GOP Deep Thought: 'Why do Democrats push preventative health care? Living to 88 is expensive.'

[BurtWorm]

Alex Koppelman's quote of the day at salon.com's War Room:

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/02/24/qotn/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

The National Review's Mark Hemingway has an interesting perspective on health care reform, to say the least. From a post he put up at the Corner during President Obama's address to Congress:

Why do Democrats push preventative health care as a cost savings measure at every turn? If you want to save the healthcare system money, drop dead of a heart attack at 50. Living to 88 on the other hand -- that's expensive.

Somehow, I don't think that's going to catch on as a political argument.

[sweetpotato]

1. Logan's Run

Was it 30 or 35?

[Wildewolfe]

2. 21 in the book, 30 in the movie

[zbdent]

3. I didn't know the Bubonic Plague was so cost-effective ...

hey, let's do it again!

:sarcasm:

[T Wolf]

4. ONly if we can limit it to the slave states...

[zbdent]

12. deep-fried frozen Twinkies ...

now more Bubonicy!

[sandnsea]

5. A healthy 88 is cheaper

than multiple heart attacks at 50 because not everybody is going to fall over dead.

Sadly, I don't think that Obama getting everyone educated is going to eliminate this kind of diseased thinking. Maybe getting better values out through his faith based office will do some good though.

[BonnieJW]

6. My mother is 92

and the only health expense she has is eye drops for glaucoma. Very healthy lady.

[Oregone]

7. Now while this sounds heartless...

There is some validity on the following lines:

A lot of people say that if you invest X, you will save Y over 20 years. But, this is somewhat fictitious because you may be spending K more on other age related health problems, which were not previously a factor.

Now I am not saying that X+K > Y. But what I am saying is that the new adjusted amount spent can not be described as (BUDGET + X - Y), but rather (BUDGET + X - Y + K). The reality is, that pinning down a true finite cost for K is very, very difficult (so the new adjusted amount may be less or more), so this suggests its not always purely a "cost savings measure".

On the other hand, if there is a cost, and it is accompanied by an increased quality of life, than it may be a price worth paying. The bottom line is, the answer to this is ambiguous, somewhat subjective, and philosophical at best. A balance sheet alone cannot solve this question.

[Mugweed]

8. Totally against abortion, but...

totally for killing 'em off before they get to be an expensive old burden, huh?

The Republic Party is way screwy.

[SheilaT]

9. I'm reminded of the argument

some smokers use to justify smoking, saying they'll die earlier and save the system a lot of money. Except that along the way they'll probably have a whole lot more health problems and costs than a non-smoker who eats right and exercises and all that boring stuff.

What would really make economic sense would be do either do away with everyone at some arbitrary age, like 60, or definitely do away with everyone who gets an illness or condition that will result in health care costs above some (make it low) dollar amount. Same way with not performing heroic measures on premature babies, or ones born with massive defects, or . . . you get the idea here.

The simple truth is that appropriate preventative health measures (vaccines, anyone?) are very cost-effective. Yes, some of us will manage to linger on in old age, taking up lots of health care dollars, but along the way we probably will work and put into the system at least as much as we take out.

[Lance_Boyle]

10. yeah, actually it's quite true that smokers cost less in the long run

The smoking-related conditions that shorten their lives tend to set in VERY NEAR the end of their lives (another way to say this is that smoking-related disease kills quickly), so not much in the way of resources is used on them as compared to the non-smoking jogaholic who lives to 100, requiring constant, vastly expensive care for the last 20 of those years.

[SheilaT]

13. I have always been highly suspicious

of the claim that smokers cost less in the long run. It had been my personal observation many years ago that smokers get things like colds more readily, and are slower to recover. I've also observed that smokers often get illnesses that DON'T kill them quickly and are very expensive to treat.

The real issue might be the expensive chronic disease, whether smoking related or not.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. you are no doubt right on the colds, but colds are not a major medical

resource hog. In terms of things like lost productivity (due to colds, smoke breaks, etc.), smokers probably do "cost" more, but not in terms of health care resources consumed.

[radfringe]

11. so is giving pensions and health care to old guys who use to be

in the senate and the house....