Resourceful spending in Social Healthcare

[Loppan Torkel]

How much would you consider reasonable to spend, through social healthcare, to save (prognosis 70%) a 75 year old man?

 

[JollyRoger]

There is only one pro life answer.

 

[Borachio]

Doesn't it depend on how much you have to spend?

 

[illram]

Whatever it costs to provide the best evidence based practice.

 

[El_Machinae]

What is 'save'?

In medicine, a common metric is Disability Adjusted Life Years (a measure of overall disease burden, expressed as the number of years lost due to ill-health, disability or early death)

 

[History_Buff]

Whatever it costs to provide the best evidence based practice.

This.

 

[GhostWriter16]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

 

[innonimatu]

The limit is not money, it's the existing material and human resources. We can't force people to me medics and nurses. And we don't need to cover whole cities with hospitals just in case. But we can spend to make sure that there are more than enough for the expected needs. It's not as if first world countries lack material or human resources...

 

[Cutlass]

Whatever it costs to provide the best evidence based practice.

This, and a look at what will make a difference for more than a month or 2. We spend a staggering amount of the money we spend on health care on people we know will be dead within 2 months.

 

[Grendeldef]

It's not measurable in terms of money.

G

 

[JollyRoger]

What amount of money is too much to bribe a young woman into not having an abortion?

 

[Cutlass]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

They're a crapload more likely to be cut off by the private insurer death panels.

 

[FriendlyFire]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

Or people paying for firefighters which they may or may not be a fire from which they can get their money worth.

 

[illram]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

Everyone benefits from public health.

 

[Angst]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

That's not true. If the equipment and resources are there, hospitals or doctors are forced to treat their patients. It's what they're paid to do. They're not paid to save the state money.

 

[peter grimes]

Jolly Roger nailed it in the first comment. Any poster who has previously staked out a 'pro-life' position on these forums must acknowledge this.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think of myself as extremely pro-life, but I think that opportunity cost is still a factor.

 

[dirtyparrot]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

A lot of countries with UHC have laws against discrimination based on age (i.e. you can't deny people care (even expensive care) simply because they're old).

 

[History_Buff]

This is why UHC is a bad thing. It forces people to pay into a system and then they may or may not be allowed to collect.

Because that totally doesn't happen with private sector plans.

 

[GhostWriter16]

At least the "Forced" part of it isn't there and you will get treatment if you pay for it.