NYT Upshot: "No, Giving More People Health Insurance Doesnt Save Money"

[hsl]

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/upshot/no-giving-more-people-health-insurance-doesnt-save-money.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&abt=0002&abg=1


Excerpts from the article:

There’s an oft-expressed view that getting all those people covered could actually save the health system money. The argument goes something like this: Once people have insurance, they’ll go to the doctor instead of an expensive emergency room. Or: Prevention costs far less than a serious illness down the road.

But research shows that even preventive care rarely ends up saving money. Here’s why: For the individual patient whose heart attack is prevented by a cholesterol screening, to give one example, that blood test is a cost-saver. But to prevent one heart attack, the health care system has to test hundreds of healthy people — and give about a hundred of them cholesterol-lowering drugs for at least five years. Added together, those prevention measures cost more than is saved on the one heart attack treatment.

There’s also the unavoidable fact that every time you prevent people from dying from one disease, they are likely to live longer and incur future medical expenses. The patient who benefits from the cholesterol screening may go on to develop cancer, arthritis, Alzheimer’s or some other costly illness.

More people in the health care system means more dollars spent on health care. The increase doesn’t mean that Obamacare is leading to runaway costs, or that it’s failing to reform the health care system to make it more efficient. But it does mean that we can’t think of the coverage expansion as free.

tl dr; Does universal health insurance save money? No, but it's good for people's health

 

[FierceRedBelt]

Ah compelling non-argument of the week, it's too expensive to test everyone just to save 1 in 100. Of course we should test everyone it's our duty as members of the human race.

I do appreciate honest cost analysis to shut up the people who try to use poor arguments to justify an obvious moral standing.

 

[Dayman1984]

To me the universal healthcare concept is more about being humane than cost saving. That's why it is heavily subsidized by tax money in countries where it is in place (Sweden, Denmark, England, etc.) It costs money to take care of sick people.

 

[djacobox372]

I'm pro national healthcare and think Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

But the whole "early treatment saves money" is hogwash.

Take cancer for example: if you catch it early you treat it (at great expense), it goes away, then it will most often come back, and you treat it again (at great expense), this goes on and on until the patient eventually dies from cancer.

If you catch it late, the patient dies and you save a lot of money.

What sickens me is that somehow whether something is cheaper or not is somehow the most important measure in whether it's worth doing. As if capitalism is somehow the most important thing, even more important the quality human life.

 

[OldGoat]

Ah compelling non-argument of the week, it's too expensive to test everyone just to save 1 in 100. Of course we should test everyone it's our duty as members of the human race

No it's not.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Insurance doesn't drive down prices?

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm pro national healthcare and think Obamacare is a step in the right direction.

But the whole "early treatment saves money" is hogwash.

Take cancer for example: if you catch it early you treat it (at great expense), it goes away, then it will most often come back, and you treat it again (at great expense), this goes on and on until the patient eventually dies from cancer.

If you catch it late, the patient dies and you save a lot of money.

What sickens me is that somehow whether something is cheaper or not is somehow the most important measure in whether it's worth doing. As if capitalism is somehow the most important thing, even more important the quality human life.

Yeah. I thought that more early treatment would save money, but it doesn't look like it is (and I think your analysis is correct). We're still saving money in a lot of other ways (without sacrificing quality) and more people have access to affordable care so I'm happy.

 

[James Keith]

Ah compelling non-argument of the week, it's too expensive to test everyone just to save 1 in 100. Of course we should test everyone it's our duty as members of the human race.

All 7 billion of them?