Maggie's Farm

We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Much Sorry with Delays
Birth, Death and All That Stuff in Between
How to Honor Labor Day, Every Day
My Yom Kippur Miracle (Repost from 2010)
Good intro to fly casting
Peach update, with pie
NYC update
Easy for you to say: To the elites on mass immigration
For NYC on 9/11, Sailors' Snug Harbor
Pickled Peaches
Water Shoes
Labor Costs in U.S.
Your "identity"
Good news about The Great Courses
Uses of Hot Pepper Jelly/Sauce, Chutneys, and Jams
A Saturday Drive to Litchfield County, CT
How to Pick a Kayak
Civilized: Fruit forks and knives
Loads of kayaking on Cape Cod
Psychology Experiments' Questionable Results

Categories


All categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Add to Google

Subscribe with Bloglines

Monday, September 21. 2009

Medical care will never be equal

A quote from Mankiw's excellent op-ed in the NYT:



Imagine that someone invented a pill even better than the one I take. Let’s call it the Dorian Gray pill, after the Oscar Wilde character. Every day that you take the Dorian Gray, you will not die, get sick, or even age. Absolutely guaranteed. The catch? A year’s supply costs $150,000.


Anyone who is able to afford this new treatment can live forever. Certainly, Bill Gates can afford it. Most likely, thousands of upper-income Americans would gladly shell out $150,000 a year for immortality.


Most Americans, however, would not be so lucky.


Posted by The Barrister in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 09:19 | Comments (9) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Mr. Mankiw is correct that a society with haves and have-nots is inevitable in a free society and not always attractive. It's a source of envy and jealousy when some people have cool cars, some people have lame cars and some people are walking or using the bus. It is a lot harder to smooth over when some people can walk with their titanium knee implants and others hobble because they don't get the implants. It is probably inevitable, unless people club together (insurance, mutual aid groups) or donate out of charity (the Shriners).
A society that attempts to level outcomes and economic status may succeed only too well, because all historical examples show that the leveling lowers almost everyone's standard of living. It doesn't usually elevate the poor, it just drops the middle-class and upper-middle-class. The really wealthy tend to still be really wealthy.
#1 Geoff on 2009-09-21 10:35 (Reply)
My ``afford'' lecture.

In the 70s there was a freeze in Brazil and the price of coffee skyrocketed.

Yet you could buy all the coffee you wanted, just from a smaller section of the supermarket.

Obviously the poor are buying less coffee.

Suppose we want to remedy this. We hand out $10 to everybody entering the store, so they can buy $10 a pound coffee.

Do the poor buy $10 a pound coffee with it?

No. They'd prefer something else for the $10 over $10 a pound coffee.

As we say, they can't afford coffee at $10 a pound.

But the have the money!

Being able to afford has to do with preferences, not ability to buy.

What if we give them coffee when they enter the store instead of $10?

Then they're less happy; and we run out of coffee.
#2 rhhardin (Link) on 2009-09-21 10:36 (Reply)
"Medical care will never be equal." Just as talent and ingenuity will never be equal, and there is no way other than forced behaviors to make them so. The weenies of the left are always yammering about leveling the playing field before they are willing to play. But the beauty of the free enterprise/free market system is that so long as we are free to innovate and rise above the herd, the innovators among us will always lead the pack, will always create wealth rather than just spend it. "Leveling the playing field" destroys innovation and creativity, dumbs down education and forces the best and brightest of us to conform to the weakest and laziest of us.

I don't think that's a recipe for success.

Marianne
#3 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-21 14:19 (Reply)
P. S. And I think having money is nice, too. Wish I had more of it. I'm sure glad that the country allows millionaires to make money and keep it. I don't think the government should tax it all away in the name of "fairness."

What was it that Reagan quoted? "A rising tide raises all boats ..." It does too. .. at least it did when we still had our sailboat.

Marianne
#4 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-21 14:58 (Reply)
Actually wasn't Kennedy? Jack not Ted
#4.1 grant1863 on 2009-09-21 20:25 (Reply)
My question is, who would want to live forever? People who want to live forever have not found the true meaning of life, so they need forever to find it.
#5 Cilla Mitchell (Link) on 2009-09-22 09:22 (Reply)
What is the true meaning of life?

I would love to live forever because I am curious. I want to witness the marvels of discovery and science, and I'd give anything to learn more about outer space.

My desire has zilch to do with discovering the meaning of life. I'm living it. That's enough for me.
`
#5.1 Meta on 2009-09-22 11:37 (Reply)
Cilla Mitchell ... You must still be young, my friend. I asked such questions when I was young. Now I'm 81 and creaky, and, like Meta, I would love to live quite a bit longer because I too am curious. I want to see how our country gets itself out of its current situation and into, I hope, a better place. Like Meta, I want to witness the marvels of discovery and science and how they will affect the human condition.

My husband's mother lived to be 98. In her last year of life, my husband asked her, if she had a choice, how much longer would she want to live. She answered, "At least ten years."

Sounds about right to me. But I may change my mind later.

Marianne
#6 Marianne Matthews on 2009-09-22 12:57 (Reply)
If such a pill existed, and could not be produced cheaply, it would surely be banned in short order.

The goal of our pending social welfare based medical system is not about better care, only comprehensive availability and selective payment.

Then, it would find its way to a black market for the political, entertainment, and business truly elite only.
#7 Kevin in WI on 2009-09-24 00:25 (Reply)

Add Comment
(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)

By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email
addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications.

Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u],
[url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here.

Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (*word*), underscore are made via _word_.
E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.
CAPTCHA

BBCode format allowed
 
 
A Chris Southern Consulting website.