Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

walkandtalkk t1_j9q5w66 wrote

Reply to comment by heidismiles in Alaska lawmaker censured for asking if fatal child abuse saved taxpayer money by notunek

I listened to his comments. I did not listen to 30 minutes of context, but I considered his tone of voice and the fact that he doubled down after a clearly shocked person in the room asked him to repeat his comments.

He was not simply playing devil's advocate. He wasn't just paraphrasing some opponent's argument. He was suggesting that the position was correct: That fatal child abuse is better than severe but non-fatal abuse, since the latter will cost the state money in lifetime therapy and medical care.

136

CheeseStandsAlone262 t1_j9qu8cc wrote

That's exactly the calculation that insurance companies make though. I work as an internal auditor and I've audited an insurance company. Cases where the patient almost died but then lived a long time afterwards by far cost the most money.

But holy shit, that's the sort of thing you bury in a comment on like the seventeenth sheet of a government budget Excel spreadsheet. Not say in a public meeting.

But perhaps most importantly, it's also not supposed to be an argument for killing those people, holy fuck

72

walkandtalkk t1_j9qv5e2 wrote

One would also hope there's a difference between the actuarial considerations of an insurer and the priorities of a lawmaker.

49

DefinitelyNotAliens t1_j9r65p4 wrote

There's been some studies that show preventative care costs more in some instances, because memory care and drawn out end of life care is more expensive than people dying early of massive heart attacks. Like, a healthy person with Alzheimers is hella expensive, y'all. My grandma was super healthy and literally the only thing wrong with her for the last 20+ years of her life was Parkinsons. She cost someone a whole lot of money.

That isn't a reason to cut preventative care. Also, there's the argument it doesn't actually cost more because increased productivity in their healthy years and things like adults may have been caring for them in other situations in lieu of work, etc.

Still, 'it's cheaper if they die quickly at 68 and not at 96 years old after nearly 25 years of Parkinsons care' isn't an excuse to not give people good healthcare. It just means we need to plan for aging populations and allocate funding for it.

And if preventative care leads to longer lifespans, the government needs to change pension allocations because the average pension is drawn on for 18 months. My grandpa draw for like 40+ years. They may need to plan on longer retirements, not advocate for people to die.

Just because those numbers are there doesn't make them a cost-savings suggestion.

17

ScienceLivesInsideMe t1_j9rwwru wrote

Not a chance. When you have every poor person in the country using the er as primary care, and then when they go onto renal failure stay on dialysis, or having heart attacks and living on a vent for 20 years. No way.

1