Sure some people don't, but some do.
It matters not, if you know anyone that does.
You're personal bias is not proof of right or wrong.
I call BS. Let's see the statistics that back up your claim? Or, was this just another of your "theories?"
Preventative medicine does not save money, preventative lifestyles do.
LOL! Any person with any medical knowledge at all, will tell you are full of ****, they both save money and more importantly, they both promote better health! Ask Digsby, if you do not know anyone else in the medical field.
You can't elect to have diabetes, I never said that.
That is damn well what you implied. If it wasn't what point were you trying to make?
How does it stress a healthy lifestyle?
Explain.
Health Care Reform Bill Also Promotes Healthy Lifestyles & Wellness
"The health care bill that Congress passed (H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices of 2009) includes several measures to promote health in the public school system as well as measures to promote wellness and prevention of illness among all age groups."
Preventative care does not save money, it has already been proven cheif.
A source, from politifact no less.
PolitiFact | Brooks claims that preventive care will cost the government
"The question to ask is not whether it saves money but whether your money is buying good value in health.
A little background: there are three kinds of prevention. Primary prevention takes place before you have a disease and actually prevents it. Childhood immunizations, for example, are our favorite kind of primary prevention. A few shots and you don't have to worry about your kids getting measles or mumps. Also, counseling people about risky behaviors is primary prevention. If I talk to you about tobacco cessation or sexual behavior and you stop smoking or use condoms as a result, you're preventing a disease.
Preventive services are worth it if they improve health at a relatively low cost.
Secondary prevention is early detection of an existing disease when it is asymptomatic, so you have a much better chance that treatment will cure it. Screening tests are the classic example of secondary prevention: you get a mammogram, find early breast cancer and get treatment that will — we hope — cure it.
Finally, tertiary prevention is optimal treatment of existing chronic disease so that you don't develop known complications. For instance, regular eye and foot exams in patients with diabetes, to watch out for retinal problems and foot ulcers.
Now it turns out that some preventive medicine does actually save money. For example, the cost of vaccinating an entire population for some diseases is actually less than what it would have cost to treat those diseases if they had developed in some of those people. But most types of prevention don't literally save money. The reason for this is that you have to screen a lot of women with mammography, for example, in order to find one breast cancer.
So if it doesn't save money, how do we decide what prevention is worth doing? That's where value comes in. As Dr. Steven Woolf of Virginia Commonwealth University and others argued in a recent paper on this subject,
the question of whether prevention saves money and can help pay for health care reform misses the point. What does matter — and this matters both for prevention and treatment services — is value: the health benefit per dollar invested.
Preventive services are worth it if they improve health at a relatively low cost. The way we control health care spending is by moving our money from expensive low-value services — both treatment and prevention — to more cost-effective (NOT cost-saving) high-value interventions. Fewer expensive drugs that extend life a week or a month; more proven early interventions that can extend life for years or decades."
Getting The Most Out Of Preventive Care : NPR
