I voted yes and I am a smoker but I also believe others should not have to foot my bill for my bad habits.
-
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?
- Thread starter Gibberish
- Start date
I voted yes and I am a smoker but I also believe others should not have to foot my bill for my bad habits.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2006
- Messages
- 38,974
- Reaction score
- 14,316
- Location
- Denmark
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Voted no, because what is self inflicted? Getting a precise definition would be a nightmare.
Is it self inflicted to be smoking? Age 18 sure, but age say 60? 40+ years ago smoking was not considered to be a hazard to your health as it is today.
Is it self inflicted to eat fried food? Again the above example fits too.
How about living next to a chemical dump that gave you cancer? Not only will the company of course deny it, but if you did not know there was a dump there?
How about going out in the world. Getting hit by a car, is that self inflicted? I mean you could have stayed home.
The only "self inflicted" case most could agree on would be things like shooting one self because you are a moron or want to commit suicide. What then.. not help the person?
Is it self inflicted to be smoking? Age 18 sure, but age say 60? 40+ years ago smoking was not considered to be a hazard to your health as it is today.
Is it self inflicted to eat fried food? Again the above example fits too.
How about living next to a chemical dump that gave you cancer? Not only will the company of course deny it, but if you did not know there was a dump there?
How about going out in the world. Getting hit by a car, is that self inflicted? I mean you could have stayed home.
The only "self inflicted" case most could agree on would be things like shooting one self because you are a moron or want to commit suicide. What then.. not help the person?
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2008
- Messages
- 8,080
- Reaction score
- 3,918
- Location
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The only things that should fall under "self-inflicted" are suicidal type injuries, and smoking; and even with suicidal-type injuries, there is mental illness involved which is not their fault per se.
Obesity is mentioned often, but there is a solid connection between obesity and poverty. Cheap food is usually crappy food, loaded with bulk additives that disrupt the endocrine system with pseudo-hormones. So, if you suggest higher premiums for the obese, then you are automatically targeting the poor, of whom public health care is needed the most.
The aggregate benefits of a group health care system diminish greatly when we start picking and choosing arbitrary reasons to increase premiums. I would be against it. The one exception would be procedures for terminally ill patients. Obama's mother had hip replacement surgery when she was practically on her death bed from cancer. It was paid for with private insurance, but it was still a waste of medical resources.
Any good public system should accompany a solid preventative system. Education is key. The majority of health care in the Western world is nothing more than symptom management. That's not the way healthy maintenance of your body works if you expect to live a fruitful life. The symptoms are just peripheral signs of a core problem, and it didn't just arise over night. You should be going to the doctor for checkups when you are perfectly fine.
As I said, most health care is symptom-based medicine. You have puffy eyes, so you are prescribed a 1-3% hydro-cortisone cream; you have seborrheic dermatitis on the scalp so you are prescribed a coal tar shampoo. Meanwhile, both of these could easily be a sign of liver deficiency as a result of long term alcohol or drug abuse, and poor nutrition.
Being healthy is not hard. You can maximize your health through: solid and consistent nutrition, plenty of fresh water daily, some kind of movement/exercise that gets circulation pumping, and a proper night's sleep. The vast majority of illnesses would never happen if most people engaged in these uncomplicated tasks.
Obesity is mentioned often, but there is a solid connection between obesity and poverty. Cheap food is usually crappy food, loaded with bulk additives that disrupt the endocrine system with pseudo-hormones. So, if you suggest higher premiums for the obese, then you are automatically targeting the poor, of whom public health care is needed the most.
The aggregate benefits of a group health care system diminish greatly when we start picking and choosing arbitrary reasons to increase premiums. I would be against it. The one exception would be procedures for terminally ill patients. Obama's mother had hip replacement surgery when she was practically on her death bed from cancer. It was paid for with private insurance, but it was still a waste of medical resources.
Any good public system should accompany a solid preventative system. Education is key. The majority of health care in the Western world is nothing more than symptom management. That's not the way healthy maintenance of your body works if you expect to live a fruitful life. The symptoms are just peripheral signs of a core problem, and it didn't just arise over night. You should be going to the doctor for checkups when you are perfectly fine.
As I said, most health care is symptom-based medicine. You have puffy eyes, so you are prescribed a 1-3% hydro-cortisone cream; you have seborrheic dermatitis on the scalp so you are prescribed a coal tar shampoo. Meanwhile, both of these could easily be a sign of liver deficiency as a result of long term alcohol or drug abuse, and poor nutrition.
Being healthy is not hard. You can maximize your health through: solid and consistent nutrition, plenty of fresh water daily, some kind of movement/exercise that gets circulation pumping, and a proper night's sleep. The vast majority of illnesses would never happen if most people engaged in these uncomplicated tasks.
1069
Banned
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 24,975
- Reaction score
- 5,126
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Yes, it was. Just a heads-up.
I used to think this too, but my dad (who is in his mid 50s) tells me that even when he was a little kid, it was already common knowledge that smoking was bad for one's health. He used to pester his parents to quit so they wouldn't die of lung cancer.
Smoking was more common and more socially acceptable 40 years ago, of course... but everyone knew it was bad for you and could cause lung disease.
They just didn't care. Maybe they didn't realize how bad it was.