• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charge more for healthcare of self-inflicted ailments?

Should those with self-inflicted ailments be charged more for health care?

  • Yes, their life choices cost everyone more money

    Votes: 2 12.5%

  • Yes, and higher costs should be expanded to cronic healthcare users (ex:hypochondriac)

    Votes: 3 18.8%

  • No, everyone should pay the same no matter how much health care you use

    Votes: 6 37.5%

  • No, with some other reason

    Votes: 5 31.3%
  • Total voters
    16
Gibberish

Gibberish

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2005
Messages
6,339
Reaction score
1,269
Location
San Diego, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
With a public health care plan (or even private), should those people that choose to cause ailments for themselves be charged more for health care then people that live a healthy life style? This would include the Obese, smokers, drinkers, drug users, workers in physically demanding careers, etc. Outside of the hospital costs these can also lead to support group, rehab, and other additional costs that healthy people would not need.

Assume there are exceptions such as someone obese because of genetic disorder that is out of their control.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
With a public health care plan (or even private), should those people that choose to cause ailments for themselves be charged more for health care then people that live a healthy life style? This would include the Obese, smokers, drinkers, drug users, workers in physically demanding careers, etc. Outside of the hospital costs these can also lead to support group, rehab, and other additional costs that healthy people would not need.

Assume there are exceptions such as someone obese because of genetic disorder that is out of their control.
Click to expand...

No. Self inflicted ailments are often due to some other reason, be it a chemical imbalance of the brain or too much stress.
 
Gibberish said:
With a public health care plan (or even private), should those people that choose to cause ailments for themselves be charged more for health care then people that live a healthy life style? This would include the Obese, smokers, drinkers, drug users, workers in physically demanding careers, etc. Outside of the hospital costs these can also lead to support group, rehab, and other additional costs that healthy people would not need.

Assume there are exceptions such as someone obese because of genetic disorder that is out of their control.
Click to expand...

That'll never happen, because the folks most effected would be minorities. It's laughable to think anyone, especially Libbos, would ever do something like this...:rofl
 
apdst said:
That'll never happen, because the folks most effected would be minorities. It's laughable to think anyone, especially Libbos, would ever do something like this...:rofl
Click to expand...

I could see many liberals voting to have smokers, drug users, and drinkers pay more for illnesses caused by their choices. Have you been to California lately? We are one step away from making smokers serving prison time for lighting up within a 100 year radius of any public property.
 
Gibberish said:
I could see many liberals voting to have smokers, drug users, and drinkers pay more for illnesses caused by their choices. Have you been to California lately? We are one step away from making smokers serving prison time for lighting up within a 100 year radius of any public property.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I can see that happening...NOT!!!! The people that you're constantly crusading for are the very folks that would wind up paying more for health care. What's the point of health care reform if you want to do something this friggin' stupid? Or, is it all really about controlling people's lives and has nothing to do with health care reform?
 
Gibberish said:
With a public health care plan (or even private), should those people that choose to cause ailments for themselves be charged more for health care then people that live a healthy life style? This would include the Obese, smokers, drinkers, drug users, workers in physically demanding careers, etc. Outside of the hospital costs these can also lead to support group, rehab, and other additional costs that healthy people would not need.

Assume there are exceptions such as someone obese because of genetic disorder that is out of their control.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's some amount of social engineering and we should be staying away from that.
 
apdst said:
Yeah, I can see that happening...NOT!!!! The people that you're constantly crusading for are the very folks that would wind up paying more for health care. What's the point of health care reform if you want to do something this friggin' stupid? Or, is it all really about controlling people's lives and has nothing to do with health care reform?
Click to expand...

My OP wasn't a suggestion, it was a question.

What is stupid about charging people based on their choice of heightened liability? If I get a lot of speeding tickets my car insurance goes up. If I drive safe it stay low. It's not rocket science.

Oh and by the way, I tend to play devil's advocate so keep your partisan attacks to yourself.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
My OP wasn't a suggestion, it was a question.

What is stupid about charging people based on their choice of heightened liability? If I get a lot of speeding tickets my car insurance goes up. If I drive safe it stay low. It's not rocket science.

Oh, and by the way, I tend to play devil's advocate so keep your partisan attacks to yourself.
Click to expand...


Because driving is a privalege, lifestyles are a right.

I've enver noticed your devil's advocacy always leans left. I'm sure that's just a conincidence.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Nope, that's some amount of social engineering and we should be staying away from that.
Click to expand...

So if I choose a lifestyle that puts me into the hospital once a month with annual costs of $100k or so I should still pay the same amount as someone that hasn't needed to be to the hospital in years due to their healthy lifestyle?

Looks to me like I can make the most out of taking advantage of the collective paying for my hospital bills.
 
apdst said:
Because driving is a privalege, lifestyles are a right.
Click to expand...
Where is it in the constitution that you have a right to have health care participants pay for your health care?

apdst said:
I've enver noticed your devil's advocacy always leans left. I'm sure that's just a conincidence.
Click to expand...
I thought you just finished saying the left would be completely against this and here I am taking the side of it and I'm still labeled as "left"? Which is it? Is the Left for or against it?
 
Gibberish said:
So if I choose a lifestyle that puts me into the hospital once a month with annual costs of $100k or so I should still pay the same amount as someone that hasn't needed to be to the hospital in years due to their healthy lifestyle?

Looks to me like I can make the most out of taking advantage of the collective paying for my hospital bills.
Click to expand...

If you choose a lifestyle that places in you in the hospital more often, you should be responsible for those costs. That's why there should be no universal health care system.

If we have universal health care, then those who lead a healthy life style will just have to accept that some people do no and so they will have more expensive care. However, I will concede that even with leading an unhealthy life style, health costs are curbed by regular access to medical care so who knows how it will balance out?
 
Gibberish said:
Where is it in the constitution that you have a right to have health care participants pay for your health care?
Click to expand...

I didn't say health care. I said lifestyles. If I want to eat fried porkchops with rice and gravy every night for supper and my arteries get clogged, then I shouldn't have to pay any more for health care than anyone else.


I thought you just finished saying the left would be completely against this and here I am taking the side of it and I'm still labeled as "left"? Which is it? Is the Left for or against it?
Click to expand...


Because Libbos are typically the folks that want to control everyone else's lifestyle. Hence all the anti smoking, anti soda water, anti junk food legislation we see coming from the Leftists in the government.
 
Gibberish said:
Looks to me like I can make the most out of taking advantage of the collective paying for my hospital bills.
Click to expand...

Sure can, but that's exactly what insurance does. This is what happens when you get away from paying out of pocket. Besides, many of those people die earlier which subsidizes pensions and in the long run costs less. The most expensive healthcare is the keeping you alive for the last year or so of your natural life. So should old people have to pay a lot more for their healthcare?
 
apdst said:
I didn't say health care. I said lifestyles. If I want to eat fried porkchops with rice and gravy every night for supper and my arteries get clogged, then I shouldn't have to pay any more for health care than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Why not? You cost more, you should pay more.

apdst said:
Because Libbos are typically the folks that want to control everyone else's lifestyle. Hence all the anti smoking, anti soda water, anti junk food legislation we see coming from the Leftists in the government.
Click to expand...
Education = control now? Those stupid liberals trying to educate people by telling the truth about harmful ingredients. Who do they think they are? :roll:
 
Last edited:
jallman said:
If you choose a lifestyle that places in you in the hospital more often, you should be responsible for those costs. That's why there should be no universal health care system.

If we have universal health care, then those who lead a healthy life style will just have to accept that some people do no and so they will have more expensive care. However, I will concede that even with leading an unhealthy life style, health costs are curbed by regular access to medical care so who knows how it will balance out?
Click to expand...

That is one of the reasons I am against universal health care. I choose to life a healthy lifestyle and I want to see my health care costs to go down for my lack of health care needs.
 
Ikari said:
Sure can, but that's exactly what insurance does. This is what happens when you get away from paying out of pocket. Besides, many of those people die earlier which subsidizes pensions and in the long run costs less. The most expensive healthcare is the keeping you alive for the last year or so of your natural life. So should old people have to pay a lot more for their healthcare?
Click to expand...

Good point. They cost more but since they tend to die under fifty the collective saves on costs in the long run.

I don't think old people would pay more because it's not self-inflicting illnesses. You pay into the system now, when you don't need much service, so you are taking care of when you are older. In most cases I am not a supporter of prolonging life through artificial means.
 
Gibberish said:
In most cases I am not a supporter of prolonging life through artificial means.
Click to expand...

I am, so long as it utilizes some form of gamma ray powered cannon, nuclear powered mechanical appendages, infusing of super powers, or other affronts to god.

But the end of life stuff isn't so much like you're on life support. It means old people who are sick a lot being treated. The drugs and doctor visits necessary basically to prolong the last 6 months of life into 9 months or something like that. Dealing with diabetes, Alzheimer, cancer, etc. that all costs way more money that a smoker getting sick and dying at 55.
 
Ikari said:
I am, so long as it utilizes some form of gamma ray powered cannon, nuclear powered mechanical appendages, infusing of super powers, or other affronts to god.
Click to expand...
I'm in. Can I get a ring?

Ikari said:
But the end of life stuff isn't so much like you're on life support. It means old people who are sick a lot being treated. The drugs and doctor visits necessary basically to prolong the last 6 months of life into 9 months or something like that. Dealing with diabetes, Alzheimer, cancer, etc. that all costs way more money that a smoker getting sick and dying at 55.
Click to expand...
These scenarios are what I was talking about when saying we pay in now for basic health services later.
 
Gibberish said:
I'm in. Can I get a ring?
Click to expand...

what...you want to be like the Green Lantern or something? I guess that's fine, but I'd be going more bionic or innate power like regeneration or grafting some form of energy cannon to my chest or something like that. Think big.

hehe

Gibberish said:
These scenarios are what I was talking about when saying we pay in now for basic health services later.
Click to expand...

Yup. But as they cost more than the others, I'm not so upset about the others then. I'm going to accept some fact that we're all collectively paying into a system to collectivize the risk of health care and that's going to be that then. Once you start getting into differing pay brackets based on genetics, life choices, etc. you're doing some decidedly different than "insurance". At that point, we might as well not have the insurance at all and have everyone just pay their own way. But if we're going to have insurance or health care, a system to collectivize payment and risk, then I don't think we should enforce through it social engineering.
 
Ikari said:
what...you want to be like the Green Lantern or something? I guess that's fine, but I'd be going more bionic or innate power like regeneration or grafting some form of energy cannon to my chest or something like that. Think big.

hehe
Click to expand...
Ok. I'll go Dr. Manhattan style.

Though I'll try to keep my humanity and not be so emotionally empty.
 
Gibberish said:
Ok. I'll go Dr. Manhattan style.

Though I'll try to keep my humanity and not be so emotionally empty.
Click to expand...

But will you refuse to wear clothes and force us to try and look away from your big blue alien penis?
 
Gibberish said:
Why not? You cost more, you should pay more.
Click to expand...

I have the right to eat what I want. I shouldn't be punished for excercising my rights.


Education = control now? Those stupid liberals trying to educate people by telling the truth about harmful ingredients. Who do they think they are? :roll:
Click to expand...


No, but punitive laws and taxes = control. It's obvious that the American people aren't going to accept the Libbo agenda, willingly. So, the Libbos have no choice, now, but to force their agenda on the country. That's what they're in the process of doing.
 
apdst said:
I have the right to eat what I want. I shouldn't be punished for excercising my rights.
Click to expand...

You're not punished for eating what you want. You are forced to take responsibility for choices by paying health care costs involved with your choice of a unhealthy lifestyle.

The same logic goes towards welfare. If you choose not to work, the people of this country should NOT have to pay for your choice.

apdst said:
No, but punitive laws and taxes = control. It's obvious that the American people aren't going to accept the Libbo agenda, willingly. So, the Libbos have no choice, now, but to force their agenda on the country. That's what they're in the process of doing.
Click to expand...
Take it to the conspiracy forum.
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
I could see many liberals voting to have smokers, drug users, and drinkers pay more for illnesses caused by their choices. Have you been to California lately? We are one step away from making smokers serving prison time for lighting up within a 100 year radius of any public property.
Click to expand...

Cali sucks right now and is bankrupt. :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom