(Untitled)

Aug 10, 2009 16:25

Apparently in overall terms preventative health care is not cheaper than reactionary care.

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=345

Leave a comment

Comments 2

a_lucid_dream_ August 11 2009, 05:02:26 UTC
Of course! As the article states "To avert one case of acute illness, it is usually necessary to provide preventive care to many patients, most of whom would not have suffered that illness anyway," should be evidence of enough.

I also do not believe it should be the governments job to tell people to live healthier. One interesting thing Godaddy.com does, is if you are a tobacco user, they charge you about twenty dollars a month for health care(Blue Cross Blue Shield at that), instead of providing it to you for free.

Reply


heart_damage August 11 2009, 05:41:38 UTC
For one, I don't think money should matter. I'd rather people um, not die.

For another, if they're so worried about repeat services for those who receive benefits from their employers, why don't they just, um, SOCIALIZE healthcare so that everyone gets the same shit in the first place. (Let me be specific, a two teir socialized system, so that there is a private sector, but not for employers, for individuals and referals)

Last of all, they fail to mention that if we stopped using bogus "cures" for diseases, i.e. chemotherapy for cancer when we have two-TWO! other options that have higher cure rates, and started researching better avenues instead of shoveling all those government grants into the graveyard of neverending, useless, repetative medical research done for the sheer purpose of publishing (the same) data in some fucking medical journal for the gazilionth time just so they can fill their pockets, we'd have MILLIONS OF DOLLARS of extra money to spend on healthcare.

Ugh.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up