Members banned from this thread: Spookycolt


View Poll Results: Should there be a limit to how much society spends to extend a life?

Voters
17. You may not vote on this poll
  • There should be no limit to the amount that society is obligated to pay to extend a life.

    5 29.41%
  • There must be a limit to the amount paid by society to delay a person's inevitable demise.

    12 70.59%
Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 162
Thanks Tree79Thanks

Thread: Should there be a limit on what society should pay to extend a life?

  1. #11
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,429
    Thanks
    7350

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I know it sounds heinous to some, but I think there should be a limit--after a particular age. Honestly, I think after about 80 or 85 anyone should seriously consider palliative care should they suffer from a life-threatening illness. I've read that we spend about half our health care dollars on the last year of life. There's got to be a cost-benefit equilibrium point in there somewhere.

    On the other hand, the greatest opposition to this idea SHOULD come from conservatives, since they opposed even letting doctors bill insurance for a conversation about this topic. Called it "death panels" as I recall.

    And one more thing--if a radical treatment or prosthetic or SOMETHING that can extend life significantly is developed (I'm talking about something like putting your brain in a robot body or whatever, which is not out of the question), it should be available to everyone--not just the massively wealthy.
    That sounds logical... intensive treatment at high costs, is required mainly for severe sickness / illness.. with a limited statistical umber of positive outcome.

    So yes, when you're 22, and you get diagnosed with stage 4 cancer.. there will be a lot of money put into your treatment.. and it might not work out for you.

    So the most money of health care is spent in your last year.. disregarding your comparable age to "the elderly".
    Thanks from NightSwimmer

  2. #12
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,608
    Thanks
    343

    From
    oregon
    100% for limits so far.

  3. #13
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,207
    Thanks
    32245

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    Quote Originally Posted by orangecat View Post
    Agreed. Who should decide the limit? Should it be equal for all? Should a person's life choices be a factor?

    Thank you for actually casting a vote, btw. The others seem unwilling for whatever reasons.
    Medical ethics should be predominately the concern of doctors, but the public also should have some opportunity to have input. But the problem is, most of the public reacts in hysteria and ignorance and massive emotion, and very little decision-making can occur.

    The public refuse to accept that by failing to make conscious choices, we are choosing an irrational system in which care is limited on an ad hoc basis. Whether a 12 year old gets an operation for appendicitis might depend on which day of the month he is taken to the DR. Whether a 70 year old alcoholic gets a liver transplant might depend on how noxious that patient is.

    Etc.

    IOW, the worst possible system, maximizing misery and waste.

  4. #14
    Shitposting Rank 4 Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    21,197
    Thanks
    11411

    From
    Colorado
    1. The system is designed to be super inefficient and costly.
    2. The current 80-85s (as per example) have paid into the system all of their lives and under agreement to be taken care of.

    With that said, no I don't think there should be a limit under our current structure.

    However by the same side of the same token, if we change the structure so that it is more efficient and less costly for the same care then we could live our lives knowing that when we are too old to take care of ourselves, there will be a plan that would and it wouldn't spin anyone's head as to how to manage it.

    How can we say we can extend life scientifically as a species if we aren't able to preserve life with the resources we have, with people living 20+ years past the average life span? Because of money? Mismanagement and inefficiency?

    I can understand why this question would arise. It's a valid question and all the answers given make perfect sense. But, to me those are coping with the system instead of working within it to change it to suit our lifespans.

    My grandmother died in Dec last year. She was 92 and spent last 15 years in care. The last year of her care cost us more money than we have, and that's with assistance. This everything from diapers and daily care products to transfer fees, her being moved due to her worsening conditions, us having to hire elder care lawyers to file paperwork to yearly adjusted fees at the residencies that she lived at. It was a nightmare for us. But it wasn't because there is a huge empty warehouse, missing all sorts of resources or piles of money. It was because the system is designed for profit and is terribly inefficient.

    I was a customer. My grandmother was a customer.
    Thanks from orangecat

  5. #15
    Shitposting Rank 4 Missle Command Champion johnflesh's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    21,197
    Thanks
    11411

    From
    Colorado
    I didn't vote because "Fixing the system because its horribly corrupt and for-profit only" wasn't one of the options.

  6. #16
    Veteran Member Devil505's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    63,900
    Thanks
    20597

    From
    Mass and Florida
    The problem is and always will be .....who makes that decision..... politicians?....insurance accountants?
    Last edited by Devil505; 31st May 2018 at 01:58 PM.
    Thanks from orangecat

  7. #17
    Spock of Vulcan Ian Jeffrey's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    62,432
    Thanks
    31197

    From
    Vulcan
    The decision should be based in medicine, not cost.



    I would offer to look into editing the poll, but six people have already voted, and I don't know if I can reset that.

  8. #18
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,608
    Thanks
    343

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by johnflesh View Post
    I didn't vote because "Fixing the system because its horribly corrupt and for-profit only" wasn't one of the options.
    Nor should it be. The question is just, in your opinion, should there be any limit to the amount of money society will spend to extend a life?
    Regardless of the system in place, the premise remains the same: limited or unlimited care?

  9. #19
    Southern Strategy Liberal OldGaffer's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,346
    Thanks
    43470

    From
    Nashville, TN
    How many people are willing to submit their parents/grandparents to a "death panel", because that is what voting to deny care is doing.
    Thanks from Ian Jeffrey, Devil505 and HenryPorter

  10. #20
    Galactic Ruler Spookycolt's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2012
    Posts
    61,666
    Thanks
    11225

    From
    By the wall
    There should be no extension that taxpayers have to pay for.

    We should figure out a way to pay for their disposal that doesn't cost the taxpayers.

    I'm thinking some hungry dogs and ants would do it.

Page 2 of 17 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trump's Woes Extend Beyond US Borders
    By Frank in forum Current Events
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 25th October 2016, 07:39 PM
  2. Replies: 40
    Last Post: 16th November 2014, 06:44 PM
  3. Unemployment benefits: To extend or not to?
    By bajisima in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10th December 2013, 05:09 AM
  4. Replies: 402
    Last Post: 15th February 2013, 09:22 AM
  5. Canada may extend Libya mission
    By jackalope in forum World Politics
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 31st August 2011, 08:41 AM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed