3 ms·

Well, if you're spending $50 over and over to save the life of someone who then immediately gets back up and goes off to find more heroin, then "what price is a

Well, if you're spending $50 over and over to save the life of someone who then immediately gets back up and goes off to find more heroin, then "what price is a human life worth" is an interesting question indeed. There are billions of us, and some cost a lot more than they contribute.

mikeash 7y ago
While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. (And even trying to figure it out after the fact is pretty ridiculous for the vast majority.) A person who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise can easily rack up millions of dollars in treatments for heart attacks and strokes. Yet they don’t seem to get anything like the same derision. Why?
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago
  > While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. I'll point out that people rescued from the brink of death are usually grateful for it, whereas these poor individuals, as noted in the article, often take a swing at their rescuers. I think that pretty much answers the question of whether they cost more than they contribute. > A person who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise can easily rack up millions of dollars in treatments for heart attacks and strokes. Yet they don’t seem to get anything like the same derision. Why? What makes you think people don't? Have you never observed someone or even yourself doing something unhealthy and thought glumly "Yep, eating/drinking this is going to put him/her/me one step closer to death by a lifestyle disease. Foolish of him/her/me."
  - mikeash 7y ago
    How does them taking a swing at their rescuers tell us anything about their relative costs and benefits to society? What makes me think people don’t? The fact that you begrudge $50 to save an addict’s life, while your theoretical reaction to someone eating themselves to death is “foolish of him” seems to back that up pretty strongly.
DanBC 7y ago
The answer is to provide more healthcare in the form of addiction treatment, not to abandon people to die. Because those abandoned people will continue draining budgets even if you're not providing healthcare for them.
- Navarr 7y ago
  I imagine the biggest argument for why this hasn't happened yet is due to the massive expense. But is it more expensive than what we're currently doing? (USA viewpoint)
jacobreg 7y ago
Sorry, are you implying that a life might not be worth $50 to save because they might be a burden on society?
- mieseratte 7y ago
  I suppose one could frame it as “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” To be frank, and I say this having addicted family members, sometimes it’s rather hard to care about a junkie. I’m not exactly in the “fuck ‘em” camp, as a society we should have a better answer than leaving them a nuisance, but the idea that we should give up at a certain point is scarcely exotic.

mikeash 7y ago

While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. (And even trying to figure it out after the fact is pretty ridiculous for the vast majority.) A person who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise can easily rack up millions of dollars in treatments for heart attacks and strokes. Yet they don’t seem to get anything like the same derision. Why?

ThrowawayR2 7y ago
> While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. I'll point out that people rescued from the brink of death are usually grateful for it, whereas these poor individuals, as noted in the article, often take a swing at their rescuers. I think that pretty much answers the question of whether they cost more than they contribute. > A person who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise can easily rack up millions of dollars in treatments for heart attacks and strokes. Yet they don’t seem to get anything like the same derision. Why? What makes you think people don't? Have you never observed someone or even yourself doing something unhealthy and thought glumly "Yep, eating/drinking this is going to put him/her/me one step closer to death by a lifestyle disease. Foolish of him/her/me."
- mikeash 7y ago
  How does them taking a swing at their rescuers tell us anything about their relative costs and benefits to society? What makes me think people don’t? The fact that you begrudge $50 to save an addict’s life, while your theoretical reaction to someone eating themselves to death is “foolish of him” seems to back that up pretty strongly.

DanBC 7y ago

The answer is to provide more healthcare in the form of addiction treatment, not to abandon people to die. Because those abandoned people will continue draining budgets even if you're not providing healthcare for them.

Navarr 7y ago
I imagine the biggest argument for why this hasn't happened yet is due to the massive expense. But is it more expensive than what we're currently doing? (USA viewpoint)

jacobreg 7y ago

Sorry, are you implying that a life might not be worth $50 to save because they might be a burden on society?

mieseratte 7y ago
I suppose one could frame it as “play stupid games, win stupid prizes.” To be frank, and I say this having addicted family members, sometimes it’s rather hard to care about a junkie. I’m not exactly in the “fuck ‘em” camp, as a society we should have a better answer than leaving them a nuisance, but the idea that we should give up at a certain point is scarcely exotic.