Does preventive medicine really save money over the course of a person's life?

[Deleted member 4644]

These days you see advertisements for various preventive medicines, such as the vaccine for HPV for women. One argument for these medicines is that they will prevent disease and thus save society money.

But just becomes someone doesnt get sick and die of cancer at 40 doesn't mean that they won't get another type of cancer at 70... and care will probably cost almost.... ?

Unless we decide not to pay for care for really old people, or unless everyone starts dying of a sudden, massive heart attack, I don't see how preventive care really saves that much money.

Anyone?

 

[BigPoppa]

There are various preventative medicines that have helped. The MMR would be one of the biggest to come to mind. Something like that HPV vaccine are more quality of life oriented rather than life threatening (in the short term).

 

[Bryophyte]

Sure, it's a lot cheaper to treat a disease than it is to give someone a shot for twenty bucks (or whatever it costs.) Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are really inexpensive, as are treatments for things like polio, tetanus, etc. You're absolutely right.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
These days you see advertisements for various preventive medicines, such as the vaccine for HPV for women. One argument for these medicines is that they will prevent disease and thus save society money.

But just becomes someone doesnt get sick and die of cancer at 40 doesn't mean that they won't get another type of cancer at 70... and care will probably cost almost.... ?

Unless we decide not to pay for care for really old people, or unless everyone starts dying of a sudden, massive heart attack, I don't see how preventive care really saves that much money.

Anyone?

it doesn't, but it allows more quality years, whereby someone is more productive. so, even if the total cost of treating that person over the lifespan is increased (because their life is longer), they'll also have much much more benefit gained.

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
These days you see advertisements for various preventive medicines, such as the vaccine for HPV for women. One argument for these medicines is that they will prevent disease and thus save society money.

But just becomes someone doesnt get sick and die of cancer at 40 doesn't mean that they won't get another type of cancer at 70... and care will probably cost almost.... ?

Unless we decide not to pay for care for really old people, or unless everyone starts dying of a sudden, massive heart attack, I don't see how preventive care really saves that much money.

Anyone?

Young people are generally more productive and healthy than older people. So a 40yo getting cancer is probably more costly to society than a 70yo getting cancer.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Ever heard of Polio?

 

[SirStev0]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
These days you see advertisements for various preventive medicines, such as the vaccine for HPV for women. One argument for these medicines is that they will prevent disease and thus save society money.

But just becomes someone doesnt get sick and die of cancer at 40 doesn't mean that they won't get another type of cancer at 70... and care will probably cost almost.... ?

Unless we decide not to pay for care for really old people, or unless everyone starts dying of a sudden, massive heart attack, I don't see how preventive care really saves that much money.

Anyone?

The idea is that it should be significantly cheaper to keep a person from getting a chronic disease by using good diet, exercise and maybe some medications then to pay the massive bills of surguries and 15 differnt drugs. Go ask you grandmother how many pills she takes a day. go ahead.

HPV is a virus that causes cancer and has potential to ruin a womans chance of having children. Still think its a bad idea. lets look at some more vaccines.

Did you not get the polio vaccine? frick no, you got it because polio sucks, makes you lame (actually lame not you know, lame in the sense of what you already are), and it would cost lots of money to cure. Not to mention you would be disable and not able to function in society or hold certain jobs. You would be a drag on the country; another welfare case. You would not be able to pay for your medications at all and you would rely on your family and love ones to help you through even simple parts of your life. Now wouldnt it be much better to just get the god damn vaccine and not be a douche.

The overall health of our society is contributed to the health of everyone. If you have sickly people walking around provided hosts for infections and diseases all we are doing is giving it a chance to survive.

 

[Bryophyte]

You know, I think you're on to something. We should abolish prenatal care too, because I would've saved society a TON of money by dying in childbirth with my firstborn (which would've happened without modern medicine and prenatal checkups.) And if I didn't die then, I or my daughter would have probably died during my second pregnancy because I wouldn't have gotten RhoGAM shots.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
Sure, it's a lot cheaper to treat a disease than it is to give someone a shot for twenty bucks (or whatever it costs.) Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are really inexpensive, as are treatments for things like polio, tetanus, etc. You're absolutely right.

You are missing the point. Everyone dies someday.

Giving someone a shot for $20 might make them more healthy from ages 30-40, but they still might be really sick from 60-70. Unless you can prove that a 60-70 yr old costs less to care for than a 30-40, I don't see how preventive medicine really is cheaper.

 

[Deleted member 4644]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: LordSegan
These days you see advertisements for various preventive medicines, such as the vaccine for HPV for women. One argument for these medicines is that they will prevent disease and thus save society money.

But just becomes someone doesnt get sick and die of cancer at 40 doesn't mean that they won't get another type of cancer at 70... and care will probably cost almost.... ?

Unless we decide not to pay for care for really old people, or unless everyone starts dying of a sudden, massive heart attack, I don't see how preventive care really saves that much money.

Anyone?

Young people are generally more productive and healthy than older people. So a 40yo getting cancer is probably more costly to society than a 70yo getting cancer.

This is the only answer that really makes sense. I think it's a good argument, especially when you add the benefit of a young person being healthy and the psychological good that results in.

 

[Bryophyte]

Originally posted by: LordSegan

Originally posted by: Bryophyte
Sure, it's a lot cheaper to treat a disease than it is to give someone a shot for twenty bucks (or whatever it costs.) Chemotherapy and radiation therapy are really inexpensive, as are treatments for things like polio, tetanus, etc. You're absolutely right.

You are missing the point. Everyone dies someday.

Giving someone a shot for $20 might make them more healthy from ages 30-40, but they still might be really sick from 60-70. Unless you can prove that a 60-70 yr old costs less to care for than a 30-40, I don't see how preventive medicine really is cheaper.

I guess if someone dies at 30 or 40, then you avoid all the costs of living entirely after that. No more car insurance, no more mortgage to pay, no more vacations, no more food.

Everyone dies someday, are you advocating turning back the clock to a time when we had rampant epidemics of simple to prevent diseases, and when most families had a few more kids than the average today, because so many died as children?

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: LordSegan
These days you see advertisements for various preventive medicines, such as the vaccine for HPV for women. One argument for these medicines is that they will prevent disease and thus save society money.

But just becomes someone doesnt get sick and die of cancer at 40 doesn't mean that they won't get another type of cancer at 70... and care will probably cost almost.... ?

Unless we decide not to pay for care for really old people, or unless everyone starts dying of a sudden, massive heart attack, I don't see how preventive care really saves that much money.

Anyone?

Yeah, it's not like those polio and smallpox vaccines did anything for mankind at all.

 

[Bryophyte]

Another cost to society that would be a major factor is that if someone dies and leaves young children behind, someone has to raise those children.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: LordSegan

You are missing the point. Everyone dies someday.

Giving someone a shot for $20 might make them more healthy from ages 30-40, but they still might be really sick from 60-70. Unless you can prove that a 60-70 yr old costs less to care for than a 30-40, I don't see how preventive medicine really is cheaper.

That 30-40 year old person in healthy condition could be productive and positively contribute to society and the economy before retiring or becoming ill at 60-70yrs. If they're ill at an early age, then society fails to get any of that benefit, and instead pays to care for an ailing person. $100 worth of preventative medicine could result in many thousands of dollars of money put into the economy via that person's work, not to mention societal benefits.
People don't just sit in stasis from age 40 to 60. Even a seemingly worthless couch potato contributes to the economy - someone's got to pay for the electricity to power the TV, for Doritos and beer, and maybe for a new La-Z-boy.