Lin Gilbert & having priority in terms of medical treatment.

[spaceboots06]

Goooood afternoon,

I can't give you an exact quote but this Canadian woman Lin Gilbert was interviewed on the news today. Everyone opposing universal healthcare rants about how people from Canada have to wait months or years for surgery but I heard something that struck me as interesting. She said that she couldn't get her surgery because there were old people waiting for the same exact surgery. I found that both odd and disturbing.

Old people? Lin looked as if she was in her late 40s. Why are old people getting priority for surgery in Canada? Lin stated that she has children to raise. I don't think that the "old people" Lin was talking about had to raise children. Shouldn't Lin have priority?

This got me thinking. Would you want your money to go to someone's surgery who doesn't really need it, or rather to someone who doesn't need it as much as someone else? Let's say an 80 year old who has cancer needs throat surgery or something another. An 80 year old with cancer isn't going to live much longer; shouldn't we be spending our funds on younger people who need the surgery too? Younger people who have children to raise and jobs to hold? If there was either a choice between already dying person A and 35 year old adult B I would surely choose adult B.

[thegoldenmackid]

I'm glad that you think you are capable of deciding who gets to live...

I'd like to live in a world where if you got cancer, you got treated. That's just me though.

[spaceboots06]

I'm glad that you think you are capable of deciding who gets to live...

I'd like to live in a world where if you got cancer, you got treated. That's just me though.

That's like donating money to the Asian American Cancer Studies Fund and not the African American Cancer Studies Fund. Aren't you deciding who gets to live doing this too?

[skunk]

Would you want your money to go to someone's surgery who doesn't really need it, or rather to someone who doesn't need it as much as someone else? Let's say an 80 year old who has cancer needs throat surgery or something another. An 80 year old with cancer isn't going to live much longer; shouldn't we be spending our funds on younger people who need the surgery too? Younger people who have children to raise and jobs to hold? If there was either a choice between already dying person A and 35 year old adult B I would surely choose adult B.You haven't quite grasped the concept of Universal Health Care, have you?

[thegoldenmackid]

That's like donating money to the Asian American Cancer Studies Fund and not the African American Cancer Studies Fund. Aren't you deciding who gets to live doing this too?
No? There is a difference between donating money and saying that there is a direct trade-off in terms of life or death, as opposed to my $5. I gave you a free abortion argument? Why not take it and run?

[remmy]

Brilliant...

And you could apply the same to those who are in employment and those who aren't. Those being employed are obviously more valuable. Or those who earn more, because they obviously have a more important job and do more for the economy than those less important people. People could be graded on how important they are to economy and the money they generate.

[thegoldenmackid]

Brilliant...

And you could apply the same to those who are in employment and those who aren't. Those being employed are obviously more valuable. Or those who earn more, because they obviously have a more important job and do more for the economy than those less important people. People could be graded on how important they are to economy and the money they generate.

Well and men and women, because after all, a woman could not be president - so why spare them?

[spaceboots06]

Brilliant...

And you could apply the same to those who are in employment and those who aren't. Those being employed are obviously more valuable. Or those who earn more, because they obviously have a more important job and do more for the economy than those less important people. People could be graded on how important they are to economy and the money they generate.

Yes. I wouldn't want my hard end money to be "wasted" on people who couldn't contribute to keeping money generating. I honestly see old people as sentimental objects. Yes, they're valuable, but only to their children and grandchildren. Similarly, I wouldn't want my money to be spent on child abortions. Taxes so far go to things that most people could agree on. Being forced to pay for controversial treatments is going to be a problem because I assure you I'm not going to be the only one questioning authority.

Well and men and women, because after all, a woman could not be president - so why spare them?

Wrong. A woman could be president. There just hasn't been one yet. I don't understand your point either.

[Unspoken Demise]

Wow Bootsy. You're back from T/O and you brought a shovel. Convienient.

[thegoldenmackid]

Yes. I wouldn't want my hard end money to be "wasted" on people who couldn't contribute to keeping money generating. I honestly see old people as sentimental objects. Yes, they're valuable, but only to their children and grandchildren. Similarly, I wouldn't want my money to be spent on child abortions. Taxes so far go to things that most people could agree on. Being forced to pay for controversial treatments is going to be a problem because I assure you I'm not going to be the only one questioning authority.
Umm... It's not like you aren't paying for those now? There are public hospitals that don't charge. In fact Dallas has one of the best burn units in the world in its public hospital, but, most people don't pay because it's a public hospital. You are about to enter the "your logic is the same as Hitler's" and you are def. treading the line of making that legitimate.


Wrong. A woman could be president. There just hasn't been one yet. I don't understand your point either.
I personally think that it's a man's job to run the most important country in the world but I don't know how loudly I should speak about that in public.
Enough said.

[spaceboots06]

Wow Bootsy. You're back from T/O and you brought a shovel. Convienient.

I'm not here to offend but rather to share my opinions. I guess they're just considered too extreme.

thegoldenmackid, care to quote later posts/threads by me where I retract what I wrote? Guess not.

[skunk]

Yes. I wouldn't want my hard end money to be "wasted" on people who couldn't contribute to keeping money generating. I honestly see old people as sentimental objects. Yes, they're valuable, but only to their children and grandchildren. Similarly, I wouldn't want my money to be spent on child abortions.You haven't quite got a handle on "Society" either, have you? Or "Reality" for that matter...

[Unspoken Demise]

I'm not here to offend but rather to share my opinions. I guess they're just considered too extreme.

Yeah, but frankly, its like you type these threads up with a spring loaded trap under your butt, waiting for the 1st person to disagree with you so you can detonate. Its a little trollish. However, you are entitled to your opinion, 110%, but it seems like you start threads in the PRSI just to start arguements, and thats not what its about.

2 pennies.

[PcBgone]

Yes. I wouldn't want my hard end money to be "wasted" on people who couldn't contribute to keeping money generating. I honestly see old people as sentimental objects. Yes, they're valuable, but only to their children and grandchildren. Similarly, I wouldn't want my money to be spent on child abortions. Taxes so far go to things that most people could agree on. Being forced to pay for controversial treatments is going to be a problem because I assure you I'm not going to be the only one questioning authority.


So with this thought why let old people get old? Lets start up euthanasia. We can let them die with dignity:rolleyes: Euthanasia soon turns into genocide...and then we are soon starting the atrocities of WW2 all over again.

Its quite amazing to see how people put so little value on others lives. Everyone has the right to life. We should provide them with whatever they need to keep that life going, no matter the cost. Everyone is special and deserves to live no matter their age.

[thegoldenmackid]

thegoldenmackid, care to quote later posts/threads by me where I retract what I wrote? Guess not.

You never retracted it...Hence, it is still there... You later said that women have fought hard to be equal, that doesn't change the "only a man should be president." Nor did you respond to my actual post.

[Zombie Acorn]

If we are going to cover everyone under a universal care plan I better be getting tax breaks for not smoking and having a gym membership.

[skunk]

If we are going to cover everyone under a universal care plan I better be getting tax breaks for not smoking and having a gym membership.Why? You could break your leg in the gym, you could accidentally inhale a large insect while keeping fit by cycling. Your tax-break will come from the increased efficiency of a universal system and no risk of bankruptcy if your insurer gets cold feet.

[.Andy]

This thread is as good as the opposition to universal health care gets.

[Zombie Acorn]

Why? You could break your leg in the gym, you could accidentally inhale a large insect while keeping fit by cycling. Your tax-break will come from the increased efficiency of a universal system and no risk of bankruptcy if your insurer gets cold feet.

Insurance companies do it already. Its calculated risk, why should I have to pay into taxes as much as someone else who doesn't take care of themselves when I am less likely to need a hospital?

[Unspoken Demise]

Insurance companies do it already. Its calculated risk, why should I have to pay into taxes as much as someone else who doesn't take care of themselves when I am less likely to need a hospital?
Lung Cancer and heart attacks arent the only serious conditions that require medical attention.

[thegoldenmackid]

Insurance companies do it already. Its calculated risk, why should I have to pay into taxes as much as someone else who doesn't take care of themselves when I am less likely to need a hospital?

Why do I have to pay taxes for the fire department when they never come to my house?

[Zombie Acorn]

Lung Cancer and heart attacks arent the only serious conditions that require medical attention.

* Heart disease: 631,636
* Cancer: 559,888
* Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 137,119
* Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 124,583
* Accidents (unintentional injuries): 121,599
* Diabetes: 72,449
* Alzheimer's disease: 72,432
* Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,326
* Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 45,344
* Septicemia: 34,234


They are risk factors that should be taken into consideration though as they top the charts.

I have no family history for any of these diseases, and my great grandmother is 100 years old now. Why again should I pay the same as someone who is sucking down reeses milkshakes and puffing away at a cancer stick even though we know they cause cancer?

[thegoldenmackid]

I have no family history for any of these diseases, and my great grandmother is 100 years old now. Why again should I pay the same as someone who is sucking down reeses milkshakes and puffing away at a cancer stick even though we know they cause cancer?
Why do I pay for the library. And you pay right now anyway, there are things called public hospitals.

[Zombie Acorn]

Why do I have to pay taxes for the fire department when they never come to my house?

Does your neighborhood regularly practice arson? I would be pissed about paying more taxes if I was one of the few who didn't.

[thegoldenmackid]

Does your neighborhood regularly practice arson? I would be pissed about paying more taxes if I was one of the few who didn't.

I'm not sure about the whole arson thing... But it's taxes, no one said yours have gone up. I'm paying for a War in Iraq, and I definitely did not sign up to pay for it.

[Zombie Acorn]

I'm not sure about the whole arson thing... But it's taxes, no one said yours have gone up. I'm paying for a War in Iraq, and I definitely did not sign up to pay for it.

Paying the same amount of tax for the fire department when all of your neighbors purposely set ablaze to their house, paying the same amount of tax for health care when all of your neighbors live unhealthily. Same issue to me.

I don't want my taxes to go up, I just want a tax break if I am living healthy vs. someone who is not.

[OutThere]

This article makes a better argument than I could make. Highly recommended reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?ref=magazine

I still don't understand how people can argue against universal healthcare and still live with themselves. It's about the health and well being of our entire society. A healthy society is more productive, happier. You can see it with your own eyes...for example in France there are simply fewer people out in public who look unhealthy/as if they have a untreated medical problem. This sounds like a very far fetched and speculative statement...however it's painfully obvious if you compare a Wal-Mart in the U.S. with the equivalent in France. It's certainly troubling—at least for me—to see people who appear to not be able to afford medical care who are obviously suffering. To me it is unconscionable to even consider that people should be denied healthcare simply because they cannot afford it.

[thegoldenmackid]

Paying the same amount of tax for the fire department when all of your neighbors purposely set ablaze to their house, paying the same amount of tax for health care when all of your neighbors live unhealthily. Same issue to me.

I don't want my taxes to go up, I just want a tax break if I am living healthy vs. someone who is not.

And I want a tax break because I recycle? We all pay taxes and a lot of the times we would prefer that the money be spent elsewhere. Welcome to America.

[.Andy]

I don't want my taxes to go up, I just want a tax break.
You just want more money.

[Zombie Acorn]

And I want a tax break because I recycle? We all pay taxes and a lot of the times we would prefer that the money be spent elsewhere. Welcome to America.

Doesn't recycling cost the US around 8 billion a year? You owe me money.

[MacDawg]

Another helping of Soylent Green anyone? ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

[thegoldenmackid]

Doesn't recycling cost the US around 8 billion a year? You owe me money.

I was sorta inferring that it might be good for long-term progress, i.e. not having a trash festival in the streets, let's say Naples? or the environment?

My awful diet only becomes a negative when there are negative consequences to it? As of right now, there seem to be none. So I'm gonna go get some mini-donuts out of the fridge. If you get sick and you were healthy do you pay the money back?

[Zombie Acorn]

This article makes a better argument than I could make. Highly recommended reading: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/19/magazine/19healthcare-t.html?ref=magazine

I still don't understand how people can argue against universal healthcare and still live with themselves. It's about the health and well being of our entire society. A healthy society is more productive, happier. You can see it with your own eyes...for example in France there are simply fewer people out in public who look unhealthy/as if they have a untreated medical problem. This sounds like a very far fetched and speculative statement...however it's painfully obvious if you compare a Wal-Mart in the U.S. with the equivalent in France. It's certainly troubling—at least for me—to see people who appear to not be able to afford medical care who are obviously suffering. To me it is unconscionable to even consider that people should be denied healthcare simply because they cannot afford it.

They probably live healthier lives. 9% obesity vs. 30% in the US is pretty telling for one.

[OutThere]

They probably live healthier lives. 9% obesity vs. 30% in the US is pretty telling for one.

With a better health coverage system, many poor people (who are far more likely to be obese) would be able to see a doctor who would encourage healthy habits and would be able to prescribe diets. Poor parents would be able to take their kids to the doctor who would be able to address weight problems early on rather than letting them continue unchecked into adulthood. Universal healthcare is all about using preventative methods to stop big problems from happening down the line, by enabling people to see their doctor for small things rather than waiting until they have a heart attack.

[Zombie Acorn]

With a better health coverage system, many poor people (who are far more likely to be obese) would be able to see a doctor who would encourage healthy habits and would be able to prescribe diets. Poor parents would be able to take their kids to the doctor who would be able to address weight problems early on rather than letting them continue unchecked into adulthood. Universal healthcare is all about using preventative methods to stop big problems from happening down the line, by enabling people to see their doctor for small things rather than waiting until they have a heart attack.

I don't see our current health crisis as an education issue at all (maybe poor parenting in some instances, but not because they don't know better). Do you not think most people know eating fast food everyday is terrible for them? I would be challenged to find someone who doesn't think that exercise is good for you, yet I see very few people doing it.

Obese people know that they are living unhealthy, I was slightly overweight as a kid, I knew the whole time what my problem was and solved it without a doctor.

[spaceboots06]

And I want a tax break because I recycle? We all pay taxes and a lot of the times we would prefer that the money be spent elsewhere. Welcome to America.

You realize there are programs that give you money for recycling? Notably there are those 5 cent deposit areas where you would typically find lines of homeless people but at stores like Whole Foods by returning glass bottles you will get anywhere from $1 to $2 back.

I recycle, I get money back.

I don't smoke, I should pay less money.

http://www.eng.cam.ac.uk/inclusivedesign/introduction/images/milk.jpg

EDIT: OutThere, I thought that was a good article as well, I think I may have read it either two or three days ago.

[Badandy]

Why? You could break your leg in the gym, you could accidentally inhale a large insect while keeping fit by cycling. Your tax-break will come from the increased efficiency of a universal system and no risk of bankruptcy if your insurer gets cold feet.

This argument is not substantive, skunk, and I suspect you're being facetious.

I exercise by playing basketball every day. Basketball has a high incidence of injuries (kness, ankles, that kind of stuff), but fixing a broken leg is nowhere near the cost of supporting someone with lung cancer or someone who is suffering the plethora of health conditions that come along with obesity.

I don't have a problem with insurance companies spreading the risk out over different kinds of people, but when they start charging those of us who are committed to staying healthy and exercising the premium associated with covering people who do not even attempt take care of themselves, it's going too far.

If I ride a motorcycle every day, I expect to pay higher insurance because of the hugely increased risk of injury over driving a car. It's not unfair, it makes sense. Sure, someone can get in an accident in their car while a motorcycle rider stays safe, but that's not the case, on average. The problem you're railing against, I assume, is when insurance companies try to narrow down who qualifies (and for what price) so much that insurance doesn't even make economic sense for the person who needs it. I also think that is going too far, but distinguishing between those people who generally take care of themselves using broad, pre-determined metrics makes sense. Implementing this system would also provide further incentive for people to change their lifestyle to one that is healthier.

[solvs]

And who then decides the cutoff for who is more important that who? Whom. Whatever. Do the rich, even born wealthy, get preferred treatment (as they do now)? How young is young? If you're infertile, do you get preferential treatment, or less than someone with 12 kids?

Truth is, some people who are high risks don't get help as soon or at all in some cases. Remember Nataline Sarkisyan, who died at a Northridge, CA hospital because Cigna deemed her too sick for a transplant? Drinking or smoking, back down to the bottom of the transplant lists in some cases. Sicker people are put towards the top (like Steve Jobs). I suspect the subject of this anecdote wasn't saying what you think she was, unless she's wrong. She could come down to the US, and even if she has insurance, not be able to pay for it if she does actually get the surgery she may or may not have been deemed to need sooner than someone else.

I have no family history for any of these diseases, and my great grandmother is 100 years old now.
Good for you. I suppose that makes you better than someone who takes care of themselves equally, maybe even better, but isn't as genetically lucky? I could live to be 100 and never break a bone, but if you get hit by a bus or catch swine flu or something else I don't even want to say that could be nothing to do with your lifestyle or any action you take and I wouldn't be complaining that my taxes pay to help you. Just as I don't complain if I'm paying for a road I don't use, a school I have no children in, police and fire I never (hopefully) have to use. Because what people like you never seem to understand is that we are not islands. We are societies. You may never need any of these things, but you might. You never know. We as a society share the cost of these things so they are there when we need them, even if we never do. Because a society takes care of it's people, just as I'm sure there are some things others taxes are helping to pay for for you, even if you can't seem to see it.

Sure, it's frustrating when you work your butt off and see someone who doesn't, but who's to say they won't live for years with no problems while, again, you might not. He may never have kids, you might. He may never drive that road, go to that school, use those police, or firefighters, or libraries, or hospitals even. But maybe you will. Maybe he even makes more than you do, or did, or you lose your job, while his Daddy got him a plush job making way more, happily helping to pay for your benefits. Or he did, until he lost his job, while you keep yours. You never know. And again, who decides who gets what when? This is so much of a bigger issue, this constant simplification we get here, and I see among the talking heads you lot listen to, is just not reality. But you don't want to pay for it. You got yours, screw everyone else. Sorry, tough luck, doesn't work like that. And if you think a bunch of lazy people are just sitting around taking your money, again, not that simple (ask my severely disabled friend, who you should pray you never wind up like - not to mention the millions unemployed, many not by their own actions, no jobs around for them, no way to go somewhere else).

See, we are a society. We care for each other because that's what a society does for the good of us all, even if we never need those things you seem to detest. Newsflash, you are not a perfect island. Even if you were, not everyone else is you. Deal.

[OutThere]

Good for you. I suppose that makes you better than someone who takes care of themselves equally, maybe even better, but isn't as genetically lucky? I could live to be 100 and never break a bone, but if you get hit by a bus or catch swine flu or something else I don't even want to say that could be nothing to do with your lifestyle or any action you take and I wouldn't be complaining that my taxes pay to help you. Just as I don't complain if I'm paying for a road I don't use, a school I have no children in, police and fire I never (hopefully) have to use. Because what people like you never seem to understand is that we are not islands. We are societies. You may never need any of these things, but you might. You never know. We as a society share the cost of these things so they are there when we need them, even if we never do. Because a society takes care of it's people, just as I'm sure there are some things others taxes are helping to pay for for you, even if you can't seem to see it.

Sure, it's frustrating when you work your butt off and see someone who doesn't, but who's to say they won't live for years with no problems while, again, you might not. He may never have kids, you might. He may never drive that road, go to that school, use those police, or firefighters, or libraries, or hospitals even. But maybe you will. Maybe he even makes more than you do, or did, or you lose your job, while his Daddy got him a plush job making way more, happily helping to pay for your benefits. Or he did, until he lost his job, while you keep yours. You never know. And again, who decides who gets what when? This is so much of a bigger issue, this constant simplification we get here, and I see among the talking heads you lot listen to, is just not reality. But you don't want to pay for it. You got yours, screw everyone else. Sorry, tough luck, doesn't work like that. And if you think a bunch of lazy people are just sitting around taking your money, again, not that simple (ask my severely disabled friend, who you should pray you never wind up like - not to mention the millions unemployed, many not by their own actions, no jobs around for them, no way to go somewhere else).

See, we are a society. We care for each other because that's what a society does for the good of us all, even if we never need those things you seem to detest. Newsflash, you are not a perfect island. Even if you were, not everyone else is you. Deal.

Very well said. My family pays a very high tax rate for many things we don't use that ultimately benefit society as a whole and make the nation better for everyone. I'd rather pay even higher taxes to support a government health program that ultimately saves money that would otherwise go to insurance company CEO Christmas bonuses and corporate jets.

[paddy]

Another thread of the day from Spaceboots. :rolleyes:

I don't smoke, I should pay less money.


Just to let you know, in the UK for example smokers earn the govt about £5 billion more than the NHS spends on treating them. ;)

[thegoldenmackid]

I'm still lost about the response to "My awful diet only becomes awful if I get sick." Lance Armstrong was a world class cyclist and got cancer at what would have been the peak of his career? So, despite not really using medical treatment except for check-ups, I pay more and Lance get's a tax break while he's in the hospital for years?

[Badandy]

I'm still lost about the response to "My awful diet only becomes awful if I get sick." Lance Armstrong was a world class cyclist and got cancer at what would have been the peak of his career? So, despite not really using medical treatment except for check-ups, I pay more and Lance get's a tax break while he's in the hospital for years?

That happens, but we're talking about averages. I think I should pay less in health insurance for what I have control over: how healthily I eat and the physical shape I keep myself in. Yes, a few people like me die earlier or require more medical treatment than some people who live their life in a less healthy way, but on average, we don't. The point is to not narrow it so far down that we're discriminating against people who might have a certain gene that is thought to be a pre-cursor to cancer, but I certainly think that lifestyle choices that are proven to be healthy should be encouraged and accounted for through lower health care payments.

[munkees]

Another helping of Soylent Green anyone? ;)

Woof, Woof - Dawg http://homepage.mac.com/k.j.vinson/pawprint.gif

ha, I was thinking the same thing

[solvs]

Just to let you know, in the UK for example smokers earn the govt about £5 billion more than the NHS spends on treating them. ;)
Good point. Not a fan of smokers, and I've been trying to take better care of myself, but smokers are getting taxed already to pay for the extra money they cost us. Even the ones who don't get sick. And there is chatter of a tax on not so healthy food and other things like that to cover the extra costs to our system. Ironically, conservatives are against these, but also against having to pay for them through the proposed public health systems. Somehow we've got to pay for them... we already do.

Unless someone wants to just have someone who decides they get nothing, and who they are, but I don't think anyone wants that.

That happens, but we're talking about averages.
You're missing the point. The system is there in case something happens to you like it did to Armstrong. While I'm at home eating healthy and getting moderate exercise, someone is out there eating unhealthy but exercising more. Someone else is out there exercising a lot, but also in more danger of getting hurt than I am. Someone is out there with bad genes that's going to get sick no matter what they do, while someone else has been genes where they won't. Again, no matter what they do.

And again, who decides who pays more or less based on what qualifications, especially if you're against "sin taxes" (unless you aren't, which would be understandable)?

[thegoldenmackid]

That happens, but we're talking about averages. I think I should pay less in health insurance for what I have control over: how healthily I eat and the physical shape I keep myself in. Yes, a few people like me die earlier or require more medical treatment than some people who live their life in a less healthy way, but on average, we don't. The point is to not narrow it so far down that we're discriminating against people who might have a certain gene that is thought to be a pre-cursor to cancer, but I certainly think that lifestyle choices that are proven to be healthy should be encouraged and accounted for through lower health care payments.

But...you could never justify this. Armstrong's medical costs were astronomical and what about people like me. I'm 5'7 120 or so pounds, don't smoke, don't exercise and eat like a pig? Do I get breaks for my BMI? Also, I'm lost how any of this has to do w/ the current health care bill as most of these incentives for not smoking or disincentives for unhealthy behavior are already being practice in the status quo.

[solvs]

Also, I'm lost how any of this has to do w/ the current health care bill as most of these incentives for not smoking or disincentives for unhealthy behavior are already being practice in the status quo.
Because they got theirs (for now, that could change if their situation does) and don't want to have to pay for those hypothetical people they already pay for, and actually already do pay more for their "sins" as we've pointed out.

The fact that there is a completely unselfish person out there helping people just to help them, as the insurance industry they're implicitly defending is rolling in it for ripping those same types of people she helps off, is lost on some.

[Badandy]

You're missing the point. The system is there in case something happens to you like it did to Armstrong. While I'm at home eating healthy and getting moderate exercise, someone is out there eating unhealthy but exercising more. Someone else is out there exercising a lot, but also in more danger of getting hurt than I am. Someone is out there with bad genes that's going to get sick no matter what they do, while someone else has been genes where they won't. Again, no matter what they do.

I know, there are anomalies, which I already addressed. On average, people who eat healthily and get exercise are healthier than those who don't. Here's what I said earlier:


If I ride a motorcycle every day, I expect to pay higher insurance because of the hugely increased risk of injury over driving a car. It's not unfair, it makes sense. Sure, someone can get in an accident in their car while a motorcycle rider stays safe, but that's not the case, on average. The problem you're railing against, I assume, is when insurance companies try to narrow down who qualifies (and for what price) so much that insurance doesn't even make economic sense for the person who needs it. I also think that is going too far, but distinguishing between those people who generally take care of themselves using broad, pre-determined metrics makes sense. Implementing this system would also provide further incentive for people to change their lifestyle to one that is healthier.

There.

And this

That happens, but we're talking about averages. I think I should pay less in health insurance for what I have control over: how healthily I eat and the physical shape I keep myself in. Yes, a few people like me die earlier or require more medical treatment than some people who live their life in a less healthy way, but on average, we don't. The point is to not narrow it so far down that we're discriminating against people who might have a certain gene that is thought to be a pre-cursor to cancer, but I certainly think that lifestyle choices that are proven to be healthy should be encouraged and accounted for through lower health care payments.


And again, who decides who pays more or less based on what qualifications, especially if you're against "sin taxes" (unless you aren't, which would be understandable)?

It's not a sin tax. It's a more more accurate economic assessment of risk factors which affect future cash payouts.

[thegoldenmackid]

It's not a sin tax. It's a more more accurate economic assessment of risk factors which affect future cash payouts.
But with something like cancer it is fairly problematic. Sure, there are things that can increase cancer, but there are way more unknown things that one presumes causes cancer. Also, people in NYC and LA should have to pay more then me because I live in a less polluted city?

[Badandy]

But with something like cancer it is fairly problematic. Sure, there are things that can increase cancer, but there are way more unknown things that one presumes causes cancer. Also, people in NYC and LA should have to pay more then me because I live in a less polluted city?

Again, I addressed that. I said that only the most general of factors should be accounted for differently. This would balance risk and payments the best while still being general enough to not make insurance unaffordable for those niche people. Read my third quoted section in my previous post. The aspect of health that people have the most control over is the kind of shape they keep themselves in through nutrition and exercise. People who exercise are far less of a burden on the health care system.

[solvs]

But again, who decides what is what in those cases? Some things may be more easily quantifiable like riding a motorcycle, which you already pay more for, or smoking, which you would also already pay more for if you did (in cigarette tax, or in insurance, which you do pay more for if you do). Other things are tougher. Who decides the sliding scale of healthier (you noted things you could control, but who decides that part as well), less accident prone, etc. That would make things MUCH more complicated, with probably added costs, even if some pay more and some pay less.

You're trying to make it more complicated than it already is just so you don't have to pay for something you already pay for, which I don't think you would like as much if some bureaucrat decides something you do deserves a cost increase because of statistics (like eat a particular food or play in a particular sport or athletics).

[Badandy]

But again, who decides what is what in those cases? Some things may be more easily quantifiable like riding a motorcycle, which you already pay more for, or smoking, which you would also already pay more for if you did (in cigarette tax, or in insurance, which you do pay more for if you do). Other things are tougher. Who decides the sliding scale of healthier (you noted things you could control, but who decides that part as well), less accident prone, etc. That would make things MUCH more complicated, with probably added costs, even if some pay more and some pay less.

You're trying to make it more complicated than it already is just so you don't have to pay for something you already pay for, which I don't think you would like as much if some bureaucrat decides something you do deserves a cost increase because of statistics (like eat a particular food or play in a particular sport or athletics).

Again, I have addressed this. I said dividing people by increasingly specific attributes gets murkier and murkier as you go. One extremely general way should be fine. It is not fuzzy logic, and it is scientifically backed. I don't have control over my DNA, but I do decide to go outside and do sprint drills after dinner instead of watching an hour of TV. This makes me healthier and it should make my premiums lower. I get a discount on my auto insurance because I get good grades at university. Why? Because there's a correlation between high grades and safe driving. Are there exceptions? Of course. Similarly, there's a correlation between exercise and good health, and I expect that to be taken into account.

[solvs]

And again, that already kinda happens. You pay more in taxes if you smoke, but you also pay more on your insurance. But again, even if we have it at those specific points, if you're outside riding a bicycle, it's more dangerous than someone who doesn't but is still healthy. If you're fat, and you have to pay more, what exactly is considered fat? And who can tell who exercises and is skinny vs. who is naturally skinny? Or if you're "fat" but you still exercise? Or fat, but actually have a gland disorder, since we can't use natural/genetic conditions. Lots of other issues with your one, general way to discern. You pay more because you're a pound heavier and claim to exercise but they don't believe you. I pay less because I pretend to exercise and have good genes. Or am just anorexic or bulimic. Statistics and generalities don't lie after all.

Sorry, I get what you're trying to say, and in theory would be nice, but in practice it's just not practical, nor cost effective in the least. Except with smoking. Which is already there. As are preexisting conditions and genetics, which shouldn't be.

[Badandy]

And again, that already kinda happens. You pay more in taxes if you smoke, but you also pay more on your insurance.

Good.

But again, even if we have it at those specific points, if you're outside riding a bicycle, it's more dangerous than someone who doesn't but is still healthy.

I already addressed this, over and over. Don't break it down to inreasingly specific activities. Just one general stays in shape/doesn't stay in shape. I don't know how many times I have to say this.

If you're fat, and you have to pay more, what exactly is considered fat? And who can tell who exercises and is skinny vs. who is naturally skinny? Or if you're "fat" but you still exercise? Or fat, but actually have a gland disorder, since we can't use natural/genetic conditions. Lots of other issues with your one, general way to discern. You pay more because you're a pound heavier and claim to exercise but they don't believe you. I pay less because I pretend to exercise and have good genes. Or am just anorexic or bulimic.

C'mon, someone can get creative. Body fat percentage? Body fat percentage combined with pushups? How about VO2 max? Resting heart rate?

[Rt&Dzine]

Late 40s? She should be done raising her kids. It's almost time for her to be euthanized. Why waste the surgery on her either? :rolleyes:

[thegoldenmackid]

The problem is that someone like me: 5'7 <120 lbs. by most logic gets a break. My diet and lack of exercise (or literally none) would surely make me a candidate for diabetes.

[Badandy]

The problem is that someone like me: 5'7 <120 lbs. by most logic gets a break. My diet and lack of exercise (or literally none) would surely make me a candidate for diabetes.

It's as if you people don't read. Try doing that near the end of my last post. Here, I'll even quote it for you

C'mon, someone can get creative. Body fat percentage? Body fat percentage combined with pushups? How about VO2 max? Resting heart rate?

I don't understand, why are you even on MR so much if you're so inactive. Go outside, get some exercise, have fun!

[hulugu]

...C'mon, someone can get creative. Body fat percentage? Body fat percentage combined with pushups? How about VO2 max? Resting heart rate?

So, maybe yearly physicals to maintain insurance premiums at a set price?

[Badandy]

So, maybe yearly physicals to maintain insurance premiums at a set price?

Sure. Something can be devised for general fitness and a yearly physical where the doctor can see what you've been doing to take care of yourself sounds like a way to do that. BMI is flawed because it says skinny people are in shape and very muscular people are out of shape. Body fat percentage would help it as a metric. Of course, then you have skinny people who never work out and are really unhealthy. Combine it with a type of exercise, or a VO2 max test, or something. I think it's important and it makes economic sense while at the same time giving people extra incentive to be healthier which reduces everyone's costs.

[hulugu]

Sure. Something can be devised for general fitness and a yearly physical where the doctor can see what you've been doing to take care of yourself sounds like a way to do that. BMI is flawed because it says skinny people are in shape and very muscular people are out of shape. Body fat percentage would help it as a metric. Of course, then you have skinny people who never work out and are really unhealthy. Combine it with a type of exercise, or a VO2 max test, or something. I think it's important and it makes economic sense while at the same time giving people extra incentive to be healthier which reduces everyone's costs.

I like this idea, but I also know it would never ever be implemented.