17 ms·

One question I have regarding those results is this: Say you determine which socio-economic quartile people lie in at the point they reach 65, and then target

One question I have regarding those results is this: Say you determine which socio-economic quartile people lie in at the point they reach 65, and then target extra healthcare/benefits/resources at the bottom quartile (or fifth or whatever). Can you increase their life expectancy to match that of the upper quartile, or have life choices (eg smoking, poor diet) before age 65 largely predetermined the life expectancy of the lower quartile group?

rwmj 15y ago
But why this jumping through hoops when for less money the US could have universal healthcare like every other civilized country? Then everyone has an interest in generally reducing smoking and bettering diets.
- MichaelSalib 15y ago
  For people over age 65, we do have a single-payer healthcare system: it is called Medicare.
  - OstiaAntica 15y ago
    There's also Medicaid, which is universal national coverage for all children and most adults near the poverty line.
  - anamax 15y ago
    Which loses somewhere between $60-100B to fraud each year AND is more likely to deny coverage than private. (Since the "top execs salaries and profits" of private are <$10B/year ....) Oh, and MDs tend to abandon Medicare when given the choice. But, Medicare can physically cut a check for almost nothing.
- anamax 15y ago
  > Then everyone has an interest in generally reducing smoking and bettering diets. In what country do folks say "I better not do {whatever} because it will result in higher health care costs for me paid by others?" Even if there are such countries, do you expect to find many such people in the US? Reminder - it doesn't matter what works/doesn't work in other countries. What matters as far as the US is concerned is what works here.
araneae 15y ago
Clearly you can't make it equal because some of the people in that group have already died before 65. Of those remaining, almost some have certainly already experience negative health effects that have lowered their life expectancy. One thing to note is that we do have single payer health care for those over 65, so lack of health care over that age is less probable. So likely a lot of the current difference can't be addressed at 65 and over.

rwmj 15y ago

But why this jumping through hoops when for less money the US could have universal healthcare like every other civilized country? Then everyone has an interest in generally reducing smoking and bettering diets.

MichaelSalib 15y ago
For people over age 65, we do have a single-payer healthcare system: it is called Medicare.
- OstiaAntica 15y ago
  There's also Medicaid, which is universal national coverage for all children and most adults near the poverty line.
- anamax 15y ago
  Which loses somewhere between $60-100B to fraud each year AND is more likely to deny coverage than private. (Since the "top execs salaries and profits" of private are <$10B/year ....) Oh, and MDs tend to abandon Medicare when given the choice. But, Medicare can physically cut a check for almost nothing.
anamax 15y ago
> Then everyone has an interest in generally reducing smoking and bettering diets. In what country do folks say "I better not do {whatever} because it will result in higher health care costs for me paid by others?" Even if there are such countries, do you expect to find many such people in the US? Reminder - it doesn't matter what works/doesn't work in other countries. What matters as far as the US is concerned is what works here.

araneae 15y ago

Clearly you can't make it equal because some of the people in that group have already died before 65. Of those remaining, almost some have certainly already experience negative health effects that have lowered their life expectancy. One thing to note is that we do have single payer health care for those over 65, so lack of health care over that age is less probable. So likely a lot of the current difference can't be addressed at 65 and over.