That's why you look for the seal of approval... and, honestly, wouldn't you be able to tell by looking how sanitary/unsanitary the practice is? Don't people ask around for recommendations? Doesn't the internet supply us with endless reviews of products and businesses? If you go into something blindly, why should you be guaranteed anything...? And I'm not talking about usury/lemons... extreme circumstances of someone literally selling you a product that is NOT what is described or false advertising... I'm talking about stuff within reason, i.e. poor quality, unsanitary, bad service.
Unfortunately, that isn't the case. Things like smoking and poor diet cost us all millions upon millions of dollars. Unlicensed barbers, probably not so much.
No, they don't. The only way having a less healthy society actually decreases the overall cost of health care to us is if some disease were to form that instantly kills lazy and stupid people without any kind of medical attention provided/needed.
You might want to check out his link, Donny. It cites a study from the NEJM, among others. Not a clear-cut argument one way or the other, methinks, but it's certainly a valid POV.
Seems pretty clear-cut to me. Obesity is a preventable condition which increases normally benign health risks and exacerbates already existing conditions. Having a society of people that aren't subject to this decreases the amount of time, effort, and resources spent researching and treating these conditions. Having a society of people that are healthy and productive until their final days increases our bottom line and require less time, effort, and resources to keep them ticking. For those keeping score; time + effort + resources = money. So yeah, if obesity and cancer killed unproductive/worthless people instantly, I'd be all for it. But alas, such an awesome disease has yet to mutate into existence. Damn you, evolution (Of course, the X factor in all of this is social security and medicare)
You're not looking at the whole picture. If someone dies at say 70, they will not use up much Social Security. Even if they use some Medicare, it's quite possible that a non-smoking, non-fat person will still use up more over their lifetime. But the real kicker is Social Security. Someone who lives to be 90 will soak up a lot of SS compared to someone who dies at 70 or 60. In purely economic terms, those who die early are beneficial. And if someone dies at 50 or 60, they will have paid in to SS for years while never collecting a dime back from it (assuming they did not receive disability).
It's hard to weigh SS/Medicare costs vs. productivity/contribution. Those two factors do muddy up the equation, but I'm willing to bet you that obesity and cancer will be around a lot longer than SS/Medicare.
To me, this is what's so bad about public health discussions. What might be good and moral for a society as a whole is completely immoral for the people it affects. For example, one of the easiest ways to improve public health is to let the unhealthy people die. I know that someone has to think about these things, but I'm glad it's not me. That being said, I'm having Blue Bell and a cigar tonight. I'm doing my part to help society.
I can't see the picture. Weird. The idea is simply that dying earlier saves money, even if the last few years of that life are relatively expensive. Is that an ethical way to look at it? Probably not; that's tricky. Is that a rational way to look at it economically? Probably so.
I think there are a lot of externalities that are ignored here. Mainly, SS and MC make the elderly a drain on society, even if they're working. If you're healthy and productive well into old age, then you're probably not economically a drain. But if you just grow old and can barely function and suck resources, then yeah, having you dead earlier helps.
Some might be ignored and others might be inappropriately averaged. A valid concern, thus my take that it is not clear.
My point is simple: Having people remain *healthy* and *productive* longer is a cost benefit to society. (i.e. Contributing more than you take) Even with SS and MC factored in, that remains true. Do you agree? I am anti-obesity and anti-smoking because neither of those things makes people healthier or more productive longer. Now, if youre already unhealthy and unproductive (and likely to remain that way), knock yourself out with a bacon wrapped cigar for all I care.
In theory. The problem is that "productivity" is quite variable (as are a number of other facets in the study). The idea that productivity-associated gains are overcome by social costs is not implausible. At the moment, I do not think there is a clear answer.
