am i the only one who finds this a tad disturbing

[Misty]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080710/ap_on_re_us/value_of_life;_ylt=AqQ3RN5f5CvecreSiemkwkWs0NUE

Consider, for example, a hypothetical regulation that costs $18 billion to enforce but will prevent 2,500 deaths. At $7.8 million per person (the old figure), the lifesaving benefits outweigh the costs. But at $6.9 million per person, the rule costs more than the lives it saves, so it may not be adopted.

 

[COalex]

i really don't see what the problem is here . . . the government doesn't have the resources to save every single life and so has to prioritize. The $18 billion would probably be put to better use later when it could save more than a (comparatively) scant 2500 lives.

 

[Surgo]

It's triage with money instead of medical resources after a disaster. Nothing new to see here.

 

[TheSpinner]

Disturbing when you think about it in an emotionally human sense, yeah. But that's reality - the government does have to manage it's priorities somehow, and it can't simply spend everything on preserving human lives.

 

[Atlas]

basically if youre put in a life threatening situation, you better be damn sure theres a celebrity or high ranking political figure with you.

 

[McGrrr]

Economics is not called the dismal science for nothing.

On a tangent: the argument against economists and the retort.