4 ms·

The thing is, the value for these products is infinite. If people don't have them, they'll die.

by pxndx 11y ago

ikeboy 11y ago
The value of a human life is not infinite, at least not in health budgets. Insurance companies set a non-infinite value to decide what procedures to cover. In theory, you could calculate the exact value provided by this drug (under the QALY model).
- learc83 11y ago
  The value of a human life to the individual who's life it belongs cannot be calculated in economic terms (at least for most people) because it is unbounded, i.e., there is not a price that most people will accept for their life. The economic value of a human life to society can be calculated. Under your theory a fair method to price life saving drugs doesn't exist. The person getting the drugs will effectively extract infinite value while the company will only extract a finite value.
  - icebraining 11y ago
    The value of a human life to the individual who's life it belongs cannot be calculated in economic terms (at least for most people) because it is unbounded, i.e., there is not a price that most people will accept for their life. Not really true, I'm afraid. People killing themselves (or allowing others to kill them) to ensure a payout to their families happens with some regularity.
    - learc83 11y ago
      1. My qualifier "most people" covers that situation, because it is very very rare. 2. Usually this happens because they place a higher value on their children's life and well being than their own. So even in the case were someone does place a value on their own life, it's only in relation to someone else's life. The case of 2 is interesting because it shows that of the people who would accept a finite sum for their own life, very few would accept a finite sum for their chidren's life. Since paying for the child's healthcare is the responsibility of the parent in a free market, we are back to my previous point that their is no fair free market way to price life saving drugs.
randyrand 11y ago
NOT TRUE! Sometime's it's the opposite. My grandfather routinely denies spending money on himself (medical or otherwise) since he won't be around much longer. He would rather have the money stay for his kids. He feels this way even about procedures that would save his life.

The thing is, the value for these products is infinite. If people don't have them, they'll die.

by pxndx 11y ago

The thing is, the value for these products is infinite. If people don't have them, they'll die.

The value of a human life is not infinite, at least not in health budgets. Insurance companies set a non-infinite value to decide what procedures to cover. In theory, you could calculate the exact value provided by this drug (under the QALY model).

learc83 11y ago
The value of a human life to the individual who's life it belongs cannot be calculated in economic terms (at least for most people) because it is unbounded, i.e., there is not a price that most people will accept for their life. The economic value of a human life to society can be calculated. Under your theory a fair method to price life saving drugs doesn't exist. The person getting the drugs will effectively extract infinite value while the company will only extract a finite value.
- icebraining 11y ago
  The value of a human life to the individual who's life it belongs cannot be calculated in economic terms (at least for most people) because it is unbounded, i.e., there is not a price that most people will accept for their life. Not really true, I'm afraid. People killing themselves (or allowing others to kill them) to ensure a payout to their families happens with some regularity.
  - learc83 11y ago
    1. My qualifier "most people" covers that situation, because it is very very rare. 2. Usually this happens because they place a higher value on their children's life and well being than their own. So even in the case were someone does place a value on their own life, it's only in relation to someone else's life. The case of 2 is interesting because it shows that of the people who would accept a finite sum for their own life, very few would accept a finite sum for their chidren's life. Since paying for the child's healthcare is the responsibility of the parent in a free market, we are back to my previous point that their is no fair free market way to price life saving drugs.

randyrand 11y ago

NOT TRUE! Sometime's it's the opposite. My grandfather routinely denies spending money on himself (medical or otherwise) since he won't be around much longer. He would rather have the money stay for his kids. He feels this way even about procedures that would save his life.