Mankiw Is A Red-Light Thinking Hypocrite

From Greg Mankiw (conservative economist at Harvard):
"In the debate over healthcare reform, another claim one often hears is that better prevention will save us money. I have noted previously how "schlocky" this argument is. Over the weekend, a doctor writing in the Wall Street Journal puts the point as follows:

Prevention of a disease, we all assume, should save us money, right? An ounce of prevention . . . Alas, If only such aphorisms were true we’d hand out apples each day and our problems would be over. It is true that if the prevention strategies we are talking about are behavioral things—eat better, lose weight, exercise more, smoke less, wear a seat belt—then they cost very little and they do save money by keeping people healthy.
But if your preventive strategy is medical, if it involves us, if it consists of screening, finding medical conditions early, shaking the bushes for high cholesterols, or
abnormal EKGs, markers for prostate cancer such as PSA, then more often than not you don’t save anything and you might generate more medical costs. Prevention is a good thing to do, but why equate it with saving money when it won’t?
Think about this: discovering high cholesterol in a person who is feeling well, is really just discovering a risk factor and not a disease; it predicts that you have a greater chance of having a heart attack than someone with a normal cholesterol. Now you can reduce the probability of a heart attack by swallowing a statin, and it will make good sense for you personally, especially if you have other risk factors (male sex, smoking etc).. But if you are treating a population, keep in mind that you may have to treat several hundred people to prevent one heart attack. Using a statin costs about $150,000 for every year of life it saves in men, and even more in women (since their heart-attack risk is lower)—I don’t see the savings there

Mankiw again: As a daily consumer of a statin, I appreciate the extra lifespan, even at the cost."

TW: This piece frames a couple of issues. One is the Republican/Conservative approach to health care reform. They are red-light thinkers. Red-light thinkers are cancerous to life, all they do is point out problems, rarely if ever solutions. Watch and listen to Republicans on health care, 90% of their stuff is red-light thinking. Usually with elliptical tropes like "don't put a bureaucrat between you and your doctor, stop socialized medicine". Or like the above they point out challenges but offer no solutions.

Is preventative medicine a panacea, of course not. In a completely cold-hearted approach limited or no prevention might be the cheapest way to provide health care. Smok'em if you got 'em, that way you day young before those old age health care bills kick in. Don't wear a seat belt that way you head gets bashed in so that those costly back surgeries are not necessary. Is less preventative care the answer though, OF COURSE NOT.

I see posts like Mankiw's frequently from conservative commentators trying to drip, drip, drip against health care reform so that we end up with the same old, same old. But what really gets me with this post is his last sentence- "As a daily consumer of a statin, I appreciate the extra lifespan, even at the cost."

His post laments the value of prevention, the high cost etc. Yet when it comes to his own personal situation (where presumably Harvard is covering all his health care with a great plan), he "appreciates the statins regardless of cost". Ponder that.