I don't think the issues are quite as clear cut or irrational as you want, krellin. You would have to start from the very first subjective word that you used to start the debate, "amoral." It is not a foregone conclusion that only an amoral society would do those things or that the actions in themselves are amoral.
Some of these points are rather interesting to discuss. The ideas in themselves are fascinating, and their implications as well as applicability are nothing short of a worthy philosophical debate.

Yeah, or you could read the article and think about the economics of healthcare...

We have things like markets and investment for a reason, it has something to do with assiging resources effectively, right?

I like this as a more immediate cost saving: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/health/direct-primary-care-providers-extend-concierge-services.html?_r=1&smid=tw-nytimesscience&seid=auto

If you pay nothing EXTRA for a doctors visit you are more likely to visit before a problem becomes aggrovated.

That said, i alsoo like that the NHS have incentives based on the wellness of a doctor's community - so if the doctor manges to reduce obesity in their area they get a bonus :)

Orathaic, this is highly disingenuous. If you want people to read the article and discuss economics, you shouldn't give it a completely misleading title. That's really becoming quite wearisome on your part.

@zultar, I was being kind when I used the term "amoral". It should have been "immoral". The ideas, detached from a moral judgement, obviously make sense for a society econnomically. Killing off the useless and expensive parts of society is what businesses do every day -- what he suggests is a very capitalist idea, in a manner of speaking (thus it is ironic that orthaic, no doubt, does not hold Conservative economic principles....) Of course, when natural morality comes in to play, I don't think I even need to justify the statement that killing off people of various ages and states of being is immoral, and frankly I won't engage in that ridiculous conversation...which is what I hinted at in my original statement. You can't stroke your self-indulgant "look how smart I am" self and try to debate these topics and pretend that there is a reasonable solution buried within...but there isn't. But I'm sure in the late 30's you would have proudly carried your dagger about...

The problem with the article is it suggest, by necessity, the government will and must make the decision. If the only question is "should a <fill int eh blank> human be killed or allowed to die?" it already happens. Abortions happen by the millions. The elderly are removed from ventilators or refuse treatment all the time. It is a choice made by individuals. In order for there to be a defined and predictable economic impact, you must have government requiring action. Sieg Hiel!

This is why we study history....so fools don't come up with" brilliant ideas" that deplore the value of life and pas them off as some brilliant new concept.

The real problem is that people value their cell phones, their cable TV, their internet acess, that cars with Synch technology, their streaming this and digital that more than they value life.

People bitch and complain about the cost of health care, but the same assholes drop $169 month and cable TV with all the premium channels, $29.95 for the cell phone plan plus $30 for data, $396 month for their new car payment, etc etc etc....ask them to contribute to their own health and they fucking march on Washington. Give me a break. Get your priorities straight and a lot of problems will solve themselves.

The article isn't saying that we should "kill off" those who we spend lots of health care money on even though they have a very low chance of survival. It's posing the question is it fair for the population as a whole to to have to use out limited resources on high-cost, low-return causes.

Medicare is already way underfunded, and will soon enough, be facing serious budget constraints. Is it fair to use these limited funds to keep people barely alive for years when they have a terrible quality of life, when we could be using these funds to do more significant good elsewhere? The same applies to private insurance.

Note: I don't claim to know the right answer. I just want the discussion to be targeted at what the article is about.

Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out. At least that's what my girlfriend's lower back tattoo says.

@krellin,
I don't disagree with you that people need to set their priority straight nor did I take any position regarding oro's article or the points he mentioned.
Most of the time it seems pointless to talk with you because you either think you have all the answers and that everyone else is an adolescent unlearned inexperienced arrogant piece of shit compared to you or that you are repentant and thankful that people here have such wonderful insights that would better your life.
Moreover, you are almost always one of the first people to use ad hominem attacks when you respond to others and you act like a petulant child when someone does the same to you. I am sure there are plenty of people who can dig up threads that show exactly what I am talking about.
When you debate the merits of an idea, you CAN'T dismiss it right away because you say that it's too easy to see why it's wrong or that people should study history or that they should get some real life experience or get involved in the real world. You talk as if you have all the usable knowledge in the world, that you are more experienced than anyone here, and that you are wise beyond knowing.
Even if you are the smartest most knowledgeable person on this forum -and I have yet to see any evidence of such (at least Draugnar has claim of having an IQ of 170 or 180 or some such), that does not mean you are the wisest as knowledge and wisdom are two separate entities.

i like how the capitalistic arguement i'm not supposed to support are infact contrary to the free market position krellin et. al are supposed to venerate.

This is about spending public money, which republicans typically say should not exist...

but beyond that, having a sensible medical care system is not about who to kill, it is about who can afford to be saved...

what treatments will make the most return on investment, has been the push in drug development for decades, leading to viagra being one of the most profitable solution...

But let's talk about the issues here.

@smeck, i think the issue of 'killing babies' and the economics of welfare are one and the same. inseparable in some sense.

As is the clear misunderstanding of the political and moral positions of almost everyone here.

I may have used a rather inflammatory title. In the hopes of generating a heated discussion. And so far i'm not overly disappointing...

Krellin, am i correct in suggesting that your position is to cut all publicly funded healthcare? (in which case the answer to the question 'who do we save?' as framed by this discussion is 'no-one' in fact you go on to reject on principle government involvement in the health care industry)

I might be a socialist, but that doesn't mean i can't imagine a use for markets and long term investment style thinking. There are lots of tools, policies, systems which are effective, and my 'ideology' is a practical one over a blind 'principled' one, so i don't think i'm in error, or contradicting myself when i suggest using the best thinking available to solve the hardest problems we face.

Killing babies is an interesting subject, how many died in Iraq in the 1980's because of the trade embargo of very basic medical supplies ...... not sure if they count though because they weren't Christians

Most babies aren't...