AHCA vs. universal healthcare & tax on unhealthy choices

Universal healthcare & tax on unhealthy choices seems more logical than AHCA.

That with tax on unhealthy products you pay for the choices you make. While with AHCA you can have to pay more or being denied healthcare because things you can’t control. Like for example your genes or that you have been victim of a crime like rape or domestic violence.

Rape and domestic violence could be pre-existing conditions - CNN.com

Also, higher cost on unhealthy products will not stop you from better yourself and getting a job. While without health care you can be to sick to work.

Taxes on unhealthy choices will not either stop you from getting a new job or start your own business. While AHCA risk make it harder to switch planes if you get a new job or start your own business and have pre existing condition.

Also, paying more for unhealthy products will probably not have a massive negative effect on your quality of life. While without healthcare you can suffer or in worst case die.

If you pay more for unhealthy products you can direct see the consequences of your actions. While it can be harder to consider that the unhealthy product you buy today will lead to that you 20 year later will get much higher healthcare cost or denied health care.

People need to be responsible for the life-style choices they make, (smoking, dipping, eating unhealthy food too frequently, {who doesn't like a cheeseburger, now and then?}, and sedentary actions. These people should either pay more than others or be placed in the que behind those that complied with simple changes to better their own health.
There is an image that I can't shake; I was looking around a Walmart years ago and came to be in the frozen dessert aisle. There I found a severely obese woman, could just as well have been a man, riding the grocery cart scooter. If she had been an airplane passenger, she would have been required to purchase two seats and multiple seat belt extensions. We made eye contact and, by golly, she gave me a dirty look! Should be a device like those found in amusement parks, "you have to be this tall to ride this ride",
"If you can't fit through this gate you don't belong in this aisle!":ranton:

Rexedgar said:

People need to be responsible for the life-style choices they make, (smoking, dipping, eating unhealthy food too frequently, {who doesn't like a cheeseburger, now and then?}, and sedentary actions. These people should either pay more than others or be placed in the que behind those that complied with simple changes to better their own health.
There is an image that I can't shake; I was looking around a Walmart years ago and came to be in the frozen dessert aisle. There I found a severely obese woman, could just as well have been a man, riding the grocery cart scooter. If she had been an airplane passenger, she would have been required to purchase two seats and multiple seat belt extensions. We made eye contact and, by golly, she gave me a dirty look! Should be a device like those found in amusement parks, "you have to be this tall to ride this ride",
"If you can't fit through this gate you don't belong in this aisle!":ranton:

Click to expand...

Yes, people have to be responsibility for the life-style choices. Still for example the number of population that are overweight and/or obese different a lot between countries. So, there are also society factors involved and that you need to deal with them. Like for example that many food companies want people to eat unhealthier and those companies have massive amount of money they use to influence people choices. Because food with a lot of sugar, fat and salt are much easier and profitable to sell than healthier and food of greater quality.

Correlation of course aren’t always causation. Still it’s interesting that USA the developed country without universal healthcare, more inequality and with less of a welfare state also is the developed country with largest percent of population that are overweight or obese. While left leaning welfare states like the Scandinavian countries have less percent of population that are overweight or obese.

https://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html

Obesity in the U.S. and Europe on the Rise: A Comparison | HuffPost

Also it's seems both more humane and effective to try to change people's choices today instead of punishing them a couple of decades later for the choices they make today by then denying or making there health care a lot more expensive.

Red state residents tend to be fatter and more likely to be smokers. If they don't want to pay for people with pre-X, why should I pay for them? I'm healthy, in great shape, and do not smoke.




Go down the road the GOP wants - only people like you are in your insurance pool - and the entire concept of insurance becomes useless. Let the idiots cheer until they finally realize they screwed themselves.

I am generally against vice taxes. But if they and UHC are part of a package deal I would accept it. That's assuming the tax revenue goes into the healthcare system.

Mr Person said:

Red state residents tend to be fatter and more likely to be smokers. If they don't want to pay for people with pre-X, why should I pay for them? I'm healthy, in great shape, and do not smoke.

Go down the road the GOP wants - only people like you are in your insurance pool - and the entire concept of insurance becomes useless. Let the idiots cheer until they finally realize they screwed themselves.

Click to expand...

Interesting that you have the same correlation between American states. That people in more right wing states are unhealthier than people in more left leaning states. Also, I think only the wealthy benefit from lack of universal healthcare. Because you never know what will happened in life and if you will become sick. Also with today rapid automatization, robotization and globalization there are fewer and fewer secure jobs for white and blue collar workers so you can’t be certain if you will always have money for health care.

That at the same time not having universal health care leads to extra costs like for example the insurance industry and debt industry their your also have the cost of bankruptcies because of medical debts. You also need to decide if you want people to suffer or die. If you hopefully don't the cost can become higher. Because a person without insurance may not go the local medical center early but wait to he or she is very sick and then goes to the emergency and then also need a much more expensive treatment.

Skeptic Bob said:

I am generally against vice taxes. But if they and UHC are part of a package deal I would accept it. That's assuming the tax revenue goes into the healthcare system.

Click to expand...

Why I started this thread was because I thought that one of the argument against universal health care and for extra cost for preexisting condition was that people don’t want to pay for others bad choices. Then I believe it’s both more effective, fair and humane to tax the unhealthy choices directly and see to that everyone get healthcare.

You can also of course argue against taxes on unhealthy choices and for universal healthcare. Still I think then it comes to alcohol and tobacco the cost for society and the individual are so large so it can be good to tax those. I’m more uncertain then it comes to food, but in today society it can be necessary. Because unhealthy food is so extremely cheap and easily available today. Of course, you also need to make it easier to have a healthy life styles. From free and healthy school lunches, quit smoking programs to make cities welcoming for cycling and walking.

AHCA vs. universal healthcare & tax on unhealthy choices

Click to expand...

or we could just provide healthcare and pay for it with taxes like every other first world country.

Helix said:

or we could just provide healthcare and pay for it with taxes like every other first world country.

Click to expand...

Yes and would probably cost less money for most people, but if you have a lot of people that get grumpy over paying for others bad choices you can also through in taxes on unhealthy choices. As I wrote I also can belive it can be good with taxes un unhealthy choices in some cases. Then it comes to alcohol you have also have for example drunk driving accidents and also violence caused by alcohol.

Bergslagstroll said:

Yes and would probably cost less money for most people, but if you have a lot of people that get grumpy over paying for others bad choices you can also through in taxes on unhealthy choices. As I wrote I also can belive it can be good with taxes un unhealthy choices in some cases. Then it comes to alcohol you have also have for example drunk driving accidents and also violence caused by alcohol.

Click to expand...

jack the prices up enough, and then you're dealing with a black market. i'd prefer that we look at what the rest of the first world is doing, and then custom fit a solution for the US.

Bergslagstroll said:

Universal healthcare & tax on unhealthy choices seems more logical than AHCA.

That with tax on unhealthy products you pay for the choices you make. While with AHCA you can have to pay more or being denied healthcare because things you can’t control. Like for example your genes or that you have been victim of a crime like rape or domestic violence.

Rape and domestic violence could be pre-existing conditions - CNN.com

Also, higher cost on unhealthy products will not stop you from better yourself and getting a job. While without health care you can be to sick to work.

Taxes on unhealthy choices will not either stop you from getting a new job or start your own business. While AHCA risk make it harder to switch planes if you get a new job or start your own business and have pre existing condition.

Also, paying more for unhealthy products will probably not have a massive negative effect on your quality of life. While without healthcare you can suffer or in worst case die.

If you pay more for unhealthy products you can direct see the consequences of your actions. While it can be harder to consider that the unhealthy product you buy today will lead to that you 20 year later will get much higher healthcare cost or denied health care.

Click to expand...

So we fix the cluster f*** that is ObamaCare which was brought to us by the Democrats by giving these idiots even more power and authority over our healthcare, lives and economy ?? NOTHING logical about that at all. Its sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Helix said:

jack the prices up enough, and then you're dealing with a black market. i'd prefer that we look at what the rest of the first world is doing, and then custom fit a solution for the US.

Click to expand...

Yes there are a lot of diffrent kinds of universal health care systems that you can learn from if you want to create your own system. Then it comes taxes on alcohol and tobacco it vary a lot between between diffrent first world countries. Then it comes to sugar there are some intersting trials for example the UK. That even before the sugar tax is implemented in the UK companies are started to reduce the sugar content in their products.

Soda wars: The UK's tax on sugary drinks is working - Mar. 9, 2017

While an tax in Mexico have lead to decreased consumtion on sugar drinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...gar-tax-lower-consumption-second-year-running

Fenton said:

So we fix the cluster f*** that is ObamaCare which was brought to us by the Democrats by giving these idiots even more power and authority over our healthcare, lives and economy ?? NOTHING logical about that at all. Its sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

At least ACA made things less crazy and Republicans wants to make things crazy again. Like for example that with AHCA and before ACA rape victim could lose their coverage. Or how medical plans can not include ambulance and hospital stay.

Also, if you don’t people to suffer, die or spread dangerous diseases then government need to be heavily involved even without universal health care. That as I understand it your American health care was and will be very complicated both before ACA, during ACA and with AHCA. That at the same time you on top of that have the private bureaucracy in the insurance and debt industry.

Everyone in America should have access to BASIC medical care (free of charge).

And every child, disabled person and veteran should have access to FULL medical coverage (free of charge).

Everyone/everything else should be up to private insurance companies (which the government should leave alone) and charities to take care of.

DA60 said:

Everyone in America should have access to BASIC medical care (free of charge).

And every child, disabled person and veteran should have access to FULL medical coverage (free of charge).

Everyone/everything else should be up to private insurance companies (which the government should leave alone) and charities to take care of.

Click to expand...

Everyone has access to (free of charge) medical care now - the only problem is the lack of volunteers willing to provide it.

Bergslagstroll said:

Yes there are a lot of diffrent kinds of universal health care systems that you can learn from if you want to create your own system. Then it comes taxes on alcohol and tobacco it vary a lot between between diffrent first world countries. Then it comes to sugar there are some intersting trials for example the UK. That even before the sugar tax is implemented in the UK companies are started to reduce the sugar content in their products.

Soda wars: The UK's tax on sugary drinks is working - Mar. 9, 2017

While an tax in Mexico have lead to decreased consumtion on sugar drinks.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...gar-tax-lower-consumption-second-year-running

Click to expand...

sin taxes are largely regressive, so i don't support them when they approach punitive levels. regular taxes will pay for universal health care quite adequately.

Helix said:

sin taxes are largely regressive, so i don't support them when they approach punitive levels. regular taxes will pay for universal health care quite adequately.

Click to expand...

The trend seems to be that if something is deemed important then it should become a federal government controlled monopoly. I think that we can all agree that EMTALA is not the solution yet that will likely be the last thing to go.

ttwtt78640 said:

The trend seems to be that if something is deemed important then it should become a federal government controlled monopoly. I think that we can all agree that EMTALA is not the solution yet that will likely be the last thing to go.

Click to expand...

i don't agree with your statement. i support single payer because health care is an essential service with inelastic demand that is being delivered more efficiently in other first world countries. as for EMTALA, it was as close as they could get to UHC at the time. however, it's pretty dumb to deliver primary care to the uninsured in emergency rooms. put everyone on medicare, and let them go see a primary care physician.

Helix said:

i don't agree with your statement. i support single payer because health care is an essential service with inelastic demand that is being delivered more efficiently in other first world countries. as for EMTALA, it was as close as they could get to UHC at the time. however, it's pretty dumb to deliver primary care to the uninsured in emergency rooms. put everyone on medicare, and let them go see a primary care physician.

Click to expand...

Food, clothing and shelter are also inelastic demands and yet most are required (and able) to provide them for themselves and their dependents. It is also dumb to grocery shop at the "quickie mart" or to buy designer sports apparel and bling when you can't afford to rent a decent place to live or to feed your kids yet those choices are now supported with public funds.

The bottom line is that he who pays the bills makes the rules. Ceding that control to government did not make the US K-12 public eduction system either better or less expensive than that of other OCED countries or make the VA medical care system top of the line. Screwing stuff up for 85% in order to be more "fair" to 15% is never the best idea.

I agree with the public option concept - offer Medicaid or VA benefit cards to any that want it for 10% of their gross income and get rid of EMTALA.

Rexedgar said:

People need to be responsible for the life-style choices they make, (smoking, dipping, eating unhealthy food too frequently, {who doesn't like a cheeseburger, now and then?}, and sedentary actions. These people should either pay more than others or be placed in the que behind those that complied with simple changes to better their own health.
There is an image that I can't shake; I was looking around a Walmart years ago and came to be in the frozen dessert aisle. There I found a severely obese woman, could just as well have been a man, riding the grocery cart scooter. If she had been an airplane passenger, she would have been required to purchase two seats and multiple seat belt extensions. We made eye contact and, by golly, she gave me a dirty look! Should be a device like those found in amusement parks, "you have to be this tall to ride this ride",
"If you can't fit through this gate you don't belong in this aisle!":ranton:

Click to expand...

An exercise in digging your own grave. Red states have the highest obesity rates, lung cancer rates, poorest health education programs. But bring on Trumpcare. It is a noose around the GOP's neck, or as Maureen Dowd puts it in her column this morning, "Republicans' preexisting condition".

ttwtt78640 said:

Food, clothing and shelter are also inelastic demands and yet most are required (and able) to provide them for themselves and their dependents. It is also dumb to grocery shop at the "quickie mart" or to buy designer sports apparel and bling when you can't afford to rent a decent place to live or to feed your kids yet those choices are now supported with public funds.

Click to expand...

not analogous. i can buy food and clothes anywhere, and they are not prohibitively expensive.

ttwtt78640 said:

The bottom line is that he who pays the bills makes the rules. Ceding that control to government did not make the US K-12 public eduction system either better or less expensive than that of other OCED countries or make the VA medical care system top of the line. Screwing stuff up for 85% in order to be more "fair" to 15% is never the best idea.

I agree with the public option concept - offer Medicaid or VA benefit cards to any that want it for 10% of their gross income and get rid of EMTALA.

Click to expand...

i agree with doing what other first world countries have done : real UHC.

Bergslagstroll said:

Universal healthcare & tax on unhealthy choices seems more logical than AHCA.

That with tax on unhealthy products you pay for the choices you make. While with AHCA you can have to pay more or being denied healthcare because things you can’t control. Like for example your genes or that you have been victim of a crime like rape or domestic violence.

Rape and domestic violence could be pre-existing conditions - CNN.com

Also, higher cost on unhealthy products will not stop you from better yourself and getting a job. While without health care you can be to sick to work.

Taxes on unhealthy choices will not either stop you from getting a new job or start your own business. While AHCA risk make it harder to switch planes if you get a new job or start your own business and have pre existing condition.

Also, paying more for unhealthy products will probably not have a massive negative effect on your quality of life. While without healthcare you can suffer or in worst case die.

If you pay more for unhealthy products you can direct see the consequences of your actions. While it can be harder to consider that the unhealthy product you buy today will lead to that you 20 year later will get much higher healthcare cost or denied health care.

Click to expand...

Regardless of what you say, which is arguable, the greater the healthcare, the greater the worker productivity that overcomes the cost of that healthcare. That is the bottom line, eh? What have you to say to that?

Rexedgar said:

People need to be responsible for the life-style choices they make, (smoking, dipping, eating unhealthy food too frequently, {who doesn't like a cheeseburger, now and then?}, and sedentary actions. These people should either pay more than others or be placed in the que behind those that complied with simple changes to better their own health.
There is an image that I can't shake; I was looking around a Walmart years ago and came to be in the frozen dessert aisle. There I found a severely obese woman, could just as well have been a man, riding the grocery cart scooter. If she had been an airplane passenger, she would have been required to purchase two seats and multiple seat belt extensions. We made eye contact and, by golly, she gave me a dirty look! Should be a device like those found in amusement parks, "you have to be this tall to ride this ride",
"If you can't fit through this gate you don't belong in this aisle!":ranton:

Click to expand...

By golly shoot'r where she sits. Fat bitch. Dang, Rex, with six inches of fat, bullet probably wouldn't get to nuthin vital.