• 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
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.

How do you suggest we police this? Are we gonna spend tax dollars to have food police to police the junk that folks put into their own bodies? How about text police? See someone texting and walking at same time? Lets charge em more cause they could fall down and hurt themselves while texting.

Where does the madness stop? Be very careful what ya wish for in reguards to wanting more gov. in our lives cause trust me the results will come back to bite you on your ass at some point.
 
Cali sucks right now and is bankrupt. :roll:

California's economy is very dependent on exports. If there are no buyers of goods then the economy will lower. When people start buying again California will be one of the first states to recover.
 
How do you suggest we police this? Are we gonna spend tax dollars to have food police to police the junk that folks put into their own bodies? How about text police? See someone texting and walking at same time? Lets charge em more cause they could fall down and hurt themselves while texting.

Where does the madness stop? Be very careful what ya wish for in reguards to wanting more gov. in our lives cause trust me the results will come back to bite you on your ass at some point.

This has nothing to do with government. This same idea could exist with private health care as well.

You don't need to police anything. Diagnosis makes the cause obvious.
 
This has nothing to do with government. This same idea could exist with private health care as well.

You don't need to police anything. Diagnosis makes the cause obvious.

Disagree. You can be overweight and eat healthy, can get cancer and be a nonsmoker, etc.
 
Disagree. You can be overweight and eat healthy, can get cancer and be a nonsmoker, etc.

Yes a person can eat healthy and still be overweight by eating more calories than they burn in a day. But, I'm not talking "overweight". I am talking Obese. How many Obese people become Obese with a healthy diet?

Keep in mind I am excluding genetic disorders.
 
Last edited:
Well, to bolster Gibberish's argument, this does occur right now.

http://www.ampminsure.org/smoking-premium.html

Smokers paying extra for health insurance - Addictions- msnbc.com

A growing number of private and public employers are requiring employees who use tobacco to pay higher premiums, hoping that will motivate more of them to stop smoking and lower health care costs for the companies and their workers.

Meijer Inc., Gannett Co., American Financial Group Inc., PepsiCo Inc. and Northwest Airlines are among the companies already charging or planning to charge smokers higher premiums. The amounts range from about $20 to $50 a month.

And that was in 2006.

I have no problem with this. Personal responsibility. Interesting how several self proclaimed Conservatives have a problem with personal responsibility.
 
Yes a person can eat healthy and still be overweight by eating more calories than they burn in a day. But, I'm not talking "overweight". I am talking Obese. How many Obese people become Obese with a healthy diet?

Keep in mind I am excluding genetic disorders.

But you are still gonna have to police people to find all this out and do you really wish for us to rely on health care peeps to define how much we all pay for healthcare? If up to them we will all be paying out the ass?

Show me anybody on the face of this Earth and I bet they do something unhealthy so why punish just a select few? It just seem unfair and too nanny like for me to get behind. ;)
 
Well, to bolster Gibberish's argument, this does occur right now.

http://www.ampminsure.org/smoking-premium.html

Smokers paying extra for health insurance - Addictions- msnbc.com



And that was in 2006.

I have no problem with this. Personal responsibility. Interesting how several self proclaimed Conservatives have a problem with personal responsibility.

I was aware of this because my smoking father has been a Victim towards this crap thanks to his employer:roll:

Funny cause all the fat cat drunks are not having to pay extra though. Just the evil smokers:(
 
Yes. If you cost more, you should pay more.

However, get rid of insurance period and this problem goes away all by itself.
 
Yes. If you cost more, you should pay more.

However, get rid of insurance period and this problem goes away all by itself.

I think that's the point though right? Insurance is supposed to be an institute which aggregates the risk over a large populace. Once you start charging people different rates based on different behavior, it's something radically different from "insurance". At that point, we might as well be paying out of pocket. You'd probably drive down the costs of many common visits and such as well. But so long as it's sold under the guise of "insurance", it should do what insurance was supposed to do...aggregate the risk.
 
I think that's the point though right? Insurance is supposed to be an institute which aggregates the risk over a large populace. Once you start charging people different rates based on different behavior, it's something radically different from "insurance". At that point, we might as well be paying out of pocket. You'd probably drive down the costs of many common visits and such as well. But so long as it's sold under the guise of "insurance", it should do what insurance was supposed to do...aggregate the risk.

Well, auto insurance does that - charges people different rates based on behavior. Ditto for household insurance, etc. Why should health insurance be any different? Do you think that if I drive in risky ways, have multiple accidents and traffic violations that my auto insurance shouldn't go up?

When I had health insurance with an employer, I was charged more because I smoked. I didn't have a problem with that. It wasn't like it was a ****load more, it wasn't. It was minimal. However, my risky behavior could potentially cost them a ****load more than the small amount I was required to pay extra.

I get what you're saying and I think the risk IS still aggregated, otherwise the costs would be so high no one would be able to afford it.

But, I still firmly believe that if health insurance goes away and we pay out of pocket (along with doing some tort reform and malpractice reform), then costs would go down dramatically. All people would have to do is put away the money they would have spent on insurance and keep it for medical emergencies. Government involvement and insurance companies are THE reason we have such high costs to begin with.
 
Well, auto insurance does that - charges people different rates based on behavior. Ditto for household insurance, etc. Why should health insurance be any different? Do you think that if I drive in risky ways, have multiple accidents and traffic violations that my auto insurance shouldn't go up?

I think the vast majority of insurance is a scam.
 
The government insurance to be must be very careful as to what is covered , and there will be problems.
The "I don't care" fat slobs must have very limited, very controlled coverage.
Should pregnancy costs be covered ?
This is debatable...
Yes, but partially..
Responsibility MUST be rewarded at all times.
Private insurance will take quite a hit, and may not even be around 10 years from now..
No tears from this old poster.
 
I think the vast majority of insurance is a scam.
Its more complex than that. Its good old-fashioned profiteering.
But should others profit so due to others misfortunes ?
 
Its more complex than that. Its good old-fashioned profiteering.
But should others profit so due to others misfortunes ?

Why not?

People who provide a desired skill and/or service should profit.

Doctors should profit for their education, skill, and service. But the only way they can do so is for people to have the misfortune of getting sick.

Mechanics should profit for their skill and service. But the only way they can do so is if you have the misfortune of your car needing repairs.

Grocery stores should profit for their service of providing food. But the only way they can do that is for people to have the misfortune of being hungry.

Are you seriously suggesting that people shouldn't work for profit?
 
I couldn't choose from the options listed, but maybe someone can explain to me how this would work.

I used to smoke but quit which made me become overweight. Do I get rewarded or punished? Will it depend on my dopamine, seratonin or some other enzyme or hormone? If there is a public option how do you all feel about the government telling you what kind of lifestyle to pursue? If dangerous lifestyles will be punished gays and firemen would have to be included. A gay fireman may as well self-immolate.
 
I'd like a poll on those who voted no and see how many of them are obese or smoke.
 
My feeling is that all "ailments" are ultimately "self-inflicted", and that regardless of whether one lives the life of an abstemious saint or a debauched hedonist, one is still going to die exactly once- no more, and no less.
What would be the purpose, exactly, or charging "more" for certain terminal conditions? Is it believed that if one subscribed to a more moderate lifestyle, one might never die?
I just... don't see the point, I guess.
 
My feeling is that all "ailments" are ultimately "self-inflicted", and that regardless of whether one lives the life of an abstemious saint or a debauched hedonist, one is still going to die exactly once- no more, and no less.
What would be the purpose, exactly, or charging "more" for certain terminal conditions? Is it believed that if one subscribed to a more moderate lifestyle, one might never die?
I just... don't see the point, I guess.


You obviously haven't had much contact with patients...
 
You obviously haven't had much contact with patients...

No, not really. I'm young, so not too many people i know have died yet.

Why, if I had "contact with patients", would it really really change my perspective?
Do people who lead abstemious lives drop dead instantly, without any hassle or fuss, while overindulgent folks linger around forever with tubes hanging out of their noses, bothering the young'uns?

Educate me.
 
No, not really. I'm young, so not too many people i know have died yet.

Why, if I had "contact with patients", would it really really change my perspective?
Do people who lead abstemious lives drop dead instantly, without any hassle or fuss, while overindulgent folks linger around forever with tubes hanging out of their noses, bothering the young'uns?

Educate me.

Self-inflicted health problems make up a large percentage of healthcare costs. In a given day on a hospital ward you'll find greater than 50% of patients have brought on their situations through their own behaviors and/or lifestyle.
 
You obviously haven't had much contact with patients...

So are we really gonna get down to letting our doctors become the Police? That PE Song F The Police is in my head right now:roll:
 
Example. A nurse will have, say, 4 patients on a given shift.

Bed A) A 53 yr old male with a history of IV heroin addiction. His admitting diagnosis is cellulitis, which is a severe infection of the skin requiring IV antibiotics. This is common in IV drug abusers who no longer have viable venous access therefore they resort to skin popping. Because this patient has no IV access, he requires a PICC line, which is a Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter (average total cost $600-$1,400). Some of these patients cannot be accessed with a PICC and therefore require a standard central line which averages $1,600-$2,300. This patient will require several days of inpatient IV antibiotic therapy, and is often manipulative and extremely draining on staff time and resources.

Bed B) A 62 yr old morbidly obese woman with type 2 insulin dependent diabetes and congestive heart failure (CHF), hypertension, and chronic renal insufficiency. Because she has been non compliant with her diet and her diabetes is poorly controlled, her micro-vasculature has been affected, leading to these other problems. She is oxygen dependent at home ( average monthly cost $201) and has been on disability for several years. She does not weigh herself daily as she's been instructed, therefore she has frequent admits in fluid overload causing respiratory distress, secondary to her CHF. Her renal insufficiency is advancing to the point where she will be needing hemodialysis ($8,000 per patient per year). She had bypass surgery (average cost $44,820) last year after cardiac catheterization (average cost $3,688)revealed multi-vessel coronary blockages requiring a 5-way coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). She is on diuretics and a bipap to assist her with breathing. She is a demanding woman who is draining the staff of the hospital with her multiple and frequent demands.

Bed C)Is a little old lady, age 89. She has senile dementia and lives with her husband who is 90. Her condition is deteriorating and her husband is having difficulty caring for her. She's admitted with a urinary tract infection and increased confusion. The daughter is trying to figure out what to do next, her father is still driving and very stubbornly won't give up his license. He can't care for his wife any longer. The patient has been falling at home, is losing weight, and needs nursing home placement. Social services is working on all this.

Bed D) is Mexican farmworker who became disoriented and fell from a ladder hitting his head. An MRI of his brain ($1500-$1800) revealed neurocysticercosis, caused by a worm in the brain from eating undercooked pork, a condition much more common in Latin America. He will require brain surgery.
 
Back
Top Bottom