The budget may warm me. Our home was built in 1897 and it’s largely uninsulated.
But I’m curious about the argument that insulating homes will eventually save money on healthcare. For a start, prolonging life does not generally save money. We consume more health care the longer we live. And most of our lifelong health care expenditure is in the last few years of life, especially when we die old when everything is falling to bits.
No – we save lives and try to keep people healthy because of the golden rule ("do unto others as you would be done by") in spite of the extra cost of extending life. It is kind to keep people healthy if we can, at least for those (most of us) who like life.
I’m also suspicious of claims that no insulation causes ill-health on its own. I’ve been meaning to study the research. Are we sure it is not more convenient than careful?
I’ve always preferred a warm bed in a crisp room. It’s hard to accept that on its own air temperature in homes could so strongly influence health outcomes.
We’ve evolved over thousands of years with massive diurnal air temperature changes. We’ve had thousands of years of cold nights, protected only by our ability to wrap up in furs and to cook our hands and faces before fitful fires.
Are we sure that the health research cited to show cold houses as a cause of sickness is not just shadowing house quality correlations, like social class, income, diet, race susceptibility to asthma or other conditions known to be triggered by cold air. How robust is the evidence that old cold houses made warmer with insulation will not stay just as ‘unhealthy’ because of dampness or poor air exchange (no windows open once there is warmth to try to keep) or indoor pollution (tobacco smoke, formaldehydes or allergens).
What is the evidence that when our cold houses cost less to keep warm we’ll use less electricity? We might just wear fewer clothes inside and burn through the same or more energy. Has the behavioural response to insulating been established?
I should not speculate like this without checking the research, but perhaps someone else will save me the time.
Trouble is there are too many Green policies based on well-meant intuitions about how people should act, not how they do.
Perhaps the subsidy will not be wasted if most people like living in a warm fug. But what if it makes us sicker?. I’m suspicious of the health effect of the new subsidy for "clean heat’ installations. When they just move air within houses to me they look like next decade’s health research scare in waiting. I’m particularly unexcited by systems that suck in attic air ( with fine glass fibres from the new insulation) and blow it into the bedroom.
I prefer my air fresh, even if it is "dangerously" cool.
RSS feeds available for 
Like Stephen, I prefer my air fresh. There seems to be an extraordinary lack of understanding both of basic physics and medicine where broadly correct statements are extrapolated until conclusions drawn are dodgy at best.
Warm air holds more moisture than cold air yet the catch-cry of “damp cold houses causing colds and flu” seems to be more urban legend than fact. Colds are spread by a virus. I understand that in winter these virus’ are spread more readily as people tend to congregate indoors and tempreture has nothing to do with it. There is no doubt that certain moulds are toxic and unhealthy and ironically reducing air circulation and increasing temperature is a wonderful way to grow them.
Insulation certainly is useful and can save power, but the way the debate is presented seems to me to be highly misleading.