Deny Healthcare To Intentionally Destructive Lifestyles?

[Zunkwentania]

To add on to the points of others, patients would simply not tell their doctors about relapses or unhealthy habits. It would end up in an ER situation/

[Bezombia]

The only way that post can be better is if you had your mod sig in it. You just nuked that proposal argument not from orbit, but from the other side of the universe, and then managed to obliterate all traces of the argument, and the surrounding area. For this, you get to go on the AQ.

Not really, considering the point was that healthcare exists for those who want to live, not those who will create a burden for everyone. Why finance the existence of people who will continue to make their own lives worse despite medical advice given to them in the probationary period? In this scenario they are told by a doctor to stop, and given some preliminary care.

And as mentioned they can always go to a private doctor. Being a butter golem or having unprotected gay sex with Rodrigo from the club because he is just fabulous are choices, and everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the luxury of Uncle Tad to smoke Newports and drink 40s on the corner.

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

[Reploid Productions]

Nay, because in the vast majority of situations, people need healthcare and help to overcome "intentionally destructive" habits. And denying them that healthcare will just worsen emergency room crowding and costs, because as already shown in the US, when people can't afford preventative healthcare and such, they instead let a situation go until they have to go to the ER, which is obligated to help regardless of whether or not the patient can afford it, ultimately costing taxpayers far more than it would if affordable preventative treatment and such is available.

I feel like you present the solution in your very first paragraph, simply do not give emergency care either.
And your whole point becomes moot, step it kid.

And your proposal for dealing with the sick, dying people who are then left to die in their homes, in the streets, and quite possibly contribute to massive new outbreaks of contagious diseases? Because that's how you get epidemics. Not to mention the desperate friends/family members of those people, who, for lack of any hope or alternative options then resort to extreme measures? Because that's how you get violent revolutions.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

The only way that post can be better is if you had your mod sig in it. You just nuked that proposal argument not from orbit, but from the other side of the universe, and then managed to obliterate all traces of the argument, and the surrounding area. For this, you get to go on the AQ.

Not really, considering the point was that healthcare exists for those who want to live, not those who will create a burden for everyone. Why finance the existence of people who will continue to make their own lives worse despite medical advice given to them in the probationary period? In this scenario they are told by a doctor to stop, and given some preliminary care.

And as mentioned they can always go to a private doctor. Being a butter golem or having unprotected gay sex with Rodrigo from the club because he is just fabulous are choices, and everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the luxury of Uncle Tad to smoke Newports and drink 40s on the corner.

This just in: fat people and smokers don't care whether they live or die. Homicide of unhealthy people legalized.

[Esternial]

The only way that post can be better is if you had your mod sig in it. You just nuked that proposal argument not from orbit, but from the other side of the universe, and then managed to obliterate all traces of the argument, and the surrounding area. For this, you get to go on the AQ.

Not really, considering the point was that healthcare exists for those who want to live, not those who will create a burden for everyone. Why finance the existence of people who will continue to make their own lives worse despite medical advice given to them in the probationary period? In this scenario they are told by a doctor to stop, and given some preliminary care.

And as mentioned they can always go to a private doctor. Being a butter golem or having unprotected gay sex with Rodrigo from the club because he is just fabulous are choices, and everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the luxury of Uncle Tad to smoke Newports and drink 40s on the corner.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ems-money/

c:

Anything to add?

[Ashkera]

Not really, considering the point was that healthcare exists for those who want to live, not those who will create a burden for everyone. Why finance the existence of people who will continue to make their own lives worse despite medical advice given to them in the probationary period? In this scenario they are told by a doctor to stop, and given some preliminary care.

And as mentioned they can always go to a private doctor. Being a butter golem or having unprotected gay sex with Rodrigo from the club because he is just fabulous are choices, and everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the luxury of Uncle Tad to smoke Newports and drink 40s on the corner.

Look mate, the human brain is not designed for infinite willpower. It never was, and only genetic engineering or cybernetic augmentation will be able to change that. Willpower itself has biological roots, and can be depleted, even among those who think it can't - it can even be depleted just by being bombarded with advertising.

So you either deal with human beings as imperfect, or accept that it's not really human beings in general that you care about.

I mean if you're going to do this, then surely you're willing to ban fast food advertising, right? Let's be consistent here.

[Pugmire]

Not really, considering the point was that healthcare exists for those who want to live, not those who will create a burden for everyone. Why finance the existence of people who will continue to make their own lives worse despite medical advice given to them in the probationary period? In this scenario they are told by a doctor to stop, and given some preliminary care.

And as mentioned they can always go to a private doctor. Being a butter golem or having unprotected gay sex with Rodrigo from the club because he is just fabulous are choices, and everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the luxury of Uncle Tad to smoke Newports and drink 40s on the corner.

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

Are you unaware that addiction is a disease that frequently can not be resisted?

[Reploid Productions]

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

Can you please explain where in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (I'll take the DSM-IV or V) they explain that eating disorders, chemical addictions, and the like are suicidal behaviors?

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

The year is 2121. Pugmire's race of genetically perfect superhumans rules the earth, all the fatties having been sent to the death camps in the great twinkie purge of 2015. Sneezing is punishable by death.

[Pugmire]

Not really, considering the point was that healthcare exists for those who want to live, not those who will create a burden for everyone. Why finance the existence of people who will continue to make their own lives worse despite medical advice given to them in the probationary period? In this scenario they are told by a doctor to stop, and given some preliminary care.

And as mentioned they can always go to a private doctor. Being a butter golem or having unprotected gay sex with Rodrigo from the club because he is just fabulous are choices, and everyone shouldn't be forced to pay for the luxury of Uncle Tad to smoke Newports and drink 40s on the corner.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ems-money/

c:

Anything to add?

That article makes many logical leaps but I won't even bother addressing them because linkwarz is poor debate form.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

Can you please explain where in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (I'll take the DSM-IV or V) they explain that eating disorders, chemical addictions, and the like are suicidal behaviors?

No, because there is no need for me to do so.

[Bezombia]

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

No, you support healthcare for people who want to live like you do.
Lying is a nasty habit. Under your system, you posting what you just did would disqualify you from national healthcare. Moralism is never logical; I recommend you reevaluate your moralist views on society before attempting to justify them using nonsense such as this.

[Ashkera]

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

What you're not realizing is that your definition of "want" is not actually simple. If 95% of the time you want to live a long time, but alcoholism runs in your family, and the 5% of the time when alcohol is around, the desire for it overwhelms you even though you consciously know better, which do you really "want"?

This is not philosophically trivial.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ems-money/

c:

Anything to add?

That article makes many logical leaps but I won't even bother addressing them because linkwarz is poor debate form.

Can you please explain where in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (I'll take the DSM-IV or V) they explain that eating disorders, chemical addictions, and the like are suicidal behaviors?

No, because there is no need for me to do so.

Nah, see, those are called sources.

[Esternial]

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

So you judge people solely by their actions and don't care whether there's a underlying mental issue, despite the fact you base your discrimination on "whether or not they want to live".

You simultaneously do and don't care about people's psychological condition. Amazing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall ... ems-money/

c:

Anything to add?

That article makes many logical leaps but I won't even bother addressing them because linkwarz is poor debate form.

A "no I don't have anything to add" or "I don't have a proper argument" would have sufficed, thank you.

[Reploid Productions]

Can you please explain where in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (I'll take the DSM-IV or V) they explain that eating disorders, chemical addictions, and the like are suicidal behaviors?

No, because there is no need for me to do so.

You're claiming these people are suicidal. Prove it.

[Pugmire]

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

No, you support healthcare for people who want to live like you do.
Lying is a nasty habit. Under your system, you posting what you just did would disqualify you from national healthcare. Moralism is never logical; I recommend you reevaluate your moralist views on society before attempting to justify them using nonsense such as this.

Actually,

1) You have no proof whether I live a healthy lifestyle or not, and my personal life is irrelevant to the discussion.
2) It has nothing to do with morals, smoking, obesity, etc. are objectively unhealthy.

[Napkiraly]

Or in other words, you don't support national healthcare. Or the right for people to live, apparently.

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

Once again you don't understand what public healthcare is and you pretty much confirmed what Bez was saying.

I know that the American education system and society is all sorts of fucked up, didn't think it could actually be worse.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

It has nothing to do with morals, smoking, obesity, etc. are objectively unhealthy.

Life's fucking unhealthy, bud, we're all gonna die one day.

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

I haven't had this much fun since my last conversation with chessmistress.

[Esternial]

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

Once again you don't understand what public healthcare is and you pretty much confirmed what Bez was saying.

I know that American education system and society is all sorts of fucked up, didn't think it could actually be worse.

Always aim higher o/

[Ashkera]

Actually,

1) You have no proof whether I live a healthy lifestyle or not, and my personal life is irrelevant to the discussion.
2) It has nothing to do with morals, smoking, obesity, etc. are objectively unhealthy.

Emphasis mine.

"We should not spend money on healthcare for the overweight," is a normative judgment. It's a moral decision.

"We do not spend money on healthcare for the overweight," could be an objective statement. It doesn't concern what we ought to do.

Your position is the former, not the latter.

[Pugmire]

I simply support healthcare for people who want to live. A man who exercises every day and eats healthy foods but is diagnosed with prostate cancer would get this healthcare. A woman who is repeatedly told by a doctor that she is committing suicide by Twinkee but goes on to buffet at steakhouses every night would not. It's a simple concept, really.

Once again you don't understand what public healthcare is and you pretty much confirmed what Bez was saying.

I know that American education system and society is all sorts of fucked up, didn't think it could actually be worse.

It has nothing to do with morals, smoking, obesity, etc. are objectively unhealthy.

Life's fucking unhealthy, bud, we're all gonna die one day.

Making declarative statements on an internet forum to look cool while not addressing the presented points is not debating. Since you have stopped debating, I suppose it is safe to assume you have conceded. I accept your concessions.

[Napkiraly]

Once again you don't understand what public healthcare is and you pretty much confirmed what Bez was saying.

I know that American education system and society is all sorts of fucked up, didn't think it could actually be worse.

Life's fucking unhealthy, bud, we're all gonna die one day.

Making declarative statements on an internet forum to look cool while not addressing the presented points is not debating. Since you have stopped debating, I suppose it is safe to assume you have conceded. I accept your concessions.

NSG is a debating forum? I thought is was just for shit posting and making snarky remarks.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Making declarative statements on an internet forum to look cool while not addressing the presented points is not debating. Since you have stopped debating, I suppose it is safe to assume you have conceded. I accept your concessions.

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.