any country. If it were done, I would expect that the results would come out as you say - that spending on preventive medicine (education, vaccination, routing checks) would be found to be vastly more effective than at least part of the current reactive medicine. The problem is that this brings into the bright light unpleasant facts and harsh choices that "the system" currently manages to blur over. You would for example, have to tell some people that you will not give them an extra two months of life because the money is better spent on giving 1,000 children proper sex education. Given that the friends and relatives of the person demied treatment will be lobbying within seconds, and the parents of the children won't know what they missed, it is hard to get by the politicians.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy