Economics of Health

I found this very interesting, especially with all the recent media coverage of the various candidates' health plans. Turns out poor living habits are actually cheaper on the healthcare system, in the long run:

The researchers found that from age 20 to 56, obese people racked up the most expensive health costs. But because both the smokers and the obese people died sooner than the healthy group, it cost less to treat them in the long run.

...

"Lung cancer is a cheap disease to treat because people don't survive very long," van Baal said. "But if they are old enough to get Alzheimer's one day, they may survive longer and cost more."

Heh.

Sure, that's one way to measure a lifetime. But, having only read the article and not the study nor anything about their metrics, I have some *serious* problems with the headlining "conclusions".

For example, they give a very precise sounding number, $417,000, as the health care cost for a thin person who lives longer, but no reference at all to the other side of the ledger of the same person's life. Do they not earn more or longer? Or not? What of the economics of their lives? Another spin on the (stupid sounding) conclusion is that these same people are the Energizer Bunnies of the economy, unstoppable engines of employment for the growing health care sector. Yay old (really old) people, you're keeping us employed!

Riddikulus!

Darn, and I thought this was going to be a thread about how expensive it is to eat right these days. It is you know. If you want a whole food diet it costs a fortune. Much cheaper to live on noodles and processed food in many ways, but as per the above, it'll make you fat and you'll die young, and I guess if you save all that money on food you can afford to smoke more, so you'll die even younger.

Yay...go cheap food and bad lifestyles!

Seriously. If the highest goal is the least expensive life, I think this modest proposal, published awhile back, represents the optimal solution.

BigV wrote:

For example, they give a very precise sounding number, $417,000, as the health care cost for a thin person who lives longer, but no reference at all to the other side of the ledger of the same person's life. Do they not earn more or longer? Or not? What of the economics of their lives?

Well, they admit that they don't try to measure social or employee-efficiency aspects of the equation, but as for earning longer:

On average, healthy people lived 84 years. Smokers lived about 77 years, and obese people lived about 80 years.

So really, all these people are past retirement age anyway, it's just that slow degenerative conditions cost more than swift diseases.

Why is it that when you're spending money on cars and fruitloops, that's a benefit to the economy, but when you're spending money on bullet wounds and toe fungus, that's a drain on the economy? Either way, you're stirring the money pot.

It's a European study.

BigV;430045 wrote:

snip-- Another spin on the (stupid sounding) conclusion is that these same people are the Energizer Bunnies of the economy, unstoppable engines of employment for the growing health care sector. Yay old (really old) people, you're keeping us employed!--snip

HungLikeJesus;430110 wrote:

Why is it that when you're spending money on cars and fruitloops, that's a benefit to the economy, but when you're spending money on bullet wounds and toe fungus, that's a drain on the economy? Either way, you're stirring the money pot.

Yup. Good question.

Well, one reason is because cars and fruitloops are voluntary, free-market purchases. The money goes straight from your pocket to the car man's pocket, and the car goes from his hands to yours. Everyone is happy. Healthcare isn't free-market spending: the money goes out of your pocket into the government's hands, then some of it is later doled out to the doctors on behalf of other people--which is good for the doctors to stay in business, to be sure, but for the original spenders, it can be hard to see how the money bought anything directly, so there's no immediate self-interest incentive to work to make more money, which is what completes the money-pot-stirring. Just stirring half of it doesn't count.

Which is not to say that I think healthcare should be a completely free-market operation. I'm just saying it can't stimulate the economy the same way other transactions do.

Clodfobble;430271 wrote:

Healthcare isn't free-market spending: the money goes out of your pocket into the government's hands, then some of it is later doled out to the doctors on behalf of other people-

Please explain this to me. When did the gov't get involved with my insurance? Did Hillary already get elected?

classicman wrote:

Please explain this to me. When did the gov't get involved with my insurance? Did Hillary already get elected?

Undertoad wrote:

It's a European study.

And even in America, an insurance company is still a third party who doles out your payments today to someone else's healthcare today. It serves the same function, it just happens to be slightly more voluntary to join.