Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (6348)	3/13/2009 4:10:20 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

I think that it's cheaper to let a diabetic die young even with expensive end-of-life treatment than to pay for the massive amount of low and moderate cost treatment over an additional twenty or thirty year lifetime. That might be true. And even when preventive care is cheaper in the individual case, often its not a simple, provide preventive care for one person, and prolong one persons life, or avoid expensive later care for one person, but rather provide preventive care for several or many people, and save one life or avoid very expensive treatment for one person. None of which means preventive care is a bad idea, its often a very good idea, just not necessarily a cost saving one.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6348)	3/13/2009 4:41:11 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I think that it's cheaper to let a diabetic die young even with expensive end-of-life treatment than to pay for the massive amount of low and moderate cost treatment over an additional twenty or thirty year lifetime. Your assumption is that that person is genetically predetermined to be a diabetic. It's more than possible that with a lifetime of exercise (and a decent diet I suppose) that that person would never develop diabetes. I don't think it's coincidence that the dramatic rise in diabetes and the sedentary lifestyle are simultaneous.

To: Lane3 who wrote (6348)	3/13/2009 9:56:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

I think that it's cheaper to let a diabetic die young even with expensive end-of-life treatment than to pay for the massive amount of low and moderate cost treatment over an additional twenty or thirty year lifetime. The simplest and most direct way to make the system less expensive is for more people to die in middle age. You are precisely correct. If you want to make the health care system more "cost effective", just quit treating people who are over 50. Let 'em (us, actually) die. A variant of this was the essence of what was discussed in a news article that came out about the time of the stimulus bill. In that arrangement, a "board" or "czar" would determine the relative value in treating a patient based on the expected outcome. If the ratio of the cost to expected benefit was insufficient, the treatment would not be allowed. I don't know why we treat all these old people anyway.