4 ms·
The problem with that logic is that people with unhealthy behavior actually cost the system less. It's way cheaper to be relatively sickly for a few decades the
by positr0n 9y ago
The problem with that logic is that people with unhealthy behavior actually cost the system less. It's way cheaper to be relatively sickly for a few decades then die of lung cancer or heart disease at 50 than be relatively healthy and die of cancer or alzheimer's at 90.
Not saying something like that might not be a good idea from a public health perspective. I'm not educated enough on those issues to have an opinion.
- antisthenes 9y ago> I'm not educated enough on those issues to have an opinion. Yet here you are, posting things like this: > The problem with that logic is that people with unhealthy behavior actually cost the system less. Without any data.
- positr0n 9y ago> Yet here you are, posting things like this I posted what I am educated about, and did not post an opinion about what I am not educated about. > Without any data. Apologies. I posted a nytimes story that links to a study in another comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14353347 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14353347
- legulere 9y agoI have seen studies go in both ways, depending on which costs they include or not
- overcast 9y agoCancer, and Alzheimer's are generally not preventable. Being fat is. If you want to compare fat people dying of heart disease, and smokers dying of emphysema, fine. But don't compare an avoidable problem, with an unavoidable one.
- positr0n 9y agoWhy not? We're talking about average lifetime medical costs, so who cares if one is preventable and one isn't? From a public health perspective yes that absolutely matters, but all I'm saying is this narrow claim: You will not save money on medical costs if you get your population to act healthier and they die of unpreventable diseases instead of preventable ones.