|
|
|
|
|
by anonymoushn
5206 days ago
|
|
It is entirely possible for a person to rationally rule out future unbounded medical expenses if he or she has no desire to live in agony and spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to prolong his or her life by weeks or months. Such people are forced to subsidize people who want to live in agony at high cost for small periods of time. I don't think this is a significant problem, because the people who receive this subsidy vastly outnumber the people who provide it. Edit: A liver transplant is a procedure with a very high expected value in terms of QALY/USD. Americans in aggregate spend a great deal of money and effort on procedures with very low expected QALY/USD. Some people, myself included, would prefer not to purchase a procedure with very low expected QALY/USD. There was a good discussion on a similar subject earlier: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3313570 |
|
That's true, but it's not a winning argument.