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.
The "free market" and "government" are creations of civilization. Both require keeping records, usually in writing.
Neither is a "law" of physics, chemistry, or other proven scientific "law".
Either can be part of man made laws of civilization.
Yes, but Congress can degree that the law of gravity is repealed until they are blue in the face and they aren't going to be floating anytime soon. Same is true with the law of supply and demand. It is a law for a reason.
BEFORE I trusted Congress in repealing the Law of Supply/Demand on the grounds that all science is subject to superior proof, I'd like to actually see that proof. National health care violates supply/demand.
You cannot have unlimited supply without unlimited demand (impossible) or restriction on demand - and that is rationed care. Specifically, it is cost effectiveness analysis rationing, and that was the subject of this thread: how much is your life worth? The answer: almost certainly more to you than it is to some faceless gov't geek.
You'd rather a for-profit insurance company make the same decision? That's already a reality for many people.
The 'for-profit' isn't the problem. The problem is that gov't has conspired to remove its competition. How did they do that? YOU aren't the customer any longer; your employer and Uncle Sam's lobbyists are. THAT's the reality.
But the answer to your question is no. I'd rather have the purchasing power and right to make those decisions for myself. I'd rather have those subsidies - tax breaks - directly INSTEAD of through my employer.
A potent side effect: portability. My car insurance doesn't depend upon my continued employment with any specific employer; neither should my health care. Under both Obama's and Clinton's plans btw, this doesn't change.
I think what health care needs is change. Specifically, change we can believe in instead of more of the same.
It's certainly part of it. Their stockholders make more money for every claim they deny.
The problem is that gov't has conspired to remove its competition. How did they do that? YOU aren't the customer any longer; your employer and Uncle Sam's lobbyists are. THAT's the reality.
Private healthcare still exists. It just isn't affordable for normal people. I agree regarding the lobbyists.
But the answer to your question is no. I'd rather have the purchasing power and right to make those decisions for myself. I'd rather have those subsidies - tax breaks - directly INSTEAD of through my employer.
The side effect: portability. My car insurance doesn't depend upon my continued employment with any specific employer; neither should me health care.
~faith,
Timothy.
Flexible health spending accounts are perfect for you, then. Quite frankly I think a significant chunk of costs is paid to this middleman (insurance) that could be directly spent on care.
I'd gladly invest the $500/mo ($6000/year) I spend on health insurance pre-tax in a tax-sheltered account-with-interest set aside for health expenses IF out of pocket costs weren't so ridiculous to begin with.
my life is worth more than some geek in a nice office working for the american health insurance company who says to life threatening conditions and the cost of giving treatment,,,,,claim denied.
your government gave the go ahead for these companies to make astronomical profits from you and every other paying customer,,,,,and the article that says the uk cuts you off after $50,000 or pounds worth of care each year does not come from any mandated government document. the person that decides on any further treatment and care in the uk is the doctor that is treating you, who earns a wage regardless of what treatment he gives. regardless of all your words you have not convinced me for one minute that what you propose would work any better than what goes on in other countries. in fact look at where america comes in the list of who provides better and safer care in the who list which is an official document.
Social contract theory is not an unreasonable expectation, either.
1.
Floods are not exclusive to floodplains.
More importantly, underwriting requirements of the National Flood Insurance Program helps steer away from those areas & requires avoiding obstructions to existing floodwater pathways. Regulation & management are integral to PREVENT sales in fragile coast areas.
Private property owners can't be prohibited from building in those areas nor from obtaining private financing for that development.
2. Even if the mean length of unemployment is 4 months, realize that many exceed the maximum 6 months needed for emergencies you suggest.
The 55 year old systems analyst who is now looking for work will take a longer time than in the 1990's.
More to the point, many, especially as they grow older, take jobs with lesser pay or benefits: The risk is the benefit they lose out on is health insurance. Then the question is were they able to afford to continue their health insurance during unemployment & can they outlast pre-existing conditions under a new employer?
Private insurers are even more restrictive regarding pre-existing conditions. You may be able to be reconsidered after 5 years or never.
3. Your analogy is, again, flawed through ignorance.
ONLY WHOLE life insurance can GUARANTEE a rate that will never increase, not term.
Sounds like you bought into a variable &/or universal life policy which does NOT have the same guarantees.
People who buy it often confuse rate of return with interest rates, which are very different.
More importantly, health insurance does NOT entitle a person to the same deal as they get older. You have the the right to pay higher premiums every year as long as you are willing to pay them & cannot be cancelled as long as you keep paying.
Even Adam Smith recognized the risks of unfettered profit motives resulting in monopolies & cautioned against this.
Actually there is a book by Thayer and Sunstein called Nudge. Basically the argument is that humans have a very difficult time with evaluating choice and making good choices. One of the solutions proposed for retirement, health care, etc is instead of requiring someone to opt in that instead they need to opt out or better yet be given a limited selection of well designed good choices to work from. The market system does not always work well or efficiently.
I have the book on order from interlibrary loan just for the purpose of studying psychological processes surrounding choices.
One of the solutions proposed for retirement, health care, etc is instead of requiring someone to opt in that instead they need to opt out or better yet be given a limited selection of well designed good choices to work from.
If only we could opt out of Social Security!
I have my doubts that "a limited selection of well-designed good choices" would include anything that the government would offer.
It is a book that people interested in politics should read. It is a book that people interested in ideas about human freedom should read. It is a book that people interested in promoting human welfare should read. If you're not interested in any of these topics, you can read something else.
Nudge is the fleshing out of a few simple but very important facts. First, every choice situation has a structure--or as Thaler and Sunstein call it, a "choice architecture." Second, that structure matters; it influences the choices people make. Third, there is no neutral way to structure choices; any architecture will nudge choosers in one direction or another. Finally, people are usually unaware that the structure of the choices they face influences what they choose.
...
Thaler and Sunstein convincingly show that by switching defaults from "opt-in" (nothing happens unless you sign) to "opt-out" (something happens unless you sign), thousands of lives can be saved with harvested organs, and millions more people can have the financial resources to live decent lives in retirement. This simple and cost-free act of mindful choice architecture can improve our collective well-being--without compelling anyone to do anything. And in chapters on savings, credit, investing, organ donation, and energy conservation, Thaler and Sunstein show how other small, usually inexpensive changes in choice architecture can have very large effects.
...
Thaler and Sunstein respond to such criticisms, though not as carefully as I would have liked. They're enthusiasts of the magic of the market--as long as market choices are structured for use by Humans, not Econs. My own view is that this market enthusiasm makes sense in some domains but not in others. In health care, for example, the "market" is worse than imperfect.
...
Their advice is to leave your ideology (left or right) at the door and figure out what works best in each situation. The standard for "working best" will sometimes be clear: Organ donation saves thousands of lives, and when asked, the vast majority of Americans approve of it. When the results are not clear, however, freedom should probably dominate welfare as a standard for "working best," unless there are major externalities.
ZASHAGALKA, RN
3,322 Posts
I said nothing about completely unregulated care. Gov't has its place. That place is just not being the bagman for Big Lobby and Big Insurance.
~faith,
Timothy.