At 09:54 AM 00/02/08, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>... regarding the issue of health care costs, its generally
>known that the elderly are the ones that are sucking up the $$$.
>Some huge fraction of our health care dollars (20-30%???) goes
>to support people in the last year of the lives. I think I've
>mentioned to some people that this entire area needs to be rethought
>in light of things like Cryonics, because at some point its going
>to be cheaper for the government or insurance companies to pay
>to freeze someone rather than attempt to keep them alive.
I think it can be rethought in terms of much more conventional
considerations. If the same money ( rough estimate: 11% of GNP
going to medicine (same in relation to one person) * 75 years of life
* 25% of expenses * $30K per capita GNP = about $60K) was spent on
young people's better food, living conditions, gym memberships,
travel, and education, they would have lived more fun, diverse,
longer, and more affluent lives.
So in the year of life that is currently their last, they would have
better memories of younger life, more savings as the result of
healthier life, greater experiences, and better education - and
these savings would *much* more than cover these $60K for the last
year of life (where a person definitely can't buy as much money as
sh/e could buy in younger years)... except that with the better
diet, exercise, and health accumulated during their young years,
*this year would not be their last*. And the next year probably
wouldn't either. And when they actually approach the painful time,
they can use the rest of their savings to buy the cryonic suspension.
Quiz 1: is there any moment of any people's lives where
this proposal of putting savings in young people's hands instead
of old makes them worse off?
[ Answer: yes - people who make money from medical insurance
and machines "protecting the elderly" ]
Sasha Chislenko <http://www.lucifer.com/~sasha/home.html>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:03:46 MDT