IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's not you who weighs 200 pounds, but how do you know you'll never come down with cancer, diabetes, or other health problems not based on your "lifestyle?" Do you also have "perfect" genes that guarantees against illness?

I might get cancer - but not because I smoke or do any of the other things we KNOW causes it. I won't get diabetes because I'm not 350lbs.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
USAFHokie80 wrote:
Quote:
here is how i see the responses by those AGAINST universal health care (for medically necessary treatments/procedures) :
- there are some that are cheats and i don't want to pay for their insurance ;
- there are some that have unhealthy lifestyles - decided upon by ME - and i don't want to pay for their insurance .

it's not ME who decided weighing 200 lbs more than average or smoking a pack a day or drinking like a fish was unhealthy. and you're right, i don't want to pay for that. i shouldn't have to. neither should you.

i also don't want to pay for the people that use doctors as a drug dealer so they can get their narc fix.

You're more then willing to consign, say, a lower-middle class who can't afford quality insurance, to a life on the rocks when their father gets cancer or has a heart attack - just to keep from having to pay for someone who is unhealthy?

Why is it that positions taken by those who oppose universal/mandated coverage always ignore the good people who did everything right, and focus on those who would abuse the system?

Cycloptichorn

If he developed cancer by no fault of his own... or he had a heart attack by no fault of his own... I have no problem with that. But if he develops cancer because he smokes like a chimney or has a heart attack because his cholesterol is 500, no, I do not feel it is my responsibility to fund that. Hell, maybe making people a little more accountable for their own health will benefit everyone in that they'll quit the bad habits.

Really? How well is the current system working out for making people more accountable for their bad habits?

How do you differentiate, on a non-personal level, between those who lived 'responsible' lives and those who didn't? Or, are you willing to deny all help from those who have been responsible, b/c it's too difficult to differentiate between the two groups?

I suspect at the end of the day, opponents of some sort of universal/mandated health care system just don't care if poor folks live or die, no matter what their situation was - not if it means taking their hard-earned money...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

What about them, cyclops? Well, maybe the trial lawyers would like tort reform as a way to lower medical costs so that insurance might become more affordable? Why not do that now? After all, if the government manages health care, they can't be sued at all, so why not lower the thresholds of what can be sued for now in the private sector? After all, whats good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. I am sure John Edwards would agree with that wouldn't he?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

What about them? Well, maybe the trial lawyers would like tort reform as a way to lower medical costs so that insurance might become more affordable? Why not do that now? After all, if the government manages health care, they can't be sued at all, so why not lower the thresholds of what can be sued for now in the private sector? After all, whats good for the goose ought to be good for the gander. I am sure John Edwards would agree with that wouldn't he?

I can see that you have no logical or serious response to my question, and instead fall back on insulting Democrats - a not unusual tactic that you display in conversations like this, Okie.

Re: tort reforms - Health care costs have risen by an average of around 16-20% for the last 5-7 years, per year; medical malpractice claims haven't gone up at anywhere close to the same rate. Tort reform has nothing to do with rising healthcare costs whatsoever. You are buying into a false canard without doing the research...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
It's not you who weighs 200 pounds, but how do you know you'll never come down with cancer, diabetes, or other health problems not based on your "lifestyle?" Do you also have "perfect" genes that guarantees against illness?

I might get cancer - but not because I smoke or do any of the other things we KNOW causes it. I won't get diabetes because I'm not 350lbs.

My wife is not overweight, and she's pre-diabetic. We also have friends who are not overweight, but are diabetic. Not only that, but her side of the family has austro arthritis of the knee, and they all had to have knee surgery.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's not you who weighs 200 pounds, but how do you know you'll never come down with cancer, diabetes, or other health problems not based on your "lifestyle?" Do you also have "perfect" genes that guarantees against illness?

I might get cancer - but not because I smoke or do any of the other things we KNOW causes it. I won't get diabetes because I'm not 350lbs.

My wife is not overweight, and she's pre-diabetic. We also have friends who are not overweight, but are diabetic. Not only that, but her side of the family has austro arthritis of the knee, and they all had to have knee surgery.

It's just their fault for having bad genetics, CI. See, they should have had the forethought to be born into better families. No reason that anyone should give them any sort of consideration at all.

Besides, I don't work hard all day long so that other people can have happiness in their lives, but so that I can have happiness in my life. B/c that's by far the most important thing for society. Right?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Not all people who come down with lung cancer have been smokers.

0 Replies

According to this report, ten percent of lung cancer occurs to nonsmokers.

http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=53012

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why is it that positions taken by those who oppose universal/mandated coverage always ignore the good people who did everything right, and focus on those who would abuse the system?

Cycloptichorn

Why is it that positions taken by those who support universal/mandated coverage always ignore the good people who did everything right, and focus on those who would abuse the system?

Supporters of universal/mandated coverage seem to only be worried about the 15% (a large estimate) of the US population that doesn't have health insurance instead of working to fix the problems with the current system for the 85% that do have health insurance already?

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
It's not you who weighs 200 pounds, but how do you know you'll never come down with cancer, diabetes, or other health problems not based on your "lifestyle?" Do you also have "perfect" genes that guarantees against illness?

I might get cancer - but not because I smoke or do any of the other things we KNOW causes it. I won't get diabetes because I'm not 350lbs.

My wife is not overweight, and she's pre-diabetic. We also have friends who are not overweight, but are diabetic. Not only that, but her side of the family has austro arthritis of the knee, and they all had to have knee surgery.

See, this is kinda irritating... You are taking everything I say to the absolute extreme...

Firstly, let me point out there are two types of diabetes: type 1 and type 2. Type 2 is ACQUIRED, meaning people eat too much sugar or become too heavy and their pancreas cannot regulate their blood sugar. Type 1 is genetic, perhaps that is why your friends have diabetes. If your wife is just now in the pre-diabetic stages, then I expect she is overweight or eats too much sugar and high carb foods.

I'm not advocating the dismissal of claims because of genetics or things that cannot be helped.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

Not all people who come down with lung cancer have been smokers.

You're absolutely right. And for those people, I see nothing wrong with helping to treat them. I specifically said those who develop cancer by their OWN FAULT.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really? How well is the current system working out for making people more accountable for their bad habits?

How do you differentiate, on a non-personal level, between those who lived 'responsible' lives and those who didn't? Or, are you willing to deny all help from those who have been responsible, b/c it's too difficult to differentiate between the two groups?

I suspect at the end of the day, opponents of some sort of universal/mandated health care system just don't care if poor folks live or die, no matter what their situation was - not if it means taking their hard-earned money...

Cycloptichorn

That's my point... there is no system for holding people accountable for their health decisions. I'm not sure what this post was supposed to say?

0 Replies

USAF, So for those who are ill because of their genetics should be treated and everybody else shouldn't?

0 Replies

THE BOTTOM LINE, is an ETHICAL ISSUE:
People who advocate universal health insurance do so primarily because they reject the situation of millions of people being uninsured. People who reject universal health insurance generally support their rejection by comparing the likely failings (e.g., Canada's waiting period for some procedures) of such a system to the high quality of coverage they enjoy due to their high quality pensions or their expensive privately purchased coverage.
HOW SELFISH! I'm am very well covered, but I would gladly lower the quality of my coverage in exchange for coverage of all those millions of people (including children) who suffer the dangers of being uninsured.

0 Replies

JLN, We're in the same "boat," and I agree with your conclusion.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAF, So for those who are ill because of their genetics should be treated and everybody else shouldn't?

What is with you? Is it impossible for you to imagine anything except extremes? Your question is silly at best.

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Really? How well is the current system working out for making people more accountable for their bad habits?

How do you differentiate, on a non-personal level, between those who lived 'responsible' lives and those who didn't? Or, are you willing to deny all help from those who have been responsible, b/c it's too difficult to differentiate between the two groups?

I suspect at the end of the day, opponents of some sort of universal/mandated health care system just don't care if poor folks live or die, no matter what their situation was - not if it means taking their hard-earned money...

Cycloptichorn

That's my point... there is no system for holding people accountable for their health decisions. I'm not sure what this post was supposed to say?

You ignored the meat of my post, predictably. Don't want to think about the people who aren't fat sacks of crap, who didn't take car of themselves, do you?

I'm saying, our current system does not hold people accountable for their health decisions; how do you propose we do so, without condemning people to painful death and their families to the poorhouse?

None of the right-wing wants to talk about people who are involved in accidents. It's a huge segment of those who have health problems; people who were injured through either no fault of their own, or a poor choice at the wrong time. Without some sort of health care, the ramifications caused by the loss of a productive family member are far more wide-spread then one might think.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

USAFHokie80 wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
USAF, So for those who are ill because of their genetics should be treated and everybody else shouldn't?

What is with you? Is it impossible for you to imagine anything except extremes? Your question is silly at best.

It's an irony that you consider my posts as extremes. You really don't understand much of anything; I label it ignorance.

0 Replies

The decision of who lived healthy lives would obviously be left to the physician.

You and CI are both taking my words way out of scope. I only ever commented on the people who actively degrade their own health.

As long as people are getting free care for their self-induced illness, there is no way to hold them accountable.

Once again, I never said anything about denying people who were in "accidents."

That being said, I don't think treatment of injuries sustained while someone was driving drunk should be paid for by the people. This logic also applies to similar situations.

It should be mentioned that the government does limit health care and life insurance if people injure themselves. If you are involved in what the DoD considers a risky activity (skydiving and stuff) and get hurt, you can be asked to pay your own medical bills. Also, if you die as a result of your own stupidity, your family does not get any of your life insurance money.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

USAFHokie80 wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
USAF, So for those who are ill because of their genetics should be treated and everybody else shouldn't?

What is with you? Is it impossible for you to imagine anything except extremes? Your question is silly at best.

It's an irony that you consider my posts as extremes. You really don't understand much of anything; I label it ignorance.

You and I both know which of us is lacking in knowledge of health care.... and it's not me.

0 Replies

IT'S TIME FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know