Skip to main content

Rather Pay $2T per Year or $500B One-Time?

The answer to this question should be a no-brainer:

Is it better to pay trillions of dollars annually in preventable chronic health costs, or to pay a cumulative $500-600 billion or so one-time to cover all student college loan defaults or Great Recession mortgage losses?

Hmmm.  And what's the connection?

We got the massive Dodd-Frank Reform in 2010 to prevent future financial catastrophes, and hopefully Great Recession 2.0--after 1.0 cost private lenders $535B, plus much collateral damage to families & the economy. 

We then got Obama-era regulations, subsequently reversed under Trump, to help prevent student loan defaults.  Now Biden has proposed eliminating all public college/university, historically black college and undergraduate student debt.  This would make a big dent in about $585B in expected student loan defaults. 

So where are the massive federal proposals to head off chronic diseases before they start?  

With total US health spending at about $4T/year, that implies at least $2T/year in preventable annual chronic condition expenditures.  Even if we only reduced those by 25%, we would save $500B/year each year--plenty enough to address many of our non-health problems.  

So the big unanswered question remains:  When are we going to seriously invest in the much bigger issues of preventing inactivity and unhealthy nutrition?

How about both/and: Let's prevent future housing, student loan AND chronic health disasters.  








Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is it a “Miracle Drug”?...if it Costs a Fortune and Creates Lifelong Dependency...&...Saggy Faces!?

[It’s been a while since our last blog post.  A lot has happened since– including some “miracles” ! So we’re going to do two posts in a row…] Normally we should all be happy about miracle drugs... shouldn't we ? Yes, there is lots of upside from taking semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy), tirzepatide (Montjaro)--and upcoming new, even-more-miraculous drugs TBD:  losing huge amounts of weight quickly, a much lower risk of diabetes–and probably less heart disease and other chronic conditions as well.  But what if the “miracle” requires:   $200-300/week, with a lifetime cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars…  a drug that you can never quit…because if you stop taking it, you gain back all the weight it helped you lose–not to mention the chronic diseases which the drugs kept at bay… and it leaves your face (and the rest of your skin?) sagging …    (plus, it’s so new at such high dosages– who knows what happens after years of use…? ) No doubt, in spit...
4 comments
Read more

Both/And: Personal & School & Social Responsibility for Health

Many people are promoting a false dichotomy for who/what to “blame” for decades of pervasive inactivity & unhealthy nutrition--the key preventable factors which have led to the majority of adults developing chronic disease. Some believe that people with preventable chronic diseases made a series of unhealthy choices for decades, for which they need to accept personal responsibility for the consequences. On the other side, a growing number of policymakers focus on the “social determinants of health.”  In other words, there are many things beyond your control, which impact what you eat & drink and how active you are.  This includes factors such as your family, neighborhood, school, employer, transportation, public safety, housing, community layout, etc. etc.  It’s those external social factors which determine your health destiny.   Actually, the personal and social are inextricably connected--not opposite ends of the spectrum.  Let’s consider the role...
Post a Comment
Read more

Testing Our Patients/ce...

The US Preventive Services Task Force just recommended that people get tested for diabetes at a younger age: 35. Early detection will help prevent complications from untreated diabetes. “The lowered recommended age for screening ‘has really been driven by the obesity epidemic—greater rates of obesity in young people.’” (WSJ, 3/16/2021) If this preliminary draft recommendation is approved, many insurers will provide this testing for free. Actually, with about 20% of teens estimated to have prediabetes & 10% with severe obesity already, & 1/3 lower-income kids & children of color headed for diabetes, testing should start much earlier for at-risk young adults--perhaps @25 years old. The more I think about these statistics, the angrier I get. We should have declared a national child health emergency in the late 1970s, when the child obesity epidemic began. If those kids had been upper-income white children, we would have dealt with it much sooner. Yet in spite of some imp...
Post a Comment
Read more