Could it be that RIVM has written the most cynical report ever? For the television program pointer I made a few broadcasts about the difference in health between rich and poor. They were mainly about food. Healthy food is much more expensive than unhealthy food. Especially in neighborhoods where the average income is low, ordinary shops make way for fast food stores that fatten children for a small amount. Good entrepreneurship: those who want to earn money, sit where their customers are. There are relatively many students in the classes in these districts who have not had breakfast. Quickly grab a frikandel sandwich during the break to get rid of the worst appetite and an energy drink against fatigue. Tasty, cheap and unhealthy. These children are more likely to be overweight, type 2 diabetes, and cardiovascular disease than their peers from wealthier families.
Poor people in our country live six years less than rich people. And in those years they are unhealthy for fifteen years longer. This is of course not only due to food, but also to moldy and drafty houses, unhealthy air and daily stress to make ends meet. And due to lack of movement. This is all terrible, but according to the RIVM report, every disadvantage has its advantage. In a ‘model study’, the institute calculated the impact of more physical activity on healthcare costs.
What seems? If we succeed in getting 77 percent of the population enough exercise by 2040 instead of 53 percent now, this will lead to a decrease in the number of type 2 diabetes, stroke, heart failure and coronary heart disease. Ultimately, this leads to an increase of 19 thousand life years. Beautiful, but expensive. If those poor bastards live longer, they can also contract other diseases during that time, reducing healthcare costs by 8 million euros in 2040. increase! Living people are very expensive. Has the RIVM already calculated the benefits if we give every citizen an injection at birth?
Minister Conny Helder for Long-term Care and Sport calls the financial results of the model study paradoxical: ‘The health benefits as a result of sport yield healthy years of life. At the same time, those extra years mean an increase in healthcare costs.’ Rotten, you know. And damn crude to calculate whether it is possible to let people live longer. Is there no one who wonders what it means for those people themselves if they are healthier? How nice is that? It doesn’t sit well with the researchers either. In their conclusion, they argue in favor of ‘approaching the research from a social perspective’ in a follow-up study. You come now.
Would our administrators and their officials have lost sight of reality? Our prime minister always gets off badly when he is confronted with citizens who are victims of his politics, such as the allowance affair or the earthquakes in Groningen. He doesn’t know how to talk to them and prefers to run away right away. While it is essential to know the stories of those people and to understand the consequences of your policy. Even now it is easy to roll over people who live in energy poverty. Maybe the reality of real people with problems is too scary? Then it is easier to let your policy be determined by idiotic models and inhumane reports.