Quiz/poll: how much would one year be worth to you?
-
...and in the sweat pooling on the bottom of the creaking boat...
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
The canopy of stars...
... reflected in your eyes...
============================== Nothing to say.
...and in the sweat pooling on the bottom of the creaking boat...
-
Sweat? How long have we been at it? :omg:
============================== Nothing to say.
I dunno. I wasn't wearing a watch. ;P
-
I dunno. I wasn't wearing a watch. ;P
-
Sorry, I was too excited... I will try to last a bit longer next time. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Don't worry, I'm used to things being short with you. ;)
-
Don't worry, I'm used to things being short with you. ;)
-
Short, maybe, but filling none the less... ;P
============================== Nothing to say.
My you have a way with words. *fans face*
-
My you have a way with words. *fans face*
-
:) Hey, is it really cold where you are? (Seeing as NZ has first snow up north for 70 years).
============================== Nothing to say.
It's certainly not as cold as it has been lately - otherwise there'd be no WAY I'd be able to wear what I currently am!
-
It's certainly not as cold as it has been lately - otherwise there'd be no WAY I'd be able to wear what I currently am!
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
otherwise there'd be no WAY I'd be able to wear what I currently am!
Sounds very skimpy... :)
============================== Nothing to say.
Hey, you don't think any outsiders will read this and get totally the wrong impression, do you?
-
Hey, you don't think any outsiders will read this and get totally the wrong impression, do you?
-
Depends how you define wrong of course. :)
============================== Nothing to say.
They might get the silly impression that I was flirting with you! Even though my leather underwear is totally tasteful and everything.
-
They might get the silly impression that I was flirting with you! Even though my leather underwear is totally tasteful and everything.
-
Ooh, the leather underwear again? Brings back memories.... Don't worry, there is no way anyone could think we are flirting with each other: We are way beyond flirting! ;P
============================== Nothing to say.
We've moved on to subtle insinuation!
-
We've moved on to subtle insinuation!
-
Veeeeery subtle. Hidden in the mani-folds of subtext, I would hazard.
-
Veeeeery subtle. Hidden in the mani-folds of subtext, I would hazard.
-
So you agree with the premise, but want to mealy-mouth the language. Whatever. :rolleyes:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
My government puts a dollar amount on what's called a "quality-adjusted life year." Specifically, there is generally a maximum amount that the government is willing to pay to give a dying person a shot at one more year of quality life. So here's question #1: you're dying. Soon. You have to pay a certain amount of money in order to get one more quality year of life. That means a year of life at roughly the same level of fitness, activity, enjoyment, mobility, etc. that you have now - not in a wheelchair, not in daily excruciating pain, not having constant nausea/vomiting, not walking around with a permanent IV, not intubated and lying in the ICU doped out of your mind. What would that dollar amount be? Try and be realistic - and consider - if that amount of money is more than you have on hand now, how would you raise the rest? Sell your house? Rack up bank loans and let the life insurance pay it off in a year or so? Now, here's question #2. A person that you don't know at all is dying. You are in charge of distributing tax (or insurance) money. How much are you willing to put into making this unknown person live one more quality year of life? I'll post the Canadian government's figure once a few people have weighed in, I don't want to necessarily influence answers one way or another. Sidenote: We're not talking about spending money on fringe treatments like the Tijuana cancer clinics or foot detox baths or anything ridiculous like that. These are for proven treatments - while the real world is rarely so definitive, we can say these hypothetical treatments the money is going towards are 100% effective.
- F
Gross oversimplification of a problem. And it greatly depends on what kind of healthcare system you're using. In the US (I assume this is ultimately about Medicare, medicaid, obamacare etc...) I wouldn't want the government to spend too much on healthcare because most of it goes to advertising, excessive wages, insurance companies and a lot of research isn't exactly in the interest of public health anyway. Then you have the varying budgets and rules depending on what moron gets elected and harassment of researchers by religious fanatics. But in a hypothetical healthcare system where all money is seriously invested, where there are enough doctors and surgeons and they have a limit on their wages, in a stable political climate where science is respected and researches don't require private security, everyone pays about 15% of their income and medical costs will go down over time as technology progresses exponentially. As I said, it's a complex problem, not just a question of money and who's paying what and how much.
Giraffes are not real.