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: i-node who wrote (25517)	3/27/2013 6:26:29 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 42652

There is a big difference between one individual making a choice on his/her own behalf, versus having the choice made by a bureaucracy I take your point re who makes the decision. Also re arbitrariness of age alone, particularly given that some 75 year olds are circling the drain while others are vital. And the inability of a policy to cover all the individual variations. But regardless of whether it's an individual opting out or a bureaucratic payment denial, the basis for the decision is the same. It's about whether the risk/cost outweighs the benefit and the benefit is to a considerable extent a function of life expectancy, whether life years or the QALY variation. Either party, the patient or the bureaucracy, will use as a guide whatever the experts come up re what makes sense. If the cancer is slow growing, the patient is 92, and the treatment is onerous, the decision should be the sensible one regardless of who makes it. I can't fault the payer for declining payment for something that makes no sense. I would be outraged if the treatment were prohibited, but that's not at issue.