5 ms·

Healthcare is expensive.

by JesseAldridge 16y ago

Sindrome 16y ago
http://www.destinationrx.com/ http://www.destinationrx.com/ - I work there
orangecat 16y ago
And it will continue to be until we institute severe rationing, or cure aging. I vote for the second.
- hugh3 16y ago
  Cure aging and you either: a) Have a quite sudden and very severe overpopulation problem, or b) Are forced to ration babies. Both of these are pretty damn dystopic. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to live forever, but not necessarily at the cost of having everyone else live forever too.
  - orangecat 16y ago
    c) Institute a Logan's Run policy where you get 80 or 100 years of good health and are then painlessly euthanized. I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo. I'd like to live forever Curing aging doesn't let you live forever. There would still be diseases (at a much lower rate), accidents, murder, suicide, natural disasters, etc. All it would do is prevent the deterioration of our bodies and often our minds that generates large medical expenses, prevents us from being productive, and impairs our quality of life. It would also give us the option of living for several centuries longer than we do today, which we could take or not.
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo. I'm rather unconvinced that's an improvement over the status quo... you've just granted the government the power to euthanize people. And you just know that they're going to find a way to abuse that. They'll start by giving extensions to really valuable people we don't want to lose; great scientists, artists, writers. And then it'll be "gee, I guess politicians are pretty awesome as well, perhaps politicians should get another hundred years too..." Pretty soon it's effective-immortality for political favours. No thanks, I'll take my chances with old age. The best solution is: (d) Build starships and expand into space. But I worry that curing aging might come first.
      - orangecat 16y ago
        (d) Build starships and expand into space. We can agree on that at least. Our eggs definitely need more than one basket.
  - johngalt 16y ago
    Consider how much time/energy humans spend in training/development. Imagine having 30 years to get your PHD without the pressures of having to start a family in the same time frame? It's truely a very short "maximum productivity time" we have. Possibly as little as 10 years. And in many cases it's that very time where most real progress is made. Could you imagine if Einstein were still at work today with the mind of a 25 year old? Or Von Neumann with today's technology? I think that most problems presented in this scenario could be solved.
- saukrates 16y ago
  Healthcare (sick care) is expensive in the hospital setting once the problem is out of your control. Preventative Healthcare is very cheap ($1/day vs $10,000/day). How do we keep people healthy rather than treating symptoms in the hospital?
- nradov 16y ago
  Or until we find a way to stop widespread overeating, substance abuse, and sedentary lifestyles. If we could manage that (probably impossible) then total healthcare costs would be so low that we wouldn't have to worry how to pay for them.
- tjmaxal 16y ago
  "curing aging" would actually INCREASE the cost of healthcare to nearly infinite.
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    Not necessarily. http://www.sens.org/ http://www.sens.org/
  - orangecat 16y ago
    Please explain. The average medical expenses of a 30 year old are vastly lower than for an 80 year old, and a successful cure for aging would give you the health of a 30 year old indefinitely.
    - ErrantX 16y ago
      Over a long enough lifespan the chance of contracting cancer approaches one. So we'd have to fix that too, for starters.
      - orangecat 16y ago
        Nah. Sure, even if you don't suffer from aging you'd still occasionally get diseases, and eventually one would be fatal, but your medical expenses per year would be far less than they are today.
        ErrantX 16y ago
        Ok then, how about this. Obesity is a growing cause of illness. Removing aging is unlikely to affect that, arguably it could compound the problem.
        orangecat 16y ago
        Potentially, although I'd expect that a person with the health of an obese 30 year old would still have lower medical expenses than a non-obese 60 year old. At any rate, obesity is a relatively easy problem compared to aging. (Step 1: stop subsidizing corn syrup...)

Healthcare is expensive.

Sindrome 16y ago

http://www.destinationrx.com/ http://www.destinationrx.com/ - I work there

orangecat 16y ago

And it will continue to be until we institute severe rationing, or cure aging. I vote for the second.

hugh3 16y ago
Cure aging and you either: a) Have a quite sudden and very severe overpopulation problem, or b) Are forced to ration babies. Both of these are pretty damn dystopic. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to live forever, but not necessarily at the cost of having everyone else live forever too.
- orangecat 16y ago
  c) Institute a Logan's Run policy where you get 80 or 100 years of good health and are then painlessly euthanized. I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo. I'd like to live forever Curing aging doesn't let you live forever. There would still be diseases (at a much lower rate), accidents, murder, suicide, natural disasters, etc. All it would do is prevent the deterioration of our bodies and often our minds that generates large medical expenses, prevents us from being productive, and impairs our quality of life. It would also give us the option of living for several centuries longer than we do today, which we could take or not.
  - hugh3 16y ago
    I think we can do better than c, but it's a lower bound: it avoids your concerns and is still a large improvement over the status quo. I'm rather unconvinced that's an improvement over the status quo... you've just granted the government the power to euthanize people. And you just know that they're going to find a way to abuse that. They'll start by giving extensions to really valuable people we don't want to lose; great scientists, artists, writers. And then it'll be "gee, I guess politicians are pretty awesome as well, perhaps politicians should get another hundred years too..." Pretty soon it's effective-immortality for political favours. No thanks, I'll take my chances with old age. The best solution is: (d) Build starships and expand into space. But I worry that curing aging might come first.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      (d) Build starships and expand into space. We can agree on that at least. Our eggs definitely need more than one basket.
- johngalt 16y ago
  Consider how much time/energy humans spend in training/development. Imagine having 30 years to get your PHD without the pressures of having to start a family in the same time frame? It's truely a very short "maximum productivity time" we have. Possibly as little as 10 years. And in many cases it's that very time where most real progress is made. Could you imagine if Einstein were still at work today with the mind of a 25 year old? Or Von Neumann with today's technology? I think that most problems presented in this scenario could be solved.
saukrates 16y ago
Healthcare (sick care) is expensive in the hospital setting once the problem is out of your control. Preventative Healthcare is very cheap ($1/day vs $10,000/day). How do we keep people healthy rather than treating symptoms in the hospital?
nradov 16y ago
Or until we find a way to stop widespread overeating, substance abuse, and sedentary lifestyles. If we could manage that (probably impossible) then total healthcare costs would be so low that we wouldn't have to worry how to pay for them.
tjmaxal 16y ago
"curing aging" would actually INCREASE the cost of healthcare to nearly infinite.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Not necessarily. http://www.sens.org/ http://www.sens.org/
- orangecat 16y ago
  Please explain. The average medical expenses of a 30 year old are vastly lower than for an 80 year old, and a successful cure for aging would give you the health of a 30 year old indefinitely.
  - ErrantX 16y ago
    Over a long enough lifespan the chance of contracting cancer approaches one. So we'd have to fix that too, for starters.
    - orangecat 16y ago
      Nah. Sure, even if you don't suffer from aging you'd still occasionally get diseases, and eventually one would be fatal, but your medical expenses per year would be far less than they are today.
      - ErrantX 16y ago
        Ok then, how about this. Obesity is a growing cause of illness. Removing aging is unlikely to affect that, arguably it could compound the problem.
        orangecat 16y ago
        Potentially, although I'd expect that a person with the health of an obese 30 year old would still have lower medical expenses than a non-obese 60 year old. At any rate, obesity is a relatively easy problem compared to aging. (Step 1: stop subsidizing corn syrup...)