Healthcare: Does Preventative Care Really Lower Costs?

I'm actually more interested in hearing what you think "societal obligation" is. Do you it is the job of the State to provide health care to its citizens because of such an obligation? I don't think such an obligation is objective nor is it sustainable, but I'm interested in learning your point of view on the subject.

Here's what I think is an objective way to approach issues like this one.

One could begin with the premise that one role of government is to provide for the security of the citizens. Security includes a lot of things. For example, citizens are more secure when there is less crime. So, one could argue that one role of government is to minimize crime. Poverty is one of the major things that leads to crime. So, one could argue that one role of government is to minimize poverty. Lack of decent education is one of the major things that leads to poverty, so one could argue that one role of government is to minimize a lack of decent education. (There are many ways that the government might attempt to do this.)

It doesn't seem difficult to me to find a similar path from the initial premise that "one role of government is to provide for the security of the citizens" to a conclusion that government ought to ensure access to affordable health care for its citizens.

I don't think the premise that government should provide security to its citizens should be considered an axiom. Security services are a scarce good. The government is a territorial monopoly that forces us to pay for its security services, meanwhile spending those according to political fashion and whim. Hundreds of foreign bases are hardly what I would voluntarily pay for. I don't think this is a good foundation to assume government should also provide education or healthcare? Why stop there? Why not bread, pencils, shoes etc?

Would you agree that individuals own their bodies? That we shouldn't use aggressive force against another person or her property? Are groups of people subject to these same rules? Building from here, I don't think it is ethical or moral for a territorial monopoly to force anyone to pay for anything against their will - to steal their time and resources - to pay for anything, including healthcare.

I disagree. I think it's perfectly reasonably to use the axiom I started with. But that's not really the point. I was arguing with your statement: "I don't think such an obligation is objective ." I was stating a way in which one could objectively come to certain conclusions starting from a VERY basic (and rather widely accepted) axiom.

Would you agree that individuals own their bodies? Yes

That we shouldn't use aggressive force against another person or her property? I wouldn't absolutely rule that out. It depends on whether they have done anything that warranted such force. (I'll let you think of examples on your own. If you can't, let me know and I'll supply some.)

---

In any case, I don't see the chain of logic that leads to not permitting a government to require certain expenditures. You don't live in a vacuum. You use government services all the time. I'd contend that requiring you to pay for them is neither unethical nor immoral. WHICH services the government ought to provide is a separate issue and open to honest debate.

By the way (as I've said elsewhere) I think it's perfectly reasonable to REQUIRE everyone who drives a vehicle to have insurance on that vehicle. In fact, I think it is unreasonable to NOT have that requirement.

"I don't think the premise that government should provide security to its citizens should be considered an axiom."
I think the only reason there should be a problem with this is because we, as a country, don't live up to the "of, by, and for the people." If we had a more vibrant democracy where the government was "the people" then there wouldn't be any problem as it would be the people providing health care for themselves as opposed to them provider healthcare for us.

I have heard that healthy lifestyles are more expensive overall because you live longer. If I start smoking at the age of 15 and die of lung cancer at 40 it could prove cheaper than myself living to 90 with all the different diseases I get leading up to my eventual death. I have no sources though.

Sure .. and if you die at 40, then you'll not collect any Social Security benefits either. Ever increasing life expectancy is a major part of the reason for the financial problems with Social Security.

Anyway, even if the scenerio you laid out is accurate, it only shows that looking ONLY at costs is silly. Someone who is healthy and lives longer has the opportunity to be a more productive member of society. It seems to me that this ought to count for something. (Maxo, I realize that you weren't suggesting otherwise.)

"It seems to me that this ought to count for something."
Absolutely.

I'll take a closer look at those articles when I have a chance (I'll be missing in action for the next week or so), but a quick skim seems to indicate that the articles say that if we use preventive medicine (screening, etc.) for ALL diseases, then we will end up spending more than if we didn't. But, the articles seem to say (unless I completely misread something) that there are many examples of diseases where such an approach saves money and many others where the approach costs extra money. This doesn't surprise me. It's been well reported that those full-body scans that some of the ultra wealthy treat themselves to are not even close to cost effective.

The article that was initially quoted seemed to say that screening saves the most money when used on younger people (because undiscovered long-term diseases would hit them for more years and they would have expenses for a longer period). That certainly makes sense. So, there's an obvious solution. Use screening in those cases where it saves money, and do the research to determine what those cases are. But, there's something else that preventive medicine provides. It provides for healthier patients. So, money savings (in those cases where money is saved) are not the full benefit. Still, you're right that if there is no overall savings, then this ought not be advertised as a cost savings point.