Healthcare and economics

[manifold]

1. Is it worth it to spend $1mllion to extend the life of a 90 year old person for 2 days?

2. Is it worth it to spend $200 to extend the life of a 90 year old person for 6 months?

Is there anyone here that would answer anything other than no to question 1 and yes to question 2? If so, please explain.

But for now I'm going to assume every rational person would say no to 1 and yes to 2.

So what does this prove?

It proves that economics matters when it comes to healthcare decisions. And until people accept this, I don't see how there can be any meaningful discussion on the issue.

 

[auditor0007]

1. Is it worth it to spend $1mllion to extend the life of a 90 year old person for 2 days?

2. Is it worth it to spend $200 to extend the life of a 90 year old person for 6 months?

Is there anyone here that would answer anything other than no to question 1 and yes to question 2? If so, please explain.

But for now I'm going to assume every rational person would say no to 1 and yes to 2.

So what does this prove?

It proves that economics matters when it comes to healthcare decisions. And until people accept this, I don't see how there can be any meaningful discussion on the issue.

There is no doubt that economics play a huge role in healthcare decisions. Your example is not one that will make people think very hard however. Let's try this one though; you have a patient of any age who is terminal. $500,000 will keep them alive another month, but they will still remain in the hospital the entire time, and they will be on pain killers that only dull the pain but do not take it away completely. What if it's two extra weeks for $150,000?

Personally, I say let them die then, but I can understand the argument to give them the extra time also. It's not black and white, and who makes the decision? Now, if there is any chance that the patient may survive, then I believe we do everything we can to save that person, regardless of the cost.

 

[Ravi]

Sadly, the Dems tried to address this in the first health care bill and it was shot down as being some kind of death panel making the decision.

 

[manifold]

Now, if there is any chance that the patient may survive, then I believe we do everything we can to save that person, regardless of the cost.

What if the cost is $2billion and the odds of survival are less than 1%?

 

[auditor0007]

Now, if there is any chance that the patient may survive, then I believe we do everything we can to save that person, regardless of the cost.

What if the cost is $2billion and the odds of survival are less than 1%?

A bit of a leap there?

 

[manifold]

Sadly, the Dems tried to address this in the first health care bill and it was shot down as being some kind of death panel making the decision.

Yep. And it worked too. Did you see all those blue hairs raising steam at the town hall meetings? The best soundbite ever, and pretty much sums up the level of discourse, was the guy who screamed "keep the government out of my medicare payments!"

 

[manifold]

Now, if there is any chance that the patient may survive, then I believe we do everything we can to save that person, regardless of the cost.

What if the cost is $2billion and the odds of survival are less than 1%?

A bit of a leap there?

Obviously.


But it still proves that there has to be a limit somewhere right?

 

[Oddball]

1. Is it worth it to spend $1mllion to extend the life of a 90 year old person for 2 days?

2. Is it worth it to spend $200 to extend the life of a 90 year old person for 6 months?

Is there anyone here that would answer anything other than no to question 1 and yes to question 2? If so, please explain.

But for now I'm going to assume every rational person would say no to 1 and yes to 2.

So what does this prove?

It proves that economics matters when it comes to healthcare decisions. And until people accept this, I don't see how there can be any meaningful discussion on the issue.

Let's talk about the economics of monopolies.

What happens to the prices and quality of services, respectively?

Do those dynamics change just because the monopolist is called "District of Columbia"?