d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > How Much Should The Government Provide > In Terms Of Health Care Costs
Prev12346Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 16 2014 07:47pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Nov 16 2014 05:41pm)
Good point. As much as it pains me to say, I think giving people a rough "value" in dollar amounts (it hurts me just to type) might be the most practical method. If a treatment costs more than the expected value of the life saved (so if 0.02 * [value of a human life] >= [procedure cost] then the treatment should be made), maybe it needs to be paid out of pocket.

It feels awful, but I can't think of a better option. Luckily I'm not a working bioethicist. Hopefully there are better options I'm just overlooking.

Having a sort of medical judicial committee in place to determine who gets treatments seems far too impractical.

How do the countries with the most successful socialized healthcare handle it? I think taking their lead would be a good start.


I agree that it's shitty to have to put a hard number on human life but it's what you have to do when it comes to risk analysis. We already do it for life insurance, why not health too?

Perhaps the government can just give everyone a couple thousand dollars per year in a healthcare savings account that they can use towards treatment. If they don't use it, it rolls over so that you can accumulate savings over time. That way, the individual is empowered to make these decisions instead of society.
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 16 2014 07:51pm
Quote (thundercock @ Nov 16 2014 08:32pm)
Suppose that the kid has a 2% chance of living with a particular form of treatment. Should he be given the treatment? Is there a cutoff? Who ultimately gets to make these decisions?


the % doesn't matter

who's going to pay for it? are we going to rob people at gun point and use their money to pay for this kids treatment? better to let him die then lose our freedoms
Member
Posts: 96,294
Joined: Nov 25 2006
Gold: 0.88
Nov 16 2014 07:53pm
Like Canada B)
Member
Posts: 35,291
Joined: Aug 17 2004
Gold: 12,730.67
Nov 16 2014 07:54pm
Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 16 2014 05:51pm)
the % doesn't matter

who's going to pay for it? are we going to rob people at gun point and use their money to pay for this kids treatment? better to let him die then lose our freedoms


If the kid has a 99% chance of living if he gets a $500 dollar procedure, it would be highly unethical to treat him. The government paying for anything is slightly worse than skullfucking children.
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 16 2014 07:56pm
Quote (thundercock @ Nov 16 2014 08:54pm)
If the kid has a 99% chance of living if he gets a $500 dollar procedure, it would be highly unethical to treat him. The government paying for anything is slightly worse than skullfucking children.


what's highly unethical is robbing people to pay for someone else's problems

next you'll want us to provide him with food and shelter if he can't get any for himself
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 08:01pm
Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 16 2014 08:56pm)
what's highly unethical is robbing people to pay for someone else's problems

next you'll want us to provide him with food and shelter if he can't get any for himself


I know you're being sarcastic but his point is legitimate.

If a procedure costs $100,000 and has a 1% chance of success should the taxpayers really be coerced into paying for it? What's going to cause more death? More suffering? At a certain point, the cost to society will exceed the benefit for the recipient.

This post was edited by Voyaging on Nov 16 2014 08:01pm
Member
Posts: 77,514
Joined: Nov 30 2008
Gold: 500.00
Nov 16 2014 08:25pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Nov 16 2014 09:01pm)
I know you're being sarcastic but his point is legitimate.

If a procedure costs $100,000 and has a 1% chance of success should the taxpayers really be coerced into paying for it? What's going to cause more death? More suffering? At a certain point, the cost to society will exceed the benefit for the recipient.


i think the obvious straight forward answer is we should save all who we can afford to save (not talking about monetary costs alone here) and given the wealth we have it's a disgrace that we have people dying from preventable or treatable illnesses

This post was edited by duffman316 on Nov 16 2014 08:25pm
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 08:31pm
Quote (duffman316 @ Nov 16 2014 09:25pm)
i think the obvious straight forward answer is we should save all who we can afford to save (not talking about monetary costs alone here) and given the wealth we have it's a disgrace that we have people dying from preventable or treatable illnesses


That's the whole point, we can't afford to save everyone, especially if we're paying outrageous amounts for slim chances of survival.
Member
Posts: 63,097
Joined: Jan 11 2005
Gold: 9,765.00
Warn: 60%
Nov 16 2014 08:32pm
Quote (IceMage @ Nov 16 2014 08:20pm)
Whatever system takes the most money from productive people to keep welfare granny on pain meds til she croaks at 95.


reall? so after 65 - we should place people into food grinders and make tasty hamburgers out of them
so they can feed people that produce crap we don't need?
Member
Posts: 63,030
Joined: Jul 15 2005
Gold: 152.00
Nov 16 2014 08:33pm
Quote (card_sultan @ Nov 16 2014 09:32pm)
reall? so after 65 - we should place people into food grinders and make tasty hamburgers out of them
so they can feed people that produce crap we don't need?


Depends how tasty human meat is.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12346Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll