Congressional Budget Office - Preventive Healthcare Cost More Than It Saves

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by delusianne

But which is less expensive in the long run, living healthier for a longer time, thus staying out of the hospital longer, or coronary care and maintenance and quadruple bypass surgery and maintenance from eating fat and sugar for 40 years? And diabetes care, that's a $170B business annually.

I suppose the CBO knows what it's saying, but what, people SHOULD be unhealthy and die early? Disagree.

Not to mention a healthier country is a happier country.

Could have predicted that if this debate went on long enough liberals would start creating their own reality that doesn't include CBO.

Living longer costs more. Preventative care causes people to live longer (see Canadian lifespan, see Sicko propaganda)



I suppose the CBO knows what it's saying, but what, people SHOULD be unhealthy and die early? Disagree.

OK, then you are conceding the point that increased preventative measures will increase cost in direct opposition to BO's rhetoric?

How can any liberal in favor of a public option justify increased costs and rationed care?

The system we have now can be reformed in such a way as to make it accessible to everyone without a public option, so why are we scrapping it in favor of a new system that will cost more and do less?

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Does it really keep them out of the hospital, or just delay the inevitable? As mentioned in the report, do you really avoid the expense, or just delay it a bit (and drive up other entitlement program cost, such as social security)?

This is the CBO report, the scorekeeper for the Congress, so any claims of GOP influence would really be pretty silly.

Like everyone else, I want to have a process that is going to provide a measurable benefit at minimal cost.

Looking at issues such as this though, I still think Palin has a legitimate concern about how life care decisions may ultimately be made.

I can alway tell when liberals get caught in a lie because they will instinctively roll out the "Palin is an idiot" threads.

The left has been pushing public option hard over the expressed will of the people citing costs savings and the unsustainability of the current system. All of this has been debunked and is in the news, so now comes the Palin distraction.

Now doubt the gentleman at the Dingell town hall meeting with the 39 yr old cerebral palsy son and Palin smell something wrong in Denmark and it reeks of T4.

[compJockey]

Originally Posted by NewToCA

Does it really keep them out of the hospital, or just delay the inevitable? As mentioned in the report, do you really avoid the expense, or just delay it a bit (and drive up other entitlement program cost, such as social security)?

Wait a minute.. are you trying to kill granny?!

Looking at issues such as this though, I still think Palin has a legitimate concern about how life care decisions may ultimately be made.

She's simply opposing obama, not the now axed living wills she supported last year.

[momonkey]

Originally Posted by compJockey

Wait a minute.. are you trying to kill granny?!


She's simply opposing obama, not the now axed living wills she supported last year.

Jean Dixon is that you?

How do you kow what goes on inside anyone's head?

Ever heard of the T4 program?

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Dingell townhall infiltrated by well-dressed sophisticates, too

[compJockey]

Originally Posted by momonkey

Jean Dixon is that you?

no

How do you kow what goes on inside anyone's head?

only my own

Ever heard of the T4 program?

no

concentrate monkey.
I know you can read the subject of the thread - and its not me.

I know I've hurt you by continually disproving your nonsense.
You will have to forgive me or get over it.
Stalking does you no good.

[NewToCA]

I think this analysis by the CBO may end up either killing or severely altering the potential "public option" proposals. It really makes it difficult for them to include frequent and extensive health screenings yet keep premiums low.

The requirement to be cost neutral really is going to place a major hit on "public option" as a result of this report. It puts much of the anticipated comprehensive proposal in jeopardy, either they need to have high premiums with the extensive screening or ration other costly procedures.

You can't have it any other way here, CBO is very clear about this.