Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3465)	12/24/2007 2:46:25 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Like what? What would you do with a case like that? I'm not "the decider" (nor do I want to be). But you ether do it for all or none.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3465)	12/24/2007 4:09:02 PM
From: Alastair McIntosh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Rationing care... I believe that there is an attempt to develop models based on both quality and length of life resulting from any particular medical intervention. The number of years of expected additional life is given a weighting based on the perceived quality of life of those years. For example, confined to a nursing home unable to get out of bed or toilet oneself would have a lower quality score than would living a normal life independently at home. In this case the number of remaining years of life would be adjusted downwards because of the quality of those years. Intervention would occur more often with a lower ratio of cost to adjusted years of remaining life. I recognize that coming up with the "quality" factor is difficult and the calculation has to balanced against the expected outcome of no treatment. People informally make these sorts of calculations for themselves when they have serious illnesses such as cancer.