Fractelle,

Did you actually read my last post?

The passage you quoted embodies the type of thinking I said we should AVOID!

We should NOT think purely in economic terms.

Repeat NOT.

As in economics is NOT the only factor we should take into account.

Get it?

Not ONLY economics.

Understand?

At the same time I said we cannot IGNORE economics.

The whole thrust of my last post was that we need to do a BALANCING ACT between purely economic thinking and ignoring economics entirely.

Further Fractelle, everything has a point of DIMINISHING RETURNS. There is a strong case to be made that we are not spending enough on health care, that there are actual economic gains to be made on more health care spending. That does not mean we can go on increasing health care spending indefinitely.

However, I repeat, my view is:

--Economics should NOT be the only criterion

AND

--Economics CANNOT be ignore

Steven, you state: "On the one hand we have those like TRTL who seem to be saying that when humans have reached the end of their "economic lives" they should be denied all but the most rudimentary health care."

FTR, that's not what I said at all, hence the comment that I wouldn't advocate such courses of action and I think it's "dangerous" to think in these terms.

Essentially I was responding to Steel Mann's noble, albeit hyperbole-laden comments about the sanctity of human lives. Whilst I concur about stressing the importance of human life over dollars, I was making the point that people do have to draw lines in the sand because our resources are finite. We have to help as many people as we can with what we have - essentially the points you made at the end of the last post.

I'm basically saying these are questions without answers, but one very clear cut answer to me, is legalising voluntary euthanasia for the terminally ill.

Steven

Ooops I did misread trap 1. Guess you could say I fell into it.

I apologise for my mistake.

However, I do think we are arguing at cross purposes here. I never said that economics should not be a part of the equation, in fact I eloquently expressed just where the economy does fall into the big picture. Nor have I stated that we should spend indefinitely on health care. Perhaps you could read MY posts with a little more thought as well and we would both save some time ;-

So...

What I, Foxy and others have been saying is that we need to get our priorities in balance. That health is an essential part of a successful society, hence it contributes to a strong economy.

All of which leads me back to my previous question, just what is the point you are trying to make here?

Apart from Col Rouge, most posters here see a lack of support for the health sector whereas, other less critical sectors receive too much support.

If there was a new drug giving 6 months of pain free independent existence, this would have a flow on effect in that people who would be previously hospitalised (with all of those costs) be free to stay at home - in my mother's case she could continue caring for her grandchildren as she had been until recently. Also, most drugs do eventually come down in price - would your 'magic' drug not become more readily available?

Now, I have apologised and clarified my POV:

QUID PRO QUO.

The problem here, stevenlmeyer, is that your example is not based in reality.

Hypothetical questions will only attract hypothetical answers, so there is no point in getting cross with those who are trying hard to grapple with it.

And unfortunately the target appears to move, as well.

We began with:

>>So what's a shot at another 6 months of life worth?<<

...and you rub it in with:

>>Choose from the following ranges: (a) More than $1,000 but not exceeding $10,000...e) More than $10,000,000<<

...but now you tell us:

>>We should NOT think purely in economic terms. Repeat NOT...<<

There is, in fact, no wholly defensible answer to your question, either in economic or emotional terms.

One of the "problems" we face is that new drugs and treatments are being discovered every day. I call them "problems", because they cause precisely the quandary that you outline here.

Should such treatments be available only to those who can afford them, or should the government automatically make each and every one available, as soon as it is able, to the entire population, for free?

If you want to pitch the discussion somewhere between these two end points, "someone" has to make the choice between literally hundreds of potential candidates for taxpayer support. And once you understand the implications of that, you will also be forced to the conclusion that, as with every other destination of taxpayer funds, it automatically becomes a matter of economics.

And it goes like this.

Given the amount of money available in the budget, how can it be spent to provide the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people.

Unfortunately, you can only make those decisions with real data, not hypothetical situations.

Pericles has a good point. Depends entirely on the other numbers and benefits in the entire system. However, assuming that I've been through and made decisions on all the other medical treatments already, my answer would be thus:

Up to $5,000 per person initially. Those that do not respond within the guideline time (maybe a month?? this is not given in the proposal), dont get any more funding. If they want to continue with what ia a higher gamble, then they need to fund it themselves. For those responding, they can continue with funded treatment for the average 6 months success time. Beyond that they need to self-fund. This gives a reasonable chance to all patients to try the treatment, to cut costs for those that it doesnt work for, and give reasonable tax-payer funded assistance to those that it does work for.

It would be an interesting and useful exercise when making economic decisions such as these to compare what 12 months of this treatment plus end of life care would cost against the cost of 5 years shuffling between nursing homes and hospitals if they had not been unlucky enough to contract a terminal illness. Perhaps such a treatment would cost less anyway.

I am late to this topic, Steven have you heard of the concept of Quality Adjusted Life Years? A concept we adopted from the UK.

QALYs are already used in this country and I think the going rate is about $16,000

So if your hypothetical drug is going to prolong median survival by 6 months and it costs more than $8,000. It will not be approved.

This is how it works now. Not saying it is correct - its how it is. :(