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 1 of 17 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 162
Thanks Tree79Thanks

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

  1. #1
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,781
    Thanks
    377

    From
    oregon

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

    I was asking this question in a thread, but would rather pose it to the membership in general. There are currently social safety nets that provide life-extending care to people. Should there be a limit to how much is spent?
    Thanks from pragmatic

  2. #2
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,924
    Thanks
    36479

    From
    in my head
    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.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    64,924
    Thanks
    36479

    From
    in my head
    I didn't vote because I object to wording each response differently. I don't think there MUST be anything.
    Thanks from OldGaffer

  4. #4
    Banned Camp
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    41,599
    Thanks
    43706

    From
    Nashville, TN
    I noticed the question was only posed for folks using Medicare, if they have the money, it is ok to live forever via Elysium....
    Thanks from Dangermouse

  5. #5
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,781
    Thanks
    377

    From
    oregon
    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.
    Please cast a vote to reflect your position.

  6. #6
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,781
    Thanks
    377

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by Rasselas View Post
    I didn't vote because I object to wording each response differently. I don't think there MUST be anything.
    My bad. Everywhere else I used the word "should" instead of "must". If I post another poll with that single word changed, will you vote? Or can you vote on this one now that I've stated it should've been worded slightly differently?

  7. #7
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,781
    Thanks
    377

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by OldGaffer View Post
    I noticed the question was only posed for folks using Medicare, if they have the money, it is ok to live forever via Elysium....
    The question did not mention medicare at all. Even a wealthy person will eventually run out of money. The question is whether or not there should be a limit to what society should pay to extend a life, regardless of individual wealth.
    Thanks from pragmatic

  8. #8
    Veteran Member Madeline's Avatar
    Joined
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    56,317
    Thanks
    32324

    From
    Cleveland, Ohio
    There is a finite amount of money. End of life care cannot be unlimited. There's nothing to debate here, anymore than it is rational to debate gravity.

    The more difficult ethical issues are HOW should this limit be made? I'm unsentimental. I say nothing but palliative care after age 70, except if paid for entirely by the patient.
    Thanks from orangecat and pragmatic

  9. #9
    Newm' Embre orangecat's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    1,781
    Thanks
    377

    From
    oregon
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    There is a finite amount of money. End of life care cannot be unlimited. There's nothing to debate here, anymore than it is rational to debate gravity.

    The more difficult ethical issues are HOW should this limit be made?
    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.
    Thanks from Madeline

  10. #10
    Senior Member NeoVsMatrix's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    8,519
    Thanks
    7478

    From
    NY
    Quote Originally Posted by Madeline View Post
    There is a finite amount of money. End of life care cannot be unlimited. There's nothing to debate here, anymore than it is rational to debate gravity.

    The more difficult ethical issues are HOW should this limit be made? I'm unsentimental. I say nothing but palliative care after age 70, except if paid for entirely by the patient.
    The assignment of money to the available treatment is artificial.. and not a "natural' limitation in what's possible.

    If you need a liver transplant to be able to survive.. the organ is the physical limitation.. the operation itself has no "pre-assigned" cost... it can be a few hundred dollars, it can be 10, 000 $ it can be 100, 000$ .. depending on WHERE the operation takes place, and by whom.

    If you need chemotherapy for the "chance" to overcome cancer.. the drugs have a certain affixed cost to be produced.. the cost that might prevent a patient from getting it, because of lack of funding, is again artificial, and created by a pharma company for profit. And at times, outrageous profit, the more important, the more expensive.. despite it's actual cost to make, or rareness of resources.

Page 1 of 17 12311 ... 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