Comments on: The Health Care Debate: What Price is Life? A Stranger’s Life? Your Child’s Life?

By: deezmi

deezmi — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 18:14:27 +0000

Obama says “If you like your health insurance, you can keep it” FALSE!!!

When you have private insurance through your employer now and they pay let's say $500 a month for your insurance. Once we have social medicine (Obama's way) why would the employer still pay this amount for you to have a private insurance if he can buy social health insurance for $100 a month and control when you can go to get help and how quickly. I came from Eastern Europe and was brought up in the country where there was only social medicine… trust me: you don't ever want to have that. Doctor's don't get much pay for their crazy “medical” life style so the result is they are overwhelmed with work and they will get to you when they get to you….

There must be a better way to make an affordable health insurance for those that have none!

By: worldvitaminsonline

worldvitaminsonline — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:07:53 +0000

This is certainly a difficult question. Who is going to make the decision weather a life is not worth extending? This is something I have a problem with in the proposed Health Care Reform, to many unanswered questions. Maybe they should put their deadlines and political interest aside and take the time to get this one right.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:09:37 +0000

Degrance:

Perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I know the author (Singer) did make it abundantly clear that he feels health care is already being rationed in the U.S., including by "companies that have a profit motive."

As a senior, I fully agree with your premise that "at some point it is better to help someone die well than to squeeze every second of life out of their tortured bodies."

Thank you for your comments

Dorian

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 15:09:36 +0000

By: Degrance

Degrance — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 14:02:26 +0000

What both you and the author you quote missed is the fact that medical care is currently rationed in the US. Right now it is rationed by companies that have a profit motive in denying as much care as they can get away with.

Health Care Reform is about changing the locus of control of rationing so that it is done by medical professionals and not bookkeepers.

That said your premise is correct. Decisions must be made. Part of the solution is changing our culture of "life at all costs" and move a little more towards quality of life and end of life support. An expansion of the hospice infrastructure would be a good first start. At some point it is better to help someone die well than to squeeze every second of life out of their tortured bodies.

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 13:23:57 +0000

pacatrue: You pose some very difficult and real dilemmas, and that's what I tried to point out in my post—perhaps not so succesfully. Thanks.

Thanks as well to you, joeinhell. Because and as a result of your actions, you probably, more than many of us, do “know what a person's life is worth.”

Dorian

By: pacatrue

pacatrue — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 12:02:44 +0000

It always seems callous when one tries to put a monetary value on things, but that's because money is, by definition, removed from the things it purchases. Let's change the question to say: If you were a father and you could extend your life for one year, but the cost of doing so would mean your spouse and young daughter lose the house, would you do so? Many fathers would decide that they will not damage the finances of the ones they love in horrible ways for this. It becomes harder if you move it away from yourself. Would you save Little Billy for one year if it mean Little Susie loses her home? Harder call, and one can debate it in many ways, but it's no longer callous and disregarding human life when asked in this way. Instead, we are saying, “how do you balance the lives of all those you care for?” Spending infinite money on the lives of the sick does hurt others, perhaps in extremely serious ways.

By: joeinhell

joeinhell — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 04:57:34 +0000

Twice I risked my life and destroyed a car getting someone to the nearest medical help. One lived, old grandmother from Chicago. She was traveling with her young grandson and had a heart attack.
The kid told the cop when we got her to a clinic, that all I did was drive, smoke cigarettes like crazy, and scream "Where's the fucking Medevac."

Other died, young, the last thing she said was "tell, Cindy, I love her." The police would not give me any contact name, address or telephone number. All I could do was force them to put it in the accident report.

I did not know either person, they were just people that were going to die if I didn't get them help ASAP.

Give you some idea of what I think a person's life is worth?

By: D. E.Rodriguez

D. E.Rodriguez — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:59:27 +0000

"The uncomfortable reality is that every human life has a finite value, and some are valued higher than others.

That is probably one of the points Singer is making. Nevertless, when all is said and done, we are human beings with infinite value.

Thanks for your thoughtful comment, ElZagna

Dorian

By: ElZagna

ElZagna — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 03:55:12 +0000

I'm reminded of the famous question asked of Dukakis during one of the debates, “If your wife were raped and murdered, would you want the perpetrator executed?” I always felt that his answer should have been along the lines of, “Hell, yes, I'd want him killed. I'd probably want to strangle the SOB myself with my bare hands. But relying on a person's most visceral emotions is a lousy way to go about making public policy.”

The uncomfortable reality is that every human life has a finite value, and some are valued higher than others. Of course my life to me is worth more than your life or your grandkid's life, just as your life to you is worth more than mine. That's why these very personal, gut wrenching policies need to be made in the abstract by committees.