2006-08-23 22:48:29 · 35 answers · asked by tunachunks199 1 in Social Science ➔ Other - Social Science
3 years of health! you can still earn money, but most health cannot be bought or cured... Rather the long term effect than the short tem effect...
2006-08-23 22:49:34 · answer #1 · answered by Cho 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is insufficient information to make a choice. One would assume that most people would take the 200,000 as they assume their health is fine. Having 200,000 could buy you three years of health. It all depends on the current situation you are in.
What has to be sacrificed to get the 1 year of money, and is that permanent. Are you saying 3 years of ill-health?
Is the alternative to the money 3 years of starvation due to no money, no income, and therefore ill-health?
You cannot decide one way or the other as you have not specified the problem with sufficient information. In such a circumstance, I would not make a decision.
2006-08-23 23:06:03 · answer #2 · answered by James 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
3 years of health
2006-08-23 22:50:03 · answer #3 · answered by blitz1228 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would definitely take the health. If I was genuinely healthy, I could make that much in 3 years by taking on more work.
2006-08-23 22:57:17 · answer #4 · answered by PariahMaterial 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, let's see, you earn Pounds or is it Euros over in England, if you are from America it is dollars.......where I'm from it's Rands so divide 200,000 by 17 for pounds or by 6 for dollars what the F*%$# will I be left with??? I'll take health anyday!!! It will cost me more to get treatment from the doctor anyway.....
2006-08-23 22:58:13 · answer #5 · answered by SNVL 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you have health with no money you could die of frustration. The money guaranteed will help you solve lots of problems including the health issues . I take MONEY!!
2006-08-23 22:52:12 · answer #6 · answered by adwoa 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Health, unless i could use the money to make a loved one better, or cure someone....
if the money could be spent on a better cause than myself...then i'd take the money and give it where its needed.....
I thought that would be easy to answer....but there are 2 ways of looking at it...i could take 3 years of my health for me SELFISH, i could take the money and spend it on me SELFISH..I could take the money and help a good cause.....
So you see its not so easy to choose....
but i think i'd take the money and give it to a good cause....
2006-08-23 22:55:27 · answer #7 · answered by Belizabeth 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
definitely the 3 years of health.
2006-08-23 22:52:53 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll definitely go for the money. As opting for three years of health doesn't mean that we'll be healthy forever. Health can't be preserved but the money can be.
2006-08-23 22:51:25 · answer #9 · answered by Abdullah A 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would say the money could cover more than 3 years of health, given that it isn't serious hospitilization.
2006-08-23 22:49:36 · answer #10 · answered by Xefek 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋