Quiz/poll: how much would one year be worth to you?
-
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.
-
ict558 wrote:
I could care less
:((
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
:((
I couldn't care less about your response. :) I was addressing myself to a citizen of the USA, and used an American colloquialism, which I take to be of the same provenance as I should be so lucky! and Tell me about it!
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
-
Hey, you don't think any outsiders will read this and get totally the wrong impression, do you?
-
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.
-
Very interesting, but you tell me this, why? I could care less about 'Obamacare', and the 'leftness' and 'rightness' of the denizens of that "lobbyist infested cesspool", my reference was to the GOP 'Death Panel' meme of 2009.
Truth, Justice ... or the American way? - Trad.
ict558 wrote:
but you tell me this, why?
Sorry. Thread drift happens, you know. You probably should get used to it.
ict558 wrote:
my reference was to the GOP 'Death Panel' meme
To stay within your limited parameters: The concept of the NHS functioning as a death dealer seems to have started on your side of the puddle. to wit: The Patient's Association, a 50 year old charity attacked the NHS in 2009, saying that over one million (!) patients had received "Cruel and neglectful care." One hospital, the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust was found to have killed off 1,200 people "through failings in urgent care." Because of the report issued by the Patients Association, a letter was signed by P. H. Millard, Emeritus Professor of Geriatrics University of London, Dr Anthony Cole Chairman, Medical Ethics Alliance, Dr Peter Hargreaves Consultant in Palliative Medicine, Dr David Hill Fellow of the Faculty of Anaesthetists of the Royal College of Surgeons,and Dr Elizabeth Negus Lecturer, Barking University which said: "The Patients Association has done well to expose the poor treatment of elderly patients in some parts of the NHS (report, August 27). We would like to draw attention to the new “gold standard” treatment of those categorised as “dying”. Forecasting death is an inexact science. Just as, in the financial world, so-called algorithmic banking has caused problems by blindly following a computer model, so a similar tick-box approach to the management of death is causing a national crisis in care. The Government is rolling out a new treatment pattern of palliative care into hospitals, nursing and residential homes. It is based on experience in a Liverpool hospice. If you tick all the right boxes in the Liverpool Care Pathway, the inevitable outcome of the consequent treatment is death. As a result, a nationwide wave of discontent is building up, as family and friends witness the denial of fluids and food to patients. Syringe drivers are being used to give continuous terminal sedation, without regard to the fact that the diagnosis could be wrong. It is disturbing that in the year 2007-2008, 16.5 per cent of deaths came about after terminal sedation. Experienced doctors know that sometimes, when all but essential drugs are stopped, “dying” patients get better." Sounds like those on this side of the Atlantic who have problems with the NHS approach, learned to mistrust it fro