Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Tuesday January 23 2018, @11:51PM   Printer-friendly

"Spending more on health care sounds like it should improve health, but our study suggests that is not the case and social spending could be used to improve the health of everyone," says Dr. Daniel Dutton, The School of Public Policy, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. "Relative to health care, we spend little on social services per person, so redistributing money to social services from health care is actually a small change in health care spending."

Health care costs are expanding in many developed countries like Canada, and governments are seeking ways to contain costs while maintaining a healthy population. Treating the social determinants of health like income, education, or social and physical living environments through spending on social services can help address the root causes of disease and poor health. However, health spending continues to make up the lion's share of spending.

[...] The commentary author suggests governments should allocate social spending fairly for both young and old to ensure that the younger generation is not being shortchanged.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180122104016.htm

[Paper]: Effect of provincial spending on social services and health care on health outcomes in Canada: an observational longitudinal study

[Related]: The need for health in all policies in Canada


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:07PM (2 children)

    by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:07PM (#627131) Journal

    They're the same thing. Almost. Because many people have a very limited view as what they define as "health" spending, and many people either don't know or don't believe in the concept of Social Determinants of Health.

    Here's how it was explained to me in class: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_11xLlwKgWc [youtube.com]

    So you can either pay for social programs, or you can pay for the medical bills. OR you can totally not care / decide it shouldn't be your problem or wallet, in which case you are a selfish and greedy individual.... for whom we'll still care for if/when your life changes out of your control and you wind up on the dole, too.

    --
    This sig for rent.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:58PM (1 child)

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday January 24 2018, @02:58PM (#627152)

    They are kind of the same thing but are typically not treated in the same way either in budgetary location or in control of outcome (what the money is spent on).

    E.g. in the UK:

    Most health spending is national via the NHS, and controlled - you cannot get the money for your prescription and go spend it on a different drug for instance.

    Most social _care_ spending however, is local, which leads to inefficiency/conflict where, for example, a local authority delays providing social care support for someone who needs it to leave hospital ("bed blocking"). The local authority thus "saves" money (and local officials get bonus due to money "saved"), but the cost of the hospital bed is more, so the taxpayer loses money.

    Also, most national, and much local, social spending is uncontrolled in terms of outcome - the money is handed out and you can spend it on what you like. It may get spent on things that will improve health, but all to often it won't. There isn't a way to fix this without resorting to authoritarianism - e.g. you get given enough money for food but it can only be spent on healthy food and trading your food for unhealthy stuff or booze or fags becomes a crime.

    The real problem is that when social spending is proposed as a cure for social-correlated health problems there is an implicit assumption that the problems are caused by lack of money, rather than excess of stupid. This ignores the people who "haven't got enough money for food", but are chain-smoking in the food bank queue (I know of food bank volunteers who have quit because of that). It ignores the people who are stuck in an in-work benefit system that reduces their benefits when the minimum wage goes up so when they get a payrise they end up with same or less - but they are working out how much and if they can afford to eat using the calculator on their brand new contract iPhone (seen that one personally).

    You can fix a lack of money with money, you can't fix stupid with money - you just end up with stupid rich folk instead of stupid poor folk, and you kill the aspirations of the next generation who wonder why the heck they should learn things and do well in exams at school when stupid gets more money.

    • (Score: 2) by Pav on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:03AM

      by Pav (114) on Thursday January 25 2018, @09:03AM (#627606)

      Here we call rich rednecks "CUBs" or "cashed up bogans" (bogans being Australias term for rednecks/chavs/working-class-ppl). Yes, there doesn't seem to be a cure for stupid (the drinking binges and car accidents just became more expensive), but strangely the next generation who grew up during our mining boom seemed to have much more sense and were doing more with their lives. Unfortunately I was in a state that voted in a right wing government (I live in Townsville, Queensland), and just as the mining boom cooled the government imposed crushing austerity... it was a one two combination. The crime rate doubled, we had an ice epidemic, and there are talks of harsher penalties, vigilantes and curfews. This is in a city with a wide economic base which can, and historically has, weathered economic downturns much better. With this lost generation we're in danger of the "new normal" Keynes warned was always the danger of imposing austerity.