5 ms·
Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other
by esturk 3y ago
Such a crass statement. What if you're the patient? Would you spend 2 million to live 30-40 more years? It's so easy to step back and weight the lives of other as if you're making the decision for others.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoThe $2M represents a certain portion of society’s productivity, which is not unlimited.
- dragonwriter 3y agoYes, but spending it preventing debilitating disease that would cost about the same amount over the lifetime of the sufferer is a no-brainer, even in net econonic output, terms.
- ponector 3y agoBut it is so only for few countries with ridiculously high costs of medical services. What about other? If we are talking about someone from south America? 2m is much higher that either costs or economical output the treated person could deliver through lifetime.
- soulbadguy 3y ago> What if you're the patient? What if you are on those 10 poor kids he mentioned ? I don't agree that OP statement is "crass". It's a very pragmatic and important question we have wrestle with.
- esturk 3y agoExcept those 10 poor kids aren't spending their own money to save themselves. The patient is though which is the point.
- soulbadguy 3y agoif it's their own money sure. But almost all care services end benefiting from some sort of subsidies. Even if just by increasing the cost of inssurance for the rest of the population
- arcanemachiner 3y agoThe median income in America is a little under $40000 per person[1], so that $2.2 million pretty much represents the entire financial income of the average American over a working lifetime (55-60 years). So in essence, you'd be trading the equivalent of one person's entire lifetime of productivity in exchange for the first generation of a radical new medicine whose outcome is unknowable. I don't think it's crass to err on the side of caution for such a scenario. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_personal_income_in_the_United_States https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_personal_income_i...
- vidarh 3y agoThese people mostly do get treatment now, for decades, involving regular expensive long term hospital stays. So you're trading already expensive treatments that cut their earnings potential drastically both by cutting number of productive years but also due to extensive sick leave. So if there even is an increase in the total cost of treatments, it's not at all a given it's a a net increase once account for decades of additional working life.
- imtringued 3y agoI see you are a fan of the MAiD program in Canada.
- ponector 3y agoOf course I will do anything to prolong life of myself and my family, like any human being. But as a society with limited resources we need to set priorities. I hope everyone will be able to receive treatment. However, such treatment is only for rich people, or from rich countries. Even some countries in Europe are not reach enough to pay for such medicine. Like Zolgensma, which also costs around 2 millions USD to cure SMA.
- ben_w 3y agoCrass, sure. Not sure it's really easier though, economics and emotional affect are often at odds. Ask people if a hospital administrator should spend 100k on either a single liver transplant for an 11 year old girl, or spread over 100 less expensive life saving interventions for 50 year olds, most people will say save the girl and demand the administrator be fired for even needing to think about it. (Half remembered but apparently real scenario, though I'm not sure where from)
- imtringued 3y agoWhy? The way health insurance works, all of those are profitable treatments. There is no "choose one or the other". Sick children/adults becoming healthy adults that can pay for health insurance is not a moral dilemma.
- ben_w 3y agoWhat are you asking "why" about, exactly?