One of the strengths of free markets is that it localizes costs so that people must conserve resources. Its is a well known fact that capitalist are the best environmentalists. Why, you ask. Because its more efficient for them to find ways to make profit from waste then to dispose of it. Capitalist, particular the ones steeped in competition are always looking for a way to turn a profit on waste. Better to make money off of it then to discard it.

As for this cough thing. I had it checked out by three primary physicians and one throat and nose doctor. Most of them said it was allergies. I was never satisfied with their response but I did get adequate care.

When I was living in San Francisco i found a lump on my skull. I decided that no matter what, I was going to go to the doctor to get it check out. For me the cost of delaying a check up, in this case some kind of cancer, was more than the cost of paying for the visit. This is precisely what I mean by free markets conserving resources.

2. I’m not saying what I want to happen, I’m just questioning the validity of the study. I’m fine with people getting more check-ups than they need, I’m just proposing an alternate exxplanation for the statistics they found.

I’m just posting things that I think serve as an excellent counter example to various positions I wish to argue against. In this context I find it completely valid to use a story that uses modeling when the story’s aim is to diabuse a position embraced by those that assent to modeling.

2. So your suggesting then is to not smoke or get fat and not see the doctor regularly. Given your previous statements that seems to make no sense.

2. No, the point is that maybe if the fat people didn’t get fat (by exercising and changing their diets), they still wouldn’t go in for regular check ups or anything, and would end up costing much less than they are now.

I did find it funny that you were making a point about data based on models. If I can’t have it both ways, why can you?

1. Lol. Does this finding hold in places where there is better treatment. Remind me again why one would support universal healthcare.

2. This seems irrelevant. If its the case that healthy people cost more because they get more checkups are you suggesting that to bring down the cost people should get more checkups? Or are you arguing that people with ‘unhealthily’ lifestyles should use more resources by getting check more often?

Jamie,

Thats two edge sword. If you embrace modeling then you must concede the point here that unhealthy lifestyles are less expensive then healthy lifestyles.

Van Baal and colleagues created a model to simulate lifetime health costs for three groups of 1,000 people: the “healthy-living” group (thin and non-smoking), obese people, and smokers. The model relied on “cost of illness” data and disease prevalence in the Netherlands in 2003.

Still, cute finding.