Back when we were discussing Tort reform, I promised Jake that I would post on the value of a human life. His belief seemed to be that it should be based on the highest paid CEO "value" or "income", which made no sense to me.
So what do you think? Should the life of a starving baby in Somali be worth the same as that of a huge wealth creator and philanthropist like Bill Gates? Should the life of an 80 yr old Alzheimer patient be worth the same as a vibrant 10 yr old? What factors seem important to you? In the jury box or in the hospital, how or who should decide this? Since resources are scarce and we all pay for these decisions, it seems important that good decisions are being made. Now what is good?
I'll be adding more to this post as time allows, however I wanted to get you thinking about it...
Wiki Value of Life
G2A American Healthcare
Behans Economic Value
1st Quote Calculator
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I object to the notion that "we all pay for it." That's how we got into this mess in the first place. I claim that the value of a human life is nearly infinite, until it comes time to prolong it through the health care system, whatever that means to the person involved. That is, the poor infant in Somalia doesn't have the same level of care available as Bill Gates does.
The simple and ready conclusion is that the value of a human life, at that point, gets reduced from the spiritual answer of "infinite" to "what that person and those who care about him can and will pay for it." At that point we are talking about the PRICE, not value, and it's a pure market transaction. I see no reason it should be otherwise.
J. Ewing
Well as a willing citizen of American society, I think you are being drafted into caring about him. Besides, remember those little words about Love Thy neighbor.
And yes even though you object, we pay for many of these decisions in our product costs, service costs, insurance premiums, taxes, etc, etc, etc...
I see no difference between your proposition and mine, other than that government-run health care isn't willingly offered. There used to be charity hospitals where such help WAS willingly offered, and paid, by those who thought most human life had a value beyond what price they might afford. But my love of neighbor only extends so far, and when the price gets equal to those things I value as much or more, the guy dies. Sorry. Our country would be a lot better off if those decisions were made by individuals rather than governments.
OK, maybe it's not "fair" to compare the value of a 46-year-old alcoholic drifter's life with that of Bill Gates, nor that "Al" (the drifter) dies at age 46 of a heart attack while Bill gets a ridiculously expensive heart transplant at age 70 to live 2 more years. But why is it fair that Bill be taxed out the wazoo so that Al can have a heart transplant and live to age 48? If Bill gave it voluntarily, great, wonderful, a saint he is. But the compared value of their lives just found another point of unfairness, yes? All that changed was the price "someone" was willing and able to pay.
J. Ewing
I am concerned. J and I may have a small pt of agreement. I will have to reread and think about it some more after I have had a beer.
What we want is not necessarily what we get when we live in a society... Until society chooses to let people die, we will keep paying. I don't think that is necessarily a bad idea... G2A Mysterious Ways
Now how much should we pay? Or should one's family's wealth determine their survival?
And if someone's error causes a death, how much should the family be compensated?
I agree; "we" WILL keep paying. The question right now is whether that will be decided by individuals, individually or collectively and always starting with the person whose life is on the line. If they were thoughtful enough to buy insurance, that's pretty much it. If they worked able to buy the insurance (because government forced up the price, a different discussion) then we might, individually or collectively, decide to help out. You know, it used to be that doctors and hospitals would work for free or for reduced rates when poor people needed help. Once government became involved and assisted that they be paid the same every time, that sensible person to person approach died off, another casualty of government meddling in the health care system.
So, how much should we pay? "We" should pay absolutely nothing unless we are directly involved as patient or family (or as agent for the insurance purchased by the patient), or what we voluntarily choose to donate to friends or even strangers. "We" meaning government coercion should have no place in such decisions. We don't want "death panels" and that is what you get with government mandates, just sometimes not as obvious.
The question of medical malpractice is someplace where the value of a human life is often argued, and where some effort must be made to reconcile that very high value with what may be appropriately the very low "price" to be paid for making a mistake. Nobody should be put out of the medical profession for a simple mistake; they are too valuable. Deliberate, knowing errors or repeated errors showing the consequences should carry a high price (if proven). Unfortunately those high payments usually go to families that can afford the best attorneys, and those attorneys can argue that the deceased's lifetime earnings would be considerably higher than Al's. We might even allow such damages as "loss of consort" but those are much harder to assign a monetary value. What I do not agree with is assessing punitive damages in a civil trial; that is a criminal matter with a higher standard of evidence, or it should be.
J. Ewing
I agree that it seems criminal courts should fit in here somewhere.
I am not sure I would vote that a person's life is only worth what they can afford or beg for. (ie sucks to be poor...)
I am more curious as to why more people have not weighed in on this important and contentious topic. Also, I am curious how many beers Laurie's first beer led to, since we have not heard back from her...
You are still not making the necessary distinction between price and value or, alternatively, you are one of those who contributes freely to free clinics and such, where the price the poor are able to pay can be brought closer to what you perceive as the value of their lives.
Laurie, I would be curious as to what our "small point of agreement" might have been, when I try SO HARD to be contrary. :-)
John, another approach to the question might be to consider something other than life or death, since most deaths in the US are unaffected by the availability of medical care. We have long been told that the justification for Medicaid, far beyond human compassion or that silly "right to health care" argument, is that healthy people make better workers and contribute to society. Healthy children learn better and become better workers. Certainly all that is true, but the question is what is the value "returned" for the "price" paid? I have my opinion.
J. Ewing
J-
How I summarize what I see as a point of agreement is that we can not afford to give everyone the same level of care that Bill Gates would likely choose and (and pay for) for himself. I see this as true for healthcare for the uninsured and probabably for those on medicare down the road as well.
I would write more, but I'd rather finish today's beer on the back deck than at the keyboard.
Then it would appear we have full agreement. Well the "value" of a human life approaches infinity, the price we're willing to pay to sustain it varies depending on whose life it is and who is doing the paying.
J. Ewing
Now... Can we as a society do better than care for people based purely on the luck of the genetic and family draw?
I claim we already would if government would get the heck out of the way. We used to have charity hospitals and far more free clinics in this country, as well as doctors who would adjust their rates to allow for people of lesser means. Heck, half of the uninsured could be insured except that government has forced up the cost of insurance.
J. Ewing
Post a Comment