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 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?
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.
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.
I could not have put it in better words myself.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.
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.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 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.
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?
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.
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.
So you're OK with dropping people who leech government funds? They actually reduce GDP.
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.
To a maroon like you.
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?
So the argument that it is saving money doesn't hold.
While your tumor grows, you hope the procedure to remove it becomes cheaper?
Not necessarily. It doesn't really work like the way you're imagining.They will eventually get the diseases. Thats the point. It is natural for humans to deteriorate.
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.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.
I disagree with Hacp, but that does not mean he deserves denigration. In fact, it just makes you look stupider with every post.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.