Do we spend too much money on well people when it could be used to help the sick

Jump to Last Post 1-7 of 7 discussions (15 posts)
  1. sallybea profile image95
    sallybeaposted 8 years ago

    Do we spend too much money on well people when it could be used to help the sick get better?

    Is it just possible that the money we spend every year to test well people for Disease might be better spent on treating the ill.
    Do you perhaps have a story to tell which justifies this ongoing expenditure?

  2. gadgetgoogler profile image60
    gadgetgooglerposted 8 years ago

    I guess so . People are spending money much and more for their leisure than a sick one.

    1. sallybea profile image95
      sallybeaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I think I phrased this question incorrectly, I was thinking more about annual tests for diseases on well people rather than what we spend on leisure.

  3. profile image0
    Kevin Goodwinposted 8 years ago

    People naturally will always spend more money on themselves than on the people who need help. I do not believe that is ever going to cane though.

    1. sallybea profile image95
      sallybeaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I guess I was wondering why the NHS for instance, spends so much money on giving people annual mammograms or cancer tests when such a small percentage prove positive.

    2. Kylyssa profile image90
      Kylyssaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Your lifetime risk of breast cancer alone is one in eight if you are a woman. Wouldn't it be nice for all of those ones in eight to be diagnosed before a terminal stage? From a money perspective, it's also cheaper to treat when caught early.

    3. lisavollrath profile image93
      lisavollrathposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Early detection of any cancer raises the possibility of a cure.

    4. sallybea profile image95
      sallybeaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I know many people where early detection of cancer was life saving.   I have also seen the terrible effects of treatment which came to nothing.

  4. Kylyssa profile image90
    Kylyssaposted 8 years ago

    Early diagnosis usually provides a better prognosis. It also is less expensive to treat things like cancer with an early diagnosis. It's less expensive to treat almost everything with an early diagnosis.

    As for anecdotal evidence that yearly physicals, tests, and blood workups have value, I know of no fewer than five people diagnosed with their cancer from those tests. All of them were at stage one. They are all expected to have normal lifespans.

    My roommate was diagnosed with cancer after she was sick. Her cancer was diagnosed at stage four. This is what you'd see more of if routine testing ceased. She's my best friend and sister-by-choice and it blows more than I can express.

    Her father was diagnosed with stage one prostate cancer through a yearly test. Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer with a yearly exam. Both her parents were diagnosed with diabetes from screening rather than by becoming ill. Instead of having to inject insulin, they can manage it with diet and exercise, and, in one case, oral medication.

    My thirty-something friend got a pacemaker installed because a routine exam uncovered a severe heart arrhythmia. I like it that instead of getting sick and possibly having a heart attack, my friend gets this improved chance at a more normal life before having any serious symptoms.

    How about getting rid of the insurance companies in the middle and making healthcare single-payer instead so it's cheaper rather than sacrificing people to cancer and other illnesses to save money? Why wait until cancer has symptoms, and is then more likely to be terminal, to test for it?

    I think more unnecessary testing occurs when people are ill than during routine testing. It could be greatly reduced by physicians using a little more care and logic in ordering tests. For example, I have lupus, along with enough classical symptoms of lupus that lay people were asking me if I had lupus. My doctors kept ordering tests for lots of things it seemed unlikely for me to have with the symptoms I had. When I finally got a doctor who wasn't doing that, he ordered a few tests intended to rule out lupus and a handful of diseases with similar symptoms. I went through five years of unnecessary tests and suffering with untreated lupus because doctors wouldn't test for the obvious. Imagine how much less health care I'd need if they'd just run the right tests five years earlier! I might have stayed well enough to work outside my home.

    1. sallybea profile image95
      sallybeaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      An excellent response to this question.  I listened to a lady on the radio the other day who said that tests could be harmful and a were a waste of resources..  I think you have blown that one out of the water.

  5. chef-de-jour profile image96
    chef-de-jourposted 8 years ago

    I think tests for the more serious diseases should continue for at-risk age groups and types because this probably does save money in the long run.

    Your question also raises the idea of one huge money pot for everyone to dip into but this is not the case in the UK and the USA and most western countries, Sweden excepted.

    The privileged will always have access to tests and urgent medical care - they pay for private health and their money means lives will be saved. This is the mad world of the market working mostly for the wealthy.

    The UK has the NHS - a once fabulous system which is being undermined - and they are constantly searching for ways to bring equity into the world of universal health care.

    I'm sure many of their top people would love to put certain tests on the backburner in favour of say, more surgery, more drugs and so on. Getting the balance is tricky. You have a better chance of surviving a certain type of disease in one part of the country than in another because the funding is askew, which is obscene.

    What I'd like to see however is a big shift in priorities. I'd like children to be made top priority here in the UK and also in the world for example.

    Thousands of children die in the UK (and I'd bet it's the same in the USA) for want of an organ donor. With strong campaigns and political will this could be remedied.

    The numbers of children who die needlessly each year around the world is staggering - 10 million at the last count - and all that they lack are basic things like treatments for diarrhoea, pneumonia, measles. Because most of them live in Africa the West does little or nothing to counter this scandal.

    1. sallybea profile image95
      sallybeaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      I really appreciate your taking the time to offer such a well thought out response.  Getting the balance right sure is tricky. The UK has an enormous aging population, children living in poverty and an influx of additional people draining resources..

  6. lisavollrath profile image93
    lisavollrathposted 8 years ago

    I'm a well person. I'm strong and healthy. My annual test numbers all look good---well, except my blood pressure, which is a little high. But, my doctor is helping me to work on that.

    However, I had cancer two years ago. It was detected early, thanks to testing, and was removed with surgery. As a result, although I appear healthy, I'm being monitored to insure my cancer doesn't reappear in another part of my body. Instead of one gyno exam a year, I have two. I have an annual physical, and annual mammograms. Those tests might seem wasted on someone who is healthy, but the reality is that they could well save my life, by catching the reemergence of my cancer sooner rather than later.

    Don't assume tests on people who are healthy are a waste. Those tests save lives. They also save thousands of dollars in treatment costs, which become more and more expensive as a disease progresses.

  7. Jodah profile image91
    Jodahposted 8 years ago

    Sally, most of the money should be spent on preventing illness in the first place. Prevention is better than cure. So funds should be concentrated on research into finding out what causes various diseases and then finding way of preventing them. We already have vaccines to prevent things like polio. Eventually there will be similar vaccines etc to prevent cancers etc. Then money will be saved on constant medications, surgery etc.

    1. sallybea profile image95
      sallybeaposted 8 years agoin reply to this

      Hi John,
      We can only hope and pray that this becomes a reality in time.  There are also of course those who seek to profit from these Vaccines but perhaps they deserve to if they can really make it happen.


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)