Deny Healthcare To Intentionally Destructive Lifestyles?

[Ashkera]

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.

You haven't responded to any of my posts in this thread. Does this mean you have conceded to me?

[Mysterious Stranger 2]

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.

Alright everyone, Pugmire has accepted our collective concession. Where's the hat to make him emperor of NSG? Oh crap, did Thafoo take it?

[Scyobayrynn]

If this is a serious thread why not use your main account to start it?

[Bezombia]

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.

1: So you're advocating for the state to take away your health insurance? This is even more circular, because
-Not having health insurance leads to astronomical health costs, so
-Having medical treatment without insurance is unaffordable and, thus, impossible, so
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is equatable with not wanting to live, therefore
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is grounds, under your system, for the state to take away your health insurance
Please.
2: So is having a broken leg. You want to deny healthcare to people with broken legs, too?

[Pugmire]

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.

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

[Esternial]

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.

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

Like what you did here by calling one link "linkwarz".

Adding in an edgy "I won't even bother addressing them" doesn't really make a difference.

The simple fact is that unhealthy lifestyles costs the healthcare system less money, and you don't seem to have a proper counter-argument for that. I'm assuming we'll find out whether you actually do in the next few posts.

Either that or your silence or excuses will speak for you.

[Napkiraly]

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.

Well neither does it for myself or Prus, so there you go.

[Neutraligon]

You haven't answered my question who gets to decide what an Intentionally Destructive lifestyle is and how that decision is made? My dad worked with chemicals, chemicals that could be harmful to the health, it was his job to do so, is this an intentionally destructive lifestyle?

[Pugmire]

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.

1: So you're advocating for the state to take away your health insurance? This is even more circular, because
-Not having health insurance leads to astronomical health costs, so
-Having medical treatment without insurance is unaffordable and, thus, impossible, so
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is equatable with not wanting to live, therefore
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is grounds, under your system, for the state to take away your health insurance
Please.
2: So is having a broken leg. You want to deny healthcare to people with broken legs, too?

1) I'm not advocating anything about myself personally, you do not have enough information to know one way or another so why bring my person into it? Attack the argument, not the person.
2) As repeated several times already,healthcare in this scenario is given to those who deserve it. Like somebody who accidentally breaks a leg. You don't accidentally smoke cigarettes every day for 20 years.

[Fartsniffage]

1: So you're advocating for the state to take away your health insurance? This is even more circular, because
-Not having health insurance leads to astronomical health costs, so
-Having medical treatment without insurance is unaffordable and, thus, impossible, so
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is equatable with not wanting to live, therefore
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is grounds, under your system, for the state to take away your health insurance
Please.
2: So is having a broken leg. You want to deny healthcare to people with broken legs, too?

1) I'm not advocating anything about myself personally, you do not have enough information to know one way or another so why bring my person into it? Attack the argument, not the person.
2) As repeated several times already,healthcare in this scenario is given to those who deserve it. Like somebody who accidentally breaks a leg. You don't accidentally smoke cigarettes every day for 20 years.

What if they break their leg skiing?

[Napkiraly]

You haven't answered my question who gets to decide what an Intentionally Destructive lifestyle is? My dad worked with chemicals, chemicals that could be harmful to the health, it was his job to do so, is this an intentionally destructive lifestyle?

Doctors also undergo massive amounts of stress and suffer from high rates of depression as a result of their work. Evidently healthcare workers should be denied being treated by the same system they work for.

Veterans suffering the effects of their service also cut off.

So are cops.

And Firefighters.

And Astronauts.

[Ashkera]

2) As repeated several times already,healthcare in this scenario is given to those who deserve it. Like somebody who accidentally breaks a leg. You don't accidentally smoke cigarettes every day for 20 years.

And I have already indicated, this "deserve" depends on a very specific definition of "want", such that someone who wants to live a long, healthy life 95% of the time, but has alcoholism, and is overwhelmed by the 5% of the time a drink is around, "wants" to "die."

Since you failed to address this earlier, I'll accept that you've conceded this argument, on the same grounds you said others conceded theirs.

[Napkiraly]

1: So you're advocating for the state to take away your health insurance? This is even more circular, because
-Not having health insurance leads to astronomical health costs, so
-Having medical treatment without insurance is unaffordable and, thus, impossible, so
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is equatable with not wanting to live, therefore
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is grounds, under your system, for the state to take away your health insurance
Please.
2: So is having a broken leg. You want to deny healthcare to people with broken legs, too?

1) I'm not advocating anything about myself personally, you do not have enough information to know one way or another so why bring my person into it? Attack the argument, not the person.
2) As repeated several times already,healthcare in this scenario is given to those who deserve it. Like somebody who accidentally breaks a leg. You don't accidentally smoke cigarettes every day for 20 years.

No healthcare in this system goes to those you say it goes to and those that are left out have to go somewhere else even if they already pay taxes towards this system.

[Ayreonia]

Nah, I don't want some government paper pusher decide whether my lifestyle is "intentionally" destructive.

[Pugmire]

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.

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

Like what you did here by calling one link "linkwarz".

Adding in an edgy "I won't even bother addressing them" doesn't really make a difference.

The simple fact is that unhealthy lifestyles costs the healthcare system less money, and you don't seem to have a proper counter-argument for that. I'm assuming we'll find out whether you actually do in the next few posts.

Either that or your silence or excuses will speak for you.

That specific article involves conditions germane to the UK, and again, a link is not an argument, Make one or be ignored henceforth.

You haven't answered my question who gets to decide what an Intentionally Destructive lifestyle is and how that decision is made? My dad worked with chemicals, chemicals that could be harmful to the health, it was his job to do so, is this an intentionally destructive lifestyle?

Same way any other decision is best made: common sense, rationality, and democracy. In the case of healthcare there could be a list of disqualifying factors such as smoking, obesity, etc. which persist after a probationary period in which counseling is given but no improvement is made by the patient. Working in potentially hazardous environments would be unfair to consider, and in fact if you end up with health problems because of your job you might consider suing your employer for these unsafe conditions.

[Palakistan]

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".

What I was thinking too. Who decides who get healthcare? The government? They could just deny healthcare to any person who disagrees with their policies.

[Neutraligon]

Like what you did here by calling one link "linkwarz".

Adding in an edgy "I won't even bother addressing them" doesn't really make a difference.

The simple fact is that unhealthy lifestyles costs the healthcare system less money, and you don't seem to have a proper counter-argument for that. I'm assuming we'll find out whether you actually do in the next few posts.

Either that or your silence or excuses will speak for you.

That specific article involves conditions germane to the UK, and again, a link is not an argument, Make one or be ignored henceforth.

You haven't answered my question who gets to decide what an Intentionally Destructive lifestyle is and how that decision is made? My dad worked with chemicals, chemicals that could be harmful to the health, it was his job to do so, is this an intentionally destructive lifestyle?

Same way any other decision is best made: common sense, rationality, and democracy. In the case of healthcare there could be a list of disqualifying factors such as smoking, obesity, etc. which persist after a probationary period in which counseling is given but no improvement is made by the patient. Working in potentially hazardous environments would be unfair to consider, and in fact if you end up with health problems because of your job you might consider suing your employer for these unsafe conditions.

Would you consider being a doctor an unsafe environment, after all it tends to cause depression and other issues. Under what basis do you consider preventing those who have a disease, namely an addiction to alcohol or cigarettes, or to those who for some reason or another are obese (ever heard of food deserts?) as common sense? Seems to me to be rather stupid actually since you are refusing to treat someone when their diseases are easier to treat and instead forcing the system to pay for them later when it is more expensive.

What was the phrase again, oh yeah, "Common sense isn't."

[Esternial]

Like what you did here by calling one link "linkwarz".

Adding in an edgy "I won't even bother addressing them" doesn't really make a difference.

The simple fact is that unhealthy lifestyles costs the healthcare system less money, and you don't seem to have a proper counter-argument for that. I'm assuming we'll find out whether you actually do in the next few posts.

Either that or your silence or excuses will speak for you.

That specific article involves conditions germane to the UK, and again, a link is not an argument, Make one or be ignored henceforth.

I just said that an unhealthy lifestyle costs the healthcare system less money, and "germane in the UK" is the best response you could come up with? Are the rules so different in America, or are you simply grasping at the first best thing you can come up with so you can avoid acknowledging the existence of this fact?

More evasive replies or an actual response? If you're unable to find a proper argument, just don't reply and I'll get the message. Please spare me any more excuses - and please leave the dab of pseudo-intellectual vocabulary for another debate.

[Pugmire]

That specific article involves conditions germane to the UK, and again, a link is not an argument, Make one or be ignored henceforth.

I just said that an unhealthy lifestyle costs the healthcare system less money, and "germane in the UK" is the best response you could come up with? Are the rules so different in America, or are you simply grasping at the first best thing you can come up with so you can avoid acknowledging the existence of this fact?

More evasive replies or an actual response? If you're unable to find a proper argument, just don't reply and I'll get the message. Please spare me any more excuses - and please leave the dab of pseudo-intellectual vocabulary for another debate.

The fact that you think "germane" is pseudo-intellectual vocabulary speaks more about you than it does me. And my point was simply that your link to that article is a non-sequitur. Why? Because it makes points about the UK's healthcare system that do not apply to the USA. Please do read the article and present any points that you feel apply to this discussion.

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

The idea that anyone who's addicted to a harmful substance doesn't want to live (conveniently giving you an excuse to basically kill them by denying them health care), if that's what you're saying, is just... sick.

And saying we'll deny health care to people who are likely to die (which includes a lot of people who didn't do anything wrong) is saying we will deny it to those who need it most.

Also, your idea would pretty much amount to making doing something unhealthy (at least if you're poor) punishable by a slow death.

Lastly, where do you draw the line? Lots of people do unhealthy things. How much do you have to drink before you get health care cut off? Is drinking pop enough to get you cut off? Is not exercising every day?

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.

Poor people may eat more unhealthy food because they can't afford anything better.

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?

The basic idea is morally bankrupt.

[Bezombia]

1: So you're advocating for the state to take away your health insurance? This is even more circular, because
-Not having health insurance leads to astronomical health costs, so
-Having medical treatment without insurance is unaffordable and, thus, impossible, so
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is equatable with not wanting to live, therefore
-Wanting the state to take away your health insurance is grounds, under your system, for the state to take away your health insurance
Please.
2: So is having a broken leg. You want to deny healthcare to people with broken legs, too?

1) I'm not advocating anything about myself personally, you do not have enough information to know one way or another so why bring my person into it? Attack the argument, not the person.
2) As repeated several times already,healthcare in this scenario is given to those who deserve it. Like somebody who accidentally breaks a leg. You don't accidentally smoke cigarettes every day for 20 years.

1: I am attacking your argument. You're trying to derail said argument by making this about yourself. Nobody cares about you, not sure why you believe otherwise.
2: What you are saying is wrong. What you are saying has been disproven time and time again. Either you know that you're wrong and are just repeating the same wrong-ness for whatever your motives are, or you're completely unable to see yourself for the wrongality that you contain - in both cases, you lost this argument before it started.

[Fartsniffage]

I just said that an unhealthy lifestyle costs the healthcare system less money, and "germane in the UK" is the best response you could come up with? Are the rules so different in America, or are you simply grasping at the first best thing you can come up with so you can avoid acknowledging the existence of this fact?

More evasive replies or an actual response? If you're unable to find a proper argument, just don't reply and I'll get the message. Please spare me any more excuses - and please leave the dab of pseudo-intellectual vocabulary for another debate.

The fact that you think "germane" is pseudo-intellectual vocabulary speaks more about you than it does me. And my point was simply that your link to that article is a non-sequitur. Why? Because it makes points about the UK's healthcare system that do not apply to the USA. Please do read the article and present any points that you feel apply to this discussion.

I'm confused Pug. Do you think the state of health for Americans is hugely different to the state of health of the British?

[Reploid Productions]

Same way any other decision is best made: common sense, rationality, and democracy. In the case of healthcare there could be a list of disqualifying factors such as smoking, obesity, etc. which persist after a probationary period in which counseling is given but no improvement is made by the patient. Working in potentially hazardous environments would be unfair to consider, and in fact if you end up with health problems because of your job you might consider suing your employer for these unsafe conditions.

Pregnancy and childbirth can be destructive, too. Especially for women who are in their mid-30s and upward. Should they be denied healthcare because they got pregnant? Oooh, how about their kid? I mean, studies have shown that children born later in the mother's life have a higher risk of various serious conditions. But clearly, since the mother chose to get pregnant late and carry it to term, neither the risk-taking momma nor her risk-baby deserve healthcare, because clearly the mother is suicidal.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that people who engage in "intentionally destructive" lifestyle choices are in fact suicidal. Because I'm pretty sure that is not anywhere in the current DSM, aka the Holy Bible of Psychological Diagnosis Criteria.

[Neutraligon]

The fact that you think "germane" is pseudo-intellectual vocabulary speaks more about you than it does me. And my point was simply that your link to that article is a non-sequitur. Why? Because it makes points about the UK's healthcare system that do not apply to the USA. Please do read the article and present any points that you feel apply to this discussion.

I'm confused Pug. Do you think the state of health for Americans is hugely different to the state of health of the British?

Well apparently making law and the such is just common sense after all there are no complications or reasons for why certain laws do not work.

[Neutraligon]

Same way any other decision is best made: common sense, rationality, and democracy. In the case of healthcare there could be a list of disqualifying factors such as smoking, obesity, etc. which persist after a probationary period in which counseling is given but no improvement is made by the patient. Working in potentially hazardous environments would be unfair to consider, and in fact if you end up with health problems because of your job you might consider suing your employer for these unsafe conditions.

Pregnancy and childbirth can be destructive, too. Especially for women who are in their mid-30s and upward. Should they be denied healthcare because they got pregnant? Oooh, how about their kid? I mean, studies have shown that children born later in the mother's life have a higher risk of various serious conditions. But clearly, since the mother chose to get pregnant late and carry it to term, neither the risk-taking momma nor her risk-baby deserve healthcare, because clearly the mother is suicidal.

And I'm still waiting for you to support your claim that people who engage in "intentionally destructive" lifestyle choices are in fact suicidal. Because I'm pretty sure that is not anywhere in the current DSM, aka the Holy Bible of Psychological Diagnosis Criteria.

I am still waiting for who gets to decide what Intentionally destructive is, why they get to decide, and what is the criteria for how they make that decision. All I got in response was something about common sense which really isn't an answer.