RoadWarriorFromLP

I'm all in favor of healthy living, but that isn't likely to be a panacea for reducing costs. Most people eventually end up in the healthcare system at some point of their lives, and for many, the last several months of their lives will be the most costly.

Steerpike

I have referred to this in another healthcare-related thread, and I finally got a bit more info from my friend who was telling me about the plan at her new job in San Francisco, working for Blue Shield. This is a plan that penalizes bad habits, encourages good ones, etc. Note that she is working FOR a health insurance company, and this is about the plan the insurance company offers to its own employees.

http://www.capradio.org/articles/201...s-a-motivator/

Interesting to note that California State lawmakers may try to prevent some of these plan elements due to them being 'unfair' (see section starting "CRITICS CITE FAIRNESS CONCERNS ABOUT COST-SHIFTING").

She also mentioned that, as a higher-paid employee at the company, her premiums are less subsidized. The company 'weights' subsidies towards the lower-paid employees.

scrubbedexpat099

I guess they would argue that they are giving someone a discount not charging another extra.

But it amused me that Obamacare has massively discriminatory premiums and nothing was said.

If you want to smoke or be obese then banning it does not sound practical or reasonable, expecting others to pick up the reasonably foreseeable cost consequences is trickier.

dunroving

Yes of course we are all going to die sometime, but in the interim, we'd cost the public purse a lot less if we'd take some self-responsibility for maintaining our health.

Two major things will reduce costs - keeping ourselves healthy and major reform in the medical "business", I wasn't suggesting self-responsibility as any kind of panacea.

Michael

I'm not sure I agree with you 100%. I had relatives that smoked, were overweight, didn't exercise, and/or didn't eat a good diet and they died of a heart attack or stroke at home.

Other relatives did everything right and lived to a ripe old age but were in and out of hospitals and required someone to take care of them for the last several years of their life. Besides that, they collected social security and Medicare coverage much longer than the ones that died earlier.

Everything is not cut and dry. When a person lives a long life, many parts of the body tend to deteriorate such as dementia, diabetes, hip replacements, cancer, muscle pains, teeth problems, hearing problems, cataracts, high blood pressure, kidney failure, liver failure, etc., etc..

Although studies have show that smoking can cause diseases, I have never heard of a study that compared the lifetime medical and government pension costs of smokers compared to people that lived a healthy life.

Currently I have a brother that has Alzheimer's and in a few years he will likely be in a care facility. If he would have continued to smoke after age 30, he probably wouldn't require many years and possibly none in a care facility. I also have an aunt who is in the same situation.

scrubbedexpat099

If you are an Employer and looking at your costs for the year the healthier the employee the better.

It would be interesting to see what the total costs are for somebody who is unhealthy and lives a shorter life rather than somebody who is healthy and lives a long one.

From a society point of view you would want somebody to live long and productive and then drop dead, also my personal preference.

Michael

dunroving

Add life to your years, not years to your life.

scrubbedexpat099

Awesome

RoadWarriorFromLP

I've seen the data re: the alleged costs of obesity, etc., but I suspect that healthier lifestyles would do little more than to change the nature and the timing of the expense.

If cancer or heart disease kills a guy at 80 instead of obesity finishing him off at 65, I doubt that we're going to save much money (particularly since he's had another 15 years to spend in the medical system.) It's nice that he squeezed another fifteen years out of this time on earth, but that doesn't necessarily reduce costs for the rest of us.

scrubbedexpat099

I do not remember ever seeing that addressed, it seems an obvious issue.

As well as medical costs for those extra 15 years there is of course life costs, housing, care etc etc.

Michael

Also you should ask yourself whether you'd rather have a fairly quick death at a younger age or a lingering death at an older age.

Although neither is certain, a lingering death is likely more probable as you get older.

scrubbedexpat099

I am not old enough to have friend die of old age, I have had two go in Squash changing rooms and one in a gym.

Inevitably we talked about it and the general consensus was that it was a sgood a way as any.

Pulaski

Surely the opposite is true? If you get, say, some sort of cancer in your 40's, you could fight it for a decade. If you get the same cancer when you're in your seventies (i) you are not as robust and it will likely finish you off sooner, or (ii) you may die of some other unrelated malady of old age before the cancer gets a chance to finish you off. No? .... And at least if you're older you might get dementia and not even know or care what's happening to you!

scrubbedexpat099

It seems that it is not the cancer that kills you, but the treatment for the cancer.