Preventative Care Myth

[First]

I think everyone is misunderstanding. My point is what is the validity of people claiming that preventative care saves money. They can argue about the social benefits and individual benefits, but why are they arguing that it saves money when all it does it push the cost into the future?

Because it doesn't, unless you're mentally handicapped.

 

[feralkid]

I think everyone is misunderstanding. My point is what is the validity of people claiming that preventative care saves money. They can argue about the social benefits and individual benefits, but why are they arguing that it saves money when all it does it push the cost into the future?

I don't think you have a grasp of what "preventive" means.

Like when you have a mole removed it costs next to nothing.

Ignore it and it may become cancerous, metastasize and cost millions in radiation/chemotherapy.

That is the benefit of preventive care.

 

[Matthiasa]

Due to the little fact money in the future is worth less then now, if the procedure would somehow manage to get cheaper or even just cheaper relative to inflation it would save money just by putting it off.

 

[feralkid]

Due to the little fact money in the future is worth less then now, if the procedure would somehow manage to get cheaper or even just cheaper relative to inflation it would save money just by putting it off.

While your tumor grows, you hope the procedure to remove it becomes cheaper?


😱

 

[JEDIYoda]

So i got it right the first time....
besides being an idiot the Op has no clue what he is talking about........

 

[theeedude]

I think everyone is misunderstanding. My point is what is the validity of people claiming that preventative care saves money. They can argue about the social benefits and individual benefits, but why are they arguing that it saves money when all it does it push the cost into the future?

Healthy people are more productive, so at least they contribute to society and pay taxes for much longer before becoming sick, disabled, or dead. So even if it didn't save money, it's a net plus financially.

 

[Hacp]

Healthy people are more productive, so at least they contribute to society and pay taxes for much longer before becoming sick, disabled, or dead. So even if it didn't save money, it's a net plus financially.

So its just another form of social engineering?

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Why keep up the maintenance on your car? Certain parts of the car will need to be replaced anyways. Its not going to save you any money.

I could not have put it in better words myself.

I think everyone is misunderstanding. My point is what is the validity of people claiming that preventative care saves money. They can argue about the social benefits and individual benefits, but why are they arguing that it saves money when all it does it push the cost into the future?

At the moment there is nothing we can do, literally for love or money, to stop people from dying of 'old age'. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to do nothing, since it will be a waste of time, effort, and money. Therefore, since it's impossible to keep people living forever, the ideal goal is to have people die of 'old age'. This is what saves the money. Getting treated for chronic diseases is very expensive. Therefore the idea is that we try stop people, whenever possible, from getting these chronic diseases.

 

[Hacp]

I could not have put it in better words myself.


At the moment there is nothing we can do, literally for love or money, to stop people from dying of 'old age'. Therefore, the best course of action in this case is to do nothing, since it will be a waste of time, effort, and money. Therefore, since it's impossible to keep people living forever, the ideal goal is to have people die of 'old age'. This is what saves the money. Getting treated for chronic diseases is very expensive. Therefore the idea is that we try stop people, whenever possible, from getting these chronic diseases.

They will eventually get the diseases. Thats the point. It is natural for humans to deteriorate. So if you prevent someone from dying due to a heart attack now, in 40 years, they will still have a heart attack and will need the same care. End result: you did little to save in costs. You probably gave that person 40 years of a good life but no money was saved by the taxpayers.

 

[theeedude]

So its just another form of social engineering?

Yes, what's wrong with social engineering that helps people live longer, more productive lives by delaying heath problems and costs till they are old?

 

[Hacp]

Yes, what's wrong with social engineering that helps people live longer, more productive lives by delaying heath problems and costs till they are old?

People already do that. But this gives the same benefits of long life and happiness that productive people enjoyed to the leeches who suck from the government tit.

 

[theeedude]

They will eventually get the diseases. Thats the point. It is natural for humans to deteriorate. So if you prevent someone from dying due to a heart attack now, in 40 years, they will still have a heart attack and will need the same care. End result: you did little to save in costs. You probably gave that person 40 years of a good life but no money was saved by the taxpayers.

Even if you spend the same amount, as percent of GDP, you spent a much smaller amount if a person contributes to GDP for 40 more years. Just so you know, pursuing this argument makes you looks stupider with every post. Not trying to stop you, just wanted to make you aware of it.

 

[Hacp]

Even if you spend the same amount, as percent of GDP, you spent a much smaller amount if a person contributes to GDP for 40 more years. Just so you know, pursuing this argument makes you looks stupider with every post. Not trying to stop you, just wanted to make you aware of it.

So you're OK with dropping people who leech government funds? They actually reduce GDP.

 

[theeedude]

People already do that. But this gives the same benefits of long life and happiness that productive people enjoyed to the leeches who suck from the government tit.

Yes, because all people who can't afford tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills, which you can incur from just about any serious condition or accident, are obviously leeches. Obviously they don't contribute anything to society. Like I said, you look dumber with every post.

 

[theeedude]

So you're OK with dropping people who leech government funds? They actually reduce GDP.

I am OK with you continuing to demonstrate your stupidity. Dinner time 🙂

 

[Hacp]

Yes, because all people who can't afford tens of thousands of dollars of medical bills, which you can incur from just about any serious condition or accident, are obviously leeches. Obviously they don't contribute anything to society. Like I said, you look dumber with every post.

Well if they weren't producing enough to buy health insurance, how much GDP would they have produced anyways? The GDP argument does not hold.

 

[feralkid]

Well if they weren't producing enough to buy health insurance, how much GDP would they have produced anyways? The GDP argument does not hold.

To a maroon like you.

 

[JEDIYoda]

To a maroon like you.

Whats terrinbly disturbing is HACP use of a black mans avatar!
I have no black friends who are as mooronic or stoopid as HACP continues to appear to be.

Yet in all likelihood HACP is probably a white male in Jr High School who doesn`t yet know crap about anything!

 

[earthman]

I think everyone is misunderstanding. My point is what is the validity of people claiming that preventative care saves money. They can argue about the social benefits and individual benefits, but why are they arguing that it saves money when all it does it push the cost into the future?

Describe one substantive financial process in modern society that doesn't push a cost into the future. When you take out a loan for a car or home, that pushes the cost into the future. When you charge something on your credit card, that pushes a cost into the future. When insurance companies sell you insurance, they push costs into the future for a finite payment now. When you have a medical condition and you get it treated, you push the costs into the future, because you will live into the future, not die soon. Preventive care is always cheaper in the short term. A filling is cheaper than a crown or dentures. A stent is cheaper than a heart transplant. What part of it is so hard to understand?

 

[Paul98]

The thing is it doesn't push the cost to the future, it cuts the cost in the future. The preventative care now will lower the chances that you have to spend much more down the line on what you are trying to prevent. So farther down the line you don't have to pay for THAT. Yes there are other treatments and what not that your going to have to pay for, but you were going to have to pay for that anyways.

 

[Hacp]

Describe one substantive financial process in modern society that doesn't push a cost into the future. When you take out a loan for a car or home, that pushes the cost into the future. When you charge something on your credit card, that pushes a cost into the future. When insurance companies sell you insurance, they push costs into the future for a finite payment now. When you have a medical condition and you get it treated, you push the costs into the future, because you will live into the future, not die soon. Preventive care is always cheaper in the short term. A filling is cheaper than a crown or dentures. A stent is cheaper than a heart transplant. What part of it is so hard to understand?

So the argument that it is saving money doesn't hold.

 

[TruePaige]

So the argument that it is saving money doesn't hold.

Diabetes: Cheap insulin is much cheaper than transplants, amputations, physical and mental therapy.

Prenatal care: Delivering a healthy baby is much cheaper than a life time of health care costs related to issues that could be caught early.

Bladder infection: A few cents worth of antibiotics are cheaper than dealing with the effects of massive kidney damage.

etc..etc..on and on.

 

[Matthiasa]

While your tumor grows, you hope the procedure to remove it becomes cheaper?


😱

It is also cheaper to remove cancer when it is smaller and hasn't yet spread.
It is even cheaper to make lifestyle changes that lower the risk of cancer as well. 😛

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

They will eventually get the diseases. Thats the point. It is natural for humans to deteriorate.

Not necessarily. It doesn't really work like the way you're imagining.

End result: you did little to save in costs. You probably gave that person 40 years of a good life but no money was saved by the taxpayers.

If someone has a heart attack 40 years later than they normally would have that's a huge saving, in monitoring, treatment, etc. It's still a win, even disregarding the health issue.

Even if you spend the same amount, as percent of GDP, you spent a much smaller amount if a person contributes to GDP for 40 more years. Just so you know, pursuing this argument makes you looks stupider with every post. Not trying to stop you, just wanted to make you aware of it.

I disagree with Hacp, but that does not mean he deserves denigration. In fact, it just makes you look stupider with every post.

 

[Praxis1452]

The truth is that the ability of preventative care to reduce costs depends entirely on the situation. The specific group at risk, the cost of screening, the outcomes if not screened, which may be large, but may also occur to a significantly smaller group of people. The extension of life in years or quality that occurs if screened early, etc.

Example: If I remember correctly lung cancer screening has increased drastically, but overall mortality has not. People still live just as long as they did from the first diagnosis. I could be wrong, but I remember reading this. They find more, leading to more false positives, which is part of it, but also the fact is lung cancer is hard to treat, and the treatments aren't great either.