Should The Overweight And Smokers Be Denied Treatment For Ill Health

[Castiel233]

Thoughts?

[Bhim]

Initial thoughts: I'm not a Christian anymore, so I'm not going to feign compassion for people I don't care about.

 

Deeper thoughts: It's probably untenable to construct a society that doesn't offer some sort of safety net to people who become victims of their own foolishness. I do, however, believe in making that safety net as minimal as possible (i.e. I don't want to pay high taxes, given my aforementioned apathy for these people). Currently the US healthcare system is funded by the insurance industry, and the basic premise of insurance is that insurers charge people based on risk. So what they should be denied is coverage, not treatment. Ideally I'd like to see a national healthcare system. But as long as we're stuck with an insurance-based healthcare system, I do agree that smokers and the overweight should face additional charges. And I don't believe in allowances for the poor. The issues you've brought up are largely self-inflicted as opposed to pre-existing conditions (by "weight" I assume you mean general healthfulness, not genetic propensity for obesity). If you are poor and have a hard time paying insurance premiums, let it be an incentive to put down the cigarette and only consume half of the burger you order from the McDonald's dollar menu.

[florduh]

Smokers here already pay higher premiums. People who eat shitty diets, are alcoholic, get fat, never exercise, are addicted to prescription medications or heroin are staying under Nanny's radar so far.

[LogicalFallacy]

In my country yes!

 

Well, I think they should pay, and be on the bottom of waiting lists.

 

But one caveat - if the obesity can be linked to a medical condition in which it's near impossible to help themselves then they should get full benefits of our system.

 

(Note in NZ the taxpayer pays for much of healthcare so its free. We have a high smoker rate and a high obesity rate that chews up funds that could be saving cancer patients hence my harsh position)

 

If you smoke, do drugs, drink yourself to oblivion then too bad you should face the consequences. I'm not going to stop you from being an idiot, if you want to kill yourself slowly then fine, but don't then suck up healthcare that could be helping a person ill through no fault of their own.

 

Am I too harsh?

[Geezer]

No, denying medical treatment to anyone is unthinkable.

[Mike D]

No.

 

At some point we're all going to get sick and/or die regardless of our diet or habits, so does it really matter who does or did what, or their consequences?   Researchers can't even agree if 1 cup of coffee a day is going to kill you, or benefit you as an antioxidant.  Clearly the data supports that certain behaviors contribute to poor health, but who's going to dictate which behaviors and their frequency to disqualify treatment? If I don't smoke or eat bad, but I drink regularly and get no exercise, I might get cancer before someone who weighs 400 lbs and smokes like a chimney.  So then what?

 

From a cost perspective, unhealthy people generally die before people who are healthy, and dead people stay dead for free.  Healthy people who age and get sick become a financial burden eventually.  So what do we do with those people - shoot them in the head?

[florduh]

Carson to George Burns: At 93 doesn't your doctor have something to say about your smoking?

 

Burns: My doctor is dead.

[Daffodil]

How many of you drink too much sometimes? Ride motorcycles without a helmet (or even with a helmet)? Own trampolines? Go hiking in the woods by yourself? Drive over the speed limit? All of these things have killed people or severely harmed them. All of them could have been avoided. We all do things that other people might think are dangerous or at least foolhardy. That's a very slippery slope.

[florduh]

Let's include those who eat raw eggs, under cooked meats and unwashed vegetables. Those who drink unpasteurized milk, refuse vaccinations, get a suntan. Fuck, where does it end?

[LogicalFallacy]

Good points all, and I certainly see the side of the argument about not distinguishing healthcare, and comparing it to other activities that humans do that require healthcare.

 

However, I think we can distinguish from the odd dangerous behaviour or not washing fruit etc to the intentional intake of a known harmful substance though? I get what people are saying about where to draw the line, but to my mind there is a clearly distinguishable line with the likes of smoking where you can see the societal benefit is... not much, but the known harmful effects is massive.

 

Smoking doesn't just impact the person smoking - it affects all in inhalation range. There is new research out showing that smoke inhalation causes irreparable damage on the DNA level.

 

I would say with research like this coming out, and the known harmful effects on the wider society that there are good grounds for banning smoking. Probably will never be done though, which leaves the tax payers to pick up the tab.

 

Society has taken steps to mitigate damage in NZ by banning smoking in public places, but here is nothing to stop a mother smoking in the car with kids in the back. Something to think about. The rights of one person to smoke vs the rights of others to live without having to inhale others harmful substances.

[florduh]

Zealots. Not just in religions anymore.

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/secondhand-smoke-charade

[Mike D]

However, I think we can distinguish from the odd dangerous behaviour or not washing fruit etc to the intentional intake of a known harmful substance though? I get what people are saying about where to draw the line, but to my mind there is a clearly distinguishable line with the likes of smoking where you can see the societal benefit is... not much, but the known harmful effects is massive.

 

Well then what about alcohol?  The same case could be made, yet humans have been drinking alcohol all throughout history.  In fact at times in history humans couldn't drink anything but alcohol because clean drinking water wasn't available.

 

There is a lot of evidence now to suggest that sugar is toxic.  In fact I have read articles that call it the "new heroin".  So shall we ban sugar now, or deny healthcare to those who ingest it?

 

Bottom line is we are people and people do stupid shit.  Knowingly.  It's unfortunate that many things in life that give us a "high" or an escape from the misery of existence can cause us damage, but that's the way things are.  If you ban it, we'll figure out a way to get it whether it's legal or not.  Guaranteed.

[florduh]

Agreed. We do stupid shit and sometimes we don't even know it's stupid shit. Hell, we used to be told by our government that eliminating fat and eating more grains was a good thing, and that just got us an epidemic of obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

[Daffodil]

Agreed. We do stupid shit and sometimes we don't even know it's stupid shit. Hell, we used to be told by our government that eliminating fat and eating more grains was a good thing, and that just got us an epidemic of obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

That's just what I was thinking. A lot of the people who are clinically obese are that way at least partially because of government health guidelines. Diabetes specialists STILL tell people to eat a high fiber/high grain diet to treat diabetes, despite the clear evidence that they need a high fat/low carb diet. Can't really fault them for following their "specialist's" recommendations!

[sdelsolray]

Let's include those who eat raw eggs, under cooked meats and unwashed vegetables. Those who drink unpasteurized milk, refuse vaccinations, get a suntan. Fuck, where does it end?

 

 

Let's not stop there.  Add thought crimes (they must damage of body somehow), or too much sex (compared to someone's standard), engaging is stressful activities (having children, risking capital in a entrepreneurship) or being a whinny-ass (such as attempting to exclude people from health care because they smoke or drink).

 

Of course, there are folks that breathe more per minute than others.  They consume more oxygen.  Let's charge them for it.

 

There are those that were lazy in school and didn't learn as much as they "should" have learned.  No help for them, the little freeloaders.

[sdelsolray]

Good points all, and I certainly see the side of the argument about not distinguishing healthcare, and comparing it to other activities that humans do that require healthcare.

 

However, I think we can distinguish from the odd dangerous behaviour or not washing fruit etc to the intentional intake of a known harmful substance though? I get what people are saying about where to draw the line, but to my mind there is a clearly distinguishable line with the likes of smoking where you can see the societal benefit is... not much, but the known harmful effects is massive.

 

Smoking doesn't just impact the person smoking - it affects all in inhalation range. There is new research out showing that smoke inhalation causes irreparable damage on the DNA level.

 

I would say with research like this coming out, and the known harmful effects on the wider society that there are good grounds for banning smoking. Probably will never be done though, which leaves the tax payers to pick up the tab.

 

Society has taken steps to mitigate damage in NZ by banning smoking in public places, but here is nothing to stop a mother smoking in the car with kids in the back. Something to think about. The rights of one person to smoke vs the rights of others to live without having to inhale others harmful substances.

 

 

You angry?  If so, anger in excess causes health problems.  Perhaps that's a reason to exclude you from society, I mean health care.

[LogicalFallacy]

Well this is disappointing.

 

I actually try and have a sensible discussion, I don't resort to name calling or labelling, and try to reason out my thoughts of why I hold the opinion I do. I even acknowledge that I can see the problems with my argument.

 

And what do some here do? The best they can do, instead of providing a reasoned argument, is resort to labels and name calling. Well done. Very mature. I am interested in your reasoned opinion, I'm not interested in name calling or labelling as it does nothing to further a discussion.

 

sdelsolray - No I'm not angry in regards to smoking. I am trying to think from a wider benefit/harm to society. If you think my post reads as angry then perhaps you need to re read it? Do you see me being angry? I am merely asking some hard questions and suggesting there is possibly justification for banning smoking. Instead of calling me a whinny ass why don't you provide some counter research like florduh did and contribute to the discussion?

 

Mike: Yeah good points. Alcohol I am less sure about which is why I haven't focused on it, and for similar reasons haven't spoken too much about obesity. They are difficult issues. I must admit to getting peeved every time I hear of a drunk driver wiping out some innocents while surving the crash though. Sugar - yep the bitch of all addictive substances. We have a real first world problem here in that sugar is in nearly everything. So while I can avoid smoking by... not smoking, it is very difficult to avoid sugar in our diet. We can try to cut back though. However if one drinks 2 litres of coke a day one is bound to get diabetes and thus strain the system (I know my grandfather did that and now he's diabetic and getting worse.) So again a kind of argument that you abused a substance and now you are sick... should he pay for his own care? Very difficult all round.

 

I will now repeat the first line in my post which seems to have hit a few nerves:

 

Good points all, and I certainly see the side of the argument about not distinguishing healthcare, and comparing it to other activities that humans do that require healthcare.

 

Thanks

 

LF

[Margee]

Go into the drugstore. Can't buy smokes no more. You gotta go way up the street for your smokes. BUT. You can buy lots and lots and lots of sugar at the drugstore. Junk-food galore. And they are calling sugar the new heroin? Not to mention the disastrous amount of deaths that are caused by pharmaceuticals in the world. Take enough Tylenol and it can eventually kill you. Then step outside to your left and walk into the wide open liquor store and fill your boots. Drink away and kill a few people on your way home. Wreck havoc on everyone's life around you  and ruin relationships and your own life and others with the drink. Heartbreak alone is enough to land one in the hospital. Heartbreak causes lots and lots of horrible stress.  Some people commit suicide because of heartbreak.

 

 

All of it drives me nuts......We want a 'Steppford' world?

 

I'm so glad I'm old...... and cranky....

[LogicalFallacy]

Margee - so should society find a way, or come to the point, where people need to think of a wider responsibility to others? Example if I do X then Y could likely happen therefore I shouldn't do it? We wouldn't want to legislate such because that would be trying to control others actions. Rather possibly higher levels of health education coupled with taking personal responsibility for ones actions and behaviours?

 

I'm possibly exceeding the topic and the forum its in here... possibly going into ethical/moral philosophy.

[Margee]

We mustn't forget about the texting on the roads now (or taking 'selfies') that cause many to die or land in the hospital where they will now need years and years of physical therapy because their body is broken.

 

 

Should the 'texter' have high insurance like the smoker?

 

 

The list really doesn't end does it? It really doesn't......

[Mike D]

We mustn't forget about the texting on the roads now (or taking 'selfies') that cause many to die or land in the hospital where they will now need years and years of physical therapy because their body is broken.

 

 

Should the 'texter' have high insurance like the smoker?

 

 

The list really doesn't end does it? It really doesn't......

 

Snapchat now has a speed filter, which measures how fast you are traveling when you take a selfie.  Kids are now risking their lives (and everyone else on the road) driving 100+ mph while taking selfies to get bragging rights.   It's like being drunk, stoned AND texting all while driving 

[Margee]

Margee - so should society find a way, or come to the point, where people need to think of a wider responsibility to others? . Example if I do X then Y could likely happen therefore I shouldn't do it? We wouldn't want to legislate such because that would be trying to control others actions. Rather possibly higher levels of health education coupled with taking personal responsibility for ones actions and behaviours?

 

I'm possibly exceeding the topic and the forum its in here... possibly going into ethical/moral philosophy.

 

Won't happen hon cause we are the stupid human animal. We've always done what we wanted to. Humans are too self centered. If you are one of the ones that have great control over all your 'habit's, I say power to you sweetie. But the majority of people that I know - don't. They all seem to have one thing that could take them to an early grave.  And they don't really care who they hurt. That's why it's no good to threaten people with, ''if you do this, I'll leave''. People do not like to be or feel controlled. I think health education would be a big help but what the hell are they going to teach? Half the internet will tell you to stick to the old standard of diet (with their scientific evidence) and now many are doing high fat and low carb. (because of their scientific evidence) And that's just one example of a topic.

 

What to teach these dear children when there are soooooo many opinions? I don't know the answer. And yes, everyone must suffer the consequences of their behavior. I know I do.

 

It may be about morals I think. That definitely has something to do with it....

[Margee]

By the way LF, this is an excellent topic of discussion. But then again....all you're going to get is everyone's opinion and you know what they say about opinions? 

[LogicalFallacy]

"and you know what they say about opinions?" Take them with a grain of salt?

True, mind you at least two of us have cited research for opposing views... but then it all comes back down to opinion as to what side you believe... which bring us full circle

Reminds me of something Peter Hitchens said which was quite powerful: "What we are discussing here is a matter of opinion, and a matter of opinion is a matter of choice" (In reference to does God exist, but applies equally well to many topics.)

[Margee]

"and you know what they say about opinions?" Take them with a grain of salt?

 

True, mind you at least two of us have cited research for opposing views... but then it all comes back down to opinion as to what side you believe... which bring us full circle

 

Reminds me of something Peter Hitchens said which was quite powerful: "What we are discussing here is a matter of opinion, and a matter of opinion is a matter of choice" (In reference to does God exist, but applies equally well to many topics.)

 

 

You'll have to forgive my outburst on opinions right now after the election. I'm burnt out from 'opinions.

 

I might even go eat a whole quart of ice-cream tonight and blow smoke in your face....cause I'm sooooo cranky.......

 

((hug))