Should you get free healthcare if you can't work? What about those who made themselves sick?

[Audacious]

This is an interesting OP. Whether you support universal healthcare, or private healthcare, should there be a levy on those who deliberately contribute to their disease. The three top contributors being Obesity, smoking and alcoholism.

So you think people should be sicker, and possibly die, because they don't have the money to pay for their care... as long as they caused it themselves?

I don't see how that changes anything. They're still sick people who need help. (Also, smoking and alcoholism are both considered addictions, which are mental health issues.).

 

[Zoii]

So you think people should be sicker, and possibly die, because they don't have the money to pay for their care... as long as they caused it themselves?

I don't see how that changes anything. They're still sick people who need help. (Also, smoking and alcoholism are both considered addictions, which are mental health issues.).

Wow please step back before you reply and consider what your saying before you Fire. I raised a point that's worth discussing. If you support user pays via insurance, then in any other type of insurance you pay according to your risk. This means a healthy person who looks after themselves and never used the nations health dollar, doesnt end up paying for the sins of others. If you support universal health care then the tax levy you pay is a higher percentage it you have self induce health risks.

In these types of systems though, the poor don't pay... That is, if you can't pay then the rest of the population pick up the tab.

 

[szechuan]

Wow please step back before you reply and consider what your saying before you Fire. I raised a point that's worth discussing. If you support user pays via insurance, then in any other type of insurance you pay according to your risk. This means a healthy person who looks after themselves and never used the nations health dollar, doesnt end up paying for the sins of others. If you support universal health care then the tax levy you pay is a higher percentage it you have self induce health risks.

In these types of systems though, the poor don't pay... That is, if you can't pay then the rest of the population pick up the tab.

And this is the reason why people think Americans only care about nobody but themselves, because that's all they care about.

Sins of others?
Cancer Patients are the second leading cause of the Death
Self Induced "health risks" Yes some people do, but then again you don't know what goes on in there life and people do make mistakes, in fact plenty of people do.
You're going to forget about them just because they make mistakes in life and not let them have a chance to live?

 

[Audacious]

Wow please step back before you reply and consider what your saying before you Fire. I raised a point that's worth discussing. If you support user pays via insurance, then in any other type of insurance you pay according to your risk. This means a healthy person who looks after themselves and never used the nations health dollar, doesnt end up paying for the sins of others. If you support universal health care then the tax levy you pay is a higher percentage it you have self induce health risks.

In these types of systems though, the poor don't pay... That is, if you can't pay then the rest of the population pick up the tab.

I don't mind having a system that costs more if that means that it saves lives. What is money for, if it cannot do that?

 

[dogs4thewin]

Sorry it isn't in most countries. Good Health is not an Individual Choice whatsoever, did you forget Genetic Diseases? Cancer? rofl.

You two are BOTH right. Yes, sometimes people get sick despite their best efforts, BUT there ARE certain behaviors that are unhealthy and more likely to lead to illness and death.

 

[dogs4thewin]

So you think people should be sicker, and possibly die, because they don't have the money to pay for their care... as long as they caused it themselves?

I don't see how that changes anything. They're still sick people who need help. (Also, smoking and alcoholism are both considered addictions, which are mental health issues.).

Whether or not addictions are mental health issues depends on who you asks. I WILL say that some addictions like alcohol withdrawals can prove fatal if you do not do it under medical supervision.

 

[Zoii]

What are you talking about. Not let them live? Is that your suggestion or.... What on earth are you talking about.

 

[Zoii]

I don't mind having a system that costs more if that means that it saves lives. What is money for, if it cannot do that?

The ethical dilemma is who pays and to what extent. If i can afford health care and I'm a smoker, should my health insurance cost more?

 

[Zoii]

Most here argue that health is an entitlement and society should bear the burden. I think that's reasonable.

But we are viewing health care in such a confined way. I ve heard about people dying as a result of any paradigm other than total support for anyone who needs it.

So a few things to think about... What are our responsibilities in keeping ourselves healthy. Do you have a responsibility to me to ensure I'm kept healthy if I don't wish to do it for myself. If i am obese and wear out my hip joints, can I expect that you will pay for my hip replacements.

If I'm old will you pay for my aged care and if so to what extent can I expect the quality to be.

You see we are offering simplistic answers to a topic that is very complex especially when we talk health ethics and health economics.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Doctors are not Nutritionists, Nutritionists cost a lot of money more then going to see the doctor.

Their advice is free.

It's not a Cynical Ploy, you're talking about Healthy People living Unhealthy Lifestyles, I'm talking about Genetic Diseases and Cancer.

It would indeed be cynical if those giving advice know that few will follow it.

 

[bhsmte]

So unlike the other topic I wanted to create a different version. Instead of asking who should who basically should pay for the healthcare and why, I'm asking should anyone pay for someone elses healthcare if they cannot afford it or its to expensive? Or should we let them essentially die because they cannot afford to get healthcare? These questions also refer to the fact you cannot be turned down at an ER (at least in America) even if you have no insurance.

For me this hits close to home and yet is complex. In my case I am on medicaid. So as some call it, its a hand out since it costs me nothing and cost others their money. Now without medicaid I would have been dead long ago. Thats 100% accurate. Now we will skip the lengthy debates about if someone should or should not be on medicaid since many abuse the system to get on it (lazy or lying) since theres no easy fix for that.

So I think everyone should be get it because why would we punish people in my situation who would otherwise be dead. And obviously I think those who abuse the system should be removed from it. And if they refuse to work and essentially could die because they don't want to work and get healthcare, then thats not really our problem. Again referring to LAZY people who are 100% able to work but don't because they just don't want to.

However one thing that makes this complex is those who make themselves sick. For example I find way to often those who smoke their whole lives and end up dying of lung cancer, their bills end up being left behind and we all pay the price for those bills (so to speak). So if you are a smoker (even if you can work), then I think some healthcare should be limited. This is in cases where its 100% obvious that the person get sick from their own lifestyle.

I do realize though we would have to figure out the line of what exactly do we consider making ones self sick. For example if you had bad parents who took you to MCDonalds and caused you weight issues, heart issues...etc... then maybe that is not really your fault. Unless you continue to eat McDonalds every day as an adult who lives on your own. Then your choosing your own fate. Like I said, this is a gray/blurry line of "making yourself sick".

One fix to all of this talk of people getting free care is to simply make new laws that force companies, doctors, pharmaceutical labs....etc in the healthcare industry to NOT charge 10,000% higher prices for everything from pills to ER visits and so on. For example if you go to an ER you get nicked and dimed for everything. If you go to the bathroom its like $10 per square of toilet paper. Well ok not really but you get my drift.

My meds alone without medicaid are about $8,000 a year. And mind you I have taken myself off some of my meds (with my doctors consent) to not only save people money, but because I know meds may help me, but they also can make my body worse in the long run.

Another example is my friend who has been out of a job for a few years now, he went to a dentist with no insurance and got a deep cleaning and one tooth drilled out and it was replace with a fake tooth because the tooth was rotten. It cost him about 7k. Thats crazy. As I said the real answer to all this is changing laws. Then even the poor or those who cannot work can get free healthcare and it wouldn't cost anyone else very much either.

Health is likely, the number one ingredient, in the quality of life. Therefore, I believe any empathetic society should provide healthcare for all.

If someone who doesn't work murders someone, they are entitled to a lawyer that is provided to them, but law abiding citizens, are not entitled to healthcare.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is often the question posed by folks who are trying to find the "plot flaw" with the notion of universal/single-payer healthcare.

At it's foundation, yes, the concept of people making themselves sick via smoking/drinking/poor diet/lack of exercise, and then being included in the healthcare group seems unfair on the surface for those of us who don't make those personal lifestyle choices.

However, if one takes a step back and considers a pure, unbiased cost analysis, it comes down to a simple question. Do you really want to get the best care possible for the lowest price? Or do you want to pay an elevated rate in order to prove a point and send a message to people who you feel aren't worthy of being included?

That's basically what it comes down to...
You have a group of 10 people, 2 of which are unemployed fat smokers who don't exercise...

A) Only the 8 who contribute have coverage under 4 different insurance companies and each pay $200/month for the privilege.

B) All 10 are covered under one single-payer negotiator entity, and the 8 people who are working each pay $120/month in additional taxes, but that $200/month group health contribution goes away (IE: net savings of $80)


Which would you pick?

B is obviously the most cost effective option...however, a vast majority of republicans are picking A (to the delight of private insurance companies and providers who love to price gouge) in the name of "making sure that nobody gets a free ride" and "preserving small government".


I used to blindly back option A...that was until a few years ago when I finally sat down and spent some time really reading and researching the underlying cost aspects with respect to our system vs. other single-payer systems. It as then that I realized that even though I'm not necessarily keen on giving free handouts to people, when you boil it down, you're really choosing the following:

"Do I contribute $200/year to cover healthcare for people who haven't earned it, in order to secure a much lower price for myself?...or do I give the insurance companies and providers $1500/year in gouges for no other observable benefit other than keeping specific people out of the plan?"


Either way you go, you're giving a chuck of money to an entity who really didn't earn it, one via handout, the other via price gouge. ...and when it comes down to it, I'd rather give a $200/year handout to provide healthcare for people who didn't earn it in exchange for a much lower price for myself, rather than to give providers and insurance companies $1500/year in handouts (via overpaying) with no cost benefit for myself.

 

[Ringo84]

I think health care should be available to everyone, regardless of their health or financial status. It's appalling that in one of the richest country in the world, we're so beholden to big health care companies, and they to their shareholders, that we force the sick to pay through the nose for care.

Nobody should go into bankruptcy to pay for care. Nobody who is sick - whether it's from congenital issues or more preventable diseases like lung cancer - should have to pay through the nose in order to get the care or the medication that they need. I couldn't care less about these companies' precious bottom lines; I care about people being cared for in a compassionate, Christian way. We'll never have that under the for-profit health care model.

The ACA is far from perfect, but it's a step in the right direction (at least it was, before it started getting sabotaged by the current occupants of congress/the White House). We need to scrap the big health care companies altogether and going for a Medicare for all/single-payer system.
Ringo

 

[HannahT]

I just wish they could come up with something, and then put it out there without the rhetoric - you hate poor people, or you want people to DIE stuff. No one is listening to each other when the powers that be play those games while they sit pretty with decent coverage of their own. They have no incentive to really do anything, because it doesn't directly effect them. They are sitting pretty.

They would have to do something that addresses the higher costs, the lawsuits, the defensive practice of medicine - among other things to truly deal with this issue. They can't even sit down and be nice for a couple of hours, and we are expecting them to come out with some miracle plan? I just don't see that happening.

Our premium is higher than the mortgage payment, and that doesn't even include the deductibles, etc. Does the single payer address the defensive medicine practice? The Malpractice lawsuits - frivolous and legitimate? There are many dynamics that keep the costs high, and unless they address those? I can't see it getting better, and with the games that the politicians are playing? It's going to worse. It's no better in the private insurance company approach either.

Meanwhile, its to much fun to blame one party or the other. Its all the rage to call names, and make negative assumptions. What isn't popular is to grow up, and sit down to find something that fixes aspects of the system. If I hear one more politician tell us that they shouldn't have to, or they need to work with us - yet make make demands prior that are 'nonnegotiable'? I would love to stick those putzs - all of them - on medicaid until they find a way out. That will pop their beltway bubble into reality.

So far we have children's program - to help the poor. We have medicaid to help the poor adults, and others. Then we have medicare which helps with seniors, and my BIL who is disabled. I would assume he isn't the only one on medicare in that boat. Those are government healthcare options for many in those circumstances.

The politicians left the rest of us to duke it out for care. All of them should be ashamed. Every last one of them that have been in this system for a while - which is the majority.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Universal, single-payer health care is only possible if everyone in the healthcare business takes a huge pay cut, or everyone in the country pays much more in taxes. In either case it would require a drastic restructuring of the entire economy.

 

[Audacious]

Universal, single-payer health care is only possible if everyone in the healthcare business takes a huge pay cut, or everyone in the country pays much more in taxes. In either case it would require a drastic restructuring of the entire economy.

If you're going to pay for health care no matter what -- because it is a need -- then why not pay it through taxes?

Especially since reality has shown that it is both more efficient and cheaper. (See: how the US has the highest costs and worst results for health care in the advanced world.).

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If you're going to pay for health care no matter what -- because it is a need -- then why not pay it through taxes?

Especially since reality has shown that it is both more efficient and cheaper. (See: how the US has the highest costs and worst results for health care in the advanced world.).

It would mean free healthcare for the half of the population that doesn't pay taxes. I don't think the other half can afford that.

 

[Audacious]

It would mean free healthcare for the half of the population that doesn't pay taxes. I don't think the other half can afford that.

Everyone pays taxes; but not everyone pays income tax. These are very, very different things.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Everyone pays taxes; but not everyone pays income tax. These are very, very different things.

So there would be a separate tax to fund healthcare, like Medicare? I'm good with that. The problem is that the program would still need more money, which would of course be borrowed from general revenues: the income taxes, and also from SS taxes.

Oh wait, those taxes are based on income as well. And if all these separate taxes are combined* once they get to Washington what is the difference?

*Money flows from one program to another if not immediately needed.

 

[dogs4thewin]

If you're going to pay for health care no matter what -- because it is a need -- then why not pay it through taxes?

Especially since reality has shown that it is both more efficient and cheaper. (See: how the US has the highest costs and worst results for health care in the advanced world.).

What is a need about healthcare that is debatable. Do people need all the healthcare they claim to in other words.