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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (543531)	10/17/2013 12:27:51 AM
From: LindyBill	1 Recommendation Recommended By Ben Smith Respond to of 793640

It's not clear to me how more frequent access to health care can be cost effective for individuals, but wasteful for a group. Add the individual costs together and you have the group cost If people in the group are using a lot of medical care, it ups the group cost. That simple. Please don't get a discussion going on this.

To: Elroy who wrote (543531)	10/17/2013 1:51:28 AM
From: Brian Sullivan	Respond to of 793640

more frequent access to health care can be cost effective for individuals Bill said better outcomes for individuals, not "more cost effective for individuals". A better outcome includes a higher chance to spend more on health care (i.e. chemo therapy, etc...) thus living a few more years. Getting blood pressure medicine is one the most frequent outcomes of "preventive care". That's a better outcome, but will increase costs slightly (only because most blood pressure drugs are inexpensive) Treatments that require expensive drugs (the main goal of the pharma industry) will increase costs significantly. So, adding frequent "preventive care", is likely to increase the money spent on health care and treatments. I take the claims of saving money through "preventive care" just as part of the sales job. It sounds like you actually believed the sales job.

To: Elroy who wrote (543531)	10/17/2013 8:02:22 AM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793640

It's somewhat counterintuitive, but prolonging people's old age is very expensive. Healthy or not, eventually they will become sick - and will stay alive - and sick - for a longer time. Hence, good quality preventive care is a good thing, but over time it won't save money. The claim that it would save money looks pretty, but is based on faulty logic and no evidence. I also think that broader insurance would cut down on ER use and save money in this respect. But ObamaCare will leave plenty of millions uninsured. You personally can afford not to have health insurance, because where you live hospital care costs a small fraction of what it is in the US. And that's the way it should be. Our system is crazy. They are trying to replace brains, judgment and human common sense with algorithms, rule books - and 100% recordings and accountability in every tiny detail. The system has way too many well paid people sitting around in meetings with notebooks in their hands. Keeps most of the doctors and nurses depressed and stressed more than they need to be. It's just dumb - and IMO, on balance, adds nothing to the quality of care.