| SamuelRSmith said: ^Yes, because I have proof: The NHS.
EDIT: Actually, I'll just tell you a astory which proves my point: My great uncle had throat cancer a couple of years ago. He was a smoker. Some health insurance companies would reject to pay for his treatment because he was a smoker. The NHS didn't. They performed the operation, and he recevied radiotherapy afterwards. During this time the NHS also tried to assist him in quitting smoking. He did, for a while, give up smoking. However, after a few months he started smoking again - and he got throat cancer again. The hospital new that he had the cancer before, and they new that he had gone through anti-smoking stuff aswell. And yet did they refuse him treatment? No. They still operated on him, but it wasn't a success. They kept him in hospital for the last few weeks of his life - they offered him alternatives, but he rejected them, yet he was able to stay in the hospital - fed, rested and cleaned, until the day he died. And so, yes, I truely believe that a Government run program would be better at a firm at cost cutting. |
So, the government spent hundreds of thousands of dollars treating someone where the long term prognosis (due to his choices) essentially gave it a 0% chance of long term success and (therefore) there was no benefit to society at large; and you wonder why people would be against a system like this?
