This conversation is closed.

Health plans all have a decision to make. How many resources will be allocated to save the life of one individual? Will it be the same?

Our ability to prolong life is increasing at a rapid pace. The resources involved are frequently considerable both in treatment and in the additional numbers of citizens receiving Social Security.. Will the time come when the government see fit to hold secret cures as a financial imperative?

  • Jan 11 2014: I would agree that the heart should go to a WORTHY younger person if a choice has to be made. It should not be considered as a fair solution however. More like a military triage situation.
    Where the heart is withheld because of cost is much more difficult to justify. Perhaps some elected officials could take one less trip and save the lives of 6 or 8 old people.
  • Jan 11 2014: Lets give an example, should a 80 year old person be given a heart transplant?

    1. The cost
    2. The heart could have been used on a younger person.
  • Dec 31 2013: Its not a necessity, its a choice..A life or death choice..And there is a point to keeping a cure secret (or refusing to allow health care to pay for the treatment).. Government funding for old people drops to zero when they die. No more hospital bills or Social Security. Thats what the Independent Payment Review Board does. It forbids payment of claims for some medical procedures for old people thereby refusing them a cure.. Life or death decisions for the commision of crimes are reviewed by courts in lengthy reviews and hearings. The small number of people involved in the IPRB will make life or death decisions for thousands or even millions of people. No hearing.
    As for what do we need the government for. It moved into things we don`t need it for years ago..
  • Dec 31 2013: Who determines what constitutes what is the best use of our money. The founders intended the House and and make these decisions. T
  • Dec 31 2013: Secret, no, there's no point in keeping it secret.
    Withholding funding of expensive cures from being taken out of the treasury on the other hand, is something we already do to some extent. Limited budgets and resource allocation make that a necessity.

    Its a matter of deciding where that money is best spent. As for governments making life and death decisions, that's part of the job description, yes. After all, if it can't provide security, safer infrastructure, and stuff like social security, what do we need a government for again?
  • Dec 30 2013: Should the government make judgements about life and death of its (lawful) citizens?