Your first mistake is to use US prices as if that’s what the care actually costs.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I don’t know because I’m in the US, but does universal healthcare in other countries cover autism-related therapies and care such as ABA, occupational and speech at the rates recommend by docs (our docs recommended 20+ hours/week - or roughly the cost of $100k/year)? And is that factored into the equation?
I haven’t seen the official modeling, just assumptions around the internet. But back of the napkin math suggests that appropriate autism care alone could be quite high: 1/36 of the 341,500,000 American residents have autism. Assuming 15% need care in the range of $100k, would be somewhere around $138b/year for just autism care. Does that seem in line with what you are thinking? Either way, are you able to point me to some of the modeling you have found? I’d love to learn more about how it tactically works.
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
20+ hours of anything is costly if you are paying the therapists appropriately. The issue is that their work is 1:1 and doesn’t scale easily.
MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 8 months ago
And?
Doesn’t change the fact that US prices are orders of magnitude out of proportion. You simply can’t use it as a yardstick.
Now, if you’re looking at the plain amount of material, manufacturing, infrastructure, and labour required, then you’re making sense.
But it seems you’re making the argument that too many people cost more to care for than they are “worth” in terms of economics, and would be too great a burden on the productivity of the healthy for a universal healthcare system to function.
But that’s not even close to true. Universal healthcare is essentially an attempt at triage on national scale. To apply resources where they do the most good.
In comparison, commercial market healthcare is just less efficient across the board. A universal system is able to provide more care for more people at less cost, even if it isn’t able to do so for everyone in every situation.
No-one is claiming universal healthcare systems save everyone and care for every ailment, every time. The argument is that it’s simply the smarter way to use the resources a country has.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
So, you totally hit the nail on the head. I couldn’t agree more: It is about maximizing resources for overall good. It is just that some groups may not see a qualitative difference in care.
thezeesystem@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Fyi ABA is considered highly unethical in the autism community.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Fair, take that piece out of the equation. Our docs still advised us on 20+ hours of therapy, all of which is costly.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 8 months ago
I’m autistic and I don’t think I need twenty hours of therapy per week.
That sounds excessive to me.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Probably would be - age plays into it as well. My kids are pretty impacted - minimal language, safety issues, etc. I suspect it can vary widely.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I’m just doing some simple deductive reasoning. If a person who suffers from a disability receives life changing care and are able to rejoin the workforce you have taken someone who would otherwise cost tax payers and have added a taxable income stream. Similarly you may provide care to people who aren’t necessarily disabled but have no means to get a life changing diagnosis and medication which allows them to complete higher education.
For every person you take out of the prison system and put into the workforce you are freeing up resources while also creating resources.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Man, I wish the hundreds of thousands of dollars of care we got positioned my kids into the workforce. Our reality is that all that while the care did help and make their lives much better - it won’t translate into productivity or self sufficiency. 🙁 I am super worried that will practically mean a universal healthcare system in the US limits disability care because it isn’t deemed as having a good enough ROI.
Daft_ish@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Thats irrelevant. Your children will still receive care no matter what.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
My kids are real life examples demonstrating that huge investment, while good for the individuals, does not reduce the cost or burden of them to society later in their life. And that very concept could risk society’s willingness to pay for any disabled person’s full care under universal healthcare.
intensely_human@lemm.ee 8 months ago
As an autistic person my primary struggles are productivity and self sufficiency. What factors in their life got better if not those things?
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
My kids don’t have full language capabilities, they struggle with fixations (which means learning has to be customized to their fixations or it won’t happen), and they don’t have enough situational awareness to be safe.
So, therapies are helpful in getting them enough language to have basic needs met (and minimize behavior issues), practicing doing things they don’t prefer for short bursts and learning things like how to behave in a parking lot. We may never get to productivity or self sufficiency - we are focused on staying alive.
Frog-Brawler@kbin.social 8 months ago
Where’s your math coming from? There’s a ton of folks on the spectrum that don’t need assistance at all.
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
I just estimated that 15% need care. So that would leave a huge number that don’t - you are right.
meekah@lemmy.world 8 months ago
“Want to get support” is not the same as “need 20h of a specialists time each week”
sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 8 months ago
You are right, which is why I used 15%, instead of 82%.