Reply
Sun 6 Jan, 2008 07:13 pm
Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
Let's add people who drive to the list... and people who own guns.
And sports. Some professions are quite unhealthy, too.
Re: healthcare
flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
The Govt should NOT provide health care for anyone. Nor should the Govt tell me how to live my life.
Re: healthcare
woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
The Govt should NOT provide health care for anyone. Nor should the Govt tell me how to live my life.
So you have a right to intentionally engage in activities that increase your demand for healthcare thereby raising healthcare costs for everyone else?
Re: healthcare
flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
The Govt should NOT provide health care for anyone. Nor should the Govt tell me how to live my life.
So you have a right to intentionally engage in activities that increase your demand for healthcare thereby raising healthcare costs for everyone else?
That is the way insurance works. Just like I have to pay higher premiums for car insurance because there are bad drivers, home insurance premiums are higher because of high risk homes.
What will you tell people who work in high risk jobs?
Re: healthcare
woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
The Govt should NOT provide health care for anyone. Nor should the Govt tell me how to live my life.
So you have a right to intentionally engage in activities that increase your demand for healthcare thereby raising healthcare costs for everyone else?
That is the way insurance works. Just like I have to pay higher premiums for car insurance because there are bad drivers, home insurance premiums are higher because of high risk homes.
What will you tell people who work in high risk jobs?
Can you tell me that the risks and costs all even out? And I do object to paying hgher insurance premiums because of the lifestyle choices of others.
Re: healthcare
flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
The Govt should NOT provide health care for anyone. Nor should the Govt tell me how to live my life.
So you have a right to intentionally engage in activities that increase your demand for healthcare thereby raising healthcare costs for everyone else?
That is the way insurance works. Just like I have to pay higher premiums for car insurance because there are bad drivers, home insurance premiums are higher because of high risk homes.
What will you tell people who work in high risk jobs?
Can you tell me that the risks and costs all even out? And I do object to paying hgher insurance premiums because of the lifestyle choices of others.
Then self insure. No one says you HAVE to have health or home insurance. Car insurance in most States is a must, but I hope you get the idea.
No one is forcing you to buy insurance.
And even the required car insurance is typically just liability.
I think we need to have some level of universal health care in the US for two main reasons.
1) We need to be competitive globally. US companies that are saddled with health care expenses must compete with foreign companies where that burden is handled by the government. Not that foreign companies are getting off for free, they pay taxes that support the system. They just have a good handle on what their expenses are now and in the future.
2) Preventative health care is much cheaper than reactive health care. I think we should have a system that allows everyone access to routine health care. Anything that keeps people out of the emergency room is typically money well spent.
Re: healthcare
woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:woiyo wrote:flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
The Govt should NOT provide health care for anyone. Nor should the Govt tell me how to live my life.
So you have a right to intentionally engage in activities that increase your demand for healthcare thereby raising healthcare costs for everyone else?
That is the way insurance works. Just like I have to pay higher premiums for car insurance because there are bad drivers, home insurance premiums are higher because of high risk homes.
What will you tell people who work in high risk jobs?
Can you tell me that the risks and costs all even out? And I do object to paying hgher insurance premiums because of the lifestyle choices of others.
Then self insure. No one says you HAVE to have health or home insurance. Car insurance in most States is a must, but I hope you get the idea.
No one is forcing you to buy insurance.
Insurance is only half the problem. Insurance rates wouldn't be so high if the cost of providing medical services to the insured wasn't so high and part of the reason why these medical costs are so high is that some people willfully engage in lifestyles that drive up demand for medical care.
engineer wrote:Not that foreign companies are getting off for free, they pay taxes that support the system.
How is paying taxes to support a government bureaucracy any cheaper than simply paying medical bills/insurance premiums in an economic market that is governed by the laws of supply and demand?
Quote:2) Preventative health care is much cheaper than reactive health care. I think we should have a system that allows everyone access to routine health care.
Merely having the option of routine care isn't going to accomplish anything. Giving routine medical care to a smoker won't keep that smoker from developing costly lung disease or cancer. Giving routine medical care to an obese person won't prevent costly heart disease. If we are ever going to lower medical costs we must penalize people who willfully increase their demand for medical care.
flaja wrote:How is paying taxes to support a government bureaucracy any cheaper than simply paying medical bills/insurance premiums in an economic market that is governed by the laws of supply and demand?
...
Merely having the option of routine care isn't going to accomplish anything. Giving routine medical care to a smoker won't keep that smoker from developing costly lung disease or cancer. Giving routine medical care to an obese person won't prevent costly heart disease. If we are ever going to lower medical costs we must penalize people who willfully increase their demand for medical care.
It might since it allows a health professional to get into someone's face about his habits, but routine care doesn't cover the issues you describe. Smokers don't significantly increase the cost of
routine care. As to bureaucracy, right now we have hundreds of bureaucracies running health care. One sounds better to me.
Woiyo,
In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.
What should government do in this case?
ebrown_p wrote:Woiyo,
In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.
What should government do in this case?
If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.
engineer wrote:flaja wrote:How is paying taxes to support a government bureaucracy any cheaper than simply paying medical bills/insurance premiums in an economic market that is governed by the laws of supply and demand?
...
Merely having the option of routine care isn't going to accomplish anything. Giving routine medical care to a smoker won't keep that smoker from developing costly lung disease or cancer. Giving routine medical care to an obese person won't prevent costly heart disease. If we are ever going to lower medical costs we must penalize people who willfully increase their demand for medical care.
It might since it allows a health professional to get into someone's face about his habits, but routine care doesn't cover the issues you describe. Smokers don't significantly increase the cost of
routine care. As to bureaucracy, right now we have hundreds of bureaucracies running health care. One sounds better to me.
If someone is going to intentionally put themselves at risk for cancer, heart disease or lung disease, it doesn't really make much sense to worry about giving them aspirin, does it? Why worry about caring for someone now when 30 years down the road they will have a terminal illness of their own choosing?
woiyo wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Woiyo,
In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.
What should government do in this case?
If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.
Suppose the person has TB and refused to have it treated for so long that it becomes untreatable and the person then poses a risk to public health. What then?
And even if this TB patient is self-insured, the demand that he puts on the health care industry will raise
everyone's doctor bills. Even if the person is self-insured we all end up paying the cost of his care.
woiyo wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Woiyo,
In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.
What should government do in this case?
If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.
That's not a good idea. Not only does it mean that the poor will have no alternative but to die when they don't have money to buy treatment for a serious disease.
It also means that we will have people walking around you and your family with contagious TB.
Public health is important.... and it requires that treatment for contagious diseases is available to everyone.
Re: healthcare
flaja wrote:Why doesn't any politician's health care plan ever bother to address the most fundamental healthcare issue that this country faces: lifestyle?
Does it make sense for the government to provide healthcare or even health insurance to people that smoke (roughly 1/3 of the population), drink (at least half of the population?) or are overweight (at least half of the population)?
If someone intentionally engages in lifestyle activities that puts them at risk for chronic and life-threatening illness, should anyone else be obligated to provide healthcare to them?
What about firefighters?
Some of them, like me, are volunteers and dont get paid for what we do.
The state covers our medical bills if we get hurt at a fire scene.
Are you saying that since I am a volunteer, I shouldnt be covered?
ebrown_p wrote:woiyo wrote:ebrown_p wrote:Woiyo,
In your ideal world-- your neighbor who can't (or won't) get insurance contracts contagious TB. He is unable to afford treatment.
What should government do in this case?
If that person decided to self insure, the govt should do nothing.
That's not a good idea. Not only does it mean that the poor will have no alternative but to die when they don't have money to buy treatment for a serious disease.
It also means that we will have people walking around you and your family with contagious TB.
Public health is important.... and it requires that treatment for contagious diseases is available to everyone.
We already have that (CDC).
All your hypotheticals are nothing more than liberal scare tactics that are designed to raise taxes. Yet, you liberals want to keep these millions of illegals in this country and many of these illegals have never even been checked out medically.
The entire basis of this post is how much control do you want govt to have over your lifestyle, which is a typical liberal tactic.
HEALTH CARE FOR EVERYONE !
---------------------------------------
this subject has been discussed over-and-over again (ad nauseum - call a doctor !) .
still , i'll add my two cents worth !
i still believe that if we are all living in a somewhat civilized society , imo EVERYONE should be entitled to good basic medical care - whether they can pay for it or not .
now , if someone prefers to live in an UNCIVILIZED society - dog eat dog - and even most dogs don't do that ! - , my comments won't be worth even two cents to them ; so please DO NOT READ FURTHER .
most of us have some habits that someone else might consinder unhealthy . wouldn't it be much more humane , simpler and also less expensive if we'd all acknowledge that , rather than always just trying to find fault with someone else's lifestyle ?
sure , much can be done to improve preventive health-care even more .
it also shows that preventive health-care has already made good progress . certainly there are fewer smokers than twenty or thirty years ago . why don't we agree to pursue that and built upon success ?
mortality and morbidity rates have come down considerably . that to me is a sign of success , and i'd rather build upon success than trying to prevent my neighbour from receiving good health-care because he may have a habit i don't agree with .
in the end WE ALL have to pay if our neighbour does not receive adequate health-care when needed - no matter how many bad habits he might have . perhaps someone wants that person to simply suffer and die in the street - but i am certainly NOT in favour of that .
i have difficulty understanding why it would be better for me to deny health coverage to anyone .
let me be plain : I CAN'T UNDERSTAND IT !
healthy people make a healthy nation .
some people require more healthcarre than others . some kids require more of the teacher's attention than others .
some workers may be a bit slower than others .
are all the people that are somewhat below OUR standard to be discarded like yesterday's newspaper ?
is it not much better to strive and improve the health of all people , even though it may cost a little extra to provide it for some people ?
most of us pay our taxes even though we may not agree with the way our government spends the taxes - but pay we do .
why not pay a little extra so that we all can have adequate basic health-care - or is that too humane ? must we teach someone a lesson ? is it social welfare ? is it an idea too close to socialism ? (perhaps jesus was a socialist ?) .
this should be worth at least five cents !
hbg
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace