The state of knowledge is advanced when someone with an unusual health problem is studied and treated. I know a woman who “shouldn’t” have lived past 20, who is now more than double that. She moves around in a powered chair. The tech in that chair is pretty sweet, and has been giving me ideas for robotics.

Another example: All those people with diabetes, cancer, and heart disease. By studying them, scientists are learning a huge amount (when they can get past the government funding politics) about general biochemistry. Result: Hope for the rest of us.

Treatments invented for one kind of disease can inspire treatments for other kinds.

Not saying any of the points already made are bad. Just that there’s a bright side. Personally, my plans involve something like a freak windsurfing accident at age 125…

The strongest genes are the ones that can adept the fastest to their environments. Your brain cells are only so many, yet even if you only had one brain cell left with one DNA strain, it could reproduce and grow a new set of fifty billion more.

Incredible isn’t it!
The Water, cells, DNA, RNA, Proteins, Atoms, Elementry Particles are all such beautiful things.

As I said in my original post, analyzing health care costs over time is my day job. While it is true that one person can do all the right things but end up with expensive problems while another person can do the wrong things and die cheaply, I am not analyzing such individual cases. I am looking at trends across millions of people in the US.

For example, obesity is an epidemic in this country, and it is an extremely expensive one. The Society of Actuaries estimates the cost to society at $300 billion annually –for a condition that is caused by an individual’s lifestyle choices.

Imagine for a moment what $300 billion dollars a year could do for whatever charitable cause is dearest to your heart.

There was a question in the personality test

justice or mercy?

Mercy always draws down on humanity. The bigger picture here is to not lose sight of the fact that you are asking flawed humans to make value judgements on the importance of a human life..flawed logic.

whats more important / less important
1) a flawed gene where a family of men die suddenly of melanoma at 60
or
2) a flawed gene where people live to 100 but are psycopaths drawing misery to all around them

what more valuable?
1) a man who live to 90 who murders 10 people or a child who dies at 4 days of age whose small life takes on huge proportions to those who love that child despite the tragety. Tragity can be positive if it influences generation to live better, be kinder, to appreciate the things they have.

There are better things to focus on…

I would like to spur some thought on one topic that has not been intertwined into the thought process concerning health care delivery. Litigation. Unfortunately, many of the treatments, tests, and even end of life procedures are governed not only by emotions, finances, and the well wishes of providers but by providers covering their ass in fear of being sued or becoming uninsurable.

Then you have the smoker who develops lung cancer at 60, never collects SS and dies within a few months and ends up costing much less to society.

Determining who deserves treatment is much more than how much a person saved during their life. Maybe the elderly to whom we would deny care is an outstanding individual who cares for many while the child we would save could become a sociopath. A lot of the most giving and creative people throughout history have been those who have been very sick.

I can’t help but think of the railway industry in the 1800s. It went bust and was not very profitable but it was the main contributor to the expansaion odf a nation as well as profitability in other sectors. of the economy. It’s the same with people. Those who contribute the most to society aren’t necessarily the healthiest nor the richest.

The profession has lost its direction.

AlexK made a very astute observation that I did not see you (Jacob) respond to, and I would like to see your response.

Alex said: “Of course this only applies to government paid health care.”

I consider this an extremely important point. If a healthy young person, such as yourself Jacob, works at maintaining their health AND buys an HDHP AND maximizes their HSA contribution annually — they will likely have enough money to pay for whatever health care they deem appropriate for themselves. If such a person is willing to spend their own money and take advantage of whatever health insurance they have been paying for throughout their lifetime they have every right to do so.

I would also say that a parent who has purchased health insurance for their family has every right to use that insurance — along with any other money they have saved — to provide lifesaving care to their premature infant.

I would also say that anyone over 50 who has been paying taxes all their life has every right to their Medicare and Medicaid. It would be morally wrong to deny them the services they have been paying for all their lives when they are finally old enough to use them.

I do question whether society has any responsibility to bear the burden of health care costs for people who freely choose an unhealthy lifestyle. Middle aged people who do not maintain a healthy weight and fitness level cost us more than a healthy and active older person. People who choose to smoke are even more expensive. We ALL pay the price for their choices, not only with government paid health care but also through rising insurance rates.

When I was self-employed I participated in a health care coop, which was very reasonably priced. They were able to keep costs low by NOT insuring any illness or injury that a person brought upon themselves. Obviously this is not a good choice for people who smoke, drink, and eat too much — or people who have unprotected sex — or people who think skateboarding without a helmet is exciting. It was perfect for me however. I just wish I could use them and keep my HSA, but the government does not consider a coop to be a HDHP.

And this would further accelerate the deterioration of our planet.

The law of unintended consequences…

Short term economics, which do not incorporate externalities, would seem to push us towards eugenics. However, in the grand scheme of things, I don’t think it makes much difference if we save our children or the elderly. I believe our economic model will lead us to the Malthus view. I firmly believe that we will kill our planet in the name of growth.

The more short-term efficient we become, the bigger our population will get and the more we will devastate the earth. Until Mother Nature decides to crush us with her pinkie.

So in the meantime, it is my belief that we should all individally fight for our loved ones no matter what age or how productive they are.

I think the post takes the wrong approach to the problem. It appears the article is reaching more of a moral ground than financial.

When we think about the cost of healthcare, I think we should step back and look at what the costs are…

I have worked in the medical industry for a while now. The wealth in the system is ridiculous. And at what costs? The amount of money paid for administrative purposes rather than the actual care of patients is the real issue.

Again I think the question of when does it cost too much to extend the life of a person is the wrong question…The right questions are: Why does it cost so much? Is it possible to reduce the cost of healthcare? What are the moral implications of the cost of healthcare?

This changes the whole moral dilemma and then you begin to the heart of the issue; financial.

If society could take the same approach to health care costs as the ideas behind this blog; cutting costs…everything could change. There are billions of dollars to be saved in health care (probably more), but who has the power to change the tide?

-Jeff

In a scarcity model the buying decision is always there to be taken. The normo-ethics dictates that everyone should be kept alive at all costs, come hell or high water.

This relieves the patient, relatives and medical personel of partaking in the very serious decision it is to end a life (or stop trying to save it).

Not trying to change this state relieves any would-be debaters like politicians and concerned citizens of stirring up a hornests nest. (Godwin’s Law anyone?)

But what of the consequences? The decisions are taken nevertheless, but taken indirectly through funding-cuts/buffs or clandestinely by doctors who rebel against the stupidity.

Failure to handle the troublesome reality doesn’t void said reality. It only changes the kind and scope of problems to be handled.

In stead of actually growing up to the task and taking a stance most people happily chant, “More health care!”, without heed to cost or efficiency. Again relieving themselves of the mental hardship of thinking about the problem.

The problem of how to alot $$$ however persists and the decision to not decide and instead chant “More healthcare!” has consequences. The obvious consequence is higher healthcare costs – but succesfull healthcare means the patient survives to recieve even more healthcare later.
This in turn means even more healthcare. And costs.

All told, an extremely ineficient way to spend the productivity of an society.

When you then factor in that healthcare ad absurdum and free of cost will tend to blunt natural selections attack on genes and memes (cultural “genes”) that are counterproductive – you not only waste insane amounts of $$$ trying to patch up the wounded – you’re also actively stoking the furnace by selecting for bad genes and stupid behavior.