April's CR Diary

April - What a can of worms!I just got a Methuselah message and they had you in the E-mail so you might get some extra attention.

I do not want to oversimplify but it seems that in the not so recent past in America when there was a shortage of people life was a little more dear. Now I think population control and indeed longevity control "might be a better term" is exactly what the article is proposing. As we reach our age limit we become too expensive to maintain.

But in all fairness 100 years ago all these techniques and "fixes" for various conditions didn't exist either. It's just that we in America have allways had the choice to pay by any means possible or just let it go and die. Now some government worker may make that choice for us. I think many Americans will go elsewhere in the world to exercise choice "freedom" and get the procedures if they can.

It's a sad time for a once proud nation.

There is no moral justification for rationing, but there is an economic one. Health care resources are finite, so they must be allocated either to the highest bidder (free market) or to whomever will benefit most from treatment (controlled market).

In reality, there is no difference between rationing health care resources and triage in a mass casualty/combat situation. Mortally wounded combat casualties are routinely denied care, not because "it is their time to die", but because there are not enough resources to help everyone.

One problem with Peter Singer [who sounds EXACTLY like anti-longevity "ethicist" Daniel Callahan] lies in his reasoning. Today's $60,000 per year cutting-edge anti-cancer drug will eventually go off patent and cost much less.

In a sense, health care costs are dropping-the cost in real dollars for 1930 level U.S. health care would be much cheaper today than in 2009. The thing is, nobody in 2009 U.S. will settle for 1930 level U.S. health care.

Held to a constant standard, Health care costs are dropping in an absolute sense, but we continue to demand more health care, so total costs rise.

To use an analogy, the fastest home computer on the market today will be much cheaper in 20 years, but it will be obsolete and nobody will buy it. People will want the fastest computer for THAT time.

We deny many surgeries to the elderly because surgery is expensive. We don't generally deny flu shots to the elderly because flu shots are cheap.
Yet both potentially save lives. The difference is economic.

This is all the more reason to hasten the end of aging. Aging is the core of our health care problems. When the cost of keeping people young indefinitely becomes insignificant, our health care system will not have anything close to its current "crisis".

CORRECTION

"the cost in real dollars for 1930 level U.S. health care would be much cheaper today than in 2009"...

I should have said "would be much cheaper today in 2009 than in 1930"