What a person is worth?

[Gwizz]

I listened to a Doctor say that in the UK the limit for medical costs for a person is $48,000K.

Now some of us may not believe we are worth that much while others feel they have a much higher value.

If true, I wonder how they picked that value for a human life.

[JSS]

All I know is that I am priceless.

[Gandar]

Would that be a lifetime limit or a per illness limit. Its one of those things that might make sense to an ivory tower Bureaucrat
but in practice it would be impractical. Do you forbid a child to have open heart surgery when it could mean a productive life of many years, and do you turn down a pensioner for H1N1 shot because they have used up their allowance

[Hawk]

In the health care plan they're trying to shove down our throats in the US, there's a little known issue included called QARY, acronym for Quality Adjusted Remaining Years.

http://allnurses-central.com/world-news ... 11578.html

http://www.examiner.com/x-18664-Detroit ... human-life

Yep, they'll be putting a value on everyone's life, especially the older folks.
Just remember, they know better than us what's good for us.

[Wolverine@MSU]

"Value" has been placed on human life for a long time. It isn't just this administration that is doing it. Whenever there are limited resources, whether they be monies for road safety improvements, health care, food inspection, whatever, there necessarily has to be a cost/benefit analysis to determine how best to disperse the resource. Is it worth $5 million to improve a highway segment to save 2 lives a year (statistically)? How about if it saves 200 lives a year? I know it sounds cold, but you can't realistically say that we will spend whatever it takes to extend everyone's life as long as possible. That would bankrupt us faster than anything currently proposed. And then there's the whole bag of worms about whose life is worth more to save? How do we decide where to spend our precious dollars. These are really important questions that beg for a national dialogue free from the hyperbole that currently cloud the debate. Talk about "death panels" and "rationed health care" merley serve to inflame emotions and get folks so worked up that they can't think straight. I find it really annoying that, instead of trying to work toward a bi-partison and rational reform of the health care system (which I don't think anyone can argue is OK as it is), both parties are circling the wagons and acting in a manner that is wholly counter-productive. I don't think health care reform is something that should come down from the top, but rather should have been a grassroots movement that the powers that be couldn't ignore.

[Hawk]

I find it really annoying that, instead of trying to work toward a bi-partison and rational reform of the health care system (which I don't think anyone can argue is OK as it is), both parties are circling the wagons and acting in a manner that is wholly counter-productive. I don't think health care reform is something that should come down from the top, but rather should have been a grassroots movement that the powers that be couldn't ignore.

Here! Here!

[Knave]

There are two thoughts to selecting care for cancer patients. One is to plot his existing condition on a graph and give him only the care that may benefit him. The other thought is to give him as much as he can take regardless of what other patients have done with similar treatment. The American Society of Clinical Oncology has two statistical studies listed on their web site. Each designed to prove one side of the coin as true. I predict that each study will prove their individual point. It seems if Doctors have a hard time deciding who gets what treatment, government needs to stay out of it.

I still feel the staus quo of health care needs an adjustment.

[Gandar]

There are two thoughts to selecting care for cancer patients. One is to plot his existing condition on a graph and give him only the care that may benefit him. The other thought is to give him as much as he can take regardless of what other patients have done with similar treatment. The American Society of Clinical Oncology has two statistical studies listed on their web site. Each designed to prove one side of the coin as true. I predict that each study will prove their individual point. It seems if Doctors have a hard time deciding who gets what treatment, government needs to stay out of it.

Statistics may say that its not worth while to pursue an expensive procedure because the odds are against it, but some people will survive against all odds, whilst others just seem to give up and die. How do you know which category the person to be treated will be in. I have seen patients who seemed to be recovering just give up and pass on whereas others will not give in and they fight on to recover.

[KevinL]

If you have the money, you can do whatever you want to try to make yourself healthy.

But I have a problem with throwing away taxpayer money to keep alive terminally ill people or vegetables for a few more days/weeks/months. Dr. Kevorkian was a hero in my opinion.

I also disagree with using taxpayer money to keep criminals alive, but that's another topic.

The day I cease to be a productive member of society under my own power, pull the plug on me. I have no sympathy for leeches or parasites, and I dont want to be one, either.

[Knave]

I agree, if a person has the money he can have all the health care he wants. Or legal council.

If you find yourself deciding against any further medical assistance to remain on this planet, the decision is yours. I do understand how people come to make decisions of that nature.

As a Taxpayer all my life. With ****** little say in how any of it was spent. If I decide that some of it needs to be spent on my health issues, I want that option.

That tax money the goverment throws around like water. With almost no accountability. Some of that money came from me. And I want it back.

[Hawk]

I would like some of all that money I paid in taxes back too, but by allowing the government to control our health care is shear idiocy, especially this administration.

[Gwizz]

As a people we should be of one mind concerning compassion. But we are not. There are people that feel they must be in control and be free to take money away from someone else to give to others. These people should only be free to give their own money away.

Our new medical proposals have clauses that say if we don't buy medical insurance we can be fined and put in jail.
This steps on our rights given in our now eroding Constitution.

Personally I don't believe I have the right to control peoples choice unless they affect others in a negative way. There are laws about these things. But, then what is negative can be debatable.

Free care for the non-citizen is wrong because medical should be provided by either themselves, their employer or sponsor upon arrival in the county. Also, Compassion can take over and be used by private individuals to help people in need, both for citizens and non-citizens. I've always enjoyed helping others; But not when the government forces me to do it

Those big spenders who are now making the laws tend to, not be very compassionate. Certainly not for the tax payers.

[nedfumpkin]

The psychological make-up of a politician and a psychotic are disimilar only in how they approach their tasks, not what they seek or actually do. Therein lies the problem....those who desire most to lead other men, are those who are least capabie of doing it right.

[Hawk]

That's great Ned. I like that.

[nedfumpkin]

Can you tell when I've had a lousy day at work with the sychophants and idiots? :)

[WPandP]

"Value" has been placed on human life for a long time. It isn't just this administration that is doing it. Whenever there are limited resources, whether they be monies for road safety improvements, health care, food inspection, whatever, there necessarily has to be a cost/benefit analysis to determine how best to disperse the resource. Is it worth $5 million to improve a highway segment to save 2 lives a year (statistically)? How about if it saves 200 lives a year? I know it sounds cold, but you can't realistically say that we will spend whatever it takes to extend everyone's life as long as possible. That would bankrupt us faster than anything currently proposed. And then there's the whole bag of worms about whose life is worth more to save? How do we decide where to spend our precious dollars. These are really important questions that beg for a national dialogue free from the hyperbole that currently cloud the debate. Talk about "death panels" and "rationed health care" merley serve to inflame emotions and get folks so worked up that they can't think straight. I find it really annoying that, instead of trying to work toward a bi-partison and rational reform of the health care system (which I don't think anyone can argue is OK as it is), both parties are circling the wagons and acting in a manner that is wholly counter-productive. I don't think health care reform is something that should come down from the top, but rather should have been a grassroots movement that the powers that be couldn't ignore.

The talk about "death panels" and rationing is the ugly facet that reveals the difference of thinking, when it comes down to resolving such a hard question about Value. There's one camp that thinks, this is such an intractable problem, it's best just for each individual to determine Value for themselves, i.e. if you've got the money, you waste it on million-dollar treatments if you feel like it. Then there's the other camp, that shines a spotlight on those whose limited means result in a limited ability to set that Value, i.e. those who would spend the million dollars for their treatment if they could, but simply do not have that option available to them for lack of funds. This second camp looks toward social aggregation of resources as a way to try and make equivalent Value options available to all.

The problem is that, in so doing, the locus of the decision is no longer just in the individual, but rather in the hydra called Society. This means that Society must face (and answer) the question of Value. Hence, the "death panels" and rationing enter in as likely methods of pinning down an answer - the actual apparatus may not be called such, but in practical operation Society will have to employ similar methods. Individuals, who may have differing views on the question of Value (and doesn't EVERY individual have a differing view?) are offended, because their prerogative has been trumped and they no longer get to determine Value for themselves. This is true not only of the rich who no longer get to spend millions, but also for the middle and lower classes, who have passed off decision-making to the politicians.

Politicians wield power. Power means decision-making. The current health "care" debate isn't about making sick people healthy, it's about transferring power from individuals to the political class. Rather, it's about the final phase of that transfer, since we already have Medicare/Medicaid firmly established and have acclimatized to an intensely bureaucratic HMO / employer-provided health insurance infrastructure, wherein decision-making is already well outside of the hands of the individual (the patient, or the doctor). The right direction to move in, wherein we do not run up against the dangers of rationing or imposition of Value, is toward relocation of the decision-making in the individual.

That's what my Health Savings Account (HSA) does - I pay my doctor bills in full from a checkbook drawn on my account. No figuring out co-pays, no games with pre-existing conditions or limited coverage; I decide which procedures are worth the price I'm paying, and I can see which doctors are providing the best care for the dollar. I still have insurance for extreme expenditures, set at a high deductible which coincidentally is about the same amount as I keep in my account, so that in a given year I might come close to draining my account, but my insurance would kick in before I hit zero.

So to go back to the original problem, it seems that the "problem cases", i.e. those who cannot afford their health care, might be dealt with in another way. Rather than aggregate resources and relocate the decision-making to Society, a better approach would be to empower those problem individuals with most of the same decision-making options available to the rest (I say "most" because one can never achieve "all" - there will always be certain courses of action available to the elite few, whether they be elite by virtue of wealth or by power). How? Provide a government-funded HSA for every citizen! The high-deductible insurance above and beyond the HSA might remain private, as health insurance is today, but for regular care each individual would have an account to draw on, funds which can only be used for health care purposes. Once that is in place, the bureaucracy attendant to health care drops precipitously and health care, overall, thus becomes far more efficient - and thus cheap. The more affordable health care becomes overall, the fewer "problem cases" there will be, with more and more people participating in uninhibited Value decisions (commonly called the Free Market).

We've seen this sort of thing happen before. We've seen it far too many times to deny; it's the history of the United States, pretty much! "Give me liberty, or give me death!" should be heard today, as it effected the relocation of decision-making from the King (or Society) to the individual (who, despite any tyranny from abroad, still has at least one decision within his power, to fight for his liberty). America became a nation of millions of Value-decision makers, and rocketed to economic dominance. We don't need to go down any other road.

[Hawk]

Can you tell when I've had a lousy day at work with the sychophants and idiots? :)

Is that what brought out that bit of intelligentsia?

Well said WP.