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.
I am sorry if this takes us off topic , but I would be grateful if Zashagalka could clarify these two points
a )Quote from response #15 "Once we get prices controlled by returning to the only proven way to do so, market exchange of services, then, AND ONLY THEN, it makes sense to subsidize those that need help. "
What is meant by " market exchange of services market exchange of services ".Sorry for my ignorance , but I tried a google search and could find no clear definition of this term .
b)Quote from response #34 "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."
How is the gov't specifically banned from excercising morality ?
I am not trying to be argumentative here , I am simply trying to understand what you are saying . as at the moment I'm a little confused.
ok, hands up all the posters in this thread who have lived and worked and been ill in the uk and in the us.........you know those people who have been hospitalised and off work in the uk, with no worries about how to pay the medical bills,,,,or try being ill in the us, the health care system works for those like timothy who dont have much wrong with them and dont have to access the health care and work in an industry that pays well.
i have had surgery over here, with no wages when i was sick, a co-pay of a $1,000 the day of the surgery, and medical bills that seemed never-ending, and of course, a cobra bill of over $600 to pay each month because i wasnt employed any more. my dh has had major spine surgery and cardiac problems his pills cost over $250 a month, and even with good health insurance we still have never ending medical bills, something that we dont get in the uk. when timothy has the experience of socialised medicine and the health system in the uk, then he will be qualified to comment, but until then, lets just quote articles that you have read, that are not even research articles, as a nurse how can this be?
My point is that the whole argument that underpins government entitlement is tragically flawed. In terms of health care, it can be summed up as follows: Health care is a right.
No, it is not.
1. Nobody has the 'right' to expect somebody else to carry their rightful load. Taking care of YOUR basic life needs IS YOUR responsibility. It is not mine.
2. For those that are truly burdened by health care, we SHOULD help but, that is not a right. Charity is not charity if it is a demand. I used religion because it makes the point. Jesus didn't save me because I have a right to be saved. I demand to be saved; my need for salvation creates a right to it. No. He saved me as an act of compassionate love. We should help lift the true burdens of others. But that becomes a much different directive when it is turned into a demand.
There is no right to the rewards of the labor of another. To expect that, as a right, has a name. It's called slavery.
ok, hands up all the posters in this thread who have lived and worked and been ill in the uk and in the us.........you know those people who have been hospitalised and off work in the uk, with no worries about how to pay the medical bills,,,,or try being ill in the us, the health care system works for those like timothy who dont have much wrong with them and dont have to access the health care and work in an industry that pays well.
i have had surgery over here, with no wages when i was sick, a co-pay of a $1,000 the day of the surgery, and medical bills that seemed never-ending, and of course, a cobra bill of over $600 to pay each month because i wasnt employed any more. my dh has had major spine surgery and cardiac problems his pills cost over $250 a month, and even with good health insurance we still have never ending medical bills, something that we dont get in the uk. when timothy has the experience of socialised medicine and the health system in the uk, then he will be qualified to comment, but until then, lets just quote articles that you have read, that are not even research articles, as a nurse how can this be?
your argument has a flaw. i have not argued in favor of the current system instead of gov't restricted care. because the gov't created the current system with employer subsidies that put real choice in the hands of third parties, the current system is little more than the flip side of the same coin as gov't restricted care.
i have advocated a completely different way to manage care. i have advocated free markets for health care. the free market works and works well. there is no better way to get the best mix of quality and pricing. the government and its army of actuarial geeks cannot centrally plan the millions of variables necessary to provide quality, economical care. the best way for that to happen is for you to negotiate your own care at a price the market - you - are willing to bear.
as such, you have no more experience with what i propose than i do. at least not in health care. that makes you no more qualified to comment than me. or, vice versa. now, you do have lots of experience with the free market. every luxury you can name in your life was brought to you at a profit. the food in your refrigerator, that refrigerator itself, everything from the pencil in your desk to your home was provided by some working of the free market. it works, and your life is a testament to that fact.
there is nothing inherently different about health care that makes it exempt from the economical laws of the universe.
I am sorry if this takes us off topic , but I would be grateful if Zashagalka could clarify these two points
a )Quote from response #15 "Once we get prices controlled by returning to the only proven way to do so, market exchange of services, then, AND ONLY THEN, it makes sense to subsidize those that need help. "
What is meant by " market exchange of services market exchange of services ".Sorry for my ignorance , but I tried a google search and could find no clear definition of this term .
b)Quote from response #34 "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."
How is the gov't specifically banned from excercising morality ?
I am not trying to be argumentative here , I am simply trying to understand what you are saying . as at the moment I'm a little confused.
1. market exchange: somebody has a product. So do you. You exchange by mutual agreement. You provide YOUR service in exchange for theirs. You both need with the other has and both have an excess of what YOU have. Everybody wins. No trade is made unless both parties consent. Now, add a slight buffer - money - to the equation and what you have is a market exchange of services. It works because each party has the right to say, no deal. It doesn't work when that right is removed from the equation. Gov't restricted health care takes away your right to negotiate and places that right in the hands of government agents that may - or may not - have your best interests at heart. It's just as likely they have at heart the best interest of the lobbyist that just donated $2,300 to their campaign and $20,000 to their political party to dole back out to their campaign. . .
2. The so-called separation of Church and State. Do you really want the gov't to dictate to you what is moral? Do you want an army of government ministers creating Universal Religion? No. I doubt it. It would remove choice from you. The government thusly disempowered because you retain those freedoms has had choice in terms of morality also denied to it. That's a good thing. Either YOU have the freedom to choose as an individual, or the gov't has the freedom to collective choose by proxy. It's a good thing you retain your freedom of moral choice, UNLESS, you wish to employ the gov't as a moral arbitrator. A gov't barred from moral expression cannot act as a moral agent. The result: the gov't simply cannot distinguish between those that need and those that qualify.
Timothy you wear me out. I commend your passion but I dislike your politics I feel you can argue a case effectively but your point of view is flawed, you can only see one side of an arguement so that limits your effectiveness plus I find you not persuasive in your arguements I find you aggressive.
I would welcome reading an article from you which addresses both sides of the arguement with an unbiased opinion and then it would be easier for a reader to make an informed decision of whether they agreed with you or not.
this thread is supposed to be about governement restricted health care, it seems to have moved onto religious views, what that has to do with health care i dont know, this country and every other country in the world had free market health care systems in place,,,,,how do you think people accessed health care before there were health care systems in place, they either paid for a doctor if they had the money and the medicine that went with it or they didnt. it was the same in the uk, and civilised thinking was that it wasnt fair for the rich to be able to afford health care and the poor to die from the lck of it. so they introduced the national health system, where everybody pays into it and everybody has access to it regardless of money.
so you want to go back to a free market...........like i said in my previous thread thats ok for people who are healthy and have well paid jobs, timothy if you ever have to have astronomical health care bills , for cancer or maybe after an mva then dont choose to have it here, if the illness doesnt kill you the stress of being unable to work, pay your health insurance and the medical bils will. oh and if we have a free market by then, i am sure your savings will be able to afford all the care that you will need.
this thread is supposed to be about governement restricted health care, it seems to have moved onto religious views, what that has to do with health care i dont know, this country and every other country in the world had free market health care systems in place,,,,,how do you think people accessed health care before there were health care systems in place, they either paid for a doctor if they had the money and the medicine that went with it or they didnt. it was the same in the uk, and civilised thinking was that it wasnt fair for the rich to be able to afford health care and the poor to die from the lck of it. so they introduced the national health system, where everybody pays into it and everybody has access to it regardless of money.
so you want to go back to a free market...........like i said in my previous thread thats ok for people who are healthy and have well paid jobs, timothy if you ever have to have astronomical health care bills , for cancer or maybe after an mva then dont choose to have it here, if the illness doesnt kill you the stress of being unable to work, pay your health insurance and the medical bils will. oh and if we have a free market by then, i am sure your savings will be able to afford all the care that you will need.
what religious view have to do with gov't health care is that many people believe that, to give away your freedom to the gov't is a form of charity. it is not. you say so yourself, it's not fair. that's a moral statement.
my argument is: what is more fair - you being able to make choices about your care, or, some gov't geek looking at actuarial tables and deciding life and death issues about you, for you. you say it's not fair that some cannot afford health care without the gov't. the irony is that the gov'ts that have implemented national care routinely deny and forestall care because they cannot afford it. you have not changed the dynamic that people are being priced out of care. the law of supply and demand will not allow you to give away unlimited care without rationing. it's still being rationed. only now, you have no say in the matter. it's being rationed for you by somebody else. i only hope, for your sake, that they have your best interest at heart over and above the interests of the lobbyist that just ensured $25,000 for their re-election.
the point is that national systems universally use cost effective analysis to determine and/or deny care. that is looking at the cost and placing a value on your health. your health is not priceless; it has a definitive price tag: $50,000 per quality year. i disagree.
the free market is not just for the the healthy. the biggest benefit of the free market is a return to price sanity. that will help the chronically ill even more. a free market shift would be easy:
1. transfer the tax break given to employers now to individuals to establish a hsa. fund those accounts below a certain income level with tax credits ala eitc but, for hsas. now, you have a 'slush' fund specifically dedicated to health bills and you are the cost controller on that fund.
2. catastrophic insurance for hospitalizations. this is what insurance should be, not the pre-paid care it is now. your car insurance covers major claims, not oil changes. that would make the policies cheap. detaching them from employers would remove gov't mandates. i should be forced to pay for ob care if i'm a single male. the gov't uses employer subsidies to cater to every kind of lobbyist insertion of required coverage. that is why you cannot afford a policy without getting it through work.
you are right in that the chronically ill cannot afford the current situation without help. but. that help created the current situation. it's a catch-22. i don't suggest that we change the way the gov't interferes and force people to strike out on their own under current conditions. removing gov't interference in care will make things better - much better if you need to use such a system more.
if gas is 4 dollar a gallon, who pays more - somebody that never needs to use gas, or somebody that heavily depends on gas? health care is no different. the chief benefit of market conditions is price sanity. i submit that if you are chronically ill, nothing will help your health care situation more than adding some fiscal sanity to its cost.
nicurn001
805 Posts
I am sorry if this takes us off topic , but I would be grateful if Zashagalka could clarify these two points
a )Quote from response #15 "Once we get prices controlled by returning to the only proven way to do so, market exchange of services, then, AND ONLY THEN, it makes sense to subsidize those that need help. "
What is meant by " market exchange of services market exchange of services ".Sorry for my ignorance , but I tried a google search and could find no clear definition of this term .
b)Quote from response #34 "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."
How is the gov't specifically banned from excercising morality ?
I am not trying to be argumentative here , I am simply trying to understand what you are saying . as at the moment I'm a little confused.