Smokers and hamplanets should not qualify for any healthcare.

  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 13, 2015 1:54 AM GMT
    Anybody else agree? There is so much evidence that smoking and obesity is bad for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 2:00 AM GMT
    I disagree. To compare this concept with an issue closer to home, if a gay guy contracts HIV through unsafe sex with a stranger, should we deny him healthcare because 'he knew that unsafe sex exponentiates the risk for HIV'? As healthcare professionals, we have an obligation to provide healthcare to anyone who needs it regardless of the circumstances.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 2:11 AM GMT
    You can't do that, especially considering that there are smokers and obese people who pay health insurance premiums. You can't deny anyone care based on poor choices, it's unethical.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 13, 2015 2:14 AM GMT
    James_Thunder_Early saidYou can't do that, especially considering that there are smokers and obese people who pay health insurance premiums. You can't deny anyone care based on poor choices, it's unethical.
    But they still cost society billions of dollars per year.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 2:19 AM GMT
    ThatSwimmerGuy93 said
    James_Thunder_Early saidYou can't do that, especially considering that there are smokers and obese people who pay health insurance premiums. You can't deny anyone care based on poor choices, it's unethical.
    But they still cost society billions of dollars per year.


    Denial of care does not make costs go away, it would actually make them rise in the long run, because eventually it would drive up emergency room visits.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 13, 2015 2:20 AM GMT
    James_Thunder_Early said
    ThatSwimmerGuy93 said
    James_Thunder_Early saidYou can't do that, especially considering that there are smokers and obese people who pay health insurance premiums. You can't deny anyone care based on poor choices, it's unethical.
    But they still cost society billions of dollars per year.

    Denial of care does not make costs go away, it would actually make them rise in the long run, because eventually it would drive up emergency room visits.
    How about they just say "too bad you made a shitty decision to eat too much or smoke" and turn them away. It is the moral thing to do.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 2:23 AM GMT
    ThatSwimmerGuy93 said
    James_Thunder_Early said
    ThatSwimmerGuy93 said
    James_Thunder_Early saidYou can't do that, especially considering that there are smokers and obese people who pay health insurance premiums. You can't deny anyone care based on poor choices, it's unethical.
    But they still cost society billions of dollars per year.

    Denial of care does not make costs go away, it would actually make them rise in the long run, because eventually it would drive up emergency room visits.
    How about they just say "too bad you made a shitty decision to eat too much or smoke" and turn them away. It is the moral thing to do.


    That would hardly be a moral decision and would definitely result in a lawsuit. Denial of care would never stand up in court.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 2:28 AM GMT
    Fat people and smokers should be insured and pay the same premiums as everyone else, but their and everyone else's health care should be subsidized by revenues from insanely high taxes on cigarettes and processed foods/snacks.

    Oh, if only it were that easy.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 13, 2015 2:33 AM GMT
    eagermuscle saidFat people and smokers should be insured and pay the same premiums as everyone else, but their and everyone else's health care should be subsidized by revenues from insanely high taxes on cigarettes and processed foods/snacks.

    Oh, if only it were that easy.
    I'd support that. A junk food tax.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 2:44 AM GMT
    That wouldn't really be fair to tax junk food, since you have a lot of people in grocery deserts that have access only to corners stores that sell food that is classified as junk. Food taxes are wrong, period.

    Cigarettes are already taxed and the revenue is already spent on other things.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 13, 2015 2:48 AM GMT
    James_Thunder_Early saidThat wouldn't really be fair to tax junk food, since you have a lot of people in grocery deserts that have access only to corners stores that sell food that is classified as junk. Food taxes are wrong, period.

    Cigarettes are already taxed and the revenue is already spent on other things.
    It is cheaper to eat healthy food if you plan it correctly. Taxing junk food with a 50% sales tax seems reasonable.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 3:02 AM GMT
    Then HIV+ people shouldn't get insurance either.

    Smokers and obese people know what is coming and that's their 'reward' for living that unhealthy lifestyle. But everyone should always have medical care no matter what they did or how they choose to live.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 3:04 AM GMT
    Look up food desert and you'll see that some people don't have access to healthy food. A 50% sales tax on anything would never be feasible or even fair. Eating healthy is a choice that can't be forced on people through extremely high taxes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 3:31 PM GMT
    What about alcohol !
    Should healthcare be refused to alcohol consumers !
    You have more chances to be killed by a drunk driver , that to die from a smoker or overweight person !
    What about the effect of alcohol to your health !


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 3:32 PM GMT
    eagermuscle saidFat people and smokers should be insured and pay the same premiums as everyone else, but their and everyone else's health care should be subsidized by revenues from insanely high taxes on cigarettes and processed foods/snacks.

    Oh, if only it were that easy.


    Exactly !!
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Jun 13, 2015 3:42 PM GMT
    Stop. You can't pick a la carte habits or lifestyles you don't care for and then punish them by withholding care.

    More specifically, you do realize that if a person doesn't die of AIDS ("naughty" sex), or lung cancer ("naughty" smoking), or diabetes ("naughty" eating), then that person will continue to live--likely decades more--in their NON PRODUCTIVE years and suck net more resources and money than their medical bills. So Henry got AIDS, lung cancer and diabetes--and it's all his "fault"--and he's in and out of the hospital at age 67. At age 68, after a month in ICU, he dies from all three. Well, in your hypothetical world, say Henry didn't get AIDS, cancer and diabetes. Henry then goes on to live to the ripe old age of 83, an additional 15 years. Those 15 years are NONPRODUCTIVE years since he--like most people--do not work past age 65. He sucked resources--from social security benefits, to "lift" services on the local bus system, to Medicare from the yearly doctor's visits for pneumonia, the flu or whatever malady old people get that lands them in the hospital every year or so. Then, Henry still has to die when he's 83. So just like in the past when he was in the ICU for his "naughty" behavior, he STILL lands in the ICU simply because he got pneumonia and his lungs are filled with fluid. He is there the same amount of time--a month--as he was for his "naughty" behavior. Net more resources were sucked out of the system (financial payments to him and medical services) than if he'd offed himself with AIDS, lung cancer and/or diabetes.

    In point of fact, AIDS, lung cancer, and diabetes victims SAVE the health industry and government money from their untimely and early demise. We didn't even mention hospice care or long term nursing home facilities for poor people who get evicted from their home or apartment.

    Your economic argument is at once immoral, unethical, and invalid insofar that your ideal world would have more people sucking more resources in the long run after they shirk their "naught" behaviors and qualify for your proposed healthcare plan. Frankly, your idea isn't well thought out in my opinion.
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Jun 13, 2015 4:14 PM GMT
    Why do you guys keep lumping smoking and obesity together?
    My ex smoked and had a huge beer belly!
    what a strange coincidence..
    And he was a bottom!! How weird!!!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 9:09 PM GMT
    Gotta give the OP props for the term "hamplanet"...pretty funny

    Hamplanet.png
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 13, 2015 9:26 PM GMT
    ThatSwimmerGuy93 saidAnybody else agree? There is so much evidence that smoking and obesity is bad for you.


    Wouldn't it be ironic if you got a thyroid disease and gained weight!

    You're healthy now (I'd argue against mentally though), maybe not next week.

    Of course the insurance industry would love that. They are looking into DNA as a pretext to not insure.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 13, 2015 10:32 PM GMT
    timmm55 said
    ThatSwimmerGuy93 saidAnybody else agree? There is so much evidence that smoking and obesity is bad for you.


    Wouldn't it be ironic if you got a thyroid disease and gained weight!

    You're healthy now (I'd argue against mentally though), maybe not next week.

    Of course the insurance industry would love that. They are looking into DNA as a pretext to not insure.
    Studies show those with a thyroid disorder will gain at most 20 lbs.
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 14, 2015 1:05 AM GMT
    Hold my fries! I need another pizza.
    BIn8InH.jpg
    NzJGHSl.jpg
    Z3dln8E.jpg
    brought to you by a shitlord
  • Hypertrophile

    Posts: 1021

    Jun 14, 2015 1:19 AM GMT
    I am not going to argue for universal health care on one hand, then argue against it for those with obesity or who smoke on the other.

    Everyone makes poor choices in life, and they don't always end up sick or dying because of them. At what point do we draw the line? Being obese or a smoker is not a death sentence, nor does it have to be the underlying cause of all the illnesses from which a smoker or obese person is suffering.

    "Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Cool, we aren't going to treat your aneurism because you're a smoker."

    Right. Let's try that.

    What's ironic about this is some are willing to hold individuals accountable for their own health problems, while some of those same people are completely unwilling to hold doctors, hospitals, polluters, etc. accountable for the health problems they cause.
  • venue35

    Posts: 4644

    Jun 14, 2015 3:57 AM GMT
    Ok those pictures should be banned..
    That isn't fat..that's challenging the laws of gravity
  • ThatSwimmerGu...

    Posts: 3755

    Jun 14, 2015 4:24 AM GMT
    venue35 saidOk those pictures should be banned..
    That isn't fat..that's challenging the laws of gravity
    Careful! Don't get sucked into their planetary orbit!
  • WrestlerBoy

    Posts: 1903

    Jun 14, 2015 7:29 AM GMT
    MuchMoreThanMuscle saidEven cigarettes aren't taxed at a 50% rate. Nor is alcohol. icon_rolleyes.gif


    I don't smoke, and never have, but let's say you did in New York City. State and city taxes come to about $6...a pack. Let's say you're really determined to get lung cancer, so you do, what, I dunno, smoke three packs a day for 40 years before the boom finally drops on you. That means you will have spent about $262,800...just in state and local taxes on your lifetime "habit".

    The National Cancer Institute estimates it costs about $60k to treat lung cancer in Year One, and about $8k per year after that. So, taking into account our smoker has paid about a quarter million dollars for... nothing, PLUS his healthcare premiums for the same 40 years, I'd say it's just about a wash in terms of "cost/benefit analysis"?

    I, for one, however, see this type of analysis of a human being's illness as morally repugnant: I don't care WHY someone is ill, I'm concerned that they ARE ill. But it really is in our U.S. genetic make-up to think of these things in such terms, sadly.