The question on the table is how the person dying "from old age" saves health care dollars over the the person who dies early.
It seems intuitive, although lots of things that seem that way aren't. But the intuition is not, I believe, as Mary suggested.
If a person dies at 65 of a heart attack, the cost burden on the system is limited at that point. If he lives until 85, that's 20 years of additional high-dollar treatment at the end of which he still has a heart attack, cancer, alzheimers or some other expensive problem.
One could argue that money spend 20 years hence is a lot cheaper than money spent now, something I totally agree with. But I suspect that discounting effect is going to be offset by higher health care costs 20 years hence.
Plus, you have the cost of preventive care (colonscopies, annual physicals, labwork, etc.) over that 20 years of extended life.
On sheerly a cost basis, I just don't see how anyone can make the argument preventive care helps.
Obviously, on a humanitarian basis, that's a different thing. |
