Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
Should City Hall Go Bankrupt?
5.30.2012 12:00:00 PM
A CalWatchdog Series on Municipal Bankruptcy 
More

Capitol Update with U.S. Rep Darrell Issa (CA-49)
6.14.2012 12:00:00 PM
Chairman, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
More

Jonah Goldberg Luncheon and Book Signing
6.22.2012 12:00:00 PM

The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of IdeasMore

Recent Events
Benjamin Rush Society Debate: UCSD
5.17.2012 3:00:00 PM
UCSD Benjamin Rush Society More

Public Pension Tsunami: Closer to the Shore?
5.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Public Pension Panel More

Benjamin Rush Society Debate: Harvard Medical School, May 3, 2012
5.3.2012 5:45:00 PM

Harvard Bejamin Rush Society Debate

 More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print The Great “Prevention” Myth II
ABC News - John Stossel's Take
By: John Stossel
9.1.2009

John Stossel's Take - ABC News, September 1, 2009


The advocates of government controlled health care keep pushing the prevention-saves-money myth.

The Pacific Research Institute’s Sally Pipes offers more reasons why prevention, even when it’s a good thing, doesn’t make health care cheaper:

   ... another example from a study published last year in the journal Circulation. Suppose we enact several highly recommended measures to control cardiovascular disease and diabetes...
Suppose that these prevention measures were 100 percent successful. The estimated cost of treating at-risk patients over the next 30 years would drop by about a trillion dollars. The preventive measures themselves, though, would cost $8.5 trillion -- offsetting the savings by a factor of almost 10...


Fifteen years ago, the federal government began requiring food manufacturers to post nutrition and calorie information on food labels. Since then, Americans have had access to a barrage of data on every Snickers bar and bag of Cheez Doodles.

But the labeling hasn't made us healthier. In fact, we're actually fatter... With smoking cessation programs, the story is similar.


And even when prevention measures do make us healthier, that doesn't necessarily save money.

Extending longevity tends to increase overall health spending. Illnesses like Alzheimer's, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and prostate cancer make the final years of life incredibly expensive. The average nonsmoker who lives to age 84 will require about $100,000 more in medical expenses than the average smoker who dies seven years sooner because of his bad habit.

A few preventive measures do indeed save money. Others may impose a net cost but nonetheless are worth it because they improve our well-being. Preventive and wellness efforts may reduce pain and suffering and increase quality of life -- which may be justification enough.

But that's not the justification Washington is offering. Instead, lawmakers are trying to sell us on the seductive -- but ultimately false -- idea that taxpayer dollars spent on prevention can yield long-term savings.

We face a staggering federal deficit and increased taxes for all Americans if Obama's health care reform ideas are enacted. We need honest information about what proposed reforms will cost. And so it's time for politicians to swear off "Dr. Feel-Good's Incredible Health-Promoting, Cost-Saving Elixir."

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources