"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K."

[DinoDoc]

Reality has a liberal bias.

One may begin to think otherwise given the reports coming out of the CBO recently wrt the health care proposals coming out of DC.

[KrazyHorse]

Yes, and this is why Patty's claim that quality of life is irrelevant is ****ing idiotic.

[Kuciwalker]

The OP

[chequita guevara]

To be honest, I'd be happy to live a year and a day in a wheel chair rather than die immediately. I'd probably be less enthused about being in agony for a whole year . . . if I were "lucky" enough to make it that long.

[chequita guevara]

Response
Thank you for contacting us.

Due to the large volume of email we receive, we are unable to respond to every comment or inquiry. However, please know that we value your input and read every email we receive.

The IBDeditorials.com team

================================================== =
Free Newsletter: Get IBD’s commentary and cartoons via email.
Click below to sign up:

http://visitor.constantcontact.com/email.jsp?m=1101470620461&p=oi

================================================== =

Discussion Thread
Customer (chegitz guevara) 08/11/2009 08:28 AM
"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the
U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant
man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."

You are aware that not only is Stephen Hawking British, he has lived in
Great Britain his whole life and continues to live there today. This is what
is known as, "own goal." You disproved your own thesis.

Marc Luzietti
Fort Lauderdale, FL


Question Reference #090811-000301
Date Created: 08/11/2009 08:28 AM
Last Updated: 08/11/2009 08:28 AM
Status: Unresolved

[Japher]

Did you 100-0?

[KrazyHorse]

To be honest, I'd be happy to live a year and a day in a wheel chair rather than die immediately

Your choice has to be made ex ante, not ex post.

[DanS]

This brings up an important question: Does Hawkins' computer voice speak in a Brit accent?

[Asher]

No.

[KrazyHorse]

No. He's complained about this in the past

[Patroklos]

But the current system in the US where a corporation decides whether it will cover you is ok?

They don't, I negotiated the contract that they are operating under.

In other words, the only objection you have with someone else deciding whether you live a little longer or die sooner is whether that person is a public or private bureaucrat. Same decision, same lack of accountability, but as long as the person isn't a government employee

I have a choice in my coverage Che. There is no choice at all in the government system.

Are you honestly this ****ing retarded?

This is not about your "benefit to society", you ****wit. They aren't handicapping based on income taxes paid or some such. This is about THEIR value to society as providers of health care. To simplify it to the level where even you might stand a chance of understanding it, imagine a world where people stand a 50% chance of getting disease A and a 50% chance of getting disease B. If they get disease A then the NHS can delay death, symptom free for 1 year. If they get disease B then the NHS can delay death for 1 year and 1 day, but the extra year and a day will be spent in a wheelchair. There is not enough money to do both. Now, you're telling me that the fact that the extra time is spent in a wheelchair has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NHS PROVIDING THE MOST VALUE TO SOCIETY GIVEN LIMITED RESOURCES?

You ****ing moron.

Thats not a valid example you sanctimnious ass. It is if the ONLY difference is the wheelchair. What the hell does it matter to society if you are in a wheel chair or not? What the hell does it matter to future healthcare spending? It is entirely irrelevant, unless you walk around thinking people in the wheelchairs are worthless gimps. This isn't 50 years ago, being in a wheelchair is irrelevant for these purposes unless you want to claim it constitutes some sort of non trivial burden on the system.

It's more like, with the money we could spend giving you a 25% chance making it another year, bed ridden and in pain, we could save five other people's lives.

This is a valid example. Someone living in a wheelchair can live a perfectly normal and productive life.

[Japher]

You know how much money is spent each year on handicapping every public building?! If we didn't treat cripples we would save a fortune!

[Patroklos]

Blacks have there siccple cell anemia problem, I guess they lose every time

But then again whites sunburn easier...

[Japher]

A measure of a human life should not be based on value added to a landfill, but value added to the society and world at large. The healthy guy breaks a leg gets treatment despite collecting welfare for the past 20 years while the crippled guy gets denied treatment even though he has significantly advanced scientific thought?

Makes a lot of sense.

[KrazyHorse]

Thats not a valid example you sanctimnious ass.

"A valid example"? I have no idea what you think this means.

It is if the ONLY difference is the wheelchair.

What is what?

You've claimed that quality of life is "irrelevant" despite the fact that the NHS' stated goal is to maximize quality of life adjusted survivorship. I gave an extreme example to demonstrate NOT ONLY why it's relevant GIVEN THE NHS' OWN STATED PURPOSE, BY WHICH IT IS RELEVANT BY DEFINITION, but also why this is a justifiable position for a public provider of health care to take.

What the hell does it matter to society if you are in a wheel chair or not?

If it matters to you then it matters to society, you idiot. You are PART OF SOCIETY FROM THE NHS' PERSPECTIVE (well, not you, since they have a national perspective)

What the hell does it matter to future healthcare spending? It is entirely irrelevant, unless you walk around thinking people in the wheelchairs are worthless gimps.

Fallacy of the excluded middle, dumbass

This isn't 50 years ago, being in a wheelchair is irrelevant for these purposes

What purposes, you ****ing moron?

"Quality of life" has nothing to do with the productivity of the individual. "Quality of life" is a relative measure of the value of living TO THE INDIVIDUAL HIMSELF.



Quality of life is an adjustment made in evaluating the benefit of medical care to maximize the ex ante value of the NHS to individuals with a given, finite set of resources.