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

O2bn, if you had exactly $1 million in the bank (total assets), would you spend it to keep your granny alive for another second, another minute, another hour, another day, another week, another month, another year?

Give me your number.

Let us know when you make it to "80", Boiler.     Then you can tell us how much money is spent on your meidcal care.

That's a very, very, very stupid question, because no one can tell how much longer a person is going to live--even that person's doctor. But let me answer the question from my point of view: I would spend every dollar I have to keep a loved one alive, even for what might be a brief time. Period.

So let me turn the question around, as long as we're going to have this asinine and frankly kind of slimy discussion. The doctors say that if Granny gets that million-dollar operation, she'll live another six months. You decide not to pay for it, she dies in two weeks, and then you find out that patients with her condition are actually surviving up to five years post-procedure. Did you make a boo-boo? Did you play God and fall on your ass?

Of course, universal free health care would make all these hypothetical discussions moot. But we're not advanced enough to do that; we have too many Republicans.

I've already given you the pathway to decision making on those things.  Your question is silly.

Candy

Kevin, I disagree with your last statement.   There are still the human/humane decisions to be made regarding life-sustaining treatments, regardless of who pays.   Just because the care is "free" doesn't change what might be decided in regard to keeping granny alive for any amount of days, weeks, months.   Free doesn't give the treatment teams in Canada carte blanch to toss granny out of the hospital just because the meter is running.

Candy

My point is that cost should no way, no how, never, never, never, never, never, in no way, shape, or form influence whether a person receives medical treatment, life-saving or otherwise. That frees up decision-making to consider such factors as patient quality of life, informed consent, the chances of a procedure producing meaningful benefit, and the magnitude and scope of such benefit.

My point about universal free health care (or, more technically accurate, single-payer) is that we should consider medical bills as a societal cost more than a personal cost. Yes, some people will need more, and more expensive, health care than others. The only way to mitigate the unfairness of this is to say that one person's medical care needs are all of society's medical care needs.

You see, that's one of only two possible ways to approach the problem. The other is Darwinian--survival of the least costly. And of course, millionaires get those lifesaving procedures that the great mass of unwashed can't afford. The result is that all the poor folks gradually die off. A laudable goal to some.

I prefer to think of the collective good, and yes, that does indeed sound like SOOOOOOOOCIALISM. I can live with that. What I can't live with is people getting sick and dying because they couldn't achieve enough economic output. We should remove that consideration from the equation.

Candy, you gave me your position when spending someone elses money.  You didn't provide an question about spending your own money for Granny.  I suggest that you wouldn't spend your total $1 million net worth to keep Granny alive for one second, nor for one minute, nor for one hour, nor for one day.  It's an easy answer when the money is coming from someone elses pocket to say "It's Granny's decision".

If the money is coming from your pocket, and every penny that you are worth mind you, you are then forced to weigh the benefit of keeping Granny alive for one more month vs possibly paying for your child's education.  You would have to consider if this limited amount of money would have more value if passed down to your children as an inheritance when you die.  It's a difficult decision that many people across the world make every day.

I only pose this concept to show that spending unlimited money to create a specifc better outcome must always be weighed against what value this money could bring if spent in a different way.  This includes money spent to assure that Texas supplies 100% reliable electricity.  Ask every Texan if they are willing to pay a tax of $500 per person in return for 100% reliability of their electricity, and let's see how many Texas say "sure", and then happily hand over the five C notes.

Boilerman, your Texas electricity example...would you spend or not to change it...is a realistic and well stated question that can be considered.  I really had no idea where you were going with the granny puzzle.

Candy

Boilerman suffers from a deficiency in expressing himself clearly. He also likes to set up straw man arguments. His Texas electricity grid "example" is just such an argument. He pretends that the choice is between keeping, and coping with, Texas's existing deficiencies and spending some hypothetical huge amount to fix them. He then throws in (over and over) another of those phrases he obsesses with, "spending other people's money" just to make some stupid conservative ideological point.

In point of fact, preventing events like the recent Texas power outages wouldn't be expensive at all. 1) Tie into the national power grid. 2) Expand alternative energy sources, such as wind and solar power, to reduce dependency on one power source.

The reason those two things haven't happened are ideological and political rather than practical. Problem 1 exists because of Texas's mythos as a self-styled "maverick" independent quasi-state that "don't need no help from no one nohow." 2) exists because the fossil fuel industry, to put it bluntly, runs the state. Alternative energy is booming elsewhere in the country, but not in Texas. Recent events show exactly what's wrong with having a monopoly provide an essential service.

Because Texas is still one big company town ("Big Awl"), you have the governor making ridiculous statements such as blaming the power outages on wind farms. Because it's the home of rugged individualist Cowboy Bobs, Texas has never taken the sensible precautionary step of tying into the national power grid.

So, diversifying Texas's power sources and connecting to the national power grid wouldn't be expensive at all and would require no sacrifices, dead Grannys, eleventy kazillion-dollar electrical bills, or whatever, on the part of Texas power customers. In the case of sustainable energy, it would simply be a matter of allowing market forces to operate--y'know, in the land of economic opportunity and freedom. Texas is ideal territory for solar and wind farms--huge expanses of flat, ugly nothing that nobody wants for anything else. Insofar as joining the national power grid, all that would take would be a change in mindset (admittedly, excruciatingly hard for some conservatives).

In short, Texas merely needs to get its head out of its conservative butt and start acting responsibly rather than being a corrupt, idiotic oligarchy.

Candy, the Granny question is not a puzzle.  Would you keep Granny alive for another year if it came at the cost of your kids not being able to attend college?  Of course no more Vegas trips.  The new car is out.  You'll have to move to a smaller home, of course.

Within a similar line of thinking, should Texas spend billions and billions of dollars to lessen the chance that they have a similar widespread power outage.  One should understand that they have not experienced a similar weather pattern in 30 some years.  Would those dollars not be better spent on better educating poor kids?  Would this money not be best left with taxpayers, which will stimulate the economy and bring greater prospertity to Texas workers and their families?

Dollars are finite.