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: Road Walker who wrote (6353)	3/13/2009 5:14:48 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

Well if you get more people to exercise regularly its very likely to have benefits for their health, and could well have cost benefits as well (the exercise would almost certainly have a gross cost benefit, whether there would be a net benefit depends on the costs of the effort, both direct dollar costs and indirect costs). The main problem with the specific program is that people would likely reject it as too intrusive. Also the program itself would have costs, and would run in to problems like people lying about their exercise and diet, or just telling the truth but not changing their behavior (or making a short term change and then falling back on old habits), then washing out of the program incuring extra costs but getting little or no benefit. To the extent that people accept it, and by it to it, and go for it, and follow the program and really get more exercise, you could get a lot of benefit, but I'm really skeptical that it would work that way for most people. Changing people's behavior is a great way to get health and cost benefits, but its really hard to do. (Edit - Also sometimes when the government, or some private sector organization tries it can get the behavior change wrong, either focusing effort on a minor factor, or even encouraging counterproductive behavior, not that regular moderate exercise is likely to be counterproductive for any but a very very small percentage, but other changes might)

To: Road Walker who wrote (6353)	3/13/2009 10:13:16 PM
From: i-node	Respond to of 42652

Would that work economically? Of course not. The efficacy of particular medical tests at particular intervals is studied up one side and down the other. For example, a PSA is recommended at certain intervals for men of a particular age. However, in most states there are mandates for insurance coverage. If you live in Alaska, for example, your insurance must pay for a screening at age 40. In Georgia, it is age 45. Different ages are required for men of higher risk, and the frequency with which screening must be paid for is also specified in many or perhaps most states. These kinds of requirements are imposed for all manner of labwork. Before these regulations are established, the impact of the cost on future premiums is weighed against the value to the patient as well as the potential savings in the health care system -- both public and private. It isn't like nobody is thinking about this stuff. Believe it or not, you aren't very like to come up with something where the medical community shouts in unison, "Why the hell didn't WE think of that?" In some countries they may not have this kind of statistical data. But in the country with the best health care system in the world, the day of the big discoveries by chance is long gone.