How much money should the government spend to extend the life of an 80 year old sickly person?

Should we spend $10,000,000 to keep granny alive for another year.  Is it worth it?  Liberals, give me a number.

Ask 97 year old Bob Dole. How much is extending a 97 year old Republican's life for a couple of extra months worth?  Give me a number?

That's a profoundly stupid and amoral question. No one can put a dollar value on life.

I assume you're trying to make some kind of asinine point about "liberals," given how you phrased the question. The stupidity of it is compounded by the fact that no one knows exactly how long anyone will live, unless they're going to die tomorrow or something. So the question is ridiculous.

But let's treat your stupid question with the dignity it doesn't deserve. Let's also accept your premise that we somehow know that if we spend exactly $10 million, Granny will live exactly one year. Well, whatever is killing Granny, we might have a cure for it before the year is up. Maybe there's a lifesaving drug out there that won't be approved for use for six months, but Granny won't live that long unless we spend the $10 million on her now. But if she lives to get the drug, she might last another ten years. Wanna try to dollar-value that?

Of course, it's obvious what you're suggesting--that we should ration health care. Don't administer lifesaving drugs to people who are old or have poor survival chances, because they probably won't live that long anyway. Don't perform extensive surgery to prolong someone's life if they don't figure to last that long. Shut off the machines keeping someone alive if they will probably die regardless.

I guess that's the Republican way. Put a value on human life, and then decide who lives or dies. That's derived from the Republican philosophy that the value of a human being is comprised solely of his/her economic output. Very business-friendly point of view!

It's also evil, amoral, reprehensible, and idiotic. The Nazis and the Soviets both thought that way. Republicans think that way now. And so do you, Boiler, I guess. (I actually hope not, but...)

Well, using Boiler math, the optimal economic metric would be to leave no one alive if having them killed would be cheaper. Be proactive! They might linger in that hospital bed for weeks. Give Granny that cyanide pill!

What difference does it make to you, in your Godless world we are all just animals, do you cry when a cow is slaughtered so you can enjoy your perfect cheeseburger? Do you care when a lion takes down a zebra? It's all about the survival of the fittest. Evil doesn't exist in us animals, or is there something different in humans? A moral compass, A soul perhaps, now there's something to ponder.

What on earth does your babble have to do with the topic of this thread?

Just for the record, I have never ordered a cheeseburger while insisting that the meat should come from a freshly slaughtered cow. I'm perfectly happy with the ground beef that's already in the freezer.

What number?  Worth it to whom?  Your granny or my granny?  Who is "we"?  Do you, Boilerman, have a "granny" or other loved one facing expensive life-sustaining treatments?

For the living, yes it can be worth it, if granny's choice.  Or your choice if faced with it.  Regardless of outcome.

In one of my working roles I was coordinator of a clinical ethics consultation committee, in a government hospital.  Here are some of our considerations in providing an opinion if consulted (Ethics committees do  not say yes or no--that would be for the patient/family/or medical team to consider.)

1. What treatments are needed/being debated to keep granny "alive" for another year.

2. What does granny have to say about it? 

3. What is granny's understanding about her condition?  What is her current condition?

4. Does granny have decision-making capacity?  If not, who is representing her in such decisions, and what do they have to say?   Is there likelihood of granny regaining this capacity?

5. What do the doctor's say about her condition/capacity, her prognosis given this or that treatment, this or that degree of medical/mechanical life support?

6. What are the risks and benefits of continuing treatment?  Of stopping treatment? 

Age is not a determinant.  The patient or his NOK makes that decision (called Informed Consent, decision maker is advised of risks and benefits of treatments; actually of all medical treatment, e.g. surgery.

Cost is not a determinant, other than the patient or family may decline treatments based on cost.  Many end of life decisions are made by patients in consideration of burden on family.

Fortunately, in this country decisions regarding medical treatment are mostly left to the patient or NOK/representative.  I can recall only one condition whereby the NOK cannot force the medical team to continue treatment:  Brain death requiring mechanical ventilation, certified by neurologists.  Lay people use the term "brain dead" casually but not always correctly.  The diagnosis of brain death must meet specific clinical criteria (tests) defined by the American Academy of Neurology (or other Neurological board) of the state where the issue is being considered.

Is it a cost issue?  Yes, of course it is.  Ten million is a high number, though some newer cancer treatments (immunotherapies, different from chemotherapy) can be that expensive.  Former President Jimmy Carter had brain cancer in his 80s, at least, maybe 90s, underwent one of those type treatments, which can either help for a short time, or cure it, or kill the patient.  Carter had a full recovery, very unusual, resumed doing things he enjoys and is loved for, including teaching Sunday School at this church.  I read recently he has resigned from the teaching, but still enjoying family and church.  Whatever it cost, it was worth it.

My 21 y/o nephew, wonderful young man with great future had the same cancer (sarcoma, lungs, brain, all over really), was accepted for a clinical trial for treatments.  Not every case is accepted, and the experts couldn't in give a guarantee of a cure, or that he wouldn't suffer harsh side effects, but left it to him and parents to decide.  He lived maybe 9 months, on very high% oxygen and not much mobility.  Unable to "walk" at graduation though he did finish his last courses at OU, graduated top of his class.  Had momentary improvements (in labs, MRIs etc., a little walking) but eventually turned for the worse.  Had at least two cardiac/resp. arrests at home, made it to hospital both times, got tuned up, discharged home.  The mother vehemently fought letting him go, even when he was begging to at the end (in awful pain).  It about bankrupted them despite the clinical trial being paid for, still many expenses.  Was it worth it?  Yes, because now they know they did all they could for him.  Can we say he deserved the $$$ trial because of being a person outstanding in effort and morals and all that?  (From what I was told it was a close call.  The disease had already spread when found, but youth was on his side.)  But our system of medical care gives everyone consideration, and I'm glad of that.  (Clinical trials don't always accept a person, based on it being medically intolerable and very unlikely to succeed--risk vs benefit.  Expertise kind of stuff.)

For granny?  All those questions above have to be answered.

See, the Nazi system of determining who lived or died gave the individual no choice, no say, just Hitler's own bias against Jews.  In the US we have a say, and if in doubt there are ethics considerations that reduce the likelihood of provider (doctor) bias.

I'm not answering from a "liberal" or "Liberal" perspective (whichever one Kevin approves of), just life experience.

Ask me the time, I'll build you a clock.  LOL.

Candy

The better question is why does Boilerman think America should pay twice as much per capita for its healthcare with worse outcomes and lower life expectancy that the rest of the industrialized world?     The hypothetical "granny" he references would only cost half as much to take care of in Canada

He does couch his real questions that way, to get the answers he wants.  I wasted a lot of time, as usual, trying to answer what wasn't a real question at all.

Like I said, ask me the time...

Candy

The reason why we can't ration health care is the same reason we can't determine who "deserves" public assistance. Who would do it? Using what criteria? How on earth could we all agree on who deserves care and who doesn't? Who is entitled to play God?

A coldhearted cost/benefit analysis would no doubt result in pitching Granny out the sixth-story window, because why spend big bucks on her, she's gonna die soon anyway. We can then start withholding medical care from all people over 65. Or 60. Or 50. Or from anyone with a life-threatening condition that can't be cured or would take too much time and money to fix. Don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars helping a disabled person to walk, or to see. Society will do better when we cull out the weak.

I believe this philosophy is called social Darwinism, aka eugenics, and the people who believed and still believe in it have been nothing but passionate about it. It's actually appealing in a twisted way, if you discount human suffering as something that shouldn't be paid attention to.

My snowflake goody two-shoes liberal (no caps) POV is that we should treat our citizenry as one big family. When your daughter or father gets sick, do you skimp on needed medical care? Do you not pay for your son's medications because you need that money for a round of golf at the country club? Do you let Grandpa croak because you're building a wall to keep out the Mexicans?

So health care should be free. Completely. We take care of our family first--all 330 million of them. Then and only then do we spend money on other things. (And yes yes yes yes yes, before anyone mentions it, I mean them no-good steenkin' immigrants, too, even illegal ones, because keeping them healthy makes the community healthier.)