Feela

Does anyone else see a bias in the title of the thread?

It only made a small mention of the elderly and the unhealthy were smokers, alcoholics, obese etc. And it had to do with doctors moral ideals not anything else and yet the op is clearly aiming a swipe at the NHS and presumably all UHCs. The article even quotes someone to sum this up.

"I think the judgment these doctors are making is nothing to do with the clinical reasons for limiting such operations and purely a moral decision."

It is basically saying in these kinds of systems the taxpayer shouldn't have to pay for smoker's lung cancer etc.

UtahBill

Wonderful idea. We start tomorrow. Who among us will drive Grandma and Grandpa to the mortuary tomorrow morning? They can get on the table, take a pill, and as soon as they are "out", the undertaker can start draining vital fluids.
One thing, the kids and grandkids should have to be there to send them off. And just before they take the pill, they get to have a lawyer change their wills so the kids and grandkids get nothing.

That takes care of the old. Now for the unhealthy. We need to have every pregnant women tested and if the fetus has any unhealthy genes, or already has defects, then the abortion takes place immediately. If you or your child are found to be a carrier of a disease that will affect others but does not affect you, you must be isolated from everyone and live on an island all alone, or take the same pill grandma has to take.

Do I think not treating the old and unhealthy is stupid? Yes, yes I do....

__________________
The Age of Reason doesn't have to be a thing of the past.
Being judgemental is the prime directive of some evangelicals.
No success can compensate for failure in the home.

rivrrat

This doesn't surprise me. It's the inevitable outcome of socialist healthcare systems.

__________________

WI Crippler

Just what would be the determination of who is old, and who is unhealthy is enough to scare me. Will it be an arbitrary number for age? Will they use the erroneous and misleading BMI scale for expediency sake?

__________________
"What Jesus fails to appreciate is that it's the meek who are the problem."- Reg

aegyptos

A healthy bias. It is exactly a moral case. If all citizens are going to have a portion of their income confiscated to pay for health care for all on an equal basis, the State cannot then turn around and deny care to some that if favors for whatever reason over those it does not favor. Government has no right to pick and choose among its citizens, all of whom are being dragooned into paying for UHC. Knowledge that the State is unequal to the task of acting in a morally upright manner in these kinds of decisions, knowing that government is the plaything of special interests like the the obesity nazis and anti-smoking fanatics, plays a big role in the disdain of the America people for government delivered health care.

Bones

I can understand where they are coming from. Perhaps they see treating the elederly as pointless as they are only going to die anyway? I can see where they are coming from, but disagree.
However, I do agree with them not wanting to treat those who choose to lead unhealthy lifestyles. In my opinion, those who choose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle should pay for their own surgery/medication/after care etc.

I would like to see smokers pay for their own chemotherapy, for example. After all, as much as you may not like it, smoking is a choice, and it has consequences. If you get ill, and that illness is linked to your smoking, you should pay for your own treatment. I believe that a non smoker is far more deserving of medical care than a person who knows the risks, yet ignores them.

I would extend this only to smokers, of course. Heavy drinkers and the obese, for example, should also be made to pay for their own hospital care. Afetr all, no one forced them to drink themselves into obvilion, and no one forced them to sit in front of the television eating pizza and drinking coke each day.

People can get healthy, just some people refuse to.

Now, old people have more health problems than the young, and they may end up overweight, but I would contribute this to an inability to be mobile, through illness or arthritis etc. The elderly should not be denied medical care, but those people who chose to lead an unhealthy lifestyle should, although not be denied care, but made to pay for that care.


I wonder what everyone thinks about this?

Goldenboy219

The above posts basically outlines why i am against UHC in the US. People here live really unhealthy lifestyles (smokers, over eaters, extreme sportsman, extreme dieters, etc...), and if they dont care about their health, why should someone else foot the bill when reality checks in?

In the US, i can see the medical industry (corporations not actual physicians) being supportive of this extreme American living. What it does is guarantee good profit margins for years to come. If the US is to adopt a UHC, we will also have to outlaw unhealthy living. If not, there is no way you can pay for it, here at least.

So, if Hillary does get elected, it will be shocking how close Demolition Man was at predicting the future.

"John Spartin you are fined one credit for violating the verbal morality standard."

"The Schwarzenegger Presidential Library"

__________________
Firing your head coach: -15 wins
Trading Ben Wallace: +5 wins
Youngest team in NBA: -6 wins
Drafting Derrick Rose no.1 overall: Priceless

donc

And if they don’t have insurance let them die right? What’s wrong with letting them stay alive and paying taxes a few more years? the average cost of Chemo is approaching $24000 now, and medical cost is rising higher than the rising inflation rate that will put them in a already overloaded bankruptcy court and on the taxpayers dime.


[quote=Bones;1057519143
would extend this only to smokers, of course. Heavy drinkers and the obese, for example, should also be made to pay for their own hospital care. Afetr all, no one forced them to drink themselves into obvilion, and no one forced them to sit in front of the television eating pizza and drinking coke each day.[/QUOTE]

Another slippery slope here, as crippler pointed out, we going to go by BMI(body mass index)when determining who is fat? If so when Arnold won his Mr., Olympic titles would have been classed as obese, more important to myself so would I, but I can still squat 500 hundred pounds at my advanced age.Here is link to a video that shows other obese people have having some fun.



Your right the older you get the more medical care you need, that Is called getting older and the need to keep these people healthy, should a priority for the younger generation, in my opinion it also is saving money in the long run. What kind of example is it when you can discard some of the older generation just because they choose an unhealthy lifestyle in their youth? My father told me about “C rations” when he was in the Pacific during World War 11,in addition to having cans of beans and franks, they would have a pack of cigarettes in them. He said that he was happier about the cigarettes then the beans and franks by the way he came home and smoked until his demise at the age of 78, with a cigarette in his hand. He didn’t smoke prior to his going into the Marines Corps during the war.

aegyptos

It sounds very fascistic to me.

If you force all the fat people, smokers and others you disdain to contribute to your universal health care plan you cannot then deny them any treatment you deliver to others. You do understand this, don't you? You can't tax them for UHC and them fail to deliver them the same service you would like to see for yourself and other people.

Panache

Why not? Why should they recieve the benefits of an entitlement program just because they are paying for it? I don't recieve benefits from the entitlement programs that I am paying for.