Universal health care: When the reaper is cheaper
Finally, RAND examined the effects of fighting four risk factors for heart disease. If we could get all the elderly to stop smoking and control their diabetes, their health would improve, of course, but costs would rise, again because those ex-smokers and diabetics would eventually be vulnerable to other health problems. If we effectively treated hypertension and slashed obesity rates by 50 percent, however, health would improve and costs would fall. Reducing obesity produced the clearest gains because obesity, though it sharply increases costs, doesn’t reduce longevity significantly.
What all three studies suggest, then, is technological innovations or disease prevention will likely result in slight savings or even increased costs (though obesity may be the exception to this trend). This doesn’t mean, of course, that we shouldn’t keep inventing drugs and devices to keep people alive longer, or that we shouldn’t develop better prevention strategies. It just means that we should stop pretending that good health is always cheaper. Sometimes, you really do get what you pay for.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Don’t Fear the Reaper! (More Cowbell)
Fletch54 on July 21, 2009 at 9:25 PM
They don’t get it, the idea is not to cure or extend but to check out earlier, thereby saving money on Medicare and Social Security.
Cindy Munford on July 21, 2009 at 9:28 PM
Is this a conflict? Keep’em healthy while they are younger so they can live longer so you cut off treatment for pnuemonia so they don’t live too long.
Herb on July 21, 2009 at 10:08 PM
“When the reaper is cheaper”
Damn…I wish I came up with that.
NeoKong on July 21, 2009 at 10:25 PM
It is silly to think that living healthier will eliminate health costs. I saw an article one time that said smokers cost the health care industry less because they die earlier.
When you are healthier, you live longer. The longer you live, the more Medicare costs you will build up.
It is important to be healthy. It is important to do everything we can to care for the sick. But these ‘fixes’ aren’t going to save money. If you want to cover everyone without regard to pre-existing conditions (employer benefit plans already do), you are going to raise costs.
States have largely addressed this issue. The hardest part of my job is telling someone they don’t qualify for insurance. I’m happy to give them another option.
ThackerAgency on July 21, 2009 at 10:32 PM
And also, this ‘health insurance exchange’ thing is ridiculous. If you don’t like me and don’t want to use my experience in the market to help you decide on a plan, you can always go to http://www.ehealthinsurance.com
Why will there be a need for a government ehealthinsurance.com called ‘health insurance exchange’? ehealth has about 250 million in revenue, traded on the stock exchange, has 200 employees. They are my competitor, but still the ‘health insurance exchange’ is your local insurance agent, or guys like me and ehealth.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist, and it won’t make the system any different with a fancy government ‘exchange’.
ThackerAgency on July 21, 2009 at 10:34 PM
True. My friends and I, diagnosed and cured of breast cancer 15-20 years ago, have cost our insurers a mint since then with follow-up tests, etc. It would have been cheaper for them to have discovered it incurably late.
(Neener, neener, insurance companies.)
Obambi knows his promises are lies, and so do Americans.
PattyJ on July 21, 2009 at 10:39 PM
What this seems to ignore is the fact that by keeping people alive and healthy longer, they are going to be productive and contributing citizens longer.
AZfederalist on July 21, 2009 at 11:35 PM
If a government plan will be so good, then BO will have no problem putting his money (although it’s actually our money) where his mouth is. Make the government plan a real option, offering it to all while granted meaningful tax breaks for those businesses and individuals who choose to opt out of the system by buying their own private insurance plans. Better yet, consider making it a voucher system.
Of course, to make this an even more awesome program, the Fed should impose a 90-100% income tax on all illegal immigrants earning money in this country to buttress the system.
NorthernCross on July 22, 2009 at 12:53 AM
Great! Now we get Schickelgruber as health Czar.
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on July 22, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Dear Leader is going to push the Logan’s Run option.
rbj on July 22, 2009 at 8:47 AM
So to help cut health care costs AARP at the behest of the govt. is going to send all new prospective members a carton of smokes?
LincolntheHun on July 22, 2009 at 9:48 AM
Well, let’s carry this line of thought out to its logical conclusion.
A single abortion=thousands, perhaps millions of dollars in potential healthcare costs. So yay abortion!
But even a single abortion is costly, so let’s go with mandated vasectomies (cheaper than getting tubes tied.) That’ll save even more money. Go vasectomies!
But wait, mandated birth control pills would be even cheaper. All women report to the community government health center for your required daily dose! Can’t/won’t show up? Our friendly helpers will show up at your home to make sure everything is “okay.” Go mandated drug taking!
But you want to have a baby? Well, come fill out the necessary paperwork and we’ll see if you’re eligible. Takes a few years to be approved…wouldn’t want to rush such an important decision now, would you?
/sarc
Niere on July 22, 2009 at 10:47 AM