Question = The OP
“it” = The World
Why would someone be 100% certain to live or die based solely on my financial contribution? Am I Oskar Schindler or something?
It would be a waste of money anyway. Over a long enough timeframe, the chance that any particular person will die is 100%.
There is no value to a single human life, framed in the pure “prevention of death” framework that you’ve outlined in the OP. Everyone dies with 100% certainty, ergo any money expended is just a waste. What’s so bad about being dead, to the dead person? They don’t even notice it. It only bothers them before they’re dead, and also the people they leave behind, but what money I would spend to alleviate the suffering of the living isn’t the calculation proposed in the OP.
Save a human life? It’s still possible to make more, right? I don’t get it.
Ah, okay. For some reason I thought you were replying to me - apparently I have a bigger oversensitive ego than I thought.
And I don’t see anything wrong with the OP’s question. He’s not asking us to throw down some cash to make somebody immortal; he’s asking us to buy somebody a liver and thereby extend their lives by some presumably significant amount of time. It’s not complicated.
Twenty years or so ago I saw a study that used this general methodology:
Any money the federal government spends comes from the citizens and in effect pushes them down the net income ladder.
The probabilty of death in any given year is a function of income (poor people die at a higher rate than rich people in a given period).
At that time, the calculation was that each $3 million the government spends results in one additional death. The $7.2 million today is probably close to the same figure.
While the exact values and the mortality factors might be debatable, it seems that it is not relevent to talk about spending large amounts of money to save someone, you are just spending large amounts of money to kill a different person.
I’m saying that whatever a human life might be worth, the federal government can’t set a 7.2 million dollar cap on what they will pay to preserve a life, it must be much much lower than that.
Yeah, if we got rid of medicaid and Food Stamps the poor people would live a lot longer.
pffft.
You do realize that our tax system is progressive right?
They can’t set a firm and inflexible rule that no matter the situation they will spend 7.2 million per life. However there’s no reason they can’t set 7.2 million as the usual limit, but when the plague hits try to stem it at a lower value that they can afford.
…which brings us back to my question, “What’s killing the 300 million people?” For a lot of things you can get economies of scale; you don’t need to develop the antigen anew for each person. Once you’ve pulled one person out of the flooded city, you don’t need to assemble a whole separate rescue team for the guy next to him. Personally I can’t think of any situation with that many people in peril where you can’t get bulk savings.
save a life now! 50% off whilst stocks last! 
Yes, if you take a complex situation and only look at two factors, you can get that conclusion but I wouldn’t recommend it.
A progressive tax system doesn’t mean that poor people pay no taxes.
I’ll stand by my bottom line from above:
.