Riddle me this Lib’s

[Sonny Limatina]

Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive Care
Reform's Backers Say Such Measures Will Help Pay for Overhaul of Health System

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083103854.html

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/09/01/GR2009090100134.gif

I clicked through, so the board didn't have to. The study did not say preventive care has no effect. It said the opposite--it does. This was a numbers exercise to see if that effect would offset the cost of the healthcare plan, once you added in the cost of administering the plan. The conclusion: some, but not enough.

 

[TurdFergeson]

Down with Healthcare!!!

 

[unregistered]

 

[koalabear]

Down with big government!

An assault weapon in every house!

 

[unregistered]

 

[hogjack]

Down with big government!

The US Military is seeking to double the troops in Afghanistan.

Big Government is winning.

 

[Pookie]

You did nothing of the sort.



Day 2: Still Waiting. Prove it.

Seems like such a simple request...why can't AJ back his words up?

Show us the "recent study" that preventative care has little or no effect...hell, show us ANY study that shows this.

Study Raises Questions About Cost Savings From Preventive Care
Reform's Backers Say Such Measures Will Help Pay for Overhaul of Health System

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/31/AR2009083103854.html

http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2009/09/01/GR2009090100134.gif

Another article referring to the studies:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/09/01/politics/washingtonpost/main5279368.shtml

I'll ask you now ... did you read the article before you posted?

Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system, according to a study being published Tuesday.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[firespin]

I'll ask you now ... did you read the article before you posted?

Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system, according to a study being published Tuesday.

It also said this, more specifically:

"However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services would add to overall health spending, not decrease it, the study shows. "

"For diabetes patients, only about two-thirds of that cost would be recovered in the first decade, when fewer complications materialize, and more than three-quarters would be recovered over 25 years, the study found." I.e. 100% would not be recovered.

 

[Pookie]

I was in no argument with Throb. I merely pointed out that logically, you were engaging in false cause and Throb decided to become your champion and demand proof, of which I supplied ample proof of false cause, in short, I did the math.

You did nothing of the sort. You made the following post:

Recent studies have shown preventative care to have little or no effect.

When asked to back it up by Rob, you presented a study that clearly didn't support your statement. You even followed it up with this gem of a post ...

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=32024840&postcount=95

Why can't you discuss things more politely?

Too fuckin' cute.

 

[Pookie]

It also said this, more specifically:

"However, except for the youngest diabetics, the additional services would add to overall health spending, not decrease it, the study shows. "

"For diabetes patients, only about two-thirds of that cost would be recovered in the first decade, when fewer complications materialize, and more than three-quarters would be recovered over 25 years, the study found." I.e. 100% would not be recovered.

The study is looking at the cost savings to pay for the reform, and that the savings may not be enough to pay for the Government's cost for the reform.

Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system

Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.


This study is a look at preventive care's effect on lowering costs to completely pay for the Government cost for the reform. It suggests it won't. But, it clearly adds support to my position that preventive care is effective in lowering costs.

 

[Pookie]

He asked for a study, I got tired, so I posted a reference to one. I'm still looking for a PDF file.

Don't tire yourself anymore. The study isn't what you think it is. It doesn't support the premise that preventive care has no effect. It just questions the amount of savings to go toward paying for the reform package. Part of the argument of the study is that looking at just 10 years as the CBO does is flawed.

 

[koalabear]

...and a boiled Democrat in every pot.

.....wait! are we trying to kill everyone!?

 

[Byron In Exile]

The study is looking at the cost savings to pay for the reform, and that the savings may not be enough to pay for the Government's cost for the reform.

Preventive services for the chronically ill may reduce health-care costs, but they are unlikely to generate the kind of fantastic savings that President Obama and other Democrats have said could help pay for an overhaul of the nation's health system

Using data from long-standing clinical trials, researchers projected the cost of caring for people with Type 2 diabetes as they progress from diagnosis to various complications and death. Enrolling federally-insured patients in a simple but aggressive program to control the disease would cost the government $1,024 per person per year -- money that largely would be recovered after 25 years through lower spending on dialysis, kidney transplants, amputations and other forms of treatment, the study found.


This study is a look at preventive care's effect on lowering costs to completely pay for the Government cost for the reform. It suggests it won't. But, it clearly adds support to my position that preventive care is effective in lowering costs.

But this is the whole problem with the idea of government being in charge of peoples' health care.

Once the government becomes responsible for lowering your health care costs, then it can claim to be responsible for regulating what you eat and how much, how much you exercise, basically anything you do that might not be "good for you" and therefore impact the state's pocketbook.

 

[Pookie]

But this is the whole problem with the idea of government being in charge of peoples' health care.

Once the government becomes responsible for lowering your health care costs, then it can claim to be responsible for regulating what you eat and how much, how much you exercise, basically anything you do that might not be "good for you" and therefore impact the state's pocketbook.

Well, maybe. As long as there are conservatives around, I doubt the Government will speak with one voice on that.

 

[unregistered]

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

Well, maybe. As long as there are conservatives around, I doubt the Government will speak with one voice on that.

The Democrats control both houses of Congress, and the Presidency.

The Republicans are essentially irrelevant, now. The Democrats can pass whatever legislation they want, and nothing the Republicans can do can stop it.

But think about the Federal Government requiring that every citizen purchase a product or service.

They have no Constitutional authority to do that.

However, Obama not only thinks the government has the right to do it, as if the state owns the people, as if they are its property, but he thinks it's somehow necessary in order to prevent the sky from falling.

He also thinks that he can rob hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to fund his so-called "reform," and yet beneficiaries of Medicare will suffer no loss of benefits.

What planet is this guy from? I'm seriously beginning to wonder.

 

[Pookie]

It does support the idea that preventive medicine doesn't generate substantial savings in health care.

Actually it says it does. But you'd have to read it first to know that. It just doesn't save enough to completely pay for Government's cost for the health care reform package in a 10 year window that the CBO used.


The new research offers them added ammunition, arguing that the 10-year horizon typically used by CBO analysts is too brief to capture the savings that eventually result from improved public health. The authors -- who include two University of Chicago medical professors as well as O'Grady and James C. Capretta, who both served for years in various health policy positions in Washington -- suggest that the CBO instead use a 25-year "budget window" to calculate the cost of prevention programs.

"I'm trying to show them that there are other ways to do this, as we face these new challenges from the epidemic of chronic illness," he said. "They're used to thinking like economists. And their friends at Health and Human Services are used to thinking like actuaries. But there's this third way, which is epidemiological, which shows us how a disease progresses over time."

 

[Sean]

But think about the Federal Government requiring that every citizen purchase a product or service.

They have no Constitutional authority to do that.

Do they have the authority to make everyone purchase insurance for driving?

 

[Pookie]

The Democrats control both houses of Congress, and the Presidency.

The Republicans are essentially irrelevant, now. The Democrats can pass whatever legislation they want, and nothing the Republicans can do can stop it.

But think about the Federal Government requiring that every citizen purchase a product or service.

They have no Constitutional authority to do that.

However, Obama not only thinks the government has the right to do it, as if the state owns the people, as if they are its property, but he thinks it's somehow necessary in order to prevent the sky from falling.

He also thinks that he can rob hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare to fund his so-called "reform," and yet beneficiaries of Medicare will suffer no loss of benefits.

What planet is this guy from? I'm seriously beginning to wonder.

The Republicans won't be irrelevant for long. They'll eventually moderate to be more acceptable to the middle.

I have concerns about the requirement to purchase or be given a penalty as well. I agree with you on that.

 

[Pookie]

Do they have the authority to make everyone purchase insurance for driving?

Driving is optional. Living is too, I suppose. But this basically amounts to a head tax.

 

[Sean]

Driving is optional. Living is too, I suppose. But this basically amounts to a head tax.

You ever been to CA? Driving isn't optional.

That isn't the point, though.

 

[Pookie]

You ever been to CA? Driving isn't optional.

Well, yeah ... sorta. Walking isn't an attractive alternative. But it still is an alternative if you don't want to pay car insurance.