It's all about balancing unlimited wants against limited resources. One of the unavoidable side effects is that governments do indeed have to assign limits to the value of lives. Here's an example: There is a sick child in need of massive medical treatment. How much is that child's life worth? That dictates in large measure how much the government (or a health insurance company) will pay for medical care. $1 million? Sure. How about a billion dollars? If a life is truely priceless, then why not spend a billion dollars to save that life? How about spending the entire federal budget (~$2.5 trillion) to save that priceless life?
OK, now what are the tradeoffs? How many people would die because we spent so much to save that one beyond price life? In truth, there is always a point beyond which we won't go even to save a life. This is by no means limited to Republicans or conservatives. Go to any country with socialized health care and you'll find they've enacted limits on care. For example, in some countries, things we consider routine like hip replacements aren't provided for people over a certain age (say 80 years old).
It's all about tradeoffs and it's something every government has to address or they'll go bankrupt. Like the chorus from the old song,
"You can't always get what you want.
You can't always get what you want.
You can't always get what you want.
But if you try sometimes
You just might find
You get what you need."
Too bad they can't pipe that song into school classrooms around the country every morning. Perhaps by the time the kids graduated the message would sink in.
Space/Science » in reply to re: And you have too little faith in people/government.
That's one of the reasons why economics is called the dismal science
The whole thread (50 posts)
- Must Hubble be saved?
- re: To control it's deorbit we would still need to visit Hubble.
- Another idea
- Here's an idea
- re: What a bizarre notion...
- Hurts to say it...
- re: Yes!
- Wasn't Spitzer intended to replace the HST, in which case it is obsolete?
