Semilexic on Nostr: > Because of this, sticker price on treatments for boutique diseases is hundreds of ...

> Because of this, sticker price on treatments for boutique diseases is hundreds of thousands of dollars. Nobody is paying that. Nobody can. But by any fair definition it certainly is healthcare. Lot of misconceptions to unpack.<li><p>Im not against funding research, I just didnt address it because we are talking about healthcare costs specifically. Research isnt healthcare, its separate, and should be funded based on available funds, not end result. If you want we can discuss research (I favor a shotgun approach).</p></li><li><p>Boutique diseases are rare and not of concern to a nation as a whole. There has to be triage at some level, money isnt infinite. Should we blow a trillion trying to turn gays straight? Some things are just a burden that the individual suffers with and dies, ita fucking tragic but there is no reason to export that tragedy to everyone.</p></li><li><p>Treatments are expensive for a lot of dumb reasons, like the fact that hospitals dont get paid fully by insurance, so the price is 2x, 3x, 10x what it should be, just to extract the actual amount.</p></li>

> Charity can be useful, but it's not a magic wand. Charity is a byproduct of wealth, and we're not in a great place for that now.<li><p>Charity is a function of basic humanity and high trust societies, not disposable income, the highest sources of per capita charity are the middle and working classes. Niggers and jews dont donate to charity, but they arent human. Also people in high-tax societies donate less charity, for obvious reasons.</p></li><li><p>But... even taking your premise as true... If people can't afford to be charitable toward boutique diseases, how is it ethical to take food from their table and <em>force</em> them to fund boutique disease research?</p></li>