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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (5588)	1/10/2017 5:36:12 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 354783

The evidence is very uncertain and disputed, but it seems to weekly support the idea that most of what gets labeled under preventive care increases costs rather then reduces it. In some cases producing better results to go along with the extra costs, in some cases not. That's painting with broad brush strokes. Obviously specific instances of preventive care can save a ton of money if they prevent, or even detect a treatable expensive problem. That can even apply to specific types of preventive care not just specific instances. (Some types of testing or prevention efforts can save more money than they cost.) But it doesn't seem that preventive care on the whole saves money, and clearly it won't save a ton. The difference in infant mortality can be summed up in two words: prenatal care. Some of the difference is a false difference, since infant mortality is measured differently in different places. To the extent there is a real difference, I think lifestyle and non-medical situations that people are in has more to do with it than prenatal care. (Which is not to say that prenatal care isn't an issue at all, it can indeed help lower infant mortality.)