Should The Overweight And Smokers Be Denied Treatment For Ill Health

[Daffodil]

"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.)

The OP asked for "thoughts". I took that to mean, let your brain take this idea and run with it. I was unaware that EVERY GODDAMN THREAD MUST INCLUDE RESEARCH!

 

This is one of the reasons I stay out of most threads.

 

ETA: Please pardon my outburst. It is very late and I am grumpy. It seems Flo is visiting a bit early this month.

[Daffodil]

 

"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))

Flo visiting you too?

[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.)

The OP asked for "thoughts". I took that to mean, let your brain take this idea and run with it. I was unaware that EVERY GODDAMN THREAD MUST INCLUDE RESEARCH!

 

This is one of the reasons I stay out of most threads.

 

ETA: Please pardon my outburst. It is very late and I am grumpy. It seems Flo is visiting a bit early this month.

 

 

Its ok Daffodil, my beef was with sdelsolray who felt that implying I was angry and whacking in ad hominem's (at the OP or myself or both I'm not sure) made their post better. I only mentioned research as a comparison to such posts. I think letting your brain run is fine, resorting to attacks like I described - that's childish. 

 

Possibly there is 'something' in the 'air' as this thread got a bit feisty today

 

It could be the holy spook telling us smoking is bad

 

PS I may have misinterpreted sdelsolray, in which case apologies, but without emoticons I took the posts at face value

[Shinzon]

Charge more for prevantable shit, hell that is why er copays are so expensive because at least half to people that visit were being stupid in the first place.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Life, itself, is fatal; and everyone who has ever lived knew it. Everyone who has ever participated in life knew that it would (not might, but would) end in death. They all participated anyway. There is no such thing as "healthy" or "good for you"; there are only such things as are slightly less unhealthy, or slightly less bad for you.

 

You live in a random world, fraught with random peril, where everything from germs to Mack trucks have the potential to kill you dead. But you choose to live anyway. You make the choice. Nobody's holding a gun to your head and forcing you to live.

 

Should I be discriminated against simply because I enjoy the effects of tobacco in a variety of forms? Shit, if you truly understood how fragile and precarious your own life is, you'd have a good smoke, too.

[LogicalFallacy]

Very true TRP.

If I may, I will offer a different angle on this, which no doubt some/most/all/none will disagree with. (You see how I covered all bases there?)

While life is inherently fatal, I don't go out of my way to increase the chances of early fatality. Now this is obviously my choice and everyone should be free to choose. I think the real issue lies in the line between allowing total freedom, and safeguarding society as a whole.

Example though I might enjoy racing my car along at insane speeds, doing so is inherently irresponsible. Why? Well I could kill myself - this causes grief and financial hardship for my family. I don't care - I'm dead, but they will care. I could kill others, ruin lives, put strain on medical systems etc.

So my line of thinking is to try an identify those activities that are avoidable and can cause downstream costs to society and not take part in them. That would be I think the basis of my opinion on this subject.

[Edit, there is a huge gap in this line of thinking which I need to address, and that is there are many activities where one doesn't necessarily act irresponsible as the example above, but nevertheless carries a known danger element. (Swimming, base jumping, mountain biking, hunting etc) I am trying to distinguish the elusive line between life enjoyment and personal responsibility to others.]

But to come to a compromise, and having read everyone's thoughts here, I think something in line Shinzon said would be a possible alternative to a blanket ban on activities. Ideally you'd end up with a system in which (say) smokers contributed enough to medical care that much of the financial cost of dealing with smoking related health issues were funded. This would reduce pressure on the medical system. So if smokers want to smoke, and are happy to pay higher premiums for smoking to cover societal costs then that may be an alternative.

I think in NZ we are moving towards such a system we have a tax payer funded health system, but the Government is raising taxes on tobacco (Hopefully to put funds into medical care.)

And shit I just realised I wrote a flipping essay in a rant thread lol.  

[florduh]

So if smokers want to smoke, and are happy to pay higher premiums for smoking to cover societal costs then that may be an alternative.

 

That is in fact our current situation. My problem is with singling out one currently unpopular activity when there are so many other destructive and unhealthy activities, as already enumerated.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Young men who masturbate increase the likelihood of early onset prostate cancer.  Should they have to pay more for their healthcare than young men who do not masturbate?  They are, after all, making a deliberate choice which will "increase the chances of early fatality" (fucking wankers!).  Or, could it be that it is easier to hate smokers and fat people because society has conditioned you to do so since childhood?

 

http://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/news/20090127/masturbation-and-prostate-cancer-risk

[Lilith666]

They shouldn't be denied treatment, but in the US, smokers already are on the bottom of the waiting list for things like organ transplants, because of the shortage of organs. I think there should be a financial incentive for unhealthy people to get healthier. It's not right to have access to the care we do and then take it for granted.

 

There is a distinction between doing relatively unhealthy behaviors that sometimes people may do without thinking or out of necessity, and doing something that everyone is aware to some extent is lethal. There are anti-smoking and healthy eating and exercise campaigns all over the place. Kids learn about it in school. People who eat badly and smoke are making a conscious decision to continue a pattern. Some people have a lot of kids and not much money, so I understand why they go to McDonald's instead of always cooking at home. But I think most of the time it's something they can control. People with unhealthy lifestyles shouldn't be denied healthcare, but shouldn't poison themselves and assume the doctor will take care of it.

 

Edit, reply to RedneckProfessor: Being treated a certain way based on something you choose to do that you know is dangerous, isn't discrimination. It's a logical consequence of your actions.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Type II diabetes is also "a logical consequence of your actions".  Why aren't we discussing the price of Metformin?  Could it be that it's because we have not been conditioned by society to hate diabetics?  Beyond that, your (rather specious) argument rests on nothing but semantics.

[RealityCheck]

A better question in the OP should be "why should my tax/health insurance dollars subsidize the choices of others?"

I'm afraid I can't give an unbiased response to this question.  In a way, I'm paying for the poor health choices of my father (a chain smoker) by having to stay here and help both parents financially.  It pisses me off knowing that he did this to himself despite every warning over the course of his life.  My family also wasted away countless dollars shielding relatives from the consequences of their actions.  I suppose I lean towards the side of personal responsibility on this issue.  In this area, my compassion and understanding already run thin.
 

[LogicalFallacy]

I think that both Lilith and Realitycheck hit the issue well.

TRP, I know we are at odds here. I think there needs to be a differing of thought where masturbating may lead to X as opposed to smoking may lead to X.
 
Why? Because masturbating is a natural fact of being male, and (without conducting any study) the downsides to society are less. Most males find they have to masturbate to some extent. You don't have to smoke, or eat too much, or drink too much. That's a choice of living, possibly due to ignorance, mis-information, or simply not giving a flying rats arse.
 
My concern, and possibly others as well, are concerned at the intentional intake of known harmful substances which impact on the wider community. Regards to Liliths post and your reply, it's not a matter of hate. I think we should be talking about type 2 diabetes being caused by massive sugar intake, I think we should talk about obesity where people simply stuff more in that what is needed. I personally know someone that has been in and out of hospital for the time I've known him. He is morbidly obese. Why? Because he loves food. He knows he eats to much, he acknowledges the fact, but continues to do so. If it affected him and only him I wouldn't give a shit, but it doesn't only affect him.
 
So coming back to Lilith, there is a logical consequence of actions. The question being which actions can and should be avoided? I know walking across the road is dangerous - its a natural consequence of fast moving traffic. But its an acceptable action, and I still choose to cross the road. Jumping off a cliff is also dangerous. I don't jump off cliffs though! It's not a natural consequence of living - its a reckless decision that would end my life. [Edit I know this analogy is really shitty, but I'm out of time to improve/correct it. Be in the spirit, understand what I'm trying to say ]

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think you do not understand the disease model of addiction very well.

[LogicalFallacy]

TRP: I intentionally bypassed the effect that addiction has on this question for simplicity's sake. I am aware  that the issues discussed have a massive addiction component which greatly impacts potential solutions/answers.

 

But your statement is basically correct, I have very basic knowledge of the model - enough to be aware it impacts the discussion, not enough to discuss it. It's not that I don't understand it, its that I haven't studied it. I believe Russell Brand talks about it when he discusses how to deal with drug addicts? Some of his ideas are intriguing.

 

BO - That would be "first do no harm"?  Are you applying this not just to the medical profession, but to all individuals? That each is first responsible for not doing themselves any intentional harm?

 

Hmm maybe not, apparently it does not contain that phrase widely attributed to it. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html

 

So what did you mean BO?

 

Thanks

 

LF

[LogicalFallacy]

Right, no it doesn't say deny healthcare, yes infrastructure is, or should be an extension.

 

So healthcare, should be provided, to all, ideally for free, and regardless of any consequences of their actions that may have lead to them needing healthcare?

 

Assuming the above, while the ideal is great, limited resources invariably lead to a cost. Leading back to my line of reasoning.

[Lilith666]

TRP, I'm not sure of the point you want to make. Diabetes is related to overweight. Also, you asked if you should "be discriminated against simply because [you] enjoy the effects of tobacco in a variety of forms"? First, can you give examples of what you think discrimination would be? Secondly, that question is misrepresenting the nature of smoking. This isn't about tobacco itself; it's about the harmful effects of tobacco. My point is that it is not rational to knowingly make a pattern of dangerous behavior and then expect no social stigma and exactly the same treatment as people who don't do this.

[LogicalFallacy]

 

Right, no it doesn't say deny healthcare, yes infrastructure is, or should be an extension.

 

So healthcare, should be provided, to all, ideally for free, and regardless of any consequences of their actions that may have lead to them needing healthcare?

 

Assuming the above, while the ideal is great, limited resources invariably lead to a cost. Leading back to my line of reasoning.

 

 

Then make the costs more.  That is only fair.  You pay for what you do and not for others.

 

And look at that we agree. Progress! Whoo!

[midniterider]

Thoughts?

 

Only if they are politicians.

[duderonomy]

Stress kills. I'll quit smoking when all of you stop worrying about my smoking. 

[LogicalFallacy]

But Dude - I can't stop worrying about your smoking, I think of what effect its having on you and it worries me.

 

Ok humor aside...

 

Yes chronic stress does kill.... so does smoking.... ok ok I'll stop. 

 

BTW - congrats to those who took part in the... 'thoughts' so far. You made me seriously think about, and question my position and managed to get me to shift my position from "yes deny" to a "lets think more about this". That's what discussion is about.

[florduh]

Again I say it isn't reasonable to punish one group deemed to engage in destructive behavior when there are so many health issues exacerbated or caused by lifestyle. Currently, only the smoker pays higher premiums but the person who chooses to pursue a high stress career, the guy who eats a dozen doughnuts every day, the sun worshiper with melanoma, the people on the Big Mac diet and those who tear through a 12 pack or fifth of vodka a day are not paying any more than vegetarians, runners, gym rats and other health nuts. 

 

A case could be made that ALL self destructive behaviors are an addiction problem, which is a medical issue. It also hasn't been demonstrated that healthcare actual cost or mortality is higher among smokers than it is among those who have eaten their way into type 2 diabetes. Diabetes is almost entirely preventable, yet it's an epidemic. Ten percent of the population is already diabetic and 75% are obese and on their way while less than 20% of the population smokes and only 10% of lifelong smokers get lung cancer. Yes, there can be other issues arising from smoking, but look up the facts when deciding who is really putting the burden on our healthcare system. Nobody can afford to point fingers.

[Lilith666]

I wouldn't compare high-stress careers to smoking. People who go into stressful jobs are doing something that is necessary for society to function (police officer, etc.) and something that is not very popular as a career. Therefore, there is no reason to punish them for making a living. Smokers, on the other hand, deliberately do something that they know is harmful out of lack of concern for their health rather than necessity. There are healthy ways to decrease stress, like meditation. Cigarettes have no significant beneficial value.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Lack of concern for one's health is rarely, if ever, a reason a person smokes.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Or eats chocolate.

[florduh]

I wouldn't compare high-stress careers to smoking. People who go into stressful jobs are doing something that is necessary for society to function (police officer, etc.) and something that is not very popular as a career. Therefore, there is no reason to punish them for making a living. Smokers, on the other hand, deliberately do something that they know is harmful out of lack of concern for their health rather than necessity. There are healthy ways to decrease stress, like meditation. Cigarettes have no significant beneficial value.

Even if we accept your assertion as true, it's not relevant. People don't choose stressful occupations because of some altruistic motive, they choose them because it fills a need for them. Addiction to adrenaline, Type A personality, etc. It is a choice they are driven to, not unlike those who are driven to smoke, drink or overeat.

 

The relevant thing is who is contributing most to the cost of healthcare. We tend to excuse everything that is actually a bigger problem but not due to a legal but currently unpopular activity. I just maintain we can't single out one or two groups we deem to be "health offenders" and saddle them with the bulk of the expense when we all  do things that contribute to the costs associated with medical care.

 

Addictive personalities, which encompasses most of us, manifests in many different behaviors. We should understand that an addiction is not exactly a choice.