Smoking, drinking and Socialized healthcare.

[Shadow Wolf]

Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

First, I would suggest research before making such claims. There has been alot of research that has shown time and time again a moderate amount of alcohol each day, such as a glass of red wine or a bottle of beer, is actually very beneficial to your health. As for drug users, it would depend. Meth and crank users, go ahead and tax them until they can't even afford there house payment. But, some drugs again, such as marijuana, have been shown to have pages of medical benefits. Even tobacco smokers. Anymore, I might smoke at a party if someone offers me a cigarette, but other than that, I do not smoke anymore. I do not see why I should pay extra taxes like someone who smokes a pack a day.

As far as fat people go, that would be impossible. Some people can eat very little, but will still be overweight due to a very low metabolism. While some people will be obese no matter what they do as there is an actual genetic disorder that causes people to be fat. It's not very common, but some people cannot help it if they are fat or not.

Even if you had a questionnaire of some sort to determine how much you have to pay for such a health system, it's rather easy to lie to get a lower rate. I use to smoke a pack a day, but as far as my health records go, I have never been a smoker.

 

[Smoke]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

What about fat people?

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

Moderate consumption of alcohol is actually better for you than abstention, so maybe teetotaling should be banned.

Smokers live on average about ten years less than non-smokers, and people who abuse alcohol often shorten their lifespan in various ways -- liver, kidney, or pancreatic disease, for instance. Obesity also shortens the lifespan.

People who practice unhealthy behaviors thus save the government money by getting off the Social Security rolls sooner -- if they even live long enough to collect at all.

And why concentrate on just a few behaviors? Why not require genetic counseling before allowing people to breed? Why not penalize people who have children late in life? People who travel by automobile and people who live in housing constructed with hazardous materials should definitely be penalized, following your reasoning, as well as people who live in places where natural disasters are more likely to occur. And since cost is the issue, why limit the penalty to things people have a choice about? Why not penalize descendants of endogamous polygamists, or members of families that show a high rate of cleft palate, autism, or mental retardation?

 

[Bathsheba]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

Hmmm, I wonder if having a disproportionate number of kids would be an unfair burden on the proposed system. Maybe the greater number of kids increases the chances of producing a child with a severe genetic defect that weighs heavily on the system for the lifetime of the child. Perhaps we can look forward to the day when genetic research can tell us prior to conception which couples will produce kids that will have an unfair burden on the system (even a system without socialized healthcare) and prevent those couples from copulating. In the meantime, we could just be critical of families that have more than 2 kids; couples producing 5 kids are gonna raises my taxes! That’s not fair! It’s not fair!

(*Bathsheba takes tongue out of cheek and gives it a rest*)

 

[Comprehend]

Moderate consumption of alcohol is actually better for you than abstention, so maybe teetotaling should be banned.

Smokers live on average about ten years less than non-smokers, and people who abuse alcohol often shorten their lifespan in various ways -- liver, kidney, or pancreatic disease, for instance. Obesity also shortens the lifespan.

People who practice unhealthy behaviors thus save the government money by getting off the Social Security rolls sooner -- if they even live long enough to collect at all.

And why concentrate on just a few behaviors? Why not require genetic counseling before allowing people to breed? Why not penalize people who have children late in life? People who travel by automobile and people who live in housing constructed with hazardous materials should definitely be penalized, following your reasoning, as well as people who live in places where natural disasters are more likely to occur. And since cost is the issue, why limit the penalty to things people have a choice about? Why not penalize descendants of endogamous polygamists, or members of families that show a high rate of cleft palate, autism, or mental retardation?

MB - you seem to think I was advocating something. I wasn't.

Smoking and drinking were just examples. The issue is whether you think the government has the right to require certain behavior or punish certain behavior based on it's cost to the healthcare system. All of the things you listed would be included.

It's a policy level discussion. particulars are only for example.

BTW- the smokers and drinkers who live less also have many more medical problems and perscription costs while they are alive compared to non-smokers/drinkers. But you are right, currently it is thought that moderate drinking does provide a health benefit so that would also be another possibility. However, I'm not really interested in listing the near infinite amount of possible government requirements. I am interesting in the policy and whether it is something people feel is a right that comes with providing the healthcare in the first place.

 

[Comprehend]

Hmmm, I wonder if having a disproportionate number of kids would be an unfair burden on the proposed system. Maybe the greater number of kids increases the chances of producing a child with a severe genetic defect that weighs heavily on the system for the lifetime of the child. Perhaps we can look forward to the day when genetic research can tell us prior to conception which couples will produce kids that will have an unfair burden on the system (even a system without socialized healthcare) and prevent those couples from copulating. In the meantime, we could just be critical of families that have more than 2 kids; couples producing 5 kids are gonna raises my taxes! That’s not fair! It’s not fair!

(*Bathsheba takes tongue out of cheek and gives it a rest*)

*sigh*

you are missing the point of the question. I am not advocating that we punish smokers and drinkers, they were simply an easy example. The question is whether it is proper for government to control behavior or tax higher for things that cost more.

It makes no difference what the activity is. If you would like to use families with a lot of kids as your example to help you think about the question, go ahead. That one works too.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Let's see if I can step it up a notch. Queen Hillary is corinated and national healthcare is in place for everyone. Let's say a life time drunkard needs another liver and we give him a transplant. After leaving the hospital, he goes straight to the bar. He ruins his liver and needs another transplant. Do we give it to him.

 

[Comprehend]

First, I would suggest research before making such claims. There has been alot of research that has shown time and time again a moderate amount of alcohol each day, such as a glass of red wine or a bottle of beer, is actually very beneficial to your health. As for drug users, it would depend. Meth and crank users, go ahead and tax them until they can't even afford there house payment. But, some drugs again, such as marijuana, have been shown to have pages of medical benefits. Even tobacco smokers. Anymore, I might smoke at a party if someone offers me a cigarette, but other than that, I do not smoke anymore. I do not see why I should pay extra taxes like someone who smokes a pack a day.

As far as fat people go, that would be impossible. Some people can eat very little, but will still be overweight due to a very low metabolism. While some people will be obese no matter what they do as there is an actual genetic disorder that causes people to be fat. It's not very common, but some people cannot help it if they are fat or not.

Even if you had a questionnaire of some sort to determine how much you have to pay for such a health system, it's rather easy to lie to get a lower rate. I use to smoke a pack a day, but as far as my health records go, I have never been a smoker.

LW - I would suggest paying attention to the questions before spouting off. As you can see, I said those were examples. It doesn't really matter if they really cause poor health or cost more money. It is just an example, if you don't think they cause poor health or cost more money, imagine some other example and then answer the question.

The example situation is just to help those with little imagination get an idea in their heads. Somehow, everyone is having trouble with the example. Maybe I should have left the examples out.

 

[Mathematician]

Let's see if I can step it up a notch. Queen Hillary is corinated and national healthcare is in place for everyone. Let's say a life time drunkard needs another liver and we give him a transplant. After leaving the hospital, he goes straight to the bar. He ruins his liver and needs another transplant. Do we give it to him.

Conservatives should be begging for Clinton to win. Next to Biden, Hillary has the most moderate plan of all the Democrats. She wants to have the government compete against private companies.

Yes, you give it to him. He's a human, not some animal that needs to prove his life's worth. People are sometimes stupid. That counts for all of us here, too. But your premise is a false one because it implies there are a lot of people who would feel pain and then continue their bad habits. Most people, when faced with something that terrible, will smart up regardless if it's "FREE" [I used quotes to avoid some huge controversy over taxation]. If he's that much of an alcoholic he needs secondary help.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

...What's to stop the government from deciding those who engage in premarital sex should have to pay higher insurance?

I think this is one of the strongest arguments AGAINST socialized medicine. Once you give the government control history has shown it will expand that control almost indefinitely.

Perhaps people will start getting taxed based on BMI. Maybe everyone will be required to undergo a physical on his birthday, and the results determine how much you'll pay for the next year.

Maybe they give you a choice...get tested for illicit drugs, get arrested if you test positive, OR you have ZERO health coverage.

Slippery slope...frog in the boiling water....take your pick.

 

[Bathsheba]

*sigh*

you are missing the point of the question. I am not advocating that we punish smokers and drinkers, they were simply an easy example. The question is whether it is proper for government to control behavior or tax higher for things that cost more.

It makes no difference what the activity is. If you would like to use families with a lot of kids as your example to help you think about the question, go ahead. That one works too.

I think I understood your point even without your reply explaining it.

I think you have asked a perfectly valid question. Reminds me of a debate I had in college regarding mandatory motorcycle helmet laws. I was in favor of the law because if some guy splatters his noodle on the pavement without wearing a brain bucket and then goes to the ER without insurance, the guy still gets the neurosurgeon but the tax payer foots the bill.

I was deliberately being cheeky in my post because you didn't want to make out with me .... kiss a greyhound - sheessssh! Plus, I thought it would be fun to consider an extreme extension of the idea that some habits should be curtailed due to cost. So you know, I was killing to birds with one stone ... the jilted wannabe lover and devils advocate (seems like a perfect job for me).


Side Note: I think these are very important questions and there needs to be a national debate about such concerns and god (or whatever deity one subscribes to) help us if we don't think about these things when creating policy. I worry that we are not keeping up with our ethical intelligence in relation to our medical/technological advances.

 

[Mathematician]

I think this is one of the strongest arguments AGAINST socialized medicine. Once you give the government control history has shown it will expand that control almost indefinitely.

Perhaps people will start getting taxed based on BMI. Maybe everyone will be required to undergo a physical on his birthday, and the results determine how much you'll pay for the next year.

Maybe they give you a choice...get tested for illicit drugs, get arrested if you test positive, OR you have ZERO health coverage.

Slippery slope...frog in the boiling water....take your pick.

Um, this hasn't happened ANYWHERE else with "socialized" health insurance. In fact, the only cases of intrusive programs are with PRIVATE ENTERPRISE -- or shall I call it capitalist medicine?

I'm calling this thread out as a scare tactic.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

No. Instead, I think the social medical system should do a LOT more in terms of preventative medicine. We don't do this now because medicine is a for-profit business. So the more sick people the better the business. But if medical care were socialized, it would make much more sense to prevent as much illness as possible. We can't do this by mandate, because this is supposed to be a free country. But we can do it by offering good preventive medical care, part of which will involve materials and methods to help people quit smoking, addiction recovery, help with diet and exercise, etc. It would also include information campaigns that discourage the use of nicotine and alcohol and poor diet.

What, you mean you don't have a QUIT Campaign and pictures of mouth cancer on your cigarette packets?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Let's see if I can step it up a notch. Queen Hillary is corinated and national healthcare is in place for everyone. Let's say a life time drunkard needs another liver and we give him a transplant. After leaving the hospital, he goes straight to the bar. He ruins his liver and needs another transplant. Do we give it to him.

He wouldn't necessarily get one in the first place. Transplant organs are handed out based on a huge number of factors, not least of which is the recipient's willingness to moderate any behaviour that may make the whole thing a waste of time.If you aren't willing to change your unhealthy behaviour, then you'll likely be deemed unsuitable as a transplant recipient.
Socialised healthcare doesn't automatically mean you throw a valuable resource like donor organs willy nilly at nitwits who refuse to help themselves.:sarcastic

 

[Reverend Rick]

I wonder how the Lord feels about calling in his sheep and we keep giving them new organs so they can live longer?

Just how much should we do to keep people alive? I would give my life to keep a child alive, but folks who have lived a long life should let nature take it course.

Of course I would give comfort and aid to older citizens, I just might think twice about running through a burning building however. A little kid would not require any though about it at all.

Am I making any sense?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

I wonder how the Lord feels about calling in his sheep and we keep giving them new organs so they can live longer?

Just how much should we do to keep people alive? I would give my life to keep a child alive, but folks who have lived a long life should let nature take it course.

Of course I would give comfort and aid to older citizens, I just might think twice about running through a burning building however. A little kid would not require any though about it at all.

Am I making any sense?

You may not think it would require any thought, but in the primitive back of your brain there's likely a rapid unthinking calculation going on as to the genetic benefit of risking your life for a random child.
As to what god thinks about organ transplants, I expect if he had any real objections he'd be perfectly capable of doing something about it. The simple fact of the matter though, is that the older you are the less likely you are to get donor organs. It's hard enough to get one when you're an otherwise reasonably healthy 35 year old with two young children, let alone when you're 'elderly'.
Like I said, lots of factors go into deciding who gets organs, age is one of them. It's actually the kids who are left wanting most, because a lot of people simply aren't willing to donate the organs of their children in the unfortunate event of their death, even if they're listed to donate their own.

 

[Comprehend]

Speak of the Devil...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2709161.ece

UK monitors weight of children and sends home warning letters. I don't know why you guys don't see the rational connection between socialized healthcare and controlling peoples habits.

You'll learn one way or the other I guess.

 

[Mathematician]

Speak of the Devil...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article2709161.ece

UK monitors weight of children and sends home warning letters. I don't know why you guys don't see the rational connection between socialized healthcare and controlling peoples habits.

You'll learn one way or the other I guess.

PRIVATE INSURANCE already does this. You're being purposively paranoid. Okay, so they're telling parents their kids are overweight. Are they being given an automotive? No.

 

[Bathsheba]

PRIVATE INSURANCE already does this. You're being purposively paranoid.

Right you are, I wonder if he can see the connection between "the sky is falling" and the steady march of the liberal empire.

 

[Comprehend]

PRIVATE INSURANCE already does this. You're being purposively paranoid. Okay, so they're telling parents their kids are overweight. Are they being given an automotive? No.

duh.

Private insurance does not have the power to force people to do things. A government does.

I am not being paranoid about anything. The UK REALLY is sending home letters. :bonk: I just relayed the news story that demonstrates the relationship.

 

[jamaesi]

I wonder how the Lord feels about calling in his sheep and we keep giving them new organs so they can live longer?

Just how much should we do to keep people alive? I would give my life to keep a child alive, but folks who have lived a long life should let nature take it course.

Of course I would give comfort and aid to older citizens, I just might think twice about running through a burning building however. A little kid would not require any though about it at all.

Am I making any sense?

Well, Rick, then why should we get treated for any illness?

"Cancer? God just wants you in heaven, nah, just die, we aren't going to treat you."