On a similar note, the recent attentions of the Obama Administration seem to be focused on the fact that 30% of our health care dollars are spent on people during the last year of their lives. They may be contemplating a cutoff of health care for the terminally ill, after they gain control of all health care, because it isn't cost-effective.
You are right on target!
What else could they mean?
Since it is often not possible to know who will live, and for how long that person might live, after a serious diagnosis -—
I think we will be judged based on our “usefulness” to the state, rather than any medical rationale.
Interesting. ‘Our health care dollars’. Wouldn’t that be ‘their’ health care dollars? I mean they have paid into the system all their lives.
So interesting ...... “cost effective”
Who will be determining “cost effective”?
What does the “cost uneffective” one get to say about its designation?
What recourse does the “cost uneffective” one have?
Who does the “Cost uneffective” one feel is not “cost effective”?
I personally do not think congress is “cost effective”. Afterall, they are hired to write legislation to make laws - yet they cannot find time to “read” written legislation.
I would think that would call for being determined not “cost effective” or merely utterly worthless and determined to be fired.