Current Events > would you be ok with universal healthcare....

(+) Yeah! (+)

if smokers/fatties/druggies/illegals were banned?

IE if someone receives government-paid care and theyre fat, they become obligated to demonstrate improvement in their health by regular exercising otherwise theyre cut off from additional help and they need to pay back what they already consumed

and if theyre illegal we levy sanctions on their home country until we get back the cost of care/deportation/interest

etc

IE universal care for people who truly need it and who arent being an undue burden on the system

Shut the fuck up proddy
---

I'm suddenly less ok with it.
---

wtf why toasty

hockeybub89 posted...

I'm suddenly less ok with it.

why

Why don't we start with country wide healthcare and work our way up to universal.
---

No, I wouldn't support a system like that
---

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

---

ThyCorndog posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

Reminder that Proudclad benefited from a social assistance program as a child.
---

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Reminder that Proudclad benefited from a social assistance program as a child.

i did, and ive more than paid that back and then some. how is this relevant?

fluffygerm is proudclad???
---

Fishy posted...

fluffygerm is proudclad???

i am

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

I mean, generally putting restrictions like this(at least on US residents, let's not get into the immigrants part of it yet) is not really universal health Care since you're having some form of means testing right?

Also I'm curious, once they're kicked off the program, do they still need to provide future taxes to the program as well as pay back "used" expenses?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

there's just so many reasons why the government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against their populace. it would be a lot to get into but I'm sure you understand why it's not a great idea. like imagine if sanitation ignored "bad neighborhoods" and said they should clean up their own trash
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Reminder that Proudclad benefited from a social assistance program as a child.

i did, and ive more than paid that back and then some. how is this relevant?

It highlights the irony in your criticism of such programs.
---

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

I mean, generally putting restrictions like this(at least on US residents, let's not get into the immigrants part of it yet) is not really universal health Care since you're having some form of means testing right?

Also I'm curious, once they're kicked off the program, do they still need to provide future taxes to the program as well as pay back "used" expenses?

Yeah I'd expect you always contribute taxes, just like how your income tax goes to things you don't use.

And we can call it something else then. But the point was - would you support a system where people who need it receive it, as long as they're not being a wasteful/destructive?

Should someone who smokes cigarettes be allowed a blank check for healthcare funded by others?

ThyCorndog posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

ThyCorndog posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

there's just so many reasons why the government shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against their populace. it would be a lot to get into but I'm sure you understand why it's not a great idea. like imagine if sanitation ignored "bad neighborhoods" and said they should clean up their own trash

So smokers should be given a blank check for access to government healthcare?

DarkChozoGhost posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Reminder that Proudclad benefited from a social assistance program as a child.

i did, and ive more than paid that back and then some. how is this relevant?

It highlights the irony in your criticism of such programs.

there is no irony there. ive always supported programs like the one that helped me. youre just trying to be a bitterbeard.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

I mean, generally putting restrictions like this(at least on US residents, let's not get into the immigrants part of it yet) is not really universal health Care since you're having some form of means testing right?

Also I'm curious, once they're kicked off the program, do they still need to provide future taxes to the program as well as pay back "used" expenses?

Yeah I'd expect you always contribute taxes, just like how your income tax goes to things you don't use.

And we can call it something else then. But the point was - would you support a system where people who need it receive it, as long as they're not being a wasteful/destructive?

Should someone who smokes cigarettes be allowed a blank check for healthcare funded by others?

Ideologically, I want to say yes because if we're at the point where we can provide good universal healthcare, it seems petty to put restrictions like that on it.

But let's say I'm not being idealogical. How much more of a resource drain is it too cover those people versus not cover them? Are we doing this because of lack of resources or because of some emotional appeal?
---

only if they put universal in quotes to sell the sarcasm
---

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

emblem boy posted...

No, I wouldn't support a system like that

why not

I mean, generally putting restrictions like this(at least on US residents, let's not get into the immigrants part of it yet) is not really universal health Care since you're having some form of means testing right?

Also I'm curious, once they're kicked off the program, do they still need to provide future taxes to the program as well as pay back "used" expenses?

Yeah I'd expect you always contribute taxes, just like how your income tax goes to things you don't use.

And we can call it something else then. But the point was - would you support a system where people who need it receive it, as long as they're not being a wasteful/destructive?

Should someone who smokes cigarettes be allowed a blank check for healthcare funded by others?

Ideologically, I want to say yes because if we're at the point where we can provide good universal healthcare, it seems petty to put restrictions like that on it.

But let's say I'm not being idealogical. How much more of a resource drain is it too cover those people versus not cover them? Are we doing this because of lack of resources or because of some emotional appeal?

it's entirely about resources. we have limited personnel, raw materials, facilities, time, etc.

obese people and alcoholics/smokers represent a significant portion of the total costs of healthcare in this country.

http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-facts/economic-costs-of-obesity/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcare-costs-smoking-idUSKBN0JX2BE20141219

I don't have numbers on hand wrt alcoholics but I imagine that number is also astronomical if we include car accidents.

In other words, a huge chunk of our spending is because of these vices. I think that a healthcare system that treats the consequences but not the root of the issue is not a real healthcare system, and we shouldn't go broke trying to finance that. If we're going to implement a government-sponsored healthcare system rather than a private one, we should be wise about these things.

I mean I'd be totally happy to contribute 10% more in taxes if it meant that everyone can get treatment they need, and if it also meant that we aren't giving people a free pass to weigh the system down for everyone else.

Someone who insists on eating doughnuts and smoking cigarettes nonstop should not be allowed the same amount of resources from a publicly funded system as a couple that doesn't make enough money to pay a doctor when their kid is sick.

i have absolutely no clue how someone can pay a medical bill and then think that what we have now is the best system available
---

Romulox28 posted...

i have absolutely no clue how someone can pay a medical bill and then think that what we have now is the best system available

Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this conversation.

And you realize that going to the dentist for a check-up is...what, $50? $100? Most people aren't going to cry about that.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

if smokers/fatties/druggies/illegals were banned?

All of those people die sooner, and save costs over the long-term.

It's cheaper to get cancer and die around 50, than it is to live out to 100 with all its associated geriatric conditions.

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

if smokers/fatties/druggies/illegals were banned?

All of those people die sooner, and save costs over the long-term.

It's cheaper to get cancer and die around 50, than it is to live out to 100 with all its associated geriatric conditions.

These are the yearly costs of smoking and obesity in this country.

http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-facts/economic-costs-of-obesity/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcare-costs-smoking-idUSKBN0JX2BE20141219

Drugs and alcohol are definitely contributing more. Could prolly just look that up yourself.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

DarkChozoGhost posted...

Reminder that Proudclad benefited from a social assistance program as a child.

i did, and ive more than paid that back and then some. how is this relevant?

It highlights the irony in your criticism of such programs.

there is no irony there. ive always supported programs like the one that helped me. youre just trying to be a bitterbeard.

So why are you against programs that help other people.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romulox28 posted...

i have absolutely no clue how someone can pay a medical bill and then think that what we have now is the best system available

Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this conversation.

And you realize that going to the dentist for a check-up is...what, $50? $100? Most people aren't going to cry about that.

anecdote: i went to a specialist a while back because i was having a medical issue and was worried it was something serious.

i walked into the office, i said hi to the doctor, he said hi back, he asked whats wrong, i briefly described my symptoms, he said "ok, im going to schedule a CT scan for you", I said thanks, he left the room and then I left to go check out with the person at the front desk. All in all, maybe 2 minute conversation.

I get a bill next week, that was $600 for a 2 minute visit. I get the CT scan, and I forgot how much this was, but altogether with the scan and doctor's visit I was paying around $1600 for this procedure.

My insurance covered the majority of it and I paid like $400 out of pocket. But imagine I am someone who does not have insurance, and money is tight. What would I do? In my case, not go to the doctor, because I can't swing $1.6k for preventative treatment.

That's all a lack of universal healthcare will do, it will just make people who can't swing it with insurance put off medical treatments until it's so bad that they have to go to the ER and it's too late.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

These are the yearly costs of smoking and obesity in this country.

http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-facts/economic-costs-of-obesity/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcare-costs-smoking-idUSKBN0JX2BE20141219

Drugs and alcohol are definitely contributing more. Could prolly just look that up yourself.

I trust those about as much as I trust the annual "economic costs of the super bowl" articles.

A bit harsh. I wouldn't ask for payback for example. Yet since we aren't in the post scarcity world proponents of UHC seem to think we're in, it's an idea that would have to happen at some point. It's no different than any other budget: if you want to have the money for needed service A, you can't waste the money on service B if it can be prevented in a more affordable fashion. The current costs for obesity illness alone are estimated at 200 billion dollars per year. The annual costs for cancer treatment were half of that in 2014.
---

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romulox28 posted...

i have absolutely no clue how someone can pay a medical bill and then think that what we have now is the best system available

Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to this conversation.

And you realize that going to the dentist for a check-up is...what, $50? $100? Most people aren't going to cry about that.

anecdote: i went to a specialist a while back because i was having a medical issue and was worried it was something serious.

i walked into the office, i said hi to the doctor, he said hi back, he asked whats wrong, i briefly described my symptoms, he said "ok, im going to schedule a CT scan for you", I said thanks, he left the room and then I left to go check out with the person at the front desk. All in all, maybe 2 minute conversation.

I get a bill next week, that was $600 for a 2 minute visit. I get the CT scan, and I forgot how much this was, but altogether with the scan and doctor's visit I was paying around $1600 for this procedure.

My insurance covered the majority of it and I paid like $400 out of pocket. But imagine I am someone who does not have insurance, and money is tight. What would I do? In my case, not go to the doctor, because I can't swing $1.6k for preventative treatment.

That's all a lack of universal healthcare will do, it will just make people who can't swing it with insurance put off medical treatments until it's so bad that they have to go to the ER and it's too late.

Anecdote: I used to not have insurance. I paid about the same for treatment. Doctors bill more when you have insurance, because they know they can make more off of you. They tend to bill enough so that you'd get charged about what you'd have paid otherwise.

lightwarrior78 posted...

A bit harsh. I wouldn't ask for payback for example. Yet since we aren't in the post scarcity world proponents of UHC seem to think we're in, it's an idea that would have to happen at some point. It's no different than any other budget: if you want to have the money for needed service A, you can't waste the money on service B if it can be prevented in a more affordable fashion. The current costs for obesity illness alone are estimated at 200 billion dollars per year. The annual costs for cancer treatment were half of that in 2014.

Exactly. The point is that we have limited resources and we need to provide healthcare, not just treatment for symptoms. It's not meaningfully healthcare if we aren't fixing the problem. And thinking otherwise just incentivizes the formation of a sort of super-corporation medical industry that is propped up by a blank check from government.

I'd be against it personally.

For starters, exactly what healthcare would be denied? Routine healthcare (e.g. doctor's appointments, medication, outpatient care, etc.) and/or emergency healthcare? The latter would be terribly unfair, particularly if the required healthcare is nothing to do with their lifestyle (like car crash injuries). Even if it's just the former, the risk would be that you're cutting people off for things that aren't to do with their lifestyle. It's pretty difficult to determine where to draw the line without there being any situations like this.

I think it's quite wrong morally too, in that you're potentially causing people misery and/or even death (well, not causing, but you know what I mean), regardless of their lifestyle situation. Maybe it's their fault, maybe it's not, but ultimately, if someone is able to be helped but they're being denied that, I'm a bit uncomfortable with it.

The help could come in the form of helping them control their weight, smoking habit, drinking habit, etc. too, as well as prevention programmes and the like.

Also, there'd be increased costs of administration if you did this. Obviously the savings would probably outweigh that, but I'd rather a bit extra was spent on care than spent on pencil pushing essentially.

Not to mention that these vices are going to cost money anyway, regardless of what system you have. I mean, these costs you're quoting are with the *current* system (and were probably similarly large before Obamacare). May as well spend a bit trying to mitigate those costs.

Plus, I'm used to the NHS here in the UK. It has its issues, sure (as healthcare in all countries does), but I think it does a lot of good, even considering what it costs.

I understand the thinking that if people get their healthcare paid for, they have no (or less) incentive to lose weight, quit smoking, etc. However, I'd argue that there are other incentives there, obviously for their own health, their family, the costs to them (not just for healthcare), their ability to work, and so on.

Congratulations on pointing out the biggest problem with universal health care in the OP, TC.
---

luigi13579 posted...

For starters, exactly what healthcare would be denied?

Government-sponsored care. They'd be responsible for paying for it themselves.

luigi13579 posted...

I think it's quite wrong morally too, in that you're potentially causing people misery and/or even death, regardless of their lifestyle situation.

If that is immoral, what about paying for a smoker's lung treatments even though they refuse to smoke? That's extremely immoral, because it's keeping that treatment from going to someone who doesn't smoke.

luigi13579 posted...

The help could come in the form of helping them control their weight, smoking habit, drinking habit, etc. too, as well as prevention programmes and the like.

Right, and I'm saying that we need to enforce prevention.

luigi13579 posted...

Also, there'd be increased costs of administration if you did this. Obviously the savings would probably outweigh that, but I'd rather a bit extra was spent on care than less spent on pencil pushing essentially.

The administration overhead would be a fraction of the huge costs of treating obesity and the like.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Anecdote: I used to not have insurance. I paid about the same for treatment. Doctors bill more when you have insurance, because they know they can make more off of you. They tend to bill enough so that you'd get charged about what you'd have paid otherwise.

you're still going to ultimately end up getting saddled with huge medical bills, 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills. i dont think being poor and uninsured is a secret way to get whatever medical treatment you want on the cheap, and then dont get me started on the costs of pills
---

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Anecdote: I used to not have insurance. I paid about the same for treatment. Doctors bill more when you have insurance, because they know they can make more off of you. They tend to bill enough so that you'd get charged about what you'd have paid otherwise.

you're still going to ultimately end up getting saddled with huge medical bills, 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills.

And we also have a huge problem with consumer debt, so I'm not convinced on that point. I think if people were more prudent with their cash rather than financing brand new vehicles and buying a new iPhone every year, we'd have less of that.

Most people don't save anything, even though the median household income is what, $55,000? We have a spending problem that aggravates other problems like healthcare bankruptcy. Not saying healthcare is cheap, but I definitely think there's more to it than just that.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

In other words, a huge chunk of our spending is because of these vices. I think that a healthcare system that treats the consequences but not the root of the issue is not a real healthcare system, and we shouldn't go broke trying to finance that. If we're going to implement a government-sponsored healthcare system rather than a private one, we should be wise about these things.

I mean, we can do both.

FLUFFYGERM posted...

it's entirely about resources. we have limited personnel, raw materials, facilities, time, etc.

obese people and alcoholics/smokers represent a significant portion of the total costs of healthcare in this country.

http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-facts/economic-costs-of-obesity/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcare-costs-smoking-idUSKBN0JX2BE20141219

I don't have numbers on hand wrt alcoholics but I imagine that number is also astronomical if we include car accidents.

True, I get what you're saying, but I'd need to look at the numbers more. @Balrog0
---

How would any of this be enforced.

So an obese dude has a heart attack and gets surgery to save him. The doctors then have to monitor him after the surgery to make sure he loses weight otherwise he'll have to pay for the surgery? How long for? A year? This is where you want resources to go?

This seems silly. If you want to encourage healthy eating and weight loss the focus should be on everyone. Not just sick people.
---

Questionmarktarius posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

These are the yearly costs of smoking and obesity in this country.

http://www.healthycommunitieshealthyfuture.org/learn-the-facts/economic-costs-of-obesity/
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healthcare-costs-smoking-idUSKBN0JX2BE20141219

Drugs and alcohol are definitely contributing more. Could prolly just look that up yourself.

I trust those about as much as I trust the annual "economic costs of the super bowl" articles.

Why's that?
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Anecdote: I used to not have insurance. I paid about the same for treatment. Doctors bill more when you have insurance, because they know they can make more off of you. They tend to bill enough so that you'd get charged about what you'd have paid otherwise.

you're still going to ultimately end up getting saddled with huge medical bills, 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills.

And we also have a huge problem with consumer debt, so I'm not convinced on that point. I think if people were more prudent with their cash rather than financing brand new vehicles and buying a new iPhone every year, we'd have less of that.

Most people don't save anything, even though the median household income is what, $55,000? We have a spending problem that aggravates other problems like healthcare bankruptcy. Not saying healthcare is cheap, but I definitely think there's more to it than just that.

my father had a heart attack at age 40 due to bad genetics, his surgery & associated medical bills amounted to over $100k. i dont think "being more prudent with their cash" is going to allow the majority of americans to pay for shit like this
---

emblem boy posted...

Why's that?

Because, it's all "estimated".
The smoking one at least tries, then admits it didn't try hard enough:

The true cost of tobacco use may be even higher, Xu said. His study didnt include medical costs linked to other tobacco products like cigars and chewing tobacco.

Yes, but only with regards to extreme cases, like obesity or severe drug addiction.
---

No... Everyone deserves the right to medical care. We mustn't allow ourselves to be swayed by tribalistic thinking, withholding human empathy from our brothers and sisters, no matter how they may have sinned in life.

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Romulox28 posted...

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Anecdote: I used to not have insurance. I paid about the same for treatment. Doctors bill more when you have insurance, because they know they can make more off of you. They tend to bill enough so that you'd get charged about what you'd have paid otherwise.

you're still going to ultimately end up getting saddled with huge medical bills, 60% of bankruptcies in the US are because of medical bills.

And we also have a huge problem with consumer debt, so I'm not convinced on that point. I think if people were more prudent with their cash rather than financing brand new vehicles and buying a new iPhone every year, we'd have less of that.

Most people don't save anything, even though the median household income is what, $55,000? We have a spending problem that aggravates other problems like healthcare bankruptcy. Not saying healthcare is cheap, but I definitely think there's more to it than just that.

my father had a heart attack at age 40 due to bad genetics, his surgery & associated medical bills amounted to over $100k. i dont think "being more prudent with their cash" is going to allow the majority of americans to pay for shit like this

lol I didn't think anyone would actually be swayed by that cell phone vs healthcare argument a while back but then here comes proudy.
---

when it comes to obesity its very difficult to enforce something that doesnt hurt their individual rights or other non-obese people. the best thing you can really do is try to motivate people to change themselves. make their health more obvious and show what they are doing to themselves or others and the risks, maybe setup exercise programs at gyms for free or heavily reduced prices. at the end of the day tho its going to come down to the individual.

when it comes to cigs, other tobacco products and alcohol its fairly easy- tax the shit out of them and raise the prices. not banning them, but atleast make people have to save up more to indulge and not as frequently. youl still get bootleggers and black market setups, but most would think twice when a pack of cigarettes are $20 or a beer is $10.

then we can focus on universal healthcare.
---

How about you get a decent healthcare system THEN get try to cut down on costs due to bad health education and lack of regulation in the food industry? seems kinda pathetic to shiver at the idea that your few tax dollars might be used to treat a fat lady's diabetes.

Dark_Spiret posted...

when it comes to cigs, other tobacco products and alcohol its fairly easy- tax the shit out of them and raise the prices.

Why not do the same to junk food in this scenario
---