Preventative Care Myth

[Whoozyerdaddy]

All this talk of preventive care and yet ObamaCare provides exactly $0 for gym memberships.

Think about it. We will be required to buy health insurance whether we want it or not but we don't have to take care of ourselves. Why is it ok to force one action and not another? Obama... pay for my gym membership! (and make the fatties go too)

 

[dmcowen674]

Preventative Care Myth

Color me crazy but I don't understand what all this preventative care stuff is all about. It seems logical that people will eventually die right? And in modern medicine, there is no "natural" death. There is always SOME procedure that can be done to try to save the person's life, and you betcha it will be expensive.

So what will preventative care do to lower costs? Doesn't it just push costs down the road? What is cheaper? Someone dying in their 40s of a heart attack or someone dying in their 90s after 30 years of nursing home, a few stent procedures and a few hip/joint replacements? Of course, I'm not saying that living longer isn't a bad thing, but I just don't understand the argument that preventative care helps save money.

You must be like 13

Wait another 30 years and you will look back your sick posts and say WTF was I thinking.

 

[actuarial]

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?

A) In a socialized medicine system, the net gain for a member is contributions - expenses. If we're going to simplify and say basically all persons incur the same medical costs regardless of length of life or health, then the only way we can affect the net gain is on contributions. People contribute only while they're alive, and preventative care keeps them alive longer (you have implicitly agreed to this in talking about deferring costs).

B) It's moronic to think that all person's costs are the same. I had a mole removed. Thankfully it was not cancerous. Had it been, I would have saved my medical system tens of thousands of dollars to treat and cure something. I STILL would have incurred the costs associated with end of life later. What you would essentially have to prove is that the cost of removing suspicious moles, as a population, is greater than the cost of treatment for people who are 'cured' after finding the disease in later stages which could have been prevented with mole removal.

 

[Hacp]

A) In a socialized medicine system, the net gain for a member is contributions - expenses. If we're going to simplify and say basically all persons incur the same medical costs regardless of length of life or health, then the only way we can affect the net gain is on contributions. People contribute only while they're alive, and preventative care keeps them alive longer (you have implicitly agreed to this in talking about deferring costs).

B) It's moronic to think that all person's costs are the same. I had a mole removed. Thankfully it was not cancerous. Had it been, I would have saved my medical system tens of thousands of dollars to treat and cure something. I STILL would have incurred the costs associated with end of life later. What you would essentially have to prove is that the cost of removing suspicious moles, as a population, is greater than the cost of treatment for people who are 'cured' after finding the disease in later stages which could have been prevented with mole removal.

Lets say you got cancer and died. You just saved the health care system millions in end of life costs. Nursing, medicine, stents, surgery, all of that is not needed anymore. So in that case, preventative medicine cost more money.

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by actuarial
A) In a socialized medicine system, the net gain for a member is contributions - expenses. If we're going to simplify and say basically all persons incur the same medical costs regardless of length of life or health, then the only way we can affect the net gain is on contributions. People contribute only while they're alive, and preventative care keeps them alive longer (you have implicitly agreed to this in talking about deferring costs).

B) It's moronic to think that all person's costs are the same. I had a mole removed. Thankfully it was not cancerous. Had it been, I would have saved my medical system tens of thousands of dollars to treat and cure something. I STILL would have incurred the costs associated with end of life later. What you would essentially have to prove is that the cost of removing suspicious moles, as a population, is greater than the cost of treatment for people who are 'cured' after finding the disease in later stages which could have been prevented with mole removal.

Lets say you got cancer and died.

You just saved the health care system millions in end of life costs.

Nursing, medicine, stents, surgery, all of that is not needed anymore.

So in that case, preventative medicine cost more money.

Saved and bolded this disgusting post by such a sick poster.

 

[JEDIYoda]

..................

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_pisani_sex_drugs_and_hiv_let_s_get_rational_1.html


watch that..

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

Lets say you got cancer and died. You just saved the health care system millions in end of life costs. Nursing, medicine, stents, surgery, all of that is not needed anymore. So in that case, preventative medicine cost more money.

What...the...FUCK?! Why do we even have a healthcare system at all? Let's just use those fucking trillions throwing more lives away in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of doing something fucking USEFUL for people!

 

[Hacp]

What...the...FUCK?! Why do we even have a healthcare system at all? Let's just use those fucking trillions throwing more lives away in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of doing something fucking USEFUL for people!

See that is not the argument. The argument is about costs i.e. saving money. To say preventative care saves money may not be true. If that person had died of cancer or whatever disease, then he would not incur expenses related to end of life. Subtract projected end of life costs from the cost of treating cancer(and failing) to see if it saves money or not. If it doesn't save money, then preventative care for that case will cost overall more.



An equation to see if preventative care will save money is
[(cost of disease care)-(Death% of disease)*(cost of end of life)]- [(1-%of disease prevented)*(cost of disease care-(death% of disease)*(cost of end of life))+(%of disease prevented*end of life costs)]

If that number turns out to be negative for a particular case, then preventative care for that case will not save money. It will in fact cost more money in the long run.

 

[JSt0rm]

See that is not the argument. The argument is about costs i.e. saving money. To say preventative care saves money may not be true. If that person had died of cancer or whatever disease, then he would not incur expenses related to end of life. Subtract projected end of life costs from the cost of treating cancer(and failing) to see if it saves money or not. If it doesn't save money, then preventative care for that case will cost overall more.



An equation to see if preventative care will save money is
[(cost of disease care)-(Death% of disease)*(cost of end of life)]- [(1-%of disease prevented)*(cost of disease care-(death% of disease)*(cost of end of life))+(%of disease prevented*end of life costs)]

If that number turns out to be negative for a particular case, then preventative care for that case will not save money. It will in fact cost more money in the long run.

I just gave you a link that shows preventative care saves money by an expert in her field.

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

You know, at first I thought you were just ignorant. Now I've come to suspect you're retarded.

See that is not the argument. The argument is about costs i.e. saving money. To say preventative care saves money may not be true. If that person had died of cancer or whatever disease, then he would not incur expenses related to end of life. Subtract projected end of life costs from the cost of treating cancer(and failing) to see if it saves money or not. If it doesn't save money, then preventative care for that case will cost overall more.

But typically when people get cancer they get treated for it. We don't leave them to die. That's what costs the money. And you are assuming that preventative care only delays the same prognosis. That is a completely wrong assumption to make.

 

[Hacp]

You know, at first I thought you were just ignorant. Now I've come to suspect you're retarded.


But typically when people get cancer they get treated for it. We don't leave them to die. That's what costs the money. And you are assuming that preventative care only delays the same prognosis. That is a completely wrong assumption to make.

I already outlined the equation to see if that's true or not. There is a death rate for cancer. If preventative care prevents X% of people from dying from cancer, that X% will incur more costs later on form end of life care. Now you need to calculate if that X%'s end of life care outweighs the extra chemotherapy etc that you incur if you don't catch the disease early. End of life care can be quite expensive with nursing homes, drugs,social security etc.

Plus, you may have cases where early screening does nothing. You catch the early signs of cancer, you still need chemo and surgery to remove. You improve survival but you're still spending money on chemotherapy treatments and surgery.

 

[ShawnD1]

The safe needle program that exists in some cities is done to reduce the cost of treating HIV and hepatitis. With proper treatment, someone with HIV and live for decades and the cost is unbelievable. It's even worse if they spread it around.

 

[blackangst1]

You know, at first I thought you were just ignorant. Now I've come to suspect you're retarded.


But typically when people get cancer they get treated for it. We don't leave them to die. That's what costs the money. And you are assuming that preventative care only delays the same prognosis. That is a completely wrong assumption to make.

Hey Pedantic...love youre sig

 

[Mr. Pedantic]

I already outlined the equation to see if that's true or not. There is a death rate for cancer. If preventative care prevents X% of people from dying from cancer, that X% will incur more costs later on form end of life care. Now you need to calculate if that X%'s end of life care outweighs the extra chemotherapy etc that you incur if you don't catch the disease early. End of life care can be quite expensive with nursing homes, drugs,social security etc.

Plus, you may have cases where early screening does nothing. You catch the early signs of cancer, you still need chemo and surgery to remove. You improve survival but you're still spending money on chemotherapy treatments and surgery.

Since you seem to have missed it the first time, let me say it again: YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE CRAPPY. It is a fact of life that young people and old people cost money. However, the chemotherapy and radiotherapy is much cheaper than end-of-life care.

By the way, most screening techniques are implemented precisely because they are very, very cheap. That is one of the major criteria for them, right up there with specificity and sensitivity, advancement of diagnosis due to the screening, and actually having a treatment for positives. On a population basis screening for a disease and treating the positives early while the prognosis is good and the situation is still relatively simple is much better than diagnosis based on symptoms and having to deal with secondary/tertiary complications.

Hey Pedantic...love youre sig

Why, thank you. I live for these moments...

 

[Hacp]

Since you seem to have missed it the first time, let me say it again: YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE CRAPPY. It is a fact of life that young people and old people cost money. However, the chemotherapy and radiotherapy is much cheaper than end-of-life care.

So chemotherapy and radiotherapy is much cheaper than end of life care, that proves my point that preventative care will have a net increase in health costs. As population gets older, medical costs will rise.

 

[piasabird]

If you use heart pressure medication that costs money, but if you dont it will cause organ damange and you might need to have dialysis or an organ transplant. Funerals cost money too. So if you can live healthier longer you will save money. It will also increase quality of life.

None of this accounts for pure chance like people getting diseases they dont expect like MS or parkinsons and hundreds of other rare to common diseases.

 

[Carmen813]

Lets say you got cancer and died. You just saved the health care system millions in end of life costs. Nursing, medicine, stents, surgery, all of that is not needed anymore. So in that case, preventative medicine cost more money.

I don't think the word "preventative" means what you think it means. Preventative care is designed to prevent you from getting cancer in the first place (or diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, obesity..ect.) The number one problem our country has is obesity, as it causes a whole slew of other problems down the line.

On a side note, cancer isn't always a death sentence.

 

[Hacp]

I don't think the word "preventative" means what you think it means. Preventative care is designed to prevent you from getting cancer in the first place (or diabetes, heart disease, alzheimer's, obesity..ect.) The number one problem our country has is obesity, as it causes a whole slew of other problems down the line.

On a side note, cancer isn't always a death sentence.

Prevent you from getting cancer in the first place? You can't prevent anyone from getting cancer. You can detect cancer early, then use Chemotherapy and surgery (which costs money by the way) to irradiate the cancer, then monitor the site of the cancer with more tests(expensive). Thats as far as we can go with modern medicine.

But what if you discovered the cancer in later stages that are fatal? Then you go through the rounds of Chemotherapy etc and eventually die. Purely looking at it from a financial standpoint, you just saved the system money by not incurring end of life care. No more joint/hip replacement. No stents. No annual prostate exams/mamograms. No monthly checkups. No expensive drugs.

 

[JEDIYoda]

we could just ignore HACP...HIS RESPONSES ARE ALL THE SAME......
In his mind it`s a very simple topic.....as it should be for someone in Jr High school.....

He does not and will never grasp what the word "preventative" actually means.


Whats sad is HACP is exactly like Kylebisme is when it concern the WTC7 Towers.....they both just do not get it!

 

[piasabird]

Heart pressure medication prevents organ damage and organ failure. You did not even read what I wrote. You just went off the deep end.

 

[ShawnD1]

Heart pressure medication prevents organ damage and organ failure. You did not even read what I wrote. You just went off the deep end.

YEAH BUT WE COULD JUST NOT GIVE YOU NEW ORGANS AND LET YOU DIE

(posting it before hacp does)

 

[Hacp]

Heart pressure medication prevents organ damage and organ failure. You did not even read what I wrote. You just went off the deep end.

Heart pressure medicine prevents organ damage and failure? Great, everyone takes heart pressure medicine. How much would that cost? How many people have organ failure? What effects will the medicine have on the liver?

 

[Hacp]

YEAH BUT WE COULD JUST NOT GIVE YOU NEW ORGANS AND LET YOU DIE

(posting it before hacp does)

So you do get what I'm saying. Saving lives can increase the net cost of the health care system. So you can't make the argument that it will reduce the costs. It will actually increase costs.

 

[Carmen813]

Prevent you from getting cancer in the first place? You can't prevent anyone from getting cancer. You can detect cancer early, then use Chemotherapy and surgery (which costs money by the way) to irradiate the cancer, then monitor the site of the cancer with more tests(expensive). Thats as far as we can go with modern medicine.

But what if you discovered the cancer in later stages that are fatal? Then you go through the rounds of Chemotherapy etc and eventually die. Purely looking at it from a financial standpoint, you just saved the system money by not incurring end of life care. No more joint/hip replacement. No stents. No annual prostate exams/mamograms. No monthly checkups. No expensive drugs.

You are overgeneralizing. There are at a minimum, hundreds, if not thousands, of types of cancer. Some are very treatable, some are not. We can substantially reduce the risk of developing specific cancers by providing adequate preventative care. The problem here is that you are comparing apples to oranges.

Preventative care implies seeing a doctor for regular physical exams. Healthy eating, physical fitness, limited alcohol consumption, and not smoking are all preventative measures. Routine blood tests to monitor things like cholesterol are also important. For women, at least one cancer can be completely prevented via vaccine (cervical cancer).

Does preventative care guarantee an individual won't get cancer? No, I'm a living testament to that, but that doesn't change the fact that certain behaviors greatly increase risk.

By seeing a doctor regularly, they may recommend you get early detection screenings. If a society is going to bother trying to cure cancer, then early detection reduces the societies costs. Cancer is easier, and thus cheaper, to treat when it is detected early. Simply put, early detection is not the same as prevention.

Your position seems to be entirely about saving money, which is fine. However, there is really no reason for us to invest any resources in trying to treat illnesses like cancer if our only concern is money. The cost for treating these illnesses is substantial. There are also huge investments in research, both in terms of time and manpower. If you are dedicated time/money to cure cancer, that means those resources can't be used elsewhere. Individuals who survive cancer will inevitably take more financial resources out of the system than they can put in. So the answer to your question is very simple: it's called progress. We treat it because we can.

Note that I do not believe end of life care should stay the same way it does now. That said, this is a very dicey area. People are afraid of dying, which is why so much money is spent on extreme treatments near the end of life. Ultimately, this is an area where I feel that the individuals involved must be allowed to remain in control of these decisions. I certainly don't want the government involved in anyway. I'm in mental health counseling, and I personally believe that we need more counselors who are interested in working with the seriously ill. Unfortunately there is a critical shortage in this area. End of Life Individual and Family Counseling may help to ease some of the financial burden you've described, but then again, it may not.