> [Can't we just] make democratic decisions about how to allocate healthcare funds?
And then, the rare conditions are starved of funding because everyone votes to throw more money at cancer/something well publicised because they spend a lot of money in marketing.
How does that help the rare sufferers, if their vote is never enough, and their voice drowned out by the megaphones?
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of funding for rare (and not photogenic) stuff came from 'selfish' wealthy individuals with a vested interest.
Good point, the largest share ("majority") rule in democracy as we know it does tend to leave people out. Has anyone tried a political system where minorities are formally taken into account in the allocation of funds by percentage of the population?
And then, the rare conditions are starved of funding because everyone votes to throw more money at cancer/something well publicised because they spend a lot of money in marketing.
How does that help the rare sufferers, if their vote is never enough, and their voice drowned out by the megaphones?
I wouldn't be surprised if quite a lot of funding for rare (and not photogenic) stuff came from 'selfish' wealthy individuals with a vested interest.