quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy


I used to think of it the way you do, Mercnbeth.

Then a professor of mine pointed out, in regards to another assault on individual freedom, helmet laws are required since the doofus who runs his motorcycle into a telephone pole without one then requires the State to provide them medical care as a brain-dead vegetable however long he lives.

In other words, I have to pay for their behavior with my taxes.

The issue with smoking is that it is a right that smokers have which impinges on the rights of other people.

Smoke all you want.  Do not expect me to pay for your medical treatment.  Do not force me to breath in
your smoke.  Etc.

Unfortunately, smokers (non-helmet wearers, etc) generally want to have their cake and eat it to.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I am a smoker - something that pretty much was required by my employer (the US Govt) back when I joined the Army.   If you didn't smoke you weren't allowed to do some things. 
Perhaps you might share with us what you were not allowed to do if you did not smoke.


Same with drinking although I don't drink any longer.

I am obese.   I got it from my parents. 
My whole family is obese and I am not because I chose not to be obese.  You are obese because you have not chosen to not be obese.

I am diabetic. 
No one knows what causes it but your doctor will tell you what the common precursors are.

I got bad knees and a bad back from the US Govt service and can't exercise right.
Try isometrics.


  I also have a chronic breathing disease since I was a kid. 
How did you get in the army?

So that also limits my abilities.

I was recently in the hosp.   They had to feed me 5 meals a day to keep my blood sugar up to safe levels.  The diabetic diet was to lean.

So under your analogy, I have so many disabilities I would be denied medical care for being obese, smoking, et all.   Now with the right girl and a set of handcuffs I might be able to quit smoking (tried the patch, chantex, gum, all that).
Not my analogy.

But, then where is the following incentives:

1 - They tax the shit out of cigarettes to pay for kid healthcare - where would that money come from?
Your meaning here is unclear.


2 - Why would drug companies even consider making new drugs to cure disease because the prices would be set by the govt under universal health care and because they wouldn't treat people like me anyway.
Perhaps a little research would be in order here.  You clearly do not understand what you are talking about.


3 - Private doctors would go out the window except for the rich.  Costs almost $400 to go get my scripts filled now.
They are only for the rich now ....so what changes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I am a smoker - something that pretty much was required by my employer (the US Govt) back when I joined the Army.   If you didn't smoke you weren't allowed to do some things. 
Perhaps you might share with us what you were not allowed to do if you did not smoke. - like going to some NCO functions parties etc


Same with drinking although I don't drink any longer.

I am obese.   I got it from my parents. 
My whole family is obese and I am not because I chose not to be obese.  You are obese because you have not chosen to not be obese.

I am diabetic. 
No one knows what causes it but your doctor will tell you what the common precursors are. - according to my doc I was preordained because of family history.

I got bad knees and a bad back from the US Govt service and can't exercise right.
Try isometrics - been there done that do it all the time.   still have my limitations and can't exercise right.


I also have a chronic breathing disease since I was a kid. 
How did you get in the army? - was during viet nam   they needed cannon fodder.   They let me in with a birth defect where my left shoulder dislocates too.   but that wasn't diagnosed till I had 18 yrs service

So that also limits my abilities.

I was recently in the hosp.   They had to feed me 5 meals a day to keep my blood sugar up to safe levels.  The diabetic diet was to lean.

So under your analogy, I have so many disabilities I would be denied medical care for being obese, smoking, et all.   Now with the right girl and a set of handcuffs I might be able to quit smoking (tried the patch, chantex, gum, all that).
Not my analogy -  comment was a general one not directed at any specific "you".

But, then where is the following incentives:

1 - They tax the shit out of cigarettes to pay for kid healthcare - where would that money come from?
Your meaning here is unclear - the taxes on cigarettes are higher than the cost of cigarettes I think.  and the monies always seem dedicated to kids healthcare in some form.


2 - Why would drug companies even consider making new drugs to cure disease because the prices would be set by the govt under universal health care and because they wouldn't treat people like me anyway.
Perhaps a little research would be in order here.  You clearly do not understand what you are talking about - could be but if they don't treat the obiese and smokers, then why develop the new drugs like chantix to help smokers stop.  Save the research monies and concentrate on people who aren't adicted to things (not limited to any one thing).  And why develop treatments for diabetics, most of them are obiese anyway and don't take care of themselves (the we won't treat obiese people syndrome).  Lets save the research monies.   And since the government controls what can be dispensed and what they will pay we won't get our research monies back and still make a profit - my intrepretation of the economics of the situation.


3 - Private doctors would go out the window except for the rich.  Costs almost $400 to go get my scripts filled now.
They are only for the rich now ....so what changes?

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

I am a smoker - something that pretty much was required by my employer (the US Govt) back when I joined the Army.   If you didn't smoke you weren't allowed to do some things. 
Perhaps you might share with us what you were not allowed to do if you did not smoke. - like going to some NCO functions parties etc
I have been to tons of NCO functions while I was in the military and smoking was never a requirement for any of them.
 
 



Same with drinking although I don't drink any longer.

I am obese.   I got it from my parents. 
My whole family is obese and I am not because I chose not to be obese.  You are obese because you have not chosen to not be obese.

I am diabetic. 
No one knows what causes it but your doctor will tell you what the common precursors are. - according to my doc I was preordained because of family history.
You might want to try another doctor.

I got bad knees and a bad back from the US Govt service and can't exercise right.
Try isometrics - been there done that do it all the time.   still have my limitations and can't exercise right.
Excuses are a lot like noses ....most everyone has one.


I also have a chronic breathing disease since I was a kid. 
How did you get in the army? - was during Viet Nam   they needed cannon fodder.   They let me in with a birth defect where my left shoulder dislocates too.   but that wasn't diagnosed till I had 18 yrs service
You were not cannon fodder you were a clerk as you have mentioned before.

So that also limits my abilities.

I was recently in the hosp.   They had to feed me 5 meals a day to keep my blood sugar up to safe levels.  The diabetic diet was to lean.

So under your analogy, I have so many disabilities I would be denied medical care for being obese, smoking, et all.   Now with the right girl and a set of handcuffs I might be able to quit smoking (tried the patch, chantex, gum, all that).
Not my analogy -  comment was a general one not directed at any specific "you".

But, then where is the following incentives:

1 - They tax the shit out of cigarettes to pay for kid healthcare - where would that money come from?
Your meaning here is unclear - the taxes on cigarettes are higher than the cost of cigarettes I think.  and the monies always seem dedicated to kids healthcare in some form.
Perhaps you should go read the law that was created with that tax to get a better idea of how the money is spent.


2 - Why would drug companies even consider making new drugs to cure disease because the prices would be set by the govt under universal health care and because they wouldn't treat people like me anyway.
Perhaps a little research would be in order here.  You clearly do not understand what you are talking about - could be but if they don't treat the obiese and smokers, then why develop the new drugs like chantix to help smokers stop.  Save the research monies and concentrate on people who aren't adicted to things (not limited to any one thing).  And why develop treatments for diabetics, most of them are obiese anyway and don't take care of themselves (the we won't treat obiese people syndrome).  Lets save the research monies.   And since the government controls what can be dispensed and what they will pay we won't get our research monies back and still make a profit - my intrepretation of the economics of the situation.
You might want to look up how much money is spent every year on weight control programs.  The drug companies are constantly whining about how much money they have to spend on research (which is quantitatively less than they spend on advertising) If you want to quit smoking then you will....if you want to loose weight you will the rest is just rhetoric.


3 - Private doctors would go out the window except for the rich.  Costs almost $400 to go get my scripts filled now.
They are only for the rich now ....so what changes?

quote:

Sinergy: I used to think of it the way you do, Mercnbeth.

Then a professor of mine pointed out, in regards to another assault on individual freedom, helmet laws are required since the doofus who runs his motorcycle into a telephone pole without one then requires the State to provide them medical care as a brain-dead vegetable however long he lives.
In other words, I have to pay for their behavior with my taxes.

quote:

Smoke all you want.  Do not expect me to pay for your medical treatment.  Do not force me to breath in
your smoke.  Etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Smoke all you want.  Do not expect me to pay for your medical treatment.  Do not force me to breath in
your smoke.  Etc.

Unfortunately, smokers (non-helmet wearers, etc) generally want to have their cake and eat it to.

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Anyway, smoking is on the decline here. The next target is alcohol consumption, where we are being softened up to accept huge increases in taxes on drink to replace that lost through the decline in smoking, again for our own good because we're so irresponsible with our binge drinking - a binge being as little as two pints of beer mind you.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Heavy smokers and big drinkers probably dont cost the Health services much at all when the taxes they pay are taken into account.Especially if they die young. Its living to old age with the accompanying infirmity that results in large financial costs.

Once again the PC liberal Kommisars show how totally clueless they are !!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth
That's funny. I used to believe as you do however, a few years out of college I realized that outside the practical sciences the balance of the curriculum necessary for my degree was irrelevant to the real world. I also found that most of the professors interjected personal philosophy which skewed the facts far from the reality I faced in the world. The majority of the professors resented a world where they, for the most part, failed; and sought every opportunity to denigrate it, safely within their tenured position. Their goal was to generate more recruits to accept social engineering, citing the only reason for failure, personal and philosophical, was universal blind acceptance. They've succeeded in many cases.  
You have my deepest sympathy for having that sort of behaviour inflicted upon you.  Where I went to school Rule One was question everything.  Rule Two was verify everything.  Rule Three find the paymaster for the speaker and ascertain that person's agenda.  At the time I was going to school this university had the largest number of Nobel prize winners on staff of any university in the world...hardly what might be called "non achievers".

The ability to convince people to rationalize surrendering freedoms and rights by means of the "common good" requires time.
No this is the stated goal of the United States of America...it is in the preamble.  This is why we humans form ourselves into societies instead of living as individuals.  This does not mean we surrender all of our freedoms but just enough so that we all drive on the same side of the street going one way or all respond to the meaning of traffic signals in a consistent manner.

First you had to wait for the death of a generation of people who fought for the same rights now being surrendered. Ironically, the same generation who paid the tuition.
Naah ....the founders fought a war so we could start our own "family" in this "Cosa Nostra"

 The degree of success is obvious, even as their effort is ongoing.  Now we've become selective as to who is entitled to health care based upon a lifestyle choice.
No we are talking about something that is being tried in another country as if it were law here...we do not even have a national health care program.  Doctors and insurance companies are constantly refusing patients and clients service for real or imagined excuses to improve their bottom line.

It has nothing to do with smoking in your house, or your restaurant choice. It has nothing to do with helmets for that matter. However, logic would indicate since you site both as examples of a "common good" goal, that a hospital's triage should first determine if a bike rider was wearing a helmet - a proper 'government approved' up to date model at that - prior to treatment. After all - they didn't listen to the 'nanny'.
That was not the criteria that we were talking about?

 The problem with this type of social engineering is people mistake 'intent' for result. They accept the good intent in the face of the logical consequential result and rationalize as the good professors taught.
We are changing horses mid stream here.  The only law that applies to me and thee that is under discussion is helmets and by extension seat belts.  Not what some loon who happens to have a job teaching says.

It requires a little thinking outside the box to appreciate that the applied to all cases the same good intent has terrible consequences.
Kinda like rolling through a stop sign at four in the morning with visibility unimpaired and having a cop write you a ticket because the "law is the law" without any consideration of the intent of the law.  We will always be blessed with the weak of mind, sometimes they are cops some times they are presidents.


 I honestly don't know how I managed to go from blind acceptance of what was taught to questioning. I don't understand how in the face of failed social engineering programs so many still believe their good intent justifies continuing them in the face of that failure.
I know you are on record as being in favor of social engineering in specific areas so I will not take this to be all inclusive.

At the college level they need to continue down that path to justify their existence. Seeing how the answer to the issue raised here - qualifying treatment by mandating behavior - their efforts are working. How else can an advanced educated population rationalize a "universal health program" isn't "universal" for smokers and points the ability of the patient to buy additional coverage if he/she didn't like it? AMAZING!
Again we are talking about a medical decision made by a doctor who has to budget his or her time or the insurance (public or private) who make a monetary decision to improve their bottom line.  Would you be as incensed at a private insurance company refusing to pay for treatment they claim they are exempt from because of lifestyle or whatever?

Wonder if they would allow the smoker to not participate at all, get his/her own coverage and not pay his portion of taxes.
The Supreme Court has ruled that we may opt out of social security so it would seem to follow that this would be in the same venue.

You support dictating terms of treatment because it comes from your tax dollars? By that logic all children being born to woman who anticipate getting government their funds to raise them should be required to get your approval before they give birth.
I have never met anyone with a three digit IQ who held this position, those in the two digit range are usually the ward of some person or entity.


To be consistent your approach would be; "Have all the kids you want but do not expect me to pay for raising them?"
Most folks do pay to raise their own kids.  Those poor unfortunates who cannot, represent such a small portion of the "welfare" that the government dispenses as to be statistically irrelevant.  The majority of the government handouts go to corporate America and the middle class, but the poor who get a stipend to starve to death slowly on gets to carry the blame  for sucking the system dry.


How about to gay men; "Have all the unprotected sex you like, but if you get AIDS don't expect to get treatment".  Maybe you don't think consistency should be applied when it comes to practices you don't partake in or don't apply to you? Rest assured, it won't ever matter to me; better to fight all the be selective based upon some text book "good intent" philosophy.
I am not sure what you mean here but I am sure you would prefer good intent to bad intent.  I would be the first to agree that intent is only a portion of the equation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mercnbeth

quote:

Smokers told to quit or surgery will be refused
Smokers are to be denied operations on the Health Service unless they give up cigarettes for at least four weeks beforehand. Doctors will police the rule by ordering patients to take a blood test to prove they have not been smoking. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=459574&in_page_id=1770 

Is this a peak into the future of government run universal heath care?

Many will take the "let them die!" approach. After all its just dirty, disgusting, smokers.

I think the logic of the position is irrefutable. Why spend money and a doctors time treating a patient that obviously has no desire to be healthy? If they cared for themselves they wouldn't smoke. If they aren't taking care of themselves why should the government use their limited resources to treat them? Perfectly logically and the pragmatic approach to safe a health care system that requires waiting months for treatment. The policy should be extended.

No treatment if you are overweight.
No treatment if you are over 70.
No treatment if any controlled substance is in the system.
No treatment if you drink alcohol.
No treatment if you don't partake in a daily exercise program.

Then there are the social conditions that can be used.

No treatment if you drive an auto that doesn't get 30 MPG
No treatment if you live in a segregated neighborhood.
No treatment if you don't donate 100 hours per year volunteering
No treatment if you have an outstanding speeding ticket.
No treatment if you pet isn't spayed/neutered.

Yes sir, if we can just cut down on the people qualifying for care universal, government run, health care can be efficient and timely. Can't beat a bureaucracy for efficiency and excellence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Reply to post 34

Well MrT speaking from my own experience I have known people that have smoked regularly for many years, been diagnosed with the big C quite late in life and conked out rather quickly.
I also knew someone who drank very very heavily from a young age, needed some treatment over a year or so and then also left the scene rather abruptly.
I also have experience of elderly people who have lived to very old age and for the last 10 years of their lives, if their condition can be called living, needed ever increasing medical and social help. All very very expensive.

In fact this very day a neighbour of about 85  managed to fall over and lock himself in his house and has clearly arrived at a stage in his life when his medical costs are going to escalate exponentially. They have been high for a number of years.
So, I stand by my claim, ever increasing numbers of infirm elderly have and will cost any half way civilised nation far more than smokers and drinkers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Now that every motorcyclist in California is required to buy one, a top of the line (non signature) helmet cost over $300.  In testing none have been demonstrated to be functionally better than my original helmet.
That being said I would never consider riding without my helmet.  Helmet laws are simply collusion between the helmet manufactures,insurance companies and the government.