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.
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.
I, for one, have enjoyed reading his posts in this thread. He very clearly makes his points without resorting to incivility. I think that's one of the reasons this thread has not deteriorated in the way some political threads do. To be fair to him, I also don't think it's really necessary for him to present both sides of the argument since there are already plenty of posters doing a great job arguing the other side. That's the beauty of discussion boards. Everyone is free to present their own point of view. :)
I, for one, have enjoyed reading his posts in this thread. He very clearly makes his points without resorting to incivility. I think that's one of the reasons this thread has not deteriorated in the way some political threads do. To be fair to him, I also don't think it's really necessary for him to present both sides of the argument since there are already plenty of posters doing a great job arguing the other side. That's the beauty of discussion boards. Everyone is free to present their own point of view. :)
As you say we all have opinions, and that one is mine
The policy of denying NHS services to patients who top up their care with private treatment is to be reviewed in England, the government says.
Health Secretary Alan Johnson has asked cancer tsar Professor Mike Richards to look at the issue.
Some patients have found themselves banned from NHS care after paying for cancer drugs not available on the NHS. The government had argued that such a system of co-payments would create a two-tier service.
It's good to know that this even though a rare occurance is under review and is likely to be changed to allow top up treatment hand in hand with NHS care
Jolie, BSN
6,375 Posts
Nope, not annoyed. Just technology-impaired :)