Imagine That
Over at Cato-at-Liberty there is a post about a study in netherlands.
A new study from the Netherlands may help lay that oft heard chestnut to rest. The study shows that there would be no cost savings for governments and taxpayers from preventing obesity or reducing illnesses caused by smoking.
The study found, quite to the contrary, that healthy people cost more.
The study, undertaken by the National Institute for Public Health and the Environment in Holland, found that ultimately healthy people, who live on average four years longer than obese people and seven years longer than smokers, cost the health system about $417,000 from the age of 20 compared to $371,000 for obese people and $326,000 for smokers.
Since this is science it has to be true. How are all the people that want to force their values down your throat going to get around the libertarian argument when smoking and over eating does less harm then being ‘healthy’?
February 6th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
2 things that we need to know:
1. Does this finding hold for the US, where treatment for smokers and the obese might be more expensive?
2. Is this a self-selection problem (for instance, are healthy people more likely to go in for regular check-ups or ask for expensive diagnostics at thsoe check-ups than smokers and the obese)?
Still, cute finding.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Oh, but Steve, some of the conclusions were based on a model. Your summary judgements of models and science would suggest this study is wrong…. Taken from the news release:
Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the “healthy-living” group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on “cost of illness” data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.
February 8th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Darwin,
1. Lol. Does this finding hold in places where there is better treatment. Remind me again why one would support universal healthcare.
2. This seems irrelevant. If its the case that healthy people cost more because they get more checkups are you suggesting that to bring down the cost people should get more checkups? Or are you arguing that people with ‘unhealthily’ lifestyles should use more resources by getting check more often?
Jamie,
Thats two edge sword. If you embrace modeling then you must concede the point here that unhealthy lifestyles are less expensive then healthy lifestyles.
February 8th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
I do concede that unhealthy lifestyles are less expensive than healthy lifestyles IN THE NETHERLANDS. I found no issue with the report.
I did find it funny that you were making a point about data based on models. If I can’t have it both ways, why can you?
February 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
1. You’d have a good point if the overall efficacy of the health care system in the US (for ALL citizens) is higher than in the Netherlands (or more fairly, in some country with the same free-market system and overall per capita income etc, except with universal health care), but I doubt it is. I personally know several people who won’t even go in to get their illnesses diagnosed because of what it would do to their insurance premiums. I don’t doubt the US has better treatments, but I’m not sure about how proud to feel about that if they never get used.
2. No, the point is that maybe if the fat people didn’t get fat (by exercising and changing their diets), they still wouldn’t go in for regular check ups or anything, and would end up costing much less than they are now.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:36 am
1. I must be rare cause I don’t know any of these people that didn’t get something that was serious checked out because of insurance premiums. Besides, isn’t that the strengthen of a free market system. It forces people to conserve resources usage?
2. So your suggesting then is to not smoke or get fat and not see the doctor regularly. Given your previous statements that seems to make no sense.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Jamie,
I’m just posting things that I think serve as an excellent counter example to various positions I wish to argue against. In this context I find it completely valid to use a story that uses modeling when the story’s aim is to diabuse a position embraced by those that assent to modeling.
February 11th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
1. You’re saying that free markets should focus on conservation of resources?!? The environmentalists will be thrilled at this change in your position!
Anyway, no, free markets should make resources less costly so that conservation isn’t neccessary. That’s not happening for medical care in the US right now.
As to not knowing people… you know Ana, who is my primary example at the moment. Furthermore, don’t YOU have a mysterious cough that keeps returning every year? Are you sure you wouldn’t get that looked at if teh exam was free?
2. I’m not saying what I want to happen, I’m just questioning the validity of the study. I’m fine with people getting more check-ups than they need, I’m just proposing an alternate exxplanation for the statistics they found.
February 13th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Technically I didn’t use the word focus. I said strength.
One of the strengths of free markets is that it localizes costs so that people must conserve resources. Its is a well known fact that capitalist are the best environmentalists. Why, you ask. Because its more efficient for them to find ways to make profit from waste then to dispose of it. Capitalist, particular the ones steeped in competition are always looking for a way to turn a profit on waste. Better to make money off of it then to discard it.
As for this cough thing. I had it checked out by three primary physicians and one throat and nose doctor. Most of them said it was allergies. I was never satisfied with their response but I did get adequate care.
When I was living in San Francisco i found a lump on my skull. I decided that no matter what, I was going to go to the doctor to get it check out. For me the cost of delaying a check up, in this case some kind of cancer, was more than the cost of paying for the visit. This is precisely what I mean by free markets conserving resources.