|
Lukie
|
12-12-2005, 10:19 PM
Post subject: Theoretical Question
|
#1 (permalink)
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Suppose the following were true:
A government worker is employed at a nuclear power plant. Due to a government error, there is a radiation spill, and as a result, the employee develops an incredibly rare, but deadly disease. This disease can be cured through extensive treatment, albeit at great cost, that would allow the employee to make a full recovery. For agrument's sake, assume there is no limit to the amount of money this could cost and there would be no other benefit to doing this treatment other then saving the one employee.
What is the maximum amount of money the government should spend in order to save the employee?
*Also note that this has absolutely nothing to do with the political thread, so if you think I am trying to prove a point or something, forget about it.
|
|
|
Play for FREE and practice your game at...
Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!
|
|
Demiparadigm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Party 6 max
Posts: 1,602
|
|
I spent 4 years working in nuclear power. I was in charge of radiation health for the plant.
Because of that, this question is WAY too hypothetical for me.
I understand the ethical backbone of the question though. I just can't bring myself to answer it.
Good luck.
|
|
To win in poker you only need to be one step ahead of your opponents. Two steps may be detrimental.
|
|
™
|
|
Straight
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: MA
Posts: 144
|
|
10 billion dollars
|
|
|
|
lowBoy
|
|
Flush
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 513
|
|
Simple utility - if spending the money to treat him causes more suffering for the nation as a whole than not spending the money to treat him does, then you don't cure him.
|
|
|
|
ProZachNation
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over there!
Posts: 801
|
|
1billion
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
I didn't think its Bold to bang some chick with my bro. but i guess so... thats +EV in my book.
|
|
|
Les_Worm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 1,697
|
|
Depends, how much can the family sue the government for their negligence? I would say they should spend up to that amount.
|
The artist formerly known as Knish
Only mediocre players are always at their best.
Phil Ivey Owns You
|
|
ProZachNation
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Over there!
Posts: 801
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Les_Worm
Depends, how much can the family sue the government for their negligence? I would say they should spend up to that amount.
|
Then the goverment should pay for $0. In area51 workers have got really sick and when the families tried to sue the goverment was like classified materials so no evidence.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mrhappy333
I didn't think its Bold to bang some chick with my bro. but i guess so... thats +EV in my book.
|
|
|
vqc
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,427
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lowBoy
Simple utility - if spending the money to treat him causes more suffering for the nation as a whole than not spending the money to treat him does, then you don't cure him.
|
i think a test of pareto superiority would be better here.
|
|
|
|
Les_Worm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: May 2004
Location: MI
Posts: 1,697
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ProZachNation
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Les_Worm
Depends, how much can the family sue the government for their negligence? I would say they should spend up to that amount.
|
Then the goverment should pay for $0. In area51 workers have got really sick and when the families tried to sue the goverment was like classified materials so no evidence. |
You don't really need hard evidence. All you need to do is connect his death with governmental negligence and you have a case of strict tort liability.
|
The artist formerly known as Knish
Only mediocre players are always at their best.
Phil Ivey Owns You
|
|
journey075
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 725
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by lowBoy
Simple utility - if spending the money to treat him causes more suffering for the nation as a whole than not spending the money to treat him does, then you don't cure him.
|
thats a very brutally honest, yet perfect answer.
the amount would have to equal probable out of court settlement + amount nuclear power lobbyists would pay in order to hush up the issue.
|
|
|
|
Sed
|
|
Full House
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Wastin' away again in margaritaville....
Posts: 1,102
|
|
<= the amount a wrongful death judgement would cost them....
- sed the cynic
|
No fear, go deep or go home!
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demiparadigm
I spent 4 years working in nuclear power. I was in charge of radiation health for the plant.
Because of that, this question is WAY too hypothetical for me.
I understand the ethical backbone of the question though. I just can't bring myself to answer it.
Good luck.
|
I see.. this topic completely aside, I bet a radiation spill, ala Chernobyl, was always a concern for you. I know I'd be scared shitless of something like that.
In any case, the question is a very difficult one to answer.. and it's not something I'm even going to try to do right now. In any case, the ethical/logical backbone of the question is what's important here, not the situation (nuclear power plant spill) that leads up to it.
|
|
|
|
Demiparadigm
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Party 6 max
Posts: 1,602
|
|
The thing is, we have procedures in place to prevent this situation, as well as what we would do if it were to occur.
It is not as though the government has never thought of how t odeal with an accident.
Also, the federal government doesn't own or operate the reactors, they simply oversee the operation. The government is not liable for accidents beyond what any employer is liable for in the case of wrongful death or workman's compensation.
I said I wasn't going to answer didn't I? oops.
|
|
To win in poker you only need to be one step ahead of your opponents. Two steps may be detrimental.
|
|
vqc
|
|
Straight Flush
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 5,427
|
|
spend x amoutn of money
where X is the maximum amount spendable so that
at least one person is better off than before and no one is worse off than before.
|
|
|
|
Lukie
|
|
4-of-a-Kind
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: back with a vengeance
Posts: 3,307
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demiparadigm
The thing is, we have procedures in place to prevent this situation, as well as what we would do if it were to occur.
It is not as though the government has never thought of how t odeal with an accident.
|
Obviously. 
I guess I'm just not as educated as you are about nuclear power.. I am by no means against it (it's a great thing).. but if I was working in a plant, radiation contamination would probably worry me, at least based on my knowledge (or lack of it) right now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Demiparadigm
Also, the federal government doesn't own or operate the reactors, they simply oversee the operation. The government is not liable for accidents beyond what any employer is liable for in the case of wrongful death or workman's compensation.
I said I wasn't going to answer didn't I? oops.
|
Interesting, I did not know this. This thread was supposed to plant a question like: "at what price should a government value one of it citizen's lives at?" The entire nuclear powerplant situation was just to get to that point.
|
|
|
English
Deutsch
Español
Français
Italiano
Nederlands
Pусский
Svenska
05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
Linear Mode
