3 ms·

> You're also making the assumption that rejuvenation tech > won't be cheap enough for everyone at some point. You're making an assumption that human life ca

by Ygg2 13y ago

> You're also making the assumption that rejuvenation tech > won't be cheap enough for everyone at some point. You're making an assumption that human life can be valued in terms of money. Take any surgery for instance. They are all life extension technologies. If someone came to you and told you, if you don't pay us 100k you'll die within next 30 years from cancer, would you pay? If the price became 200k would you still pay? If the price became too large to pay, wouldn't you attempt to steal/beg for the money to not die? Some things are too valuable to haggle and you'll accept any price. This is why surgeries cost as much as they do in USA. Stuff like this might be cheap or expensive depending on how it's bargained. Things like this are better left to be mandated by the government.

pdonis 13y ago
> Things like this are better left to be mandated by the government. Only if you assume the government is somehow magically immune to the same problems of asymmetric power relationships that you describe. It isn't. Also, earlier in your post you say: > You're making an assumption that human life can be valued in terms of money. Which is exactly what governments that are tasked with rationing health care have to do. They only have a finite amount of the taxpayers' money to spend, vs. a potentially infinite demand for health care.
- Ygg2 13y ago
  > Only if you assume the government is somehow magically immune. I didn't assume, but the fact is they are uniquely capable of solving this situation in optimal way for the ones acquiring such medicine/procedure. There are things they are bad at and things they are good at, this is the latter example. A bad, corrupt government can do all kinds of really fucked up shit, so I don't even want to consider what a bad government might do in this case. E.g. treat a portion of people as literal cattle and feed others with it, murder the sick, etc. > Which is exactly what governments that are tasked with rationing health care have to do. Sorry, meant to say "You're making an assumption that you can value your life in terms of money". Your mother/father/employer might value your life in some way, but for you your life is usually precious. Governments, can 'value life' in aggregate. Basically it comes down to bargaining power. If a doctor tricks your or cheats you on your bill, other than revenge and trying to sue them after they took your money away you aren't left with a lot of options (hell, you might even think treatments are supposed to be this expensive). Governments on the other have more chips, bigger chips and stronger insurance when it comes to bargaining with the pharmaceutical and medical providers.
  - pdonis 13y ago
    > I don't even want to consider what a bad government might do in this case So you just magically assume that there are no bad governments? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Nor does your claim that this is something governments are somehow magically good at. They're not. > for you your life is usually precious If that were actually true, people would behave very differently than they do. Any behavior that, on average, reduces your life expectancy, is irrational under your assumption. And since most behaviors do that, your assumption leads to the conclusion that people should not do most of the things they in fact do. > Basically it comes down to bargaining power. If governments actually did nothing more than bargain for the best rates for any given treatment, on behalf of every citizen of the country, and then let each citizen choose (along with their doctor, of course) the best treatment they can afford, that would be fine. Even subsidizing some people to level the playing field for "what they can afford" to the extent possible would be fine. But no government limits itself to just doing that. Governments always end up rationing actual treatments. And they do it badly.
    - Ygg2 13y ago
      > So you just magically assume that there are no bad governments? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Nor does your claim that this is something governments are somehow magically good at. They're not. No. I didn't say that. There are bad people in the world. And I walk down street all the time, not taking into consideration that every person I met today might attempt to murder me horrifically if they intended it. Taking worse scenario in this case, isn't prudent. I'm talking how a government should behave and a lot of government, don't behave as you state. For example UK, Canadian and a lot of EU have socialized medicine and it works rather nice for them. True, some probably had a fair share of mismanagement and probably some abuse. That doesn't detract from my point that it's possible to have decent government. > If that were actually true, people would behave very differently than they do. Any behavior that, on average, reduces your life expectancy, is irrational under your assumption. And since most behaviors do that, your assumption leads to the conclusion that people should not do most of the things they in fact do. You are constructing a strawman there. It won't work. I'm talking about immediate life altering changes. Not some, you'll die if you smoked bacon. Or hot dogs. You need a heart in seven days or you are good as dead. You are given option: A) pay X+30 amount of dollars and survive B) go online, research the prices, try to find same procedure for amount X, then argue with current hospital to transfer to a new hospital, transport there taking large amount of risk and pay X dollars but a bigger chance that you'll die. Usually, you'll go for option X+30 since it's less risky and those 30 bucks well, you can't spend them if you are dead anyway, right? Next step X becomes X+30, repeat ad nauseam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M
Dylan16807 13y ago
If someone came and told me I would die three years earlier than normal unless I paid 5M, I would say no. I disagree with your assertion that life is too valuable to put any number on. This is especially true in cases where treatment isn't a cure and it or paying for it severely decreases quality of life.
sliverstorm 13y ago
It might be expensive, but chances are it will be accessible to everyone. If rejuvenation tech can extend someone's working career, I would expect all sorts of loans would be available. You want to stay young and continue working for another 40 years? Well then of course we can front you $50k.

by Ygg2 13y ago

pdonis 13y ago

> Things like this are better left to be mandated by the government. Only if you assume the government is somehow magically immune to the same problems of asymmetric power relationships that you describe. It isn't. Also, earlier in your post you say: > You're making an assumption that human life can be valued in terms of money. Which is exactly what governments that are tasked with rationing health care have to do. They only have a finite amount of the taxpayers' money to spend, vs. a potentially infinite demand for health care.

Ygg2 13y ago
> Only if you assume the government is somehow magically immune. I didn't assume, but the fact is they are uniquely capable of solving this situation in optimal way for the ones acquiring such medicine/procedure. There are things they are bad at and things they are good at, this is the latter example. A bad, corrupt government can do all kinds of really fucked up shit, so I don't even want to consider what a bad government might do in this case. E.g. treat a portion of people as literal cattle and feed others with it, murder the sick, etc. > Which is exactly what governments that are tasked with rationing health care have to do. Sorry, meant to say "You're making an assumption that you can value your life in terms of money". Your mother/father/employer might value your life in some way, but for you your life is usually precious. Governments, can 'value life' in aggregate. Basically it comes down to bargaining power. If a doctor tricks your or cheats you on your bill, other than revenge and trying to sue them after they took your money away you aren't left with a lot of options (hell, you might even think treatments are supposed to be this expensive). Governments on the other have more chips, bigger chips and stronger insurance when it comes to bargaining with the pharmaceutical and medical providers.
- pdonis 13y ago
  > I don't even want to consider what a bad government might do in this case So you just magically assume that there are no bad governments? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Nor does your claim that this is something governments are somehow magically good at. They're not. > for you your life is usually precious If that were actually true, people would behave very differently than they do. Any behavior that, on average, reduces your life expectancy, is irrational under your assumption. And since most behaviors do that, your assumption leads to the conclusion that people should not do most of the things they in fact do. > Basically it comes down to bargaining power. If governments actually did nothing more than bargain for the best rates for any given treatment, on behalf of every citizen of the country, and then let each citizen choose (along with their doctor, of course) the best treatment they can afford, that would be fine. Even subsidizing some people to level the playing field for "what they can afford" to the extent possible would be fine. But no government limits itself to just doing that. Governments always end up rationing actual treatments. And they do it badly.
  - Ygg2 13y ago
    > So you just magically assume that there are no bad governments? That doesn't seem very reasonable to me. Nor does your claim that this is something governments are somehow magically good at. They're not. No. I didn't say that. There are bad people in the world. And I walk down street all the time, not taking into consideration that every person I met today might attempt to murder me horrifically if they intended it. Taking worse scenario in this case, isn't prudent. I'm talking how a government should behave and a lot of government, don't behave as you state. For example UK, Canadian and a lot of EU have socialized medicine and it works rather nice for them. True, some probably had a fair share of mismanagement and probably some abuse. That doesn't detract from my point that it's possible to have decent government. > If that were actually true, people would behave very differently than they do. Any behavior that, on average, reduces your life expectancy, is irrational under your assumption. And since most behaviors do that, your assumption leads to the conclusion that people should not do most of the things they in fact do. You are constructing a strawman there. It won't work. I'm talking about immediate life altering changes. Not some, you'll die if you smoked bacon. Or hot dogs. You need a heart in seven days or you are good as dead. You are given option: A) pay X+30 amount of dollars and survive B) go online, research the prices, try to find same procedure for amount X, then argue with current hospital to transfer to a new hospital, transport there taking large amount of risk and pay X dollars but a bigger chance that you'll die. Usually, you'll go for option X+30 since it's less risky and those 30 bucks well, you can't spend them if you are dead anyway, right? Next step X becomes X+30, repeat ad nauseam. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSjGouBmo0M

Dylan16807 13y ago

If someone came and told me I would die three years earlier than normal unless I paid 5M, I would say no. I disagree with your assertion that life is too valuable to put any number on. This is especially true in cases where treatment isn't a cure and it or paying for it severely decreases quality of life.

sliverstorm 13y ago

It might be expensive, but chances are it will be accessible to everyone. If rejuvenation tech can extend someone's working career, I would expect all sorts of loans would be available. You want to stay young and continue working for another 40 years? Well then of course we can front you $50k.