Turns out, that's the value of a human life NOW, under current Medicare rules. However:
"In theory, a year of human life is priceless. In reality, it's worth $50,000."
"Zenios's conclusions arrive amidst mounting debate over whether Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for seniors, ought to use cost-effectiveness analysis in determining coverage of procedures. Nearly all other industrial nations — including Canada, Britain and the Netherlands — ration health care based on cost-effectiveness and the $50,000 threshold. . . Such a move would mean that "if the incremental cost of a new technology was more than the threshold," Zenios says, "then the recommendation would be that Medicare not cover that new technology."
If it costs more than 50k, then you don't need it. The government says so. THIS is 'universal healthcare'. England goes ONE step further. If the government says no, and you do it anyway, then the gov't revokes your health care because it's 'unfair' for you to go beyond what the average person gets. And now comes new considerations for no longer covering smokers and the obese.
How much is a year of healthy living worth to you? Priceless? Well, that's your opinion.
Turns out, that's the value of a human life NOW, under current Medicare rules. However:
"In theory, a year of human life is priceless. In reality, it's worth $50,000."
"Zenios's conclusions arrive amidst mounting debate over whether Medicare, the U.S. government health plan for seniors, ought to use cost-effectiveness analysis in determining coverage of procedures. Nearly all other industrial nations-including Canada, Britain and the Netherlands-ration health care based on cost-effectiveness and the $50,000 threshold. . . Such a move would mean that "if the incremental cost of a new technology was more than the threshold," Zenios says, "then the recommendation would be that Medicare not cover that new technology."
If it costs more than 50k, then you don't need it. The government says so. THIS is 'universal healthcare'. England goes ONE step further. If the government says no, and you do it anyway, then the gov't revokes your health care because it's 'unfair' for you to go beyond what the average person gets. And now comes new considerations for no longer covering smokers and the obese.
How much is a year of healthy living worth to you? Priceless? Well, that's your opinion.
~faith,
Timothy.
I would like to know where you obtain your information, as I worked in the UK for 17 years as an RN and nobody was refused health care. I think you might be confusing the situation where patients have not been compliant with their health and then expected special treatment time and time again. I believe there have been discussions regarding compliance especially where transplants are concerned and in some case heart surgery. I know a pt who was a huge drinker and great debate occured re this patient being put on the transpant list!!! He did eventually get a new liver but it was a waste of time he couldn't change his lifestyle.
I would like to add that if you are retrieving information from the gutter press then I would give that information no credulance what so ever as the NHS generates huge emotions, and sells papers well especially when the headlines read scandal.
Even political papers can be very incorrect as they favor one specific political party and promises on the NHS get votes.
I suggest you find appropriate research articles and you may find some evidence of the truth.
I must address the idea that private sector insurance will step up to the plate if government did not interfere, as that was the industry I left.
There are several areas where no private industry will take on the risk.
The first is flood insurance. It is only written by the federal government.
Another is driver's with poor driving records. Insurance companies are required to take a fair share based on the percentage of the business they write in the state for those who cannot get coverage on the open market.
Unemployment insurance is another area that only the federal government will insure.
Disability insurance can only be obtained by the healthy, so the government is the insurer of last resort.
The reason the government became involved with healthcare for the aged was particularely because private industry was unable to address it profitably.
I must address the idea that private sector insurance will step up to the plate if government did not interfere, as that was the industry I left.
There are several areas where no private industry will take on the risk.
The first is flood insurance. It is only written by the federal government.
Another is driver's with poor driving records. Insurance companies are required to take a fair share based on the percentage of the business they write in the state for those who cannot get coverage on the open market.
Unemployment insurance is another area that only the federal government will insure.
Disability insurance can only be obtained by the healthy, so the government is the insurer of last resort.
The reason the government became involved with healthcare for the aged was particularely because private industry was unable to address it profitably.
These are just a few examples.
With each of these, there IS a profit model and/or a behavioral change that SHOULD be expected.
1. If you don't build in a floodplain, then you don't need flood insurance. All the gov't does by selling that insurance is encourage irresponsible behavior that must be bailed out by the general population. I WANT a beach house; you MUST insure it for me. No. If you WANT it that badly, assume the risk.
2. If you save 3-6 months of your salary for emergencies, expected and normal behavior traditionally, then you don't NEED unemployment insurance. Your lack of planning is NOT an emergency on my part.
3. With both disability and the aged, OF COURSE insurance companies want that business. They just don't want that business at the tail end of the risk. I have a life insurance policy that is fixed term with a draw out until I'm 93. So long as I keep paying those premiums NOW, when I'm young and healthy, I'm still entitled to the very SAME deal when I'm older. Same terms. They will take that risk knowing they will likely get 40 yrs of payments from me. They won't if I wait until 65 to ask for it.
4. I'm OK with the gov't subsidizing those that can't. I'm not OK with those that won't, or, don't plan well.
5. I'm all for regulation to prevent some of the abusive credit card manipulations that sell people into debt for a lifetime. I'm all for bankruptcy reform. I'm all for HELPING people become financially solvent.
I'm not for doing it for them. Your assumptions are wrong because you mistime the risk and misjudge the responsibility for said risk. OF COURSE it's not profitable to assume such risks at their tail end.
Now, transit to cash for routine care, catastrophic insurance only, and HSAs to save thousands and thousands of dollars for health care BEFORE you turn 65, and you have working model. THEN, the gov't can subsidize the 10-20% that would be outliers on the ability to manage their own care.
To do so NOW, after subsidizing the high price of care in the first place? It's simply unsustainable.
with each of these, there is a profit model and/or a behavioral change that should be expected.
1. if you don't build in a floodplain, then you don't need flood insurance. all the gov't does by selling that insurance is encourage irresponsible behavior that must be bailed out by the general population. i want a beach house; you must insure it for me. no. if you want it that badly, assume the risk.
the irresponsible behavior started with the builder , placing the house upon the floodplain , then selling it to either the poor sap who could not afford a home out of the flood plain or the affluent purchaser of the beach front property , who would use what ever device necessary to get his house built in the first place and scream blue murder if he had to assume the risk to the property .
2. if you save 3-6 months of your salary for emergencies, expected and normal behavior traditionally, then you don't need unemployment insurance. your lack of planning is not an emergency on my part.
fine and dandy for people like me and you who have a adequate income , but if you are living paycheck to paycheck , how the heck are they going to self insure .
3. with both disability and the aged, of course insurance companies want that business. they just don't want that business at the tail end of the risk. i have a life insurance policy that is fixed term with a draw out until i'm 93. so long as i keep paying those premiums now, when i'm young and healthy, i'm still entitled to the very same deal when i'm older. same terms. they will take that risk knowing they will likely get 40 yrs of payments from me. they won't if i wait until 65 to ask for it.
the insurance companies happily take your business when you are young and able , but if you start using that insurance at a latter date they will try to fanagle a way out of keeping you as a policy holder .so you are quite right they do not want you at the tail end of the risk whether you are a long time policy holder or not .
4. i'm ok with the gov't subsidizing those that can't. i'm not ok with those that won't, or, don't plan well.
5. i'm all for regulation to prevent some of the abusive credit card manipulations that sell people into debt for a lifetime. i'm all for bankruptcy reform. i'm all for helping people become financially solvent.
i'm not for doing it for them. your assumptions are wrong because you mistime the risk and misjudge the responsibility for said risk. of course it's not profitable to assume such risks at their tail end.
now, transit to cash for routine care, catastrophic insurance only, and hsas to save thousands and thousands of dollars for health care before you turn 65, and you have working model. then, the gov't can subsidize the 10-20% that would be outliers on the ability to manage their own care.
so even in your efficient , privatized healthcare utopia , there are still 30 - 60 million people ( using present day population figure ), who we the tax payers would have to provide healthcare for thank you very much timothy ! i will still be having to pay for healthcare twice . firstly my private costs ( however they are covered) and secondly through my taxes for the outliers you envision!!
to do so now, after subsidizing the high price of care in the first place? it's simply unsustainable.
~faith,
timothy
most of us are aware of how insurance works , through spreading risk accross as large a pool as possible , yet unfortunately the insurance industry appears to always run to the government and expect us the tax payers to bail them out when they are in difficulties , due to large claim events .
I would like to add that if you are retrieving information from the gutter press then I would give that information no credulance what so ever as the NHS generates huge emotions, and sells papers well especially when the headlines read scandal.
Even political papers can be very incorrect as they favor one specific political party and promises on the NHS get votes.
I suggest you find appropriate research articles and you may find some evidence of the truth.
Did you check the link ?( not meant to be argumentative , simply a question ), it was to a TIME magazine online article , TIME is not a gutter press publication , it appears to be a legitimate article aimed at both private and government run healthcare .
Did you check the link ?( not meant to be argumentative , simply a question ), it was to a TIME magazine online article , TIME is not a gutter press publication , it appears to be a legitimate article aimed at both private and government run healthcare .
I was actually asking where the information the poster was discussing about the United Kingdom was obtained from. The Time article doesnt seem to have information about the UK.:)
I was actually asking where the information the poster was discussing about the United Kingdom was obtained from. The Time article doesnt seem to have information about the UK.:)
I was actually commenting about the WAY gov't restricts health care with cost effectiveness analysis. The UK articles were just examples. If, however, you don't approve of my source, then how about the NY Times:
Feb 21, 2008 - Paying Patients Test British Health Care System
"Officials said that allowing Mrs. Hirst and others like her to pay for extra drugs to supplement government care would violate the philosophy of the health service by giving richer patients an unfair advantage over poorer ones.
Patients “cannot, in one episode of treatment, be treated on the N.H.S. and then allowed, as part of the same episode and the same treatment, to pay money for more drugs,” the health secretary, Alan Johnson, told Parliament."
I found a similar article in the BBC, and can link that, if you like. The NY Times article does say that there has been lots of winks and nods in the system. HOWEVER. The OFFICIAL NHS policy is that if you go private for part of your care, you go private for all of it.
It's not "fair" that you can afford what somebody else might not be able to afford. So, for the sake of equity, you should really just die. That's the kind of 'fairness' you get when some lobbyist helps the government look over actuarial tables to see who should live and who should die. More to the point, that those decisions are made without your input is what happens when you give your freedom to choose over to the government. I think it's chilling.
The NY Times article above IS telling. It supports your viewpoint that "topping up" to better care is all too routine. It also points out that the NHS officially does not allow mixing private and NHS care. And, it points to one of the two examples of women seeking Avastin and told by the NHS that if they bought it, they'd be dropped from NHS for all their breast cancer care. Colette Mills was the other woman.
But the wink and nod of private top up care does happen. It has to happen. The NHS cannot meet the needs of the citizens without some free market interplay. It's a pressure valve keeping the system from exploding. Just as American care provides a valve for Canada.
Central planning doesn't work. Thousands of transaction make up the free market. No set of geniuses with spreadsheets can effectively duplicate that. It's been tried. Time and time again. In the case of the NHS: 18 weeks is an acceptable wait time to accommodate the inefficiencies of central planning.
The last time I needed a specialist, a surgical consult, the wait for the consult was 2 days. I saw my GP on Wed, the surgeon on Fri and had surgery the next week. My out of pocket for the $20,000 treatment was less than $500. Because I needed a hernia repair that was going to keep me out of work until treated, that $500 was worth every penny. An 18 week wait would have kept me out of work for that long - plus the 6 week recovery. That's half a year out of work instead of the month and a half that I actually WAS out of work. Given a choice, I wouldn't choose to trade what I have. Which, of course, is why gov't wants to take that choice out of my hands.
If government restricted care is such a good deal, why not make it voluntary?
With each of these, there IS a profit model and/or a behavioral change that SHOULD be expected.
1. If you don't build in a floodplain, then you don't need flood insurance. All the gov't does by selling that insurance is encourage irresponsible behavior that must be bailed out by the general population. I WANT a beach house; you MUST insure it for me. No. If you WANT it that badly, assume the risk.
2. If you save 3-6 months of your salary for emergencies, expected and normal behavior traditionally, then you don't NEED unemployment insurance. Your lack of planning is NOT an emergency on my part.
3. With both disability and the aged, OF COURSE insurance companies want that business. They just don't want that business at the tail end of the risk. I have a life insurance policy that is fixed term with a draw out until I'm 93. So long as I keep paying those premiums NOW, when I'm young and healthy, I'm still entitled to the very SAME deal when I'm older. Same terms. They will take that risk knowing they will likely get 40 yrs of payments from me. They won't if I wait until 65 to ask for it.
4. I'm OK with the gov't subsidizing those that can't. I'm not OK with those that won't, or, don't plan well.
5. I'm all for regulation to prevent some of the abusive credit card manipulations that sell people into debt for a lifetime. I'm all for bankruptcy reform. I'm all for HELPING people become financially solvent.
I'm not for doing it for them. Your assumptions are wrong because you mistime the risk and misjudge the responsibility for said risk. OF COURSE it's not profitable to assume such risks at their tail end.
Now, transit to cash for routine care, catastrophic insurance only, and HSAs to save thousands and thousands of dollars for health care BEFORE you turn 65, and you have working model. THEN, the gov't can subsidize the 10-20% that would be outliers on the ability to manage their own care.
To do so NOW, after subsidizing the high price of care in the first place? It's simply unsustainable.
~faith,
Timothy
I want to make a key point. Part of this problem is behavioral. People used to live within their means and save for emergencies. PART of the reason why things have changed is because the government aims to bail out every poor decision. Why SHOULD I save 6 months salary, just in case? Uncle Daddy will give me unemployment in an emergency. Besides, the flat screen TV is so cool, I just HAVE to have it, today. Do you take Visa?
Look at the current housing mess. Lenders made bad loans and borrowers made bad purchasing decisions, both based on the idea that run away equity in fast rising home prices would cover any mistake. And now? Quick, how do we bail these people out?!? The government must be there, with a plan.
Except.
Why should I have to pay for these peoples mistakes? Do you know what you call a lender that lends foolishly? Well, if that lender is Bear Stearns, NOW you call them J.P. Morgan. Mostly though, you just call them bankrupt. Good. Do you know what you call a borrower in foreclosure that hocked his life to the hilt in an ARM mortgage he can't pay any longer? The same thing you called him BEFORE that stupid financial move: renter. If nobody ever pays any price to learn, we haven't done anybody a public service.
And THAT is why we live in a 'get it all now' culture built on a house of debt. So, let's spend trillions we don't have on another gov't scheme. What's the worst that can happen?
The Bible distinguishes between burden and load. A burden is something someone cannot carry themselves. Jesus lifted my burden of sin BECAUSE I could not. We have an obligation to do just that, to follow Jesus' example and help lift our fellow man's burdens. I do not believe that government is the best vehicle to do that work. I DO believe that we owe each other in society the moral and social obligation to carry each other's burdens.
A load, however, is the expected daily toil of a man. The Bible is clear on this: you don't work; you don't eat. There is NOTHING charitable about doing for somebody what he could - AND SHOULD - do for himself. It's a boundary violation that hinders good spiritual growth. This is the case whether you are religious or not.
The problem with gov't one-size-fits-all solutions is that they cannot distinguish between burdens and loads. In the meantime, those solutions never fail to distinguish, to the dollar, what it expects to tax from me.
Any moral good gained by using the gov't as a vehicle to carry our fellow man's burden is LOST by the moral crime of carrying another man's rightful load. The problem with government is that it cannot tell the difference. It cannot tell the difference because that difference is moral in nature and the gov't is specifically banned from exercising morality.
The last time I needed a specialist, a surgical consult, the wait for the consult was 2 days. I saw my GP on Wed, the surgeon on Fri and had surgery the next week. My out of pocket for the $20,000 treatment was less than $500. Because I needed a hernia repair that was going to keep me out of work until treated, that $500 was worth every penny. An 18 week wait would have kept me out of work for that long - plus the 6 week recovery. That's half a year out of work instead of the month and a half that I actually WAS out of work. Given a choice, I wouldn't choose to trade what I have. Which, of course, is why gov't wants to take that choice out of my hands.
If government restricted care is such a good deal, why not make it voluntary?
~faith,
Timothy.
A hernia repair is a routine procedure with accepted treatment and is accepted as a normal insurance claim so quick action from all involved ,but if you had an agressive cancer ,which you had , by doing a internet search , found a possible treatment ,you would have to argue with your insurance company , in all probability they would deny treatment d/t being experimental . So if privately restricted care is no better than government care ,Why would I want to pay for private insurance .
In all the meanderings of this thread ,the basic question as to why I should view private healthcare as being best has not been answered .
As I see it at present through my taxes , I pay for healthcare for the uninsured and would continue to do so , as earlier in the thread you said we would have to provide for the 10 - 20% ( which equates to 30 - 60 Million people ) who could not provide for themselves .
Then I have to pay for subsidized private healthcare ( it being subsidized because it does not cover the whole risk pool , and I through my taxes have to pay for those private insurance will not cover ), which I often have to fight with to get them to pay for physician ordered treatment .
The present employer provided healthcare model is simply a means to keep me an indentured servant to my corporate employers .
a)I don't qualified to be in the scheme till I have been employeed for a certain amount of time .
b) If I get sick and am off work too long I lose my insurance.
c) If I am unemployed I don't have insurance .
d) When I changed jobs in the UK , usually I took a couple of weeks off , but here if I did so , no insurance
I could go on :typing , but I'm not in a rant mood .
I want to make a key point. Part of this problem is behavioral. People used to live within their means and save for emergencies. PART of the reason why things have changed is because the government aims to bail out every poor decision. Why SHOULD I save 6 months salary, just in case? Uncle Daddy will give me unemployment in an emergency. Besides, the flat screen TV is so cool, I just HAVE to have it, today. Do you take Visa?
Look at the current housing mess. Lenders made bad loans and borrowers made bad purchasing decisions, both based on the idea that run away equity in fast rising home prices would cover any mistake. And now? Quick, how do we bail these people out?!? The government must be there, with a plan.
Except.
Why should I have to pay for these peoples mistakes? Do you know what you call a lender that lends foolishly? Well, if that lender is Bear Stearns, NOW you call them J.P. Morgan. Mostly though, you just call them bankrupt. Good. Do you know what you call a borrower in foreclosure that hocked his life to the hilt in an ARM mortgage he can't pay any longer? The same thing you called him BEFORE that stupid financial move: renter. If nobody ever pays any price to learn, we haven't done anybody a public service.
And THAT is why we live in a 'get it all now' culture built on a house of debt. So, let's spend trillions we don't have on another gov't scheme. What's the worst that can happen?
The Bible distinguishes between burden and load. A burden is something someone cannot carry themselves. Jesus lifted my burden of sin BECAUSE I could not. We have an obligation to do just that, to follow Jesus' example and help lift our fellow man's burdens. I do not believe that government is the best vehicle to do that work. I DO believe that we owe each other in society the moral and social obligation to carry each other's burdens.
A load, however, is the expected daily toil of a man. The Bible is clear on this: you don't work; you don't eat. There is NOTHING charitable about doing for somebody what he could - AND SHOULD - do for himself. It's a boundary violation that hinders good spiritual growth. This is the case whether you are religious or not.
The problem with gov't one-size-fits-all solutions is that they cannot distinguish between burdens and loads. In the meantime, those solutions never fail to distinguish, to the dollar, what it expects to tax from me.
Any moral good gained by using the gov't as a vehicle to carry our fellow man's burden is LOST by the moral crime of carrying another man's rightful load. The problem with government is that it cannot tell the difference. It cannot tell the difference because that difference is moral in nature and the gov't is specifically banned from exercising morality.
madwife2002, BSN, RN
26 Articles; 4,777 Posts
I would like to know where you obtain your information, as I worked in the UK for 17 years as an RN and nobody was refused health care. I think you might be confusing the situation where patients have not been compliant with their health and then expected special treatment time and time again. I believe there have been discussions regarding compliance especially where transplants are concerned and in some case heart surgery. I know a pt who was a huge drinker and great debate occured re this patient being put on the transpant list!!! He did eventually get a new liver but it was a waste of time he couldn't change his lifestyle.