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 (9257)	9/10/2009 2:14:19 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

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.

To: Lane3 who wrote (9257)	9/10/2009 2:54:59 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

<<<The question on the table is how the person dying "from old age" saves health care dollars over the the person who dies early. >>> I am making the case that in both cases the person dies. So the costs are even. But the person who lives carelessly and is besieged with health problems caused by bad behavior incurs greater expenses over a life time. Look at it another way, you have two people born at the same time and dies at the same time. Only one lives a dangerous life style and gets into fights and is shot 4 or 5 times in his lifetime. The other one lives a quiet life. Which one will incur greater medical expenses over a lifetime? Now substitue a violent life style with one that is based on poor eating habits. The one with the poor eating habits will incur all kinds of disease from overeating but medical treatment will keep him from an early death. The person with a bad life style will incur greater medical expenses. A person with a bad lifestyle will (most likely) incur expenses that would otherwise not be needed.