Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Name_Omitted
No, neither should alot of procedures. If its not medically necessary to save your life then no.
|
I trust that members of society with these views, so clearly stated and felt, would, in the event of medically necessary surgery, choose to omit the anesthesia and instead opt for the leather straps and lead bullet option (unless they were willing to pay for anesthetic out of pocket). After all, anesthetic is solely for patient comfort and does not affect survivability. And surely there is no study that demonstrates that physical pain is any more debilitating than emotional pain.
Alternatively, if through their good fortune members with opinions similar to those quoted manage to avoid the need for surgery, they should campaign for the removal of palliative and hospice care as it is punitively expensive and recipients of it are unlikely to be able to repay us through future taxes and economic growth.
Ahem.
Now that we have decided that our system funds more than mere survival, a discussion can be had on what basis our system should use to determine which types of procedures we should collectively fund.
It would seem, from merely a fiscal standpoint, that the net economic benefit of an IVF child far outweighs the cost of the procedure.
"The lifetime discounted value of net taxes from an IVF-conceived child with mother aged 35 is £109 939 compared with £122 127 for a naturally conceived child."Source
From a US Study:
"Lifetime net taxes paid from a child relative to the child’s initial IVF investment represent a 700% net return to the government in discounted US dollars from fully employed individuals. This suggests that removing barriers to IVF would have positive tax benefits for the government, notwithstanding its beneficial effect on overall economic growth."
Source
Therefore as a strict fiscal conservative, and assuming a tax environment similar to the UK, I cannot help but support the inclusion of this procedure in provincial medical plans.~bug