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.
messrs sunstein and thayer did not argue for a government program for retirement savings or health care participation. they simply argue that people must opt out of participation rather than opt in. it is a simple way to help people be responsible for meeting their own needs.
the end result is the establishment of yet another government program. we have enough of those. we don't need more. what we need is education. i received that growing up in a household where my parents lived frugally, saved and planned (without health insurance, i might add) and we did just fine. 4 children put thru college without a penny of loans to pay back. i certainly learned none of this in the public schools i attended, or in general education classes at the university. let's quit inventing new programs that seek to coddle those who don't know how or don't wish to plan and be responsible for their own finances. let's instead introduce real-life education about how to plan and take care of oneself, beginning with piggybanks in kindergarten. that's a plan i would support, but doubt will ever come to fruition. what benefit is there for politicians to support individual responsibility when they can trade hand-outs for votes instead, all the while paying for it with my hard-earned money?
the 401 k system is really a failure as a pension plan vehicle. only about 50% of employers offer these plans to employees and far too few eligible employees participate to the degree necessary to assure adequate retirement savings. if you have to fund your own retirement it is far easier to fund it with payroll deduction rather than write the check every month.
the lack of a 401 k plan is no excuse to fail to save and plan for retirement. there are plenty of other options including standard and roth iras that are open to any tax-payer, employed or not. i find it curious that you mention having to write a check to one's retirement fund at the end of the month, and agree that it takes discipline to be able to do that. discipline is sadly lacking in our have-it-now, pay-for-it-later society. that needs to change. just as you believe that savings should be automatically deducted from one's check to ensure that ithappens, i believe that taxes should not be deducted, but rather paid by check at the end of the month. what a revolt we would have if and when taxpayers realized the amount of money taken from them on a weekly basis, and the savings they could establish but for their tax burden!
one of the complaints about health care is young people playing the uninsured health lottery rather than signing up for health care. i don't believe that the hsa system saves a nickel on health care. the default participation choice for individuals should be an 80/20 plan with the opt out option being an hsa insurance program.
have you ever participated in a health plan with a hsa? i have, currently do, and can assure you that it makes a huge difference in costs, if for no other reason than it encourages me to negotiate expenses upfront to save costs because it is my money that i am spending. i realize that my ability to do so is limited. certainly, i can't be wheeled into an er unconscious and say, "hold it, i'm looking to compare prices." but it makes a difference on a daily basis with routine stuff, which is an important beginning. a few posters have asked timothy to explain how one would begin to implement a free-market system. the high-deductible plan with the hsa (or msa) is a perfect example. it is a start into making the consumer the actual customer, negotiating costs for non-emergency services, and it works. furthermore, i have been successful in negotiating after the fact for er services. i dislocated my knee a few years ago, was taken to the er by ambulance (not the hospital of my choice, but the closest source of morphine, which was a priority at the time :) the bill was astronomical, but i contacted the billing department as soon as i received it, and negotiated a substantial discount based, in part, on the promise that i would pay it promptly without the hospital having to wait for insurance to be processed. it was a win-win. they got less money promptly rather than wait for payment, and i got a bill that was more affordable.
If it is so simple, cost effective and would work as well as your describing. Why are governments or officials not implementing it?
Could the simple answer be that the poorer, less informed individual who does work and pay health insurance now may well have a problem negotiating all the financial aspects of the care described in various posts. So a middle man comes in to play for them causing the costs to rise yet again and the 'normal' man on the the street ends up loosing out again. I am sure many of us on this web site could negotiate a lower payment, because we are informed when it comes to health care but not everybody is as informed nor do they have the ability to be informed-who helps these people?
Can you imagine the insurance giants allowing a complete turn over to socialised medicine anyhow. How much money would they lose and where would they get their money back from. how many people would lose jobs. How high would our other insurances go to?
Perhaps the most important nudge available to policy-makers is to pay attention to what happens when people do nothing, which in many situations is by far the most popular option. Our driver's license renewal forms invite us to do nothing when they ask (I am paraphrasing): "Do you want to be an organ donor if you die in a car accident? If so, check the box and sign below." The forms employees fill out when they start new jobs similarly invite them to do nothing by asking whether they want money taken out of their paychecks and put into 401(k) accounts. Is a failure to check off the box approving positive action in each case a reflection of people's true preferences?
...
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.
The authors are not specifying which choice to make rather it is that people make a choice to participate in a retirement plan and a health plan. Elsewhere in the article the author discusses the risk aversion of humans which inhibits choice. (I like to think of it as paralysis by analysis.) Another way of looking at choice architecture is lets make it simple for people to make responsible choices.
The very sad reality of our economy is that fully 1/3 of workers have incomes at or below 200% of poverty. They don't have the resources on average to be able to pay cash up front for medical care or negotiate discounts for their care.
This simple nudge triples the rate of organ donation and dramatically increases employee saving for retirement.
The reality is that well designed choice architecture systems actually enhances personal responsibility which benefits us as a society overall. This system doesn't call for anything in the way of handouts.
if it is so simple, cost effective and would work as well as your describing. why are governments or officials not implementing it?
could the simple answer be that the poorer, less informed individual who does work and pay health insurance now may well have a problem negotiating all the financial aspects of the care described in various posts. so a middle man comes in to play for them causing the costs to rise yet again and the 'normal' man on the the street ends up loosing out again. i am sure many of us on this web site could negotiate a lower payment, because we are informed when it comes to health care but not everybody is as informed nor do they have the ability to be informed-who helps these people?
the answer is to educate people, teaching them how to do for themselves, not to continue doing for them indefinitely. if we have americans who are incapable of negotiating a new system of healthcare, we can fix that. if that situation exists now, it is because our politicians and educators have created it. no one expects a middle-man to buy their groceries for them, or assist them in purchasing their auto insurance. it is a societal expectation that capable, independent adults do these things for themselves. poor and/or disabled does not equal stupid. low income americans are perfectly capable of learning to manage their own healthcare and financesm just as they currently manage their own food and automobile needs. i have great faith in my fellow citizens' abilities to learn, do well for themselves, and be proud of the independence they achieve by doing so.
The very sad reality of our economy is that fully 1/3 of workers have incomes at or below 200% of poverty. They don't have the resources on average to be able to pay cash up front for medical care or negotiate discounts for their care.
I understand that some workers lack sufficient financial resources to immediately participate in such a plan. But by providing them with high-deductible plans, coupled with funding for HSAs (or MSAs) and education, (teaching how to plan and save for predictible healthcare expenses, negotiate lower costs, utilize resources properly, etc.) we give them the tools to work towards independence in funding their healthcare, and planning and budgeting for other expenses, including retirement.
Much better than the status quo of paying unlimited dollars for (often) poorly utilized healthcare (read unnecessary ER visits) with no accountability on the part of provider or recipient.
in the uk everybody pays for their healthcare whether they want to or not, the same as taxes and medicare payments are taken out of my wages over here, bu i dont get healthcare for what i pay the us government, i pay extra for that. no-one is denied healthcare in the uk, but doctors who are treating a patient may tell them, that if the patient continues to take other medications that they are buying themselves then it may interfere with the treatment, they may be refused because of weight or smoking issues, once again, the doctor may advise the patient that the risks outweigh the benefits of treatment, so the choice is with the patient, but no emergency surgery or treatment is ever denied. doctors give any treatment that the patient wants over here, because they get paid for each procedure and the insurance is paying for the patient, so who cares if the risks to the patient are greater than the treatment,,,,,,not the insurance companies or the doctors.
once again i state, those of you who have experienced healthcare in the uk, know what they are talking about, the rest of the posters who keep throwing in a little snippet of information that has been read somewhere dont have a clue how it works.
oh and by the way, i read that there really is a loch ness monster,,,,dont forget to go and see him when you are all over there....
the answer is to educate people, teaching them how to do for themselves, not to continue doing for them indefinitely. if we have americans who are incapable of negotiating a new system of healthcare, we can fix that. if that situation exists now, it is because our politicians and educators have created it. no one expects a middle-man to buy their groceries for them, or assist them in purchasing their auto insurance. it is a societal expectation that capable, independent adults do these things for themselves. poor and/or disabled does not equal stupid. low income americans are perfectly capable of learning to manage their own healthcare and financesm just as they currently manage their own food and automobile needs. i have great faith in my fellow citizens' abilities to learn, do well for themselves, and be proud of the independence they achieve by doing so.
i admire your confidence that we can educate the nation regarding purchasing/negotiating health care costs, i have no doubt we can educate but i feel buying groceries and car insuarance is a lot less complex that negatiating health care.
if we were so brilliant at educating our nations then we wouldn't be seeing an increase in smoking related illness's. obesity, sexual related diseases, i am sure you dont need me to go on and on. nobody is going to prosecute us if we fail to meet our health requirements, but we may get prosecuted if we dont have car insurance. if we dont go out and buy groceries then we starve.
why are you writing in red? do you feel your point is not valid unless it is writing in a color? have faith in your convictions write in black which doesnt cause the reading to feel threatened.
Why are you writing in red? Do you feel your point is not valid unless it is writing in a color? Have faith in your convictions write in black which doesnt cause the reading to feel threatened.
I'm not sure what you mean by "write in black which doesnt cause the reading to feel threatened."
I posted in red on the previous posts because I am not savvy at quoting multiple sections of a post in one response, and I simply wanted to distinguish your and Viking's statements from my responses. I am certainly not trying to threaten anyone.
i'm not sure what you mean by "write in black which doesnt cause the reading to feel threatened."
i posted in red on the previous posts because i am not savvy at quoting multiple sections of a post in one response, and i simply wanted to distinguish your and viking's statements from my responses. i am certainly not trying to threaten anyone.
i can't multi quote either . . . :imbar
so i choose another color to differentiate my writing. i usually use blue since that is my favorite color.
despite assertions by some that universal insurance systems result in long waits for care or "rationing," only canada (22%) ranked behind the u.s. (30%) in the low percentage of patients saying they could get same-day appointments with their doctor when they are sick.in contrast, half or more of patients in germany, the netherlands, and new zealand report rapid access to physicians. notably, in the u.s and canada, along with australia, two-thirds or more reported difficulty getting care on nights, weekends, or holidays—the highest rates in the survey.
easy access to elective surgery has also been cited as a benefit of the u.s. health care system. yet, similar to the u.s., the majority of patients in germany, new zealand, and australia waited less than a month for elective or non-emergency surgery and waits of 6 months or more were rare in these countries and the netherlands. in canada and the u.k., about 15 percent of patients reported waits of more than six months for elective or non-emergency surgery. in the u.k., waits dropped dramatically compared with the 2001 commonwealth fund international health policy survey, when 28 percent reported waiting more than six months for elective surgery.
the point is that improvements on elective surgery wait times have been reported in the uhc countries. arguably the uhc countries actually have better overall access to care.
I'm not sure what you mean by "write in black which doesnt cause the reading to feel threatened."
I posted in red on the previous posts because I am not savvy at quoting multiple sections of a post in one response, and I simply wanted to distinguish your and Viking's statements from my responses. I am certainly not trying to threaten anyone.
Sorry I just thought you were so annoyed with me you were writing in red to make your point 'valid' my mistake
Jolie, BSN
6,375 Posts
have you ever participated in a health plan with a hsa? i have, currently do, and can assure you that it makes a huge difference in costs, if for no other reason than it encourages me to negotiate expenses upfront to save costs because it is my money that i am spending. i realize that my ability to do so is limited. certainly, i can't be wheeled into an er unconscious and say, "hold it, i'm looking to compare prices." but it makes a difference on a daily basis with routine stuff, which is an important beginning. a few posters have asked timothy to explain how one would begin to implement a free-market system. the high-deductible plan with the hsa (or msa) is a perfect example. it is a start into making the consumer the actual customer, negotiating costs for non-emergency services, and it works. furthermore, i have been successful in negotiating after the fact for er services. i dislocated my knee a few years ago, was taken to the er by ambulance (not the hospital of my choice, but the closest source of morphine, which was a priority at the time :) the bill was astronomical, but i contacted the billing department as soon as i received it, and negotiated a substantial discount based, in part, on the promise that i would pay it promptly without the hospital having to wait for insurance to be processed. it was a win-win. they got less money promptly rather than wait for payment, and i got a bill that was more affordable.