In our healthcare system, should money absolutely buy extended life

An economist friend of mine wrote the following:

>Healthcare is the only good that we spend too much on and not enough on
>at exactly the same moment!

I got to thinking on this one with the intent of looking at healthcare from either a capitalist perspective or a social perspective. First off, let me pose this
question to you here.

IF THE SCIENCE (if we ever get that far) OF MEDICINE COULD REACH A POINT
WHERE THEY COULD GUARANTEE A HIGH QUALITY OF FOUR OR MORE TIMES THE NORMAL LIFESPAN THROUGH
EXPENSIVE PROCESSES, WOULD YOU FAVOR GIVING EVERYONE EQUAL ACCESS TO THOSE
PROCESSES REGARDLESS OF COST, OR SHOULD ONLY THOSE THAT CAN AFFORD TO PAY
THIS HIGH COST GET TO BUY VASTLY EXTENDED LIFE??

I know this is a far end example, but it does point out in a nutshell the
reasoning why what this economist wrote above has happened. It has happened, IMO,
because of the cloudy nature of the art/science of medicine. So if one
was to remove the cloudy part, what would we then do?????

One way out: if people would get four times the lifespan, will they work for most of that, and thus offset the cost of the treatment by working longer and paying more taxes?

I'd be opposed to giving anyone this ability.

That includes our greatest artists, philosophers, sports figures, storytellers, or statesmen. One thing you can say about all of them is that someone else of equivalent talent is out there already and there is no reason to give them a monopoly on their particular niche for more than one lifetime.

And if some technology is available, no way would I want to encourage people to do this by subsididizing it. If that means only the rich can afford it, so be it. They are only putting off the inevitable anyway.

The point is if such technology were available, should rich people be able to buy it on the market, or does public health social interests force the state to take control in a uniform and egalitarian manner. It is really the far end result of how one thinks about and the purpose of our healthcare system. If elonged life is too tough to visualize in this context, then try life saving innoculations as a substitute!

it's a stupid idea for humanity in general and should be bagged until the reality of Star Trek comes true.

All it takes is an innovation in cell regeneration or maybe nano technology. BTW, how old and irrelevant is Star Trek anyway?

Really.

The life extension we have is 90% sanitation, 9% medication, and 1% ancestry.

That's all we're capable of now and in the near future.

Thank gawd.

It wouldn't work anyway. People would just go to a country that allowed it. However, this is extremely theoretical at this point. I could change my mind depending on the facts. However, my take now is let the rich do what they want, and no subsidies for the poor for this theoretical technology. I think it should be discouraged for all people, but not banned.

I don't think people would stand for denying others extended life. If they found out life could be extended to 400 years, it would be the same as murder to deny someone the science needed to increase their lifespans. As far as overpopulation goes, I guess we would be absolutely forced to innovate in environment-sustaining technology at the same time.

What has increased over time is not the maximum life expectancy, but the average life expectancy. There have always been a few people who lived to be over 100, but nowadays more do so than in the past; and MANY more live into their 70s and 80s.

But there is no suggestion that people are likely to be enabled to live beyond the maximum life expectancy of approximately 120 years.

In any case, if people did start living to be 400, we would either have to stop reproducing, or find an extra planet.

on the black-market for transplant in other countries.

For example, before Bush invaded Iraq, Saddam operated a very profitable kidney transplant clinic with state of the art medical facilities and a world class surgeon who flew in to Baghdad from Israel, performed the operation, then returned to Israel the same day. Cost was in the $40,000 range if I remember correctly.

IMO society should consider the ROI meaning the expected benefits to society if a special person's life were extended, e.g. Stephen Hawking.

I would vote for extended Hawking's life over a prisoner serving a life sentence.

ON EDIT ADD:
The Middle East kidney trade

should just a persons personal money make this available; or

should society make such individual determinations, as you mentioned or by severity triage determinants; or

Is this such a slippery slop that only egalitarian-based methods should be used?

services that are jointly used by society but medical care is specific to an individual.

You suggest "egalitarian-based methods" but "egalitarian" has a variety of meanings.

Please define/describe what you have in mind with "egalitarian-based methods".

What I man by egalitarian-based methods is that everyone gets equal access to the process, maybe on a first come first served que basis. This is different than a triage, severity based method of selections, which is itself different from those that can pay get it!

practice of medicine where those who could afford it would go to the head of the line?

Would that not defeat your FCFS policy?

Maybe I have not made my point in posting all this clear enough. I do NOT consider the practice of medicine in the future to be individual based, and the fact that we have been paying for it from pooled sources sort of shows that it was not individual based even in the recent past! We cannot parcel out life based on good connections and/or money and still expect peace and harmony in a social living context. We cannot agree that pooled resources are needed for healthcare payment, but not agree on what those pooled resources pay for.

I am setting the stage for the future system which will be similar to a single payer system but what is covered will be universally defined by a social mechanism. The pooled system will NOT cover anything else. Areas of care that are unproven will not be covered, just like they are not covered by private insurance now of the most part. The more difficult question from a social peace and harmony point of view is what about processes that are not covered but do work?? Should they be available to private pay or alternative private insurance, OR should they just be banned because they are too socially unfair or disruptive?? That is my overall point here to show how socially sensitive healthcare really is and how tied together we will all be for any system to be universal and sustainable in the future!

Thanks for the discussion!