NationStates

Pugmire wrote:

Esternial wrote: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.

No, your phrasing just is. Adding a few eloquent words won't really make it any better than it is, but you'll get there one day if you keep trying. English isn't even my first language, but I'm fairly certain 'germane' is not a frequently used word.

The most relevant point is that procedures and treatments for things such as Alzheimers and other illnesses that tend to appear later in life can be quite expensive, and that the costs could very well outweigh those of treatment of lung cancer and other illnesses associated with an unhealthy lifestyle, taking into consideration the reduction in overall life expectancy of these unhealthy people.

The overall argument - regardless of which healthcare system we're talking about - is that a shorter lifespan reduces the likelihood of certain afflictions arising, some of which are very expensive to treat compared to those caused by smoking or binge drinking/eating.

I'm also curious as to which points about the UK's healthcare system you are referring to.

I'd say No, but you'd have to slap on conditions to get that Healthcare.

British Prussia wrote:I'd say No, but you'd have to slap on conditions to get that Healthcare.

Such as being able to pay for all the costs out of pocket? Good to know you hate poor people.

Luziyca wrote:

British Prussia wrote:I'd say No, but you'd have to slap on conditions to get that Healthcare.

Such as being able to pay for all the costs out of pocket? Good to know you hate poor people.

No, I mean, for example, a destructive drug habit, mandatory rehab. I'm not paying for someone to continually use up the Heathcare system forever when someone else could benefit from it.

Hell no, everyone deserves access to quality healthcare.

Everybody who lives is gonna die! LIFE IS A DESTRUCTIVE LIFESTYLE! BAN HEALTHCARE FOR ALL LIVING THINGS...

British Prussia wrote:

Luziyca wrote:Such as being able to pay for all the costs out of pocket? Good to know you hate poor people.

No, I mean, for example, a destructive drug habit, mandatory rehab. I'm not paying for someone to continually use up the Heathcare system forever when someone else could benefit from it.

See, but that's actually treating the disorder. Not just tossing them out on their ass to try and magically kick the addiction without help.

Reploid Productions wrote:

British Prussia wrote:No, I mean, for example, a destructive drug habit, mandatory rehab. I'm not paying for someone to continually use up the Heathcare system forever when someone else could benefit from it.

See, but that's actually treating the disorder. Not just tossing them out on their ass to try and magically kick the addicted without help.

Well, yes. The OP was rather vague. But, I wouldn't really be in favour of just patching up the person and sending them on their way.

British Prussia wrote:

Reploid Productions wrote:See, but that's actually treating the disorder. Not just tossing them out on their ass to try and magically kick the addicted without help.

Well, yes. The OP was rather vague. But, I wouldn't really be in favour of just patching up the person and sending them on their way.

Considering the disease, that would be a sure way to get a relapse.

If you want the government to punish people for making life choices you don't approve of then why not just say that?

Ifreann wrote:If you want the government to punish people for making life choices you don't approve of then why not just say that?

By the time it reaches addiction level, I would claim it is no longer a choice.

Neutraligon wrote:

Ifreann wrote:If you want the government to punish people for making life choices you don't approve of then why not just say that?

By the time it reaches addiction level, I would claim it is no longer a choice.

If it ever was, but I'm sure the OP thinks that all the people he wants the government to hurt for him chose their fates.

Deny health insurance on the health care exchanges, and employer risk pools. Let them pay cash or for expensive health insurance.

greed and death wrote:Deny health insurance on the health care exchanges, and employer risk pools. Let them pay cash or for expensive health insurance.

Don't lawyers have high risks of heart attacks or stress related illness?

Fartsniffage wrote:

greed and death wrote:Deny health insurance on the health care exchanges, and employer risk pools. Let them pay cash or for expensive health insurance.

Don't lawyers have high risks of heart attacks or stress related illness?

And the state bar association has a special risk pool for us.

Ifreann wrote:If you want the government to punish people for making life choices you don't approve of then why not just say that?

I do not want to pay for people's poor life choices.

Bezombia wrote: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".

Slippery Slope fallacy?

greed and death wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
Don't lawyers have high risks of heart attacks or stress related illness?

And the state bar association has a special risk pool for us.

You have an NHS for lawyers?

New Werpland wrote:

Bezombia wrote: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".

Slippery Slope fallacy?

More like Slippery Slope Reality.
If you had said in 1965 that the invention of the personal computer would certainly lead to the United States government attempting to create a society with no privacy or security, you'd have been called crazy. Alas...

Fartsniffage wrote:

greed and death wrote:And the state bar association has a special risk pool for us.

You have an NHS for lawyers?

Bar associations are private entities here.

greed and death wrote:

Fartsniffage wrote:
You have an NHS for lawyers?

Bar associations are private entities here.

Ah, so I don't think you understood the premise of the OP.

It should not be the job of a healthcare provider to decide for whom they should give treatment. Intentionally destructive lifestyles can be curtailed only if the patient is in a supportive relationship with their provider and is given medical help. To deny this would merely assure more deaths, which is not worth it as a deterrence tactic.

No. If healthcare is free, then everyone gets it.

Otherwise its discrimination. And discrimination is bad.

Pugmire wrote: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.

Those opponents are idiots and you should stop listening to them.

There are a myriad of factors a mile long that lead {have lead} to the vast rise of heath care costs in the US and which I’m more than happy to provide sources for to get you started on your quest if your actually interested in reality.

But the main driver has been, hint it's not alcoholics, smokers or obese people. It's old people...

Yes, that’s right, the millions upon millions upon millions upon millions of them.

Who would have thought older people would require so much medical services & attention, right?

I guarantee you that if anyone & everyone 55 or older living in the US disappeared tomorrow you would see the American health care industry collapse overnight.

Edit: Almost forgot, in answer to your question. No, no one should be denied coverage no matter what their preexisting condition.

Bezombia wrote: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.