4 ms·
lifetime medical expenses are accrued in the last few years/months of life When my mother got terminal cancer, the last few months of her life became her most
by fnid2 16y ago
lifetime medical expenses are accrued in the last few years/months of life
When my mother got terminal cancer, the last few months of her life became her most valuable. Those last days were scarce. In a way, they are infinitely more valuable than all her other days, because she knew at that point that she had a finite number. Until you are given a terminal diagnosis, you feel infinite, and perhaps -- with the innovation in life extension -- you actually could live forever. Of course accidents still happen and with more days to live, the law of large numbers kicks in, so we'll probably never live forever, but I digress.
Point being, the last days are the most valuable and the treatments to keep us alive under terminal conditions are expensive. It's expensive to fight death and few want to die. Most believe not dying to be the most important and valuable thing in their lives, so it is understandable that the last years, in general, cost the most to keep.
The only alternative to this situation is to embrace death. Make it normal. Make it not scary. Treat the emotional aspects of dying rather than the conditions that cause death.
We are a long way from a society like that.
- geebee 16y agoYou make a good point. It would be interesting to break this down a little further. I've had a similar experience, and I did greatly value those last months and years.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- blots 16y agoWell, anyone reading this now will most probably die within the next 80 years. It's not that much really...on an astronomical scale.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- cabalamat 16y agoNot if Aubrey de Grey ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_grey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aubrey_de_grey ) gets his way! Seriously, I expect there are people alive today who will still be alive in 1000 years.
- joubert 16y ago1000 years?
- cabalamat 16y agoYes. Even today, people occasionally live to 120 years. Therefore on the principle of mediocrity, in 2130 there are likely to be people who were born on or before 2010. And it's very likely IMO that immortality will be a given by then, either using uploading, or via careful repair of damage caused by aging.
- stcredzero 16y agoIt's very likely that we know all of the mechanisms of damage associated with aging. (Looks like there are only 7.) It also seems very likely we can cure all of them. There are two sticky problems, however. Damage in Mitochondrial DNA might be a difficult problem. Replacing the function with nuclear DNA may not be an option in cells like nerve cells, which can be very long on cellular scales. Cancer may be an insurmountable problem. Cancer is not a singular disease. It's more of a consequence of the laws governing evolution. However, if the problem were reduced to just cancer, we would still achieve considerable life extension. (Ending with a very bad disease.)
- joubert 16y agoso you think our life expectancy will be well beyond 1,000 years by then? how will actuaries calculate life expectancy in 2130 (which is less than 1,000 years from now)?
- fnid2 16y agoThe argument life extenders make is that in 20 years, we'll cure all the ailments that may cause death for another 20 years and then within that time, another set of cures will evolve until eventually, we've cured everything that could kill a person. The trend supports them, somewhat. Lifetimes centuries ago were 30-40 years on average. Only a handful of people lived 60 or more years. Today, many people live to 100, many more to 80... so we are getting better at preventing death. At some point, if this trend continues, we'll be almost perfect at it.
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- apsec112 16y ago"When my mother got terminal cancer, the last few months of her life became her most valuable." Suppose you have an anti-cancer drug, and two patients in front of you. Resources are limited, so you can only cure one of them. - Person A, if they are cured, would live an additional thirty years. - Person B, if they are cured, would live an additional three months. Who are you going to choose? "Point being, the last days are the most valuable" Citation? Saying that your mother felt her last days were the most valuable is just personal opinion, but saying that they are the most valuable, as a generally applicable fact, needs a citation or an argument or something other than simple assertion.
- kiba 16y agoValuation are necessary subjective, not objective. What are you interested in, it seem, which individual will contribute more to your overall wealth. However, to the dying mother, her time near the end of her life is the most valuable to her. There is no citation to be founded, per se, because you came from a different perspective.
- crystalis 16y agoValuation are necessary subjective, not objective. It's true, this is how I got two bucks in change for a four dollar coffee I spent three dollars on.
- kiba 16y agoI might as well link to Wikipedia's article on the subjective theory of values since you don't get it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_theory_of_value Something of which is valuable to me may not be valuable to another person. However, a "price" is much distinct from "value" as price are exchange ratio for two goods, not the overall utility to a person.
- crystalis 16y agoI might as well quote your Wikipedia article since you don't get it: "If it is true that the economic value of things cannot be ascertained without subjecting a particular good to individual value judgements in a market" Notably, there's a big 'if' and later it intimates some other essential things like the complete lack of studied consensus that might be required to baldly assert it as true in a forum of discussion without a proper background, caveat, or concession. So yes, if you insist that firetrucks are not firetruck red, you should probably disclaim the special point of reference from which you make your claims, or expect people to not kowtow to your every esotericism. That said, fuck your mother's cooling corpse for even a few minutes more of, e.g., Einstein.
- kevinpet 16y agoI don't think I'd say infinitely more valuable. I'm sure that she was willing to spend infinite amounts of resources to prolong them if she gains nothing from forgoing the more expensive outlandish treatments. Let's say I got a terminal illness. I have a one year old son. Would I prefer to spend every last drop of our savings and go into debt to hang on a few more weeks? I hope not. Life is valuable, but delaying death is only one thing we can spend money on. At some point it has an incredibly high marginal cost. Making the patient more aware of these costs would make it possible for the actual interested parties to decide whether pushing 3 months to 3 months and a week is more important than the survivors being financially better off. I think this ties into the article as well -- the reason we don't create real wealth is because it's more lucrative to find ways to game the system and siphon off value. Think of lobbyists, the root cause of the problem and one of its most obvious examples. They create nothing. They just get their preferred regulations into law. So millions are spent on both sides to argue over whether we should mortgage our children to pay for prescription drugs for todays elderly.