Quiz/poll: how much would one year be worth to you?
-
How much would a man spend to continue living in the manner to which he was accustomed or die, vs how much would a man spend to keep someone he didn't know, and would never know, alive and depending on him for medical care, food and shelter for a year or let him die? Is this a trick question?
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
I think it is more along the lines of how much should the govt, which has no appreciation of the value of the money they have, spend on keeping one of its citizens alive?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
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
The question is too subjective, there are way too many factors that vary per person to make even a sensible response.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
I think it is more along the lines of how much should the govt, which has no appreciation of the value of the money they have, spend on keeping one of its citizens alive?
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Yes, I would agree with you. QALYs are based on population-level information. They do not take into account the personal response of individuals to their illness and their views of their need for treatment. And ageism can often be a factor which promotes a degree of discrimination, howsoever much denied by healthcare professionals.
-
It's not a trick, it's a subject of interest. People in high places are already making this decision, why shouldn't everyone else have an opinion?
- F
-
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
$916. That's all of the money I have.
-
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
Going by recent experience, I wouldn't put a limit on it. We paid for everything we could and charities contributed as well to give Mrs Wife's father a chance to start with and dignity at the end. The cost of giving one elderly man an extra six months was about £20,000 to the government. I can't tell you how much we spent, it's nobody else's business.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done. Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
-
Yes, I would agree with you. QALYs are based on population-level information. They do not take into account the personal response of individuals to their illness and their views of their need for treatment. And ageism can often be a factor which promotes a degree of discrimination, howsoever much denied by healthcare professionals.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
And ageism can often be a factor which promotes a degree of discrimination
As indeed it should. What would be the point of keeping me alive just so that I could continue to decline for another year? :-D
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
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
The correct answer to 1 & 2, of course, is that I am soooo wonderful that it's a privilege for you all to pay to keep me in the comfort I've grown accustomed to. Kneel before Zod.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
And ageism can often be a factor which promotes a degree of discrimination
As indeed it should. What would be the point of keeping me alive just so that I could continue to decline for another year? :-D
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
ict558 wrote:
What would be the point of keeping me alive just so that I could continue to decline for another year?
As an individual, that is your choice, and the choice of your nearest and dearest. However, we must not presume universality for all.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As an individual, that is your choice, and the choice of your nearest and dearest. However, we must not presume universality for all.
Completely valid viewpoint as long as you and your "nearest and dearest" are willing to pay for it entirely. When someone else is forced to pay for it then it no longer is solely your decision.
-
ict558 wrote:
What would be the point of keeping me alive just so that I could continue to decline for another year?
As an individual, that is your choice, and the choice of your nearest and dearest. However, we must not presume universality for all.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As an individual, that is your choice, and the choice of your nearest and dearest.
No, that should be the default choice of the 'Death Panel' © GOP. Health Care resources should be wisely spent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
we must not presume universality for all.
True. I state the general default, there may be extenuating circumstances that merit the treatment. If not, and I wish not to go gentle into oblivion, I should have to pay for the privilege.
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
As an individual, that is your choice, and the choice of your nearest and dearest.
No, that should be the default choice of the 'Death Panel' © GOP. Health Care resources should be wisely spent.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
we must not presume universality for all.
True. I state the general default, there may be extenuating circumstances that merit the treatment. If not, and I wish not to go gentle into oblivion, I should have to pay for the privilege.
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
ict558 wrote:
'Death Panel' © GOP
Whatever the American way is, it is somewhat different, I presume, from the Canadian system as it is from the UK system. Consequently we could be comparing, so to speak, chalk and cheese. That said, I acknowledge what both you and jschell has said as being reasonably positions. Money should always be wisely spent, especially if it is from the public purse.
-
ict558 wrote:
'Death Panel' © GOP
Whatever the American way is, it is somewhat different, I presume, from the Canadian system as it is from the UK system. Consequently we could be comparing, so to speak, chalk and cheese. That said, I acknowledge what both you and jschell has said as being reasonably positions. Money should always be wisely spent, especially if it is from the public purse.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Whatever the American way is, it is somewhat different, I presume, from the Canadian system as it is from the UK system.
Appreciated, but it was the GOP that characterised the NHS as a 'Death Panel'.
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
$916. That's all of the money I have.
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Whatever the American way is, it is somewhat different, I presume, from the Canadian system as it is from the UK system.
Appreciated, but it was the GOP that characterised the NHS as a 'Death Panel'.
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
ict558 wrote:
Appreciated, but it was the GOP that characterised the NHS as a 'Death Panel'.
Silly people This[^] is the death panel, in all its glory. 2/3rds majority in both houses to override any decision, no requirement that the panel be made up of medical personnel, and no review of its activities in the courts. Of course there are people who say things like “Relying on arbitrary spending targets is not a good way to make health policy, especially when decisions may be left to the unelected and unaccountable,” but they're probably more of those silly old G.O.P. types. Oh wait, that was said by the AARP which strongly supported Obamacare and is considered to lean to the left. :confused:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
The correct answer to 1 & 2, of course, is that I am soooo wonderful that it's a privilege for you all to pay to keep me in the comfort I've grown accustomed to. Kneel before Zod.
Forgive your enemies - it messes with their heads
My blog | My articles | MoXAML PowerToys | Mole 2010 - debugging made easier - my favourite utility
Pete O'Hanlon wrote:
The correct answer to 1 & 2, of course, is that I am soooo wonderful that it's a privilege for you all to pay to keep me in the comfort I've grown accustomed to.
I thought that was part of every retiring politician's farewell speech.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
-
How much would I spend of my money to stay healthy and alive? All of it. How much of my money do I think the government should spend to keep you alive? None of it.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
i'm sure that you'll be first in line to turn down medicare when it offers to pay for your increasingly expensive doctor visits and prescription medications the question was also applicable to private insurance companies which are governed by pretty much the exact same logistics as public insurance companies, but your glib sound bite is certainly in the fine spirit of your american TV news programs
- F
-
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
-
ict558 wrote:
Appreciated, but it was the GOP that characterised the NHS as a 'Death Panel'.
Silly people This[^] is the death panel, in all its glory. 2/3rds majority in both houses to override any decision, no requirement that the panel be made up of medical personnel, and no review of its activities in the courts. Of course there are people who say things like “Relying on arbitrary spending targets is not a good way to make health policy, especially when decisions may be left to the unelected and unaccountable,” but they're probably more of those silly old G.O.P. types. Oh wait, that was said by the AARP which strongly supported Obamacare and is considered to lean to the left. :confused:
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein
How is this "the death panel, in all its glory."? The best argument that I can see is an indirect one. If the panel causes physican payments to go so low that doctors won't see medicare patients, then it's possible that those patients may not receive necessary healthcare. I agree that is a potential concern that could be addressed, but "death panel" is a bit hysterical.
-
i'm sure that you'll be first in line to turn down medicare when it offers to pay for your increasingly expensive doctor visits and prescription medications the question was also applicable to private insurance companies which are governed by pretty much the exact same logistics as public insurance companies, but your glib sound bite is certainly in the fine spirit of your american TV news programs
- F
If the only reason you asked the question (and specifically requested that I answer it) was to make ad hominem attacks on those people with whom you disagreed, wouldn't it have been more in keeping with CP's guidelines to put it in the Backroom? Once again, I leave the last word to you. I'm sure it will be of great comfort.
“Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." ~ Albert Einstein