The problem with this attitude is that it ignores that there actually *are* limited resources. Regardless of who is paying for it (public or private insurer), does it make sense to spend $200,000 to extend a dying person’s life by a week? How about a day?
With a little bit of critical thinking skills, it’s not difficult to transform that question: Is it worth it to extend a dying person’s life by a week at the expense of treating a hundred people with otherwise easily-curable health problems?
When my grandpa was dying, they tried like 3 different emergency surgeries, none of which had any real effect, and it left him covered in tubes and bandages. He was 88 years old and in poor health, though. Is that really better than just dying 2-3 days earlier with your family by your side? And was it worth it to spend $100,000 on that rather than converting that $100,000 into 1000 free trips to the doctor for random people?
These are questions that are worth legitimately discussing, instead of just saying “OMG, the gov’t wants to kill old people since they don’t care!!!”
Economics covers all areas of life(and death)'many people have irrational expectations of doctors.
OTOH there are some elderly who could benefit from surgical interventions but they don’t get it because of their age.
“These are questions that are worth legitimately discussing, instead of just saying “OMG, the gov’t wants to kill old people since they don’t care!!!”
I completely agree with you. My point wasn’t that we should extend people’s lives regardless of cost or quality of life, but that if we turn this decision over to the government the only basis for the decision will be the cost factor. I think the fallacy of your argument is that by spending 200,000 to extend one person’s life we are robbing other people of health care, and such is not the case. How would you convert the money you saved by letting someone die into the “100 free trips to to doctor for random people?” It’s not as if there is a pot of money from which we all draw till it runs out.
It seems to me we could come up with a better strategy involving the family, the doctor and the insurance company. The problem we have today is that as soon as you turn 65 your insurance company pretty much turns you over to Medicaid so there is no entity which can truly control the spending. Government has no incentive or ability to deal with individuals, and ends up making rules which try to fit everyone into a single box. Your Grandpa was 88, but what if he was 75 or 70, would the surgeries have been worth while? That’s a question no one can answer, except the family and their doctor. My only point is that we need to keep the government out of the decision process.
When my father was dying the doctor told us he could keep him alive for a month or so in the hospital, but if we took him home he would last only a week. We took him home and kept him comfortable with hospice care. It had nothing to do with money and everything to do with our family’s decision about quality of life.
My biggest problem with healthcare is that we have a service that someone else pays for. Anytime you can get a good or service with someone else’s money you will always demand more and better. This is why we have such high health care costs, because the demand is totally out of control. I had back problems a few years ago and went to a specialist who gave me an MRI and sent me to physical therapy. It cost my insurance company about 10K. None of those things helped and eventually the pain went away when I got a new bed. Had I been required to pay the 10K I probably would have waited till the pain became bad enough to affect my quality of life, and then decided if the 10K was a worthwhile expense, then I might have shopped around for a doctor who would keep my costs down. I don’t know what the answer is, but there are lot of systems being tried in the private sector that make it worthwhile for people to shop around and make decisions about cost versus gain with healthcare. All we are doing with socialized medicine is throwing gasoline on an already out of control fire.
First, I would like to ask where are the "hundred people with otherwise easily-curable health problems"?
Secondly, what evidence do you have that our medical resources are so limited? If this was Canada, and you were waiting 6 months for heart bypass surgery, I would agree that there was a shortage - but I see no evidence of this in the United States. Neither do I see soup-kitchen like lines of critically ill youngsters waiting for care.
I'm sorry for the procedures performed on your grandfather that have left you bitter and disillusioned, but your family had the right to refuse such treatment - especially if he had left advanced directives for his care. Those rights could have been exercised.
Newbie, you suffer from the illusion that you have the right to decide how to spend OUR money.
You're wrong. Post on DU where they'll appreciate it.