Deny Healthcare To Intentionally Destructive Lifestyles?

[El Fiji Grande]

The problem is eventually you'll get to the point where "intentionally destructive lifestyle" comes to include such things as "driving high-emissions vehicles," "eating vegan," or "voting independent".

The slippery slope argument. Except I agree with you. And I don't think it's a bad argument.

[USS Monitor]

In USA, many opponents of nationalized healthcare say it’s a bad idea because alcoholics, smokers, obese people etc. will drive up demand and thus decrease the quality and increase the price (taxes) of healthcare for everyone. But if we apply the same logic that life insurance companies use to provide coverage, we see these problems are circumvented by a vetting process. People who are at high risk of death or who seemingly do not want to live are not approved.

So an easy way to keep costs down and quality up is to simply deny service to those who lead intentionally destructive lifestyles. A doctor could put patients who choose to maintain unhealthy habits (smoking, overeating to extremes, etc.) on a probationary period, and if no improvement is made within the allotted time, refer them to a private doctor. Can’t afford the private doctor? Shouldn’t have spent all your money on Big Macs and/or Marlboros and you wouldn’t need a private doctor anyway.

Of course the specifics of how to implement related policy would need to be very carefully thought out but I think the basic idea is sound, and hammering out ideas is what discussions are for anyway. So, yay or nay?

This issue already exists on employer-sponsored group plans -- particularly dependent coverage where people that are too sick to work can still be added as dependents. Socialized medicine wouldn't make these unhealthy lifestyles any more common than they already are, and the costs are already being passed on to other people through insurance premiums charged by private insurers.

[Sociobiology]

In USA, many opponents of nationalized healthcare say it’s a bad idea because alcoholics, smokers, obese people etc. will drive up demand and thus decrease the quality and increase the price (taxes) of healthcare for everyone.

except they tend to do the exact opposite by dying instead of growing old.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I already addressed you with a legitimate question, which you've elected to ignore, meaning you are apparently done debating as well.

I suppose I will accept your concession.

You can't accept my concession because it doesn't exist.

My, oh my. So you're allowed to make shit up, but I'm not. K bud.

[Sam Hyde]

this is thin privilege.

[The Orson Empire]

Legislating morality never works. Anything could be considered to be an "intentionally destructive lifestyle", as the definition is entirely subjective and would be prone to abuse.

[Cenetra]

In USA, many opponents of nationalized healthcare say it’s a bad idea because alcoholics, smokers, obese people etc. will drive up demand and thus decrease the quality and increase the price (taxes) of healthcare for everyone. But if we apply the same logic that life insurance companies use to provide coverage, we see these problems are circumvented by a vetting process. People who are at high risk of death or who seemingly do not want to live are not approved.

So an easy way to keep costs down and quality up is to simply deny service to those who lead intentionally destructive lifestyles. A doctor could put patients who choose to maintain unhealthy habits (smoking, overeating to extremes, etc.) on a probationary period, and if no improvement is made within the allotted time, refer them to a private doctor. Can’t afford the private doctor? Shouldn’t have spent all your money on Big Macs and/or Marlboros and you wouldn’t need a private doctor anyway.

Of course the specifics of how to implement related policy would need to be very carefully thought out but I think the basic idea is sound, and hammering out ideas is what discussions are for anyway. So, yay or nay?

Alcoholics, smokers, and obese people in developed nations skew heavily towards lower incomes - i.e. the people who need nationalized healthcare the most. This sounds like another "war on the poor" measure.