NICE, the organization that determines whether health care options are cost-effective in the UK has decided that $22,750 is the maximum it will pay to extend someone's life by 6 months, with a whole year worth $45,500.
As I calculate it, then, a baby expected to live 75 years is worth $3,412,500, while someone who is 30 with the same life expectancy is worth $2,047,500, but a 70 year old only $227,500.
Doesn't this somehow say that old people are "worth less"?
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThis post suggests to me that you don't value human life much. You think it's cheap to save AIDS patients, yet somehow, you're not buying them all their meds. Clearly you don't think their lives are very valuable.
Yes. This is true. You may claim that human life is invaluable but this cannot consistently hold as long as you can save them as cheaply as we can now; e.g. by supplying aids drugs to all.
In fact I think that these meds are NOT that cheap, but you think that they're cheap as long as someone else pays for them.
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI'll be carrying a 17 in, bayonet when i visit my Nat'l health care doc so, when he says there's no more money for old farts, i'll shove it down his throat and crank his head off.
This post suggests to me that you don't value human life much. You think it's cheap to save AIDS patients, yet somehow, you're not buying them all their meds. Clearly you don't think their lives are very valuable.
In fact I think that these meds are NOT that cheap, but you think that they're cheap as long as someone else pays for them.
GRANNY.
Originally posted by smw6869Grannies value in national health care terms: $30,000
I'll be carrying a 17 in, bayonet when i visit my Nat'l health care doc so, when he says there's no more money for old farts, i'll shove it down his throat and crank his head off.
GRANNY.
Bayonet used to attack doctor: $350
Shoving bayonet down doctors throat for throwing Grannie to the curb because she is no longer of any value to society: Priceless.
Originally posted by PalynkaWell, I can't find the article now. But I recall that after consulting with some sort of patient advocacy group they had decided not to value a year of life any differently based on age.
Your analysis says that every year of life is worth the same, regardless whether you're a baby or a senior citizen.
Of course, there is the 'quality-adjusted' life-year concept, too, which means that a year in severe pain/nausea is not worth as much as a year in good health.
But such an adjustment is going to work against the old, whose health is generally worse; so if you increase the value of "younger" years, then The Old become even less "valuable".
Quite a difference from societies where the old were honored and revered...
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThese meds are that cheap.
This post suggests to me that you don't value human life much. You think it's cheap to save AIDS patients, yet somehow, you're not buying them all their meds. Clearly you don't think their lives are very valuable.
In fact I think that these meds are NOT that cheap, but you think that they're cheap as long as someone else pays for them.
Originally posted by spruce112358In Economic teerms, old people are worth less then young people due to the future rate of return on investment (I know its sounds bad)
NICE, the organization that determines whether health care options are cost-effective in the UK has decided that $22,750 is the maximum it will pay to extend someone's life by 6 months, with a whole year worth $45,500.
As I calculate it, then, a baby expected to live 75 years is worth $3,412,500, while someone who is 30 with the same life expectancy ...[text shortened]... t a 70 year old only $227,500.
Doesn't this somehow say that old people are "worth less"?
The reality is that they do need to put limits as the "old pop" is growing and resourcess / money are limited in the NHS, so some tough choices have to be made