Comments on: Prevention doesn’t save money http://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:18:00 +0000 hourly 1 By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84960 Anonymous Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:23:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84960 It is why I don't want anyone else to pay for my healthcare. I don't spend my money to save money. I spend it to feel good--hopefully well into a parasitic retirement! It is why I don’t want anyone else to pay for my healthcare. I don’t spend my money to save money. I spend it to feel good–hopefully well into a parasitic retirement!

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84947 Anonymous Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:06:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84947 This really sums up one of the problems with the whole concept of the tobacco lawsuits and settlements several years back. The theory was that states were having huge expenses that needed to be recovered. Aside from the fact that the huge per pack taxes already charged to smokers weren't counted, it's a sad fact that high smoking rates really do probably save government run health systems money in the long run. But that didn't stop the god-awful master settlement agreement, and it sure didn't stop Dickie Scruggs from making hundreds of millions of dollars. This really sums up one of the problems with the whole concept of the tobacco lawsuits and settlements several years back. The theory was that states were having huge expenses that needed to be recovered. Aside from the fact that the huge per pack taxes already charged to smokers weren’t counted, it’s a sad fact that high smoking rates really do probably save government run health systems money in the long run. But that didn’t stop the god-awful master settlement agreement, and it sure didn’t stop Dickie Scruggs from making hundreds of millions of dollars.

]]> By: Alison Cumminshttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84933 Alison Cummins Wed, 09 Apr 2008 21:55:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84933 Cheaper for who? And over what time scale?<br/><br/>If the only cost that matters is the cost to the health care system, then of course the cheapest outcome is for everyone to be stillborn. No costs at all. <br/><br/>Then of course we would run into the problem of trying to run a functioning society with no young people in it. Probably very cheap overall for the first fifteen years or so, as people who would otherwise be investing in childcare are freed up to invest instead in their professional lives, or to provide free care for their elders. <i>Extremely</i> cheap for the health-care system in particular as there are no childhood diseases to prevent. Yaay! No vaccines!<br/><br/>Over time a program of universal stillbirth is unsustainable. The costs become enormous as business collapses for lack of available labour. This of course would be reflected in... less and less health-care spending! No money to spend and no care to be supplied! Just like that, really, <i>really</i> cheap. Approaching free!<br/><br/>The fact is that there are outcomes of ill-health other than death. Lost productivity is one of them. <br/><br/>Likewise, disease has costs that are borne by other systems than “health-care.” When experienced workers have to cut their working hours because they have to care for an ill partner, that’s a cost. It’s just not one visible to the “health-care system.”<br/><br/>Saying that keeping people healthy and productive is more costly than having them become ill (and sometimes die) in middle age is completely cynical. The costs in lost productivity are borne by all of us. Cheaper for who? And over what time scale?

If the only cost that matters is the cost to the health care system, then of course the cheapest outcome is for everyone to be stillborn. No costs at all.

Then of course we would run into the problem of trying to run a functioning society with no young people in it. Probably very cheap overall for the first fifteen years or so, as people who would otherwise be investing in childcare are freed up to invest instead in their professional lives, or to provide free care for their elders. Extremely cheap for the health-care system in particular as there are no childhood diseases to prevent. Yaay! No vaccines!

Over time a program of universal stillbirth is unsustainable. The costs become enormous as business collapses for lack of available labour. This of course would be reflected in… less and less health-care spending! No money to spend and no care to be supplied! Just like that, really, really cheap. Approaching free!

The fact is that there are outcomes of ill-health other than death. Lost productivity is one of them.

Likewise, disease has costs that are borne by other systems than “health-care.” When experienced workers have to cut their working hours because they have to care for an ill partner, that’s a cost. It’s just not one visible to the “health-care system.”

Saying that keeping people healthy and productive is more costly than having them become ill (and sometimes die) in middle age is completely cynical. The costs in lost productivity are borne by all of us.

]]> By: Anonymoushttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84926 Anonymous Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:56:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84926 Well.......yeah. Dying early of the natural history of disease is usually cheaper. Whether that's desirable, of course, is another matter. Well…….yeah. Dying early of the natural history of disease is usually cheaper. Whether that’s desirable, of course, is another matter.

]]> By: healthy skeptichttp://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84925 healthy skeptic Wed, 09 Apr 2008 18:46:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/kevinmd/2008/04/prevention-doesnt-save-money.html#comment-84925 It's just that people who would have been sick <i>feel</i> so much better, and are so much better able to enjoy life and contribute their energies to work and family and so forth. As IF that were the whole point of anyone ever seeking health care. Hardly worth it, wouldn't you say, to achieve an irrelevent goal like THAT.<br/><br/>..Wait, what? It’s just that people who would have been sick feel so much better, and are so much better able to enjoy life and contribute their energies to work and family and so forth. As IF that were the whole point of anyone ever seeking health care. Hardly worth it, wouldn’t you say, to achieve an irrelevent goal like THAT.

..Wait, what?

]]>