If universal health care was proposed, except for the self-destructive,

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

would you be okay with that?

In other words, for example, smokers would not get coverage. Would that be okay with you? Why or why not?

Also interesting would be a discussion of how exactly a free society can fairly judge such measures in terms of how high in our priorities lies our commitment to freedom.

Also, in such situations, does our instinct for self-preservation override our need to be honest, i.e., would you LIE in order to get coverage if it meant the difference between misery or death and life/health?

[Ravenseye]

1. Well it wouldn't be universal then now would it?

If you don't cover some people, they'll go to public hospitals, get the medical coverage provided, without paying, and then the hospitals will raise their costs to cover paying for people who can't pay them, making the rest of us pay for the person's cost anyway.

Then on top of that the smoker or whoever will be in medical debt, which often is so large you can never crawl out from under it.

No. Universal Health Care needs to be for everyone, regardless of their lifestyle, and then everything will be pretty much the same, except that nobody will have crushing medical debt.

Oh and we'll have more jobs because companies will stay here more when they dont' have to pay 10k per employee just for health benefits.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

13. That's an excellent point, esp. about the jobs staying here.

eom

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. No, I wouldn't be okay with that.

Smoking is a legal activity. If healthcare is going to be government issue, one should not be deemed ineligible for coverage if they are performing a perfectly legal activity.

[iconoclastic cat]

3. The Repubs would still use it to discriminate.

Guess what they'd call a "self-destructive lifestyle."

[movonne]

15. No !!! War is a self-destructive lifestyle.....If you say people who

smoke cannot have health care, then it will be people who drink, and people who eat too much, etc. Universal health care means for all.

[Horse with no Name]

4. NO

Because then it wouldn't be universal.
You would be withholding care from those that will need it most.
By instituting universal healthcare, you will be obliterating the insurance companies. So how would you propose to take care of these people when they get sick?
BTW, I am an AVID non-smoker.
I just don't believe in legislating discrimination of any sort.

[bunkerbuster1]

5. Of course not.

"Self destructive" could also include any number of other perfectly legal activities: Motorcycle riding, rock climbing, street crossing...

It's either universal or it ain't.

That said, any universal coverage would deny coverage of certain *conditions*, or of certain types of treatment deemed inefficient or ineffective. But that's not the same as denying individuals.

[Jackpine Radical]

9. Voting for progressive candidates

is a self-destructive activity 'cause they're gonna stomp ya when they find ya.

[Armstead]

6. What's self destructive? Too hard to define.

Does that mean people who don't eat a "perfect" diet can't be covered? What is a perfect diet anyway?

How abouit people who drive cars in communities with high auto accident rate? Should they have to choose between health insurance and walking?

Too many variables to be workable.

[Boredtodeath]

7. Smokers, Viagra users, Drinkers, Druggies

Those are all self destructive behaviors.

[mongo]

30. Why include viagra on the list?

When there are many more dangerous perscription drugs out there.

Some people take dangerous colesteral lowering drugs when they refuse to use diet and exercise to keep their levels in check.

[Boredtodeath]

34. Oh, I don't know, maybe because........

Viagra May Cause Heart Attack Deaths In Younger Men With No Heart Problems, Study Finds

March 14, 2000. Viagra, commonly prescribed by doctors to treat male erectile dysfunction, is turning up too often at the scene of heart attack death in relatively young men. Some men may be vulnerable to heart attack after taking this drug, made by Pfizer. That is not known, but the drug itself is beginning to look like more than a bystander in the deaths.

In an analysis of 1,473 major adverse events recorded in these reports about Viagra to the FDA, 522 people died, most of them from cardiovascular causes.
http://psa-rising.com/medicalpike/vaigracardiodeaths031500.htm

[Bridget Burke]

8. Of course not.

We'd have to exclude those who eat or drink too much.

What about users of illegal drugs? Wouldn't the medical approach to their problems be better than the criminal one?

What about people with high-risk professions? Or high-risk hobbies?

Foolishness is part of the human condition.

[mondo joe]

10. Can we also exclude people who eat bacon? Who don't work out 5

days a week? How about those who have sex? Those who go outside without sunblock?

[nadinbrzezinski]

11. So yuo will not cover peoople that sky dive either

or for that matter those who are grosly obese (wihc is self destructive too)

Bad logic, but we do need UNIVERSAL Healthcare

[Clark2008]

12. Gonna exclude overweight people, too?

You know, since being overweight is beginning to surpass smoking as the greatest health risk of our era.

Throw out those addicted to McDonald's! Toss over those who splurge on Burger King!

:sarcasm:

[sandnsea]

14. Nobody would have coverage

Only a handful of people don't engage in anything self-destructive. Even those that think they do are likely the ones who are falling off of cliffs or hurting themselves because they ran further than they should have.

[shraby]

16. Universal means all.

Why start to discriminate at the beginning? Maybe we should also exclude children with spinal bifida because it started before they were born...or people with cataracts because they were in the sun too much. This is a slippery slope which would only end with very few being covered. That is NOT the intention behind Universal health care. The intention is to see to it that NO ONE is without health coverage.

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

17. Excellent responses.

:) I was having a discussion with someone who was pushing just such an idea, and how this promotes "personal responsibility" in society.

And I just shook my head, thinking, "you'd effectively take life and health away from some people in order to simply experiment with your ideological notions about how to achieve some kind of societal utopia. How disgusting." That's really what I thought.

[SmokingJacket]

18. If there was some way for risk-takers to assume more of the risk...

I'd be for it in theory. I don't know if it would work practically.

A friend of mine once told me he was waiting for his insurance to kick in before he went downhill skiing. As an underinsured person, it irritated me, I have to admit. If people who engage in deliberately dangerous and unnecessary activities paid for that risk themselves, instead of putting it into the general risk-pool, more people could afford to be insured.

I know many old geezers who play soccer well beyond the point that their bodies can handle it and get mind-blowingly expensive knee surgeries -- all covered. Meanwhile, many many people go without any prescription coverage at all...

At the same time, I wouldn't want insurance companies/the government to have the power to probe into people's personal lives.

:shrug:

[pitohui]

26. so you object to coverage for athletes

who would be covered in such a world where healthy, active people are denied coverage for the high crime of pursuing their sport

[SmokingJacket]

29. Nah, I didn't say that.

Just that it would be nice if there was a way that people who jump out of planes, bungee jump, etc., would accept more of the risk, as long as we live in a country where health insurance is too expensive for some people. People who pay their own medical bills have to be a lot more scrupulous about unnecessary risk. Maybe higher medical bills should be factored in with the cost of a sport, along with the aqualungs and the ultralite aircraft...

It just plain galls me when I see the best medical technology rolled out to fix a golfer's creaky knee when, goddammit, people have to beg on the internet to get cancer surgery.

Now, if EVERYONE could afford health insurance, it wouldn't matter. And ultimately, it's probably impossible to impose anything like what I'm suggesting, because almost all activity carries risk, and anyway, I'm the last person to discourage healthy exercise.

Just thinking out loud, mister!

:hi:

[pitohui]

38. joggers far higher risk of injury than bungee jumpers

sorry, a good pal had a bungee jumping business, this is a pet peeve

if you jog, you get injured, not the case with bungee jumping

if you refuse care even to the golfer, you refuse care to all involved in sport

i have a right to my sport whether you approve or not

[SmokingJacket]

53. Perhaps I should have said skiing instead of bungee jumping.

I'm not asking to take your precious sports away.

I'm merely wishing people would pay for their damn vanity-injuries out-of-pocket instead of putting the burden on the risk pool.

Pipe dream, I know....

[newyawker99]

37. Hi pitohui!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[pitohui]

39. hi back atcha!

:toast:

[MadHound]

19. Sorry friend, but if you make one exclusion

For "self destructive behaviour" then you are going to have to make so many that your plan would no longer be "univeral" It isn't just smokers, but drinkers, drug users, overeaters, those who engage in risky sex, those who have risky hobbies, those who have dangerous jobs, pro atheletes, college athelets, high school atheletes, etc. etc.

Better you just stick with the clause of "universal", and leave it at that. According to many surveys, the majority of people in this country are in favor of that.

[Nite Owl]

20. They would have to put

the tobacco companies and the fast food companies (if it would include overweight people) out of business to exclude people. How would that be universal coverage? Does any other country do anything so exclusive? Don't think so.

[Peace Patriot]

21. Yeah, only rich smokers get health care. Come on.

We could also just tip the country up and dump the whole lot of addicted people--alcoholics, drug addicts, bulimics, children addicted to cokes and potato chips--into the cold Atlantic, and instantly create a nice, clean, healthy country in which only people exposed to corporate pollution get sick. And maybe we'll throw them out to--anybody stupid enough to breathe or drink the water.

By that logic, you could also deny health care to anybody dumb enough to be born white with parents dumb enough to move them to southern California. Should all us have to pay for all those dumb skin cancers?

If you could make a time-machine and undo the Iraq war, we'd have plenty of money for merciful cradle to grave medical care, and then some. The same if global corporate predators and the rich just paid their fair share of taxes.

When I was young, medical care was still considered what was called a "Corporal Work of Mercy." (--"corporal" meaning physical). That's why there are so many Catholic hospitals. That's why nuns became nurses.

Now it's all about money.

Some Christians these Bushites are. Bloody hypocrites.

[Patiod]

22. I would exclude guys over 25 who play basketball

Don't know too many who haven't had to have expensive surgery. Would also include runners over 40, skiers, definitely scuba divers (have you PRICED a stay in a decompression chamber lately?) and anyone else who takes any risk that could lead them to surgery or hospitalizations.

[Tactical Progressive]

23. Yes, that would be fair

as long as the insurance companies could requisition our grocery store discount card histories to make sure we've never purchased donuts either.

They could probably use the Patriot Act for that. I mean, if our library records are fair game, I'm sure some 'strict constructionist' reactionary judge could find corporate rights to such information somewhere in the Constitution, even if they couldn't.

[andyhappy]

24. what about butter?

I believe heart disease is still the number one killer right?

Or would they weigh everybody and the people who are fat have to pay more for their care?

It's sad that universal health care sounds like a pipe dream here in america while they have it elsewhere on the globe!

We can spend a billion dollars a week in iraq but not a dime for americans here at home...and they have the nerve to call liberals unpatriotic!

[pitohui]

25. no wouldn't work

you are saying health care only for those who don't mind having their lives picked apart and don't have any enemies at any time who might tell lies about them to the authorities -- stalinist this picking and choosing of who is deserving of care -- and mistakes will be made, you may count on that -- how will you prove you weren't smoking that cigar at a party?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Lars39]

28. Got a link for that information?

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

31. Now, how do they know when somebody is lying?

DO they know when somebody is lying?

[pitohui]

41. could accuse the honest person of lying

i have high cholesterol even though i'm at weight proportionate to size -- i feel it's genetics because i eat pure olive oil but if some stalinist wanted to get the numbers down in their county and said i violated the rules by eating lard -- how could i prove otherwise

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

49. Well,"innocent until proven guilty"means the burden of proof is on accuser

not the accused. Therefore, if the state wants to withhold universal health care from you because they believe that you meet the "self-destructive" lifestyle disqualification (whatever that's defined to be), then they have to prove that your lifestyle is self-destructive - at a minimum.

I am not a lawyer, and these are my opinions only, but it seems like such bureaucratic nonsense would be more bother than it's worth. Then again, look at welfare. So who knows?

[pitohui]

50. innocent until proven guilty only relevant in criminal cases

no relevance to civil cases -- a better-known example is forfeiture law -- i've known people personally to have property seized without proof or even an arrest for any crime, much less conviction

yes, welfare, remember all the tittle tattle and social workers checking to see if you had a boyfriend, so the choice is to forever sleep alone -- not gonna happen -- or let the children do without -- individual social workers could cut you off -- not a matter of maybe five years down the road when you're healed anyway you'll get a day in court -- more a matter of you don't live to get your day in court, you're denied upfront

[ladeuxiemevoiture]

52. Yes, exactly.

By making coverage conditional, you are creating a mandate for yet another government bureaucracy. (I realize this is just a hypothetical discussion - lol)

I didn't know that about the criminal/civil distinction. Pity, isn't it? Thanks for the info.

[CanSocDem]

32. Speaking from experience....

...of living as a smoker in an universal health system, it helps to have a government that is really...I mean REALLY...committed to "health care". That means controlling to the best of their ability, the industries and lifestyles that contribute to costly medical treatments.

We've had universal health care since the mid '60's and only last year have we banned smoking in restaurants, bars and enclosed public places.

On the downside, I recently had a cancer surgeon try to hustle me for a biopsy on my lungs. Not to suggest that they are running out of work or anything.....just saying.

[Heddi]

33. Everything is risky

Sure, smoking is very detrimental to health but so does:

eating high fat foods
eating fast foods
eating processed foods
not exercising
living in smog-infested city
eating low-quality foods
eating alot of salt
not drinking enough water
driving
participating in sports
living in a bad neighborhood
not taking medication as prescribed because you don't wish to live with the side effects of such medication
eating too much sugar
not eating enough vegetables
not eating enough fruits
not eating enough grains
not eating enough protein
watching too much television
living in an abusive situation
taking drugs (both legal and illegal, OTC & prescription)
taking supplements
not taking supplements
drinking water of poor quality
having neighbor's cats poop in gardens used to grow edible foods (toxoplasmosis)
being pregnant
not being pregnant (women who do not have children, or who have children after age 30 are at higher risks of certain cancers)
Having sex
having unprotected sex
having safer sex but winding up with that method failing
not doing breast self exam
not doing testicular self exam
eating too much meat
not getting enough protein
being too fat
being too thin
having a genetic disease that is known
having a genetic disease that is not known
having sex with someone who has a genetic disease
visiting a foreign country
living in a foreign country
eating foods in a foreign country
swimming in a pool
swimming in the ocean
not having CPR training
riding a bicycle without a helmet
driving without wearing your seatbelt
working in a dangerous industry
living in an abusive situation


What is considered "self-destructive" activity? Just the things like being fat, and smoking--things that are 'obvious' to everyone else? What about people with genetic predispositions for things like obesity, diabetes, mental illnesses, heart disease, high blood pressure? Are they disqualified too?

All of the things I listed above are technically 'self-destructive' behaviors. We know what foods we need to eat in order to eat a well-balanced meal, but few of us eat well-balanced meals for every meal of every day of our lives.

Some of us live in dangerous places. Some of us have dangerous jobs. Should we be kicked off of insurance for that?

It can't be called "universal" if it's not UNIVERSAL---which means EVERYONE. From the sinful smokers to the lazy fatties to the complacent diabetics (btw--I'm being sarcastic--I don't ascribe any of those adjectives to people with those, or any diseases or addictions).

Then, only those rich enough to eat right and never work can have insurance--oh wait. They can already pay for insurance.

So then all of the people who need it most--which are, those who participate in 'self destructive behaviours' will be left, as they are now, to fend for themselves and hope that whenever they get sick, it gets better on its own, and if it doesn't get better soon, that they die quickly as not to encur any extra costs that they can't afford.

[bloom]

46. Not only that - it changes nearly every week

what is good / what is bad

Some things are both.

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

35. How about gun owners? I think thats a tad riskier then smoking

:shrug:

[OrlandoGator]

42. Smoking kills several times more Americans than guns each year.

Cars, too.

[Vinca]

36. No, I wouldn't be okay with that.

Universal means everyone: smokers, fatsos, cancer victims, people with birth defects, stupid people, ugly people, healthy people, sick people, ALL people.

[w8liftinglady]

40. I agree-

If you allow one exclusion-they will add two more.They will remove people with hypertension and diabetes,which will dispreportionately affect some groups more than others.You really Do have to include everyone-and offer preventative programs and education to help them change.You have to allow for counseling and behavior odification.You have to include exercise programs.It will all work out and cost less as time goes by.

[OrlandoGator]

43. Cover the smokers, just raise taxes on cigarettes.

Not difficult. Lots of countries make this work.

[flaminbats]

51. cigarettes, alcohol..we can't stop this, but we can certainly pay for it

Who can forget when Clinton was pushing for a cigarette tax? The neocons barked endlessly "what about a food tax..or a high fat tax!"

Raising the cost of bare necessities only hurts the health of the poor. But conservatives don't care about our health, they view any health problem as just an act of God..unless it happens to them of course!! :evilgrin:

Republicans even argued against Clinton's health-care plan, claiming it could result in a highly intrusive National ID card..secretly loaded with endless personal info. :wow: Now the Republicans are the ones pushing for such a National ID, only without any health coverage or personal security.

[Catholic Sensation]

44. no

excluding people based on some relative bullshit idea of "self destructiveness" is idiotic

[Stinky The Clown]

45. "Self-destructive Lifestyles" ...... ? .... Wanna define that ..... ?

Let's see ......

Smokers ...... cnacer and heart disease. No soup for you.

Drinkers ...... liver and heart problems. No soup for you.

Gays ....... Aids. No soup for you.

Sexual swingers ...... Aids and STDS. No soup for you.

Commercial fishermen ...... missing limbs. No soup for you.

Firemen ....... blunt force trauma and burns. No soup for you.

Police ...... gun shot issues. No soup for you.

Dopers/Stoners ...... Aids. Brain problems. Lung disease. No soup for you.

Motorcycle riders ...... pavement burns. Brain injuries. No soup for you.

Sky divers, scuba divers ...... death. No soup for you. Actually, on second thought ...... you guys die fast and spectacularly. You can have soup.

And the beat goes on .....

Universal means exactly that .... UNIVERSAL.

[noiretextatique]

47. people DO lie to get coverage

and to get better rates.
as someone else said, when our society grows up enough to actually value the health of its citizens, we will stop treating healthcare like a commodity.

[bloom]

48. Self-destruction.

The whole society is self-destructive.

Look at the effects of industry that are not being regulated.

Pollution of all kinds. Poisons allowed on/in sold as food - allowed in cosmetics and health care products.


That in itself is reason why there should be universal health insurance. Besides it being the right thing to do.