Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

towngrizzlytown t1_ixkuwf0 wrote

Reply to comment by Significant_Bit550 in Human Trial to Regrow Mini-Livers in Patients with End-Stage Liver Damage by lunchboxultimate01

I don't see why it would. If this becomes an FDA-approved therapy, people would be able to get them as they currently do organ transplants. Additionally, this procedure is much simpler than an organ transplant.

1

rocketeer8015 t1_ixlgrrn wrote

Following that logic insulin should be affordable…

3

towngrizzlytown t1_ixmpky9 wrote

Insulin pricing in the US certainly needs important improvements. It's hard for a diabetic who is underinsured (with a high-deductible health plan) or doesn't qualify for Medicaid or Medicare. Fortunately most diabetics in the US have adequate coverage to keep out-of-pocket costs on insulin low, although that's hardly consolation for the minority who don't. In any case, the average diabetic can afford and use insulin.

Likewise, if this procedure becomes approved, the average person in the U.S. will be able to benefit from it like people benefit from organ transplants.

1

rocketeer8015 t1_ixpqtre wrote

I’m just saying that when a company has a captive audience(if you want a new organ you usually really want a new organ) they tend to squeeze them for what they are worth.

Also I find your explanation on insulin prices a bit ironic. It’s still really expensive, just because it’s covered by insurance doesn’t change that. It just means that the costs are spread over a lot of people. Your insurance premium is higher because other people need insulin. The ironic part is that that is exactly the argument used by people that are against universal healthcare, they have to pay for others.

You essentially have the worst of both worlds, you are paying for others and your medicine and treatments are overpriced.

1

towngrizzlytown t1_ixqplzq wrote

The initial comment I replied to posited that families should expect to be bankrupted by this. However, this procedure, if it's successful and approved, will be covered by insurers, Medicaid, and Medicare, meaning that people will be able to get the procedure like organ transplants and other life-saving procedures like gall-bladder removal, heart valve surgeries, tumor removal, etc.

Depending on a person's particular plan and individual circumstances, the cost sharing, say, a $3,000 deductible could be difficult. But that's a far cry from the burlesque of the original comment, claiming that families will somehow be forced to pay six figures (?) out of pocket to get this procedure.

Although I don't think it matters to the discussion what my personal beliefs are, I support universal healthcare.

1

lunchboxultimate01 OP t1_ixvgsbc wrote

I think your comment is an example of a somewhat common motte-and-bailey fallacy on Reddit. People will often assert that a potential medical advancement will only be accessible to the super-rich in the U.S. When provided a reason the therapy would be broadly deployed, they may respond that the sticker price of insulin is much higher than in other countries, which makes purchasing it financially difficult for an important portion of diabetics.

The initial argument ("this will only be affordable to the super-rich" - the bailey) is later obfuscated by an accurate yet different fact ("insulin pricing in the U.S. causes difficulties for an important number of diabetics" - the motte).

The U.S. healthcare system certainly has crucial problems to fix or ameliorate. I don't think the hyper cynicism of the original commenter is productive, and insulin (although an especially important topic) is a very different example from the initial argument, which is a motte-and-bailey fallacy.

1

rocketeer8015 t1_ixyjvtf wrote

Hmm, that’s a very well thought out response. Do you have a counter example of a medication or procedure that’s as important(life saving) as insulin yet cheap and affordable in the US?

You make it sound as if insulin is a outlier, but I can immediately think of another example with an even wider scope: childbirth in a hospital. Same theme, captive audience(if your pregnant you are going to give birth in the best case), same result, high costs.

1

lunchboxultimate01 OP t1_ixzdu75 wrote

I think you've missed my point. Healthcare pricing in the U.S. is certainly out of whack due to a fractured, bureaucratic system, which makes coverage through insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare important for patients.

My intention was to show the motte-and-bailey fallacy, which was the following:

A1: This medical advancement will just bankrupt families for generations.

B: I don't see why. People will be able to get it like they do organ transplants (or any other medical procedure because it will be covered by insurance, Medicaid, and Medicare).

A2: Well insulin is overpriced...

A1 and A2 are not the same argument. The fact that A2 is correct does not make A1 correct. Additionally, B has not been disproven.

1