Healthcare and Altruism

U

Uninformed

5,000+ Posts
I was filling up my tank this morning and I saw a common site: An overweight to obese woman got into her car and immediately lit up a cigarette. As new socialized medicine alternatives emerge, do you have a problem paying for people who basically don't give a damn about their own health? Basically, do you feel compelled to give money and services to people who don't care enough to take care of themselves? Do you consider the government altruistic and is there a limit to that altruism?

As an alternative, the entire premise of this thread could be wrong. Do you feel that many people don't know what is bad for them? Do we need new government programs to teach people what are right and wrong health choices? Do we need the government to help with those choices by taxing bad behaviors such as fast food consumption, fatty diets, oil/grease consumption, and cigarettes?
 
This seems to be something hard for a lot of people to wrap their heads around: you are already paying for it. Whether its medicare, unpaid ER bills being converted to $20 tylenol pills to those who can pay, or that same person in a company of 150 employees whose ins is twice that of some other 150 employee firm.
 
You are somewhat accurate in that we all pay for it EVENTUALLY. However, with ACA fat, smoking people will be filling up ER's and PCP offices wanting pills to keep them going.

Make no mistake about this. I respect your right and do not want the government restricting anyone's desire to spit out multiple children, smoke, or drink themselves into the poor house. Just do not ask me to subsidize it.
 
But you already are subsidizing it.

BTW, I dont see anything wrong with a system where these people have to pay more for their increased risk levels. People caught speeding or who already have accidents pay more for auto ins. Why cant docs issue lifestyle tickets?

And i'm not talking just about fat smokers who drink a lot. What about people who visit the ER a lot due to sports related injuries? Or clutzy people that like to fall down stairs? Or pehaps profession related risks? Stuntmen who break a lot of bones for example.
 
Totally agree. If we are going to national health insurance, rate people based upon lifestyle and make them pay much more.
 
do you have a problem paying for people who basically don't give a damn about their own health? Yes I do.

Basically, do you feel compelled to give money and services to people who don't care enough to take care of themselves? No I do not.

Do you consider the government altruistic No, it is not - it is tyrannical.
and is there a limit to that altruism? Not applicable

As an alternative, the entire premise of this thread could be wrong. Do you feel that many people don't know what is bad for them? Don't give a ****. If they are that dumb, too bad. Should have paid more attention while trapped in your government sponsored school for 12 years.

Do we need new government programs to teach people what are right and wrong health choices? Not at all.

Do we need the government to help with those choices by taxing bad behaviors such as fast food consumption, fatty diets, oil/grease consumption, and cigarettes? Absolutely not.
 
Thanks for the link. I've said similar things as the article when I've talked about prevention costs in general: I am mildly surprised that it applies to smoking and obesity, however. Both lead to long term illnesses that are long ranging. Smoking increases the incidence of heart and vascular diseases, lung diseases (such as bronchitis, pneumonia, emphysema, and COPD) and periodontitis and increase susceptibility to viral infections - Its effects are not limited to certain cancers. Obesity has similar wide ranging effects (heart disease and stroke, blindness, kidney disease, neuropathy, cancer and amputation) and treating diabetes can be extremely expensive. The average cost of treating a diabetic is 2.3X the cost of the average non-diabetic person.

It would be interesting to see if the study took every disease into consideration as well as the cost of medications and hospitalizations. Further, I am fairly confident it did not include the cost of missed days from work and decreased productivity. And the costs that are included are based on costs in the Netherlands which are different than the costs in the US.
 
Uninformed and SN,

This whole issue turns on whether ERs should be allowed to turn away fat smokers when they go to the ER with a heart attack and can't pay for their treatment. If they should be turned away and allowed to die without care, then Sangre's position makes sense. Why should we pay to take care of an idiot's foolish living?

However, unless you are going to let the guy die without care, I think it's reasonable to look at ways to manage the risk, including making the irresponsible people pay for the cost of their care over the long term - perhaps through a tax on their activity. Ideologically, I hate that. However, right now the individual taxpayers through Medicare and Medicaid and of course, ER doctors and hospitals take it in the shorts for these people (at least if they're uninsured). In other words, the responsible people are paying the price. I think that's pretty unfair. I'm not saying I'm sold on taxing the behavior, but I do see some merit to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top