quote:

ORIGINAL: Griswold
Bud...you always post logical, clear thinking posts.

(This is not one of them).

You argue that (some) health care locations may alter their health care options due to someone impuning their own health...moreover...for those who simply are willing to obviate good health care.

I'm a smoker.

Smokers (nicotine) slow down the recovery process.  It's a fact.

I need to have some dental work done...it includes cutting into my gums...(it's purely cosmetic...my choice)...that's all about blood...which is all about healing.

Nicotine slows down (and in some cases...cuts down to 17% of the recovery time) the process of healing.

It's related to nicotine...which as far as I can tell, can't occur in the bloodstream with the exception of smoking...or "chaw".

Considering that you pose insurers are stating they won't cover those (who make slightly negative) choices that (they) make (which are detrimental to recovery...among other things), and that everyone and their brother is complaining about rising health insurance costs..I'd have to say...

I buy it.

I don't like it...because it eliminates (my) choice of (some very bad) health choices...but you know what?

You wouldn't insure for a vehicle accident (at a reasonable price) those people who chose to drive both...drunk...and/or with no provable requisite safe driving training....

(And I would never assume...if you were the insurer...that you should cover my indulgences....should I continue to engage in behaviours that may...and were likely to....cost you, the insurer, money).

My 2, and no more than my 2....cents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

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. 

yes and i had to get something to put on my head when i went to la so i did la via sturgis and bought one of those cheap 20 dollar novelty nazi style skull skidders and took a bit of white paint and painted a dot on the back to represent the DOT sticker  and funny no one said anything to me and i wore it in any state that required a skull skid...  i still have to laugh about that a bit...

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If one reads this report it notes that less than 10% of the motorcyclist involved in accidents had insurance. That is 10% of the total not 10% of those sustaining head injuries leading to a vegetative state. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

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. 

yes and i had to get something to put on my head when i went to la so i did la via sturgis and bought one of those cheap 20 dollar novelty nazi style skull skidders and took a bit of white paint and painted a dot on the back to represent the DOT sticker  and funny no one said anything to me and i wore it in any state that required a skull skid...  i still have to laugh about that a bit...

Real0ne:
The law in California due to a California supreme court decision  is that the cops may not pull you over for a non dot approved helmet.  The sticker is on the inside and cannot be seen with the helmet being worn, thus no probable cause.

I don't have a twenty dollar head so I don't wear a twenty dollar helmet.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy
My favorite case was a guy walked into a motorcycle dealership with a hardon and a lot of money.  Pointed at a bullet bike.  Salesman asked him if he knew how to ride it, and the guy said yes.  They took the bike out into the alley.  Guy gets on, guns it, drops the clutch, races out of the alley at red-line in 1st gear.  They expect going 40-50mph.  He crossed 2 lanes of traffic.  Jumped the island.  Crossed the next 2 lanes of traffic.  Jumped the curb.  Raced through a gas station.  Ran into a Coke machine.  No helmet.  Vegetative state.

Sued the motorcycle manufacturer, the gas station, and the city.

The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.  This is a euphemism for the company giving the idiot's family money so they could save the cost of litigation.

Sinergy

edited to put on a helmet

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

If one reads this report it notes that less than 10% of the motorcyclist involved in accidents had insurance. That is 10% of the total not 10% of those sustaining head injuries leading to a vegetative state. 

How many motorcyclists not wearing a helmet and lapsing into a vegetative state am I supposed to be expected to pay for?
You are paying for automobile drivers lapsing into a vegetative state  and not complaining about it so this makes no sense.

I dont recall signing on to paying for their medical care.  Figure out a way that they can engage in their behavior (not wearing a motorcycle helmet) without me having to pay for it, and I am right there with you.
As I explained and you may check by looking at the actuarial tables used by the insurance companies, there is a far greater number of automobile drivers that are in this position than motorcyclist.  I have tried to explain how the helmet law came into being, but you seem uninterested in the facts. 
I used to test motorcycles for a company that did accident reconstruction.  I know quite a bit about the laws, the physics, prices of helmets, etc.
Which of my statements about the physics or the price of helmets do you disagree with?

I do not agree with your concept that helmet laws are due to helmet manufacturers, but then I used to read accident reports and legal filings from people in accidents.
How does this qualify you as an expert in this area?
Who makes money from mandatory helmet laws?  Perhaps you should look into who contributed money to the individual who pushed the helmet law through the assembly and the senate.

My favorite case was a guy walked into a motorcycle dealership with a hardon and a lot of money.  Pointed at a bullet bike.  Salesman asked him if he knew how to ride it, and the guy said yes.  They took the bike out into the alley.  Guy gets on, guns it, drops the clutch, races out of the alley at red-line in 1st gear.  They expect going 40-50mph.  He crossed 2 lanes of traffic.  Jumped the island.  Crossed the next 2 lanes of traffic.  Jumped the curb.  Raced through a gas station.  Ran into a Coke machine.  No helmet.  Vegetative state.
I fail to see the relevance of this anecdote.

Sued the motorcycle manufacturer, the gas station, and the city.
Ludicrous...his only tort is against the dealership....ask any lawyer.

The lawsuit was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money.  This is a euphemism for the company giving the idiot's family money so they could save the cost of litigation.
Not so the dealership was liable because they failed to check to see if his license had a motorcycle endorsement and failed to require him to wear a helmet when he was on their bike.  This is first year tort law.  It is not that hard to look up.

Sinergy

edited to put on a helmet

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
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.

Seeks:
The above is anecdotal evidence and plays well at the pub but the people who pay the bills say other wise.  If you were to check the actuarial tables that the insurance companies use to determine who is costing them the most money you will find that those who abuse nicotine and alcohol and food are the largest expense for them. 
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
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.

Seeks:
The above is anecdotal evidence and plays well at the pub but the people who pay the bills say other wise.  If you were to check the actuarial tables that the insurance companies use to determine who is costing them the most money you will find that those who abuse nicotine and alcohol and food are the largest expense for them. 
thompson

Anecdotal? True but your answer raises a question about private health insurance in the US: can elderly people even obtain all embracing insurance cover at an affordable premium for people in the average income bands ?
If not wouldn't that skew the stats ?
If by elderly we are speaking of folks older than youngsters like me and thee.  They typically are not employed and are on a fixed income.  To not have insurance at that age is only understandable if they have always been poor and never really had medical coverage.
If on the other hand we are talking of people in the 50 and up range who are still working it is pretty well available in the range of 4000 to 6000 dollars U.S. pre-existing conditions etc. would necessarily change those numbers.  Is that affordable?  I don't believe so if you are making minimum wage.

By the way, its the public that pays the bills however health care is financed minus an amount private companies may raise from investments NO?
True on the whole but not the whole truth.
Consider a company like General Motors who goes to an insurance company and says i have a half million employees I will insure them with your company if you give me a really good rate...say 500 dollars a year per person.  I will pay for these premiums with stock options which I will allow you to accept at fifty percent premium.  This scenario would lower the cost by half at a minimum and by more if GM stock goes up.  Now we have a individual approach the same insurance company and he is told that his cost for the same coverage is 6000 dollars a year.  The fallacy here is that it somehow cost the insurance company more to insure the single individual than the individuals in the group.  universal health coverage is like the group coverage plan for GM only on a massive scale thus the cost per individual goes down.  This would necessarily bring down the profits of the insurance company so there does seem to be a disincentive for the insurance company to encourage universal health coverage.

Keeping my eye on Sinergy, as I do, I too was a little suspicious of his m/cycle story on the grounds that in the UK a person when booking a test ride signs a waiver (a) to cover the costs of any damage to the bike and (b) to absolve the dealer of any responsibilites during the test ride.
Whether that waiver would "stand up" in court I do not know.

Incidently I once came very close to "dropping" a BMW within sight of the showroom offering the test ride. Only my experienced right hand got me out of trouble !
Good on ya mate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf
Governments have an infinite amount of money

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I asked.....
A question about private health insurance in the US: can elderly people even obtain all embracing insurance cover at an affordable premium for people in the average income bands ?

Thomson replied
If by elderly we are speaking of folks older than youngsters like me and thee.  They typically are not employed and are on a fixed income.  To not have insurance at that age is only understandable if they have always been poor and never really had medical coverage.

I cant understand this answer.Surely private medical insurance is not a lifetime contract, is it ?
Some is and some is not....since we do not have a national health care system all insurance is private.  Some is individual and some is group.  That being said some group insurance,say. that which might be negotiated in a union contract can be lifetime.


Therefore just at the time a person is certain to need medical care income diminishes and medical costs rise dramatically NO ?
Exactly.

The 85 yo I mentioned will now get such treatment as is required both social  and medical  without incurring any charges of any kind.
I do not idealise the quality of that care but again from my experience it is availailable NO questions asked and is certainly better than getting nothing at all or having to sell his house or having to financially disadvantage his family to pay for the treatment. His wife incidentally is suffering from general mental problems, she will no doubt at some point have to enter care.

Another anecdote, A second neighbour had a massive heart operation is now drugged regularly looks reasonably well and receives this treatment free at the point of use.
Any Brit poster I should think can repeat these stories and I believe the benefits that ordinary modest average earning people receive far outweigh any philosophical considerations abour "freedom"

I advocate nothing whatsoever for the US, I simply report what is true in the UK. I am also not blind to the weaknesses of our system, I just cant think of a way to rectify them except by putting a benevolant authoritarian like me in charge.
It is entirely possible that the queen could do worse than to press your expertise and common sense to service in the public good.

quote:

LadyE
Thats not strictly true though Seeks - there have been plenty of examples in the last year (Panorama or Tonight did a documentary on it) of elderly people being forced to sell their homes in order to pay for care to which they were entitled through the NHS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

quote:

LadyE
Thats not strictly true though Seeks - there have been plenty of examples in the last year (Panorama or Tonight did a documentary on it) of elderly people being forced to sell their homes in order to pay for care to which they were entitled through the NHS.

I agree LadyE but I expect you will find that those who are required to sell property to finance social care but NOT medical treatment are living alone, tho' I did give the wrong impression. 

I told you you had knocked me for six lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen


And isnt that a swizz too? What they refer to as "social care" is only divided off from "medical care" because of the cost and the need to make people pay for it. Very often the "social care" is indivisible from the medical. 

It would be all very well, except that of course only those with assets can pay and are made to pay - whilst those with no assets get the "social care" free of charge. By "those with assets" we are not talking about the fabulously wealthy here - just ordinary working people who have bought their own home through a mortgage over 25 years with what was left of their wages after paying taxes all their lives. It would then, seem best to drink and smoke every last penny one has away, for one will not be any worse off.

What really, totally, absolutely pisses me off more than anything about the situation right now and in the last ten years or so though, is that so many of those being shafted by the NHS in this way are the very same people who fought the second world war. A land fit for heroes indeed. Its just not good enough in a top five economy.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I told you you had knocked me for six lol

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

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

This would be fine if one didn't have to pay for injured car drivers, pedestrians killed by car drivers, asthma sufferers through traffic pollution, drinkers, industrial injuries, pregnancies, sport injuries, etc. etc. etc.

As a smoker, if only occasionally, I resent being taxed for people who part take in other vices and get treatment without being told they should modify their behaviour.

Great sentiment, just be consistent with it. I'd be quids in.