In a capital based society, how much can we spend on healthcare?

Currently watching the health care debate and just thought of a very pertinent question.

How much money or resources should be relegated to save one person's life.

I did a little research several years back on creating a retrovirus to destroy cancer. What I came across, in regards to this technique, it is VERY viable to destroy certain types of cancer. Only a couple drawbacks.

One, is that it can be only used to help one person. Creating the retrovirus can only be used to destroy a cancer pertinent to the specific genetic makeup of an individual.

Two, to create this retrovirus you must put together a team of genetic engineers and spend 10's of millions of dollars.

I had this conversation with a friend of mine and he kept saying that we need to spend every dime possible to save life. He would not or could not get my point that death is part of life. Also, who is to decide who gets to live and who gets to die. In regards to this component, I feel the family or the individuals ABILITY to provide for their health care, should be the underlying criteria. Otherwise, we get the gov or some other entity to decide who lives and who dies.

Now, if anyone disputes the retrovirus against cancer please U2U me. I do not want this conversation going in that direction.

I want to go over the OP's title question.

How much do we spend as a society for each and everyone of us to sustain our lives?

For me, I feel NO ONE is responsible for my life but me and mine.

What say you.

Also, I will get to my other threads shortly. I have been out in the country for the last 11 days and dial up drives me crazy. That is why I have not been on ATS lately.

reply to post by endisnighe


A better question is how much healtcare can we foregoe due to the capitalistic health care system?

I think we would be better in all aspects if we simple spent as much money as we needed to ensure everyone recieved adequate healthcare. A healthier population is simply more productive. There would be no dire consequences if we simply printed the money we need to do so. We cannot do the things we need to do, because we have to borrow money into existence.

In a Capitalistic society run by a corporate government the corporations tells you how much you \will pay for health care or be penalized with fines.

that is the American future of mandatory health care.

[edit on 25-2-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by sligtlyskeptical


See, one of the things that people do not realize, our health care system is already controlled mostly (60%) by the government with Medicare/Medicaid.

That is why "I believe" health care costs are sky rocketing.

But, please address the OP. How much can we spend on any one person? You have to think about the repurcussions to our society if we CONTINUALLY add to the pot that is supposedly our rights.

What next, the right to free food? You cannot live without food, right?

To me, it is just MORE control.

reply to post by marg6043


What I meant by a capital based society was that we base our economy on MONEY. Sorry about not being more specific.

But yes, I feel this whole thing is going to be another money maker for the corporatism/government control system.

Tax and Control.

reply to post by endisnighe


Yes is control but no like many believe, that is control by the government, sorry to bring this up but the control is from private sector to the population.

That is unacceptable.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical
[ There would be no dire consequences if we simply printed the money we need to do so. We cannot do the things we need to do, because we have to borrow money into existence.

Uh, you do realize that printing more makes it worth less right?

Thats why we dont just print our way out of this recession.

reply to post by marg6043


Control by a government controlled corporation or field is still control by government.

I have always felt that insurance is just a conglomeration of like minded individuals that pool their money to gamble on the possibility of catastrophe. Is the government worrying about other insurances?

I felt starting a conglomerate of small businesses that could pool their money to insure their employees, would be a good alternative to the health insurance field.

Originally posted by endisnighe

How much do we spend as a society for each and everyone of us to sustain our lives?

Well ein, I haven't ever really thought about it in dollar amounts ... but I suppose, and I'm just thinking out loud here, we should spend at least an equal amount healing each other as we do killing each other.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


Well, at least one person addressed the OP.

You kind of sidestepped it quite nicely though!

We do spend approximately $1.5 million on a cruise missile to take out a specific individual so I guess that could be a base of contention.

Now, what do we spend our money on, the wars or the people?

You know what I think. Time to pull back to the US and worry about me and mine and frell the world. Sovereignty is a hell of a thing!

reply to post by endisnighe


"We" only need to spend enough money to eat right and exercise. To avoid the poisons that we ingest daily through our food and water. To buy fresh meats, fruits, and vegetables that are free of toxins. To avoid the dollar menu at McDonalds.

The leading causes of death in this Country are diseases that are caused largely by improper nutrition, exposure to toxins, and lack of proper exercise. As far as medical science has advanced, it has not reached the point where a pill can cure a person who has spent a lifetime being exposed to toxins, avoiding any form of proper nutrition, and receiving no exercise. The best we can do is suppress the symptoms when they arise.


[edit on 26-2-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib


Yes, preventative lifestyles is the way to go. Knowing what to stay away from is important.

What I was trying to discuss was in society as a whole, how much can we expect from a collective type health care industry to spend on each individual in society.

Now, if we use the monetary amount that I brought up in an earlier comment-$1.5 million times that by 300 million, the total cost would come to $4,500,000,000,000,000 or 4.5 quadrillion.

Of course that means for every person we would be spending that amount to get to that number.

When we start to look at the aggregate numbers of such things, we can see their is no way we can continue on the road of entitlements, that our government is heading down.

It is for the government to decide how much we spend on education, health, military, and sewers.

And it is for the VOTERS to decide if the government is doing the job right, or not.

Unfortunately Americans love big wars, big spending on space missions, hate paying tax, and cannot be bothered to even vote. So the system has failed.

reply to post by endisnighe


Well right now, this is a hypothetical question, so we can debate it as such, but there is nothing pressing a resolution. In the abstract, I believe life is precious and I won't advocate denying tretment, but I know it goes on in indirect ways already for the elderly.

If a health care reform bill is passed, it can no longer be a hypothetical question. When you add 30-45 million more people to the system, you immediately worsen the current "shortage" of doctors and medical professionals. Add to this caps on billings, such as what currently exists in Medicaid and Medicare, and you add a severe disincentive for persons to stay in the medical profession or choose to go into the medical professsion.

So considering nothing else but the certain issue of doctor and professional shortages, rationing will occur. This is simple logic. Expect rationing to be all over the board: age, behavorial history, political power?...essentially "cost-benefit" ratios determined by govt. As Pres Obama told a woman at a town hall meeting who asked about her 90+ grandmother's successful operation: maybe just taking a pain pill would be better in that case. He said emotional issues can't be considered. Death panels...why not call them this? That's what they will be to the families involved.

So this brings me to something ironic: folks want the govt to fix the problem with insurance companies denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. But, the point lost is that by pure logic, we can predict that the govt will by necessity deny certain costly procedures for those with prior medical conditions according to a logical cost-benefit calculation.

reply to post by Silver Shadow


Well, I would have to say in the US, it is not the place for government to decide on our individual health care. The states maybe, but definitely not the federal government.

Now you are right government is breaking down.

On one of your points-space exploration.

One thing that really pees me off is the discoveries and patents developed by the use of OUR tax money goes to WHO? Not us that is for sure.

reply to post by pumpkinorange


Yes it is hypothetical but discussion is required. You pretty much summed up the problem with a nationalized system.

I am sure politicians and the elite will have their own system, that we have seen evidence of in the current bills.

Also, the bills include steps to be taken to increase the number of doctors and nurses. It also sets pay for the entire field. One of the things that does not get mentioned on the MSM.

Thanks for the comment.

reply to post by endisnighe

What I was trying to discuss was in society as a whole, how much can we expect from a collective type health care industry to spend on each individual in society.

The point I was trying to make is this. If we address the true causes of the lack of health in this County then the cost would be negligible, even on an individual basis, on average. However if we do not, then there is no amount we can spend that will change anything except for profit margins.

"But when intemperance and disease multiply in a State, halls of justice and medicine are always being opened... finding how keen is the interest which not only the slaves but the freemen of a city take about them.

And yet what greater proof can there be of a bad and disgraceful state of ecucation then this, that people need the skill of first-rate physicians...

...and to require the help of medicine, not when a wound has to be cured, or on occasion of an epidemic, but just because, by indolence and a habit of life, men fill themselves with waters and winds, is this not too a disgrace."

-Socrates in Plato's Republic

[edit on 26-2-2010 by harvib]

reply to post by harvib


Yeah, I feel the same way you do on prevention.

But what about if someone was to get a cancer that could be cured by developing a retrovirus. Is that something that we as a society should try to do for everyone? How about specific individuals? Like say a genius mathematician?

Just trying to discuss maximums we should go to, to try and stop something that is natural-death.

Thanks again for your comment.

reply to post by endisnighe

But what about if someone was to get a cancer that could be cured by developing a retrovirus.

I quoted Plato because I feel it is relevant. Plato felt that treating diseases that were caused by a choice was counter productive to society. I have to agree.

We all make the choice to allow our continued exposure to the toxins and lifestyles that are causing our lack of health. When you use the words "pay" and "spend" that equates to labor and/or natural resources. I don't think there are enough hours in the day or enough natural resources to cure a person who spends their whole life eating McDonalds and then wants to be treated for a disease they fail to see as being related to their choices. And in the majority of cases of cancer and heart disease the individual makes little to no lifestyle changes.

I am not making a point regarding prevention I am making one on causation.

[edit on 26-2-2010 by harvib]