• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Stossel Solves the Health Crisis with Capitalism

I'm sorry, but "it's their own fault" has to be one of the worst reasons I ever heard for not having UHC.

I can just imagine it....."I'm sorry you're lying bleeding in the road beside the remains of your mangled car, pal, but you were speeding and your tires and bald so you can just drop dead...oh, you have".
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't think we're talking about the same thing.
 
So you don't think people paying into an insurance risk/resource pool should be allowed to be fat????
Click to expand...

LOL, that's not what I'm saying at all. I just think if you're asking for free food and getting free medical, you might go easy on the microwave pizzas. People being under UHC or private insurance doesn't matter to me on this that's why I didn't want to derail the thread by continuing on.
 
Do you think a person should have a sense of responsibility to lighten the load as much as possible if they are participating in a system funded by others tax dollars?
Click to expand...

And why should they be allowed to participate in dangerous sports? Or ride a motorcycle? Or a sports car? Shouldn't they have to exercise? Prohibited from having more than one drink a day? And on and on and on. . .

And do you think for a moment these arguments won't be made when the US socializes health care? We're already seeing it in this thread.
 
A story from the NHS a few years ago.

Mr Aber was the leading heart surgeon round here and very good he was (he's now retired). When confronted with a patient for surgery he would assess them. If they smoked or were obese he would refuse to opperate. His rationale was that he could only do so many opperations and he was not going to waste one on somebody who's life choices meant that it was less likely to succeed than someone else. He also gave them the opportunity to do the needful and come back. My colleague who was subject to this lost two stone, gave up smoking and is alive twenty years later.

Steve
 
Hittman said:
And why should they be allowed to participate in dangerous sports? Or ride a motorcycle? Or a sports car? Shouldn't they have to exercise? Prohibited from having more than one drink a day? And on and on and on. . .

And do you think for a moment these arguments won't be made when the US socializes health care? We're already seeing it in this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, we're hearing these arguments from fearmongering conservatives who are ignoring the fact that nothing of the sort happens in countries with UHC.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
People on entitlements, yes. Again, I don't think this is the right thread though.
Click to expand...

So you think people entitled to medical care by virtue of their employer-based insurance should have their freedoms restricted so as to not burden the load of the other payers?
 
So you think people entitled to medical care by virtue of their employer-based insurance should have their freedoms restricted so as to not burden the load of the other payers?
Click to expand...

Well, those people are actually paying in.
 
If that's what you believe, Dan, then it would appear that we are talking about the same thing.
 
oggiesnr said:
A story from the NHS a few years ago.

Mr Aber was the leading heart surgeon round here and very good he was (he's now retired). When confronted with a patient for surgery he would assess them. If they smoked or were obese he would refuse to opperate. His rationale was that he could only do so many opperations and he was not going to waste one on somebody who's life choices meant that it was less likely to succeed than someone else. He also gave them the opportunity to do the needful and come back. My colleague who was subject to this lost two stone, gave up smoking and is alive twenty years later.

Steve
Click to expand...

This is a bit circular though. He has the best statistics so he can pick his patients, and so limits himself to those likely to have the best outcomes.
 
kellyb said:
Yes, we're hearing these arguments from fearmongering conservatives who are ignoring the fact that nothing of the sort happens in countries with UHC.
Click to expand...

Ah but it seems that those fearmongering conservatives would be for such things.
 
Yeah. Nearly all the developed western world has universal healthcare. Not one country, so far as I know, where they make any restrictions on the citizens' lifestyles at all. Nobody has banned smoking, or alcohol, or skiing, or motorbikes, or mountaineering, or Big Macs. Nobody has mandatory exercise, or fruit-and-vegetable eating, or even regular baths.

Nobody has a "universal food plan" either.

And yet, in the USA, they somehow believe that the minute they begin to suspect that universal healthcare might be quite a good idea, and vote for it, suddenly they will all turn into zombie automatons and vote for all these other daft ideas too.

Weird.

Rolfe.
 
DaN K. StAnLeY said:
Well, those people are actually paying in.
Click to expand...


And the only way you don't pay into a universal healthcare system is if you've never paid any tax in your life.

So what you're suggesting is that anyone in that category, for example students who haven't yet started earning, or very low-income people, or those so disabled they can't work, should have their freedoms strictly curtailed or else be unable to access healthcare.

How many Big Macs are you allowed before the system decides to leave you to die?

Rolfe.
 
And the only way you don't pay into a universal healthcare system is if you've never paid any tax in your life.

So what you're suggesting is that anyone in that category, for example students who haven't yet started earning, or very low-income people, or those so disabled they can't work, should have their freedoms strictly curtailed or else be unable to access healthcare.

How many Big Macs are you allowed before the system decides to leave you to die?
Click to expand...

Oh, great!

I was talking about non-HC entitlements earlier in response to this post:

But, less toungue in cheek, the "abuser" and "freeloader" tag seems to me to point strongly to Libertarian principles. Child overweight, diabetic, needing medical attention because you didn't feed her properly? Why should "I" pay for it? Stuff you - I go to the gymn and eat fruit and everything!! Etc., etc. Personally I find it a socially irresponsible and reprehensible attitude.
Click to expand...

I was just making a point (and should have made it clearer earlier) that if depend on tax money to survive, you should take steps to lighten the load. For example, not feeding your children/yourself garbage that could result in me (and in a UHC system, everyone) having to fork over more cash for medical bills. This is why I suggested another thread would be better to discuss this as I felt I was derailing my own thread. I realize everyone pays for UHC that's why I wasn't arguing to deny them HC (or anything actually) just pointing out the obvious I guess. That people should appreciate the entitlements they have.

Maybe I can explain better with a different example. If someone here is on government housing and pays $20 bucks a month for rent on a house, they give up some rights. They are subject to random inspections to make sure they aren't housing people they aren't supposed to be, and to make sure they are taking care of the house. Some people completely trash the homes and leave holes in the walls and poop and peep in the home. People like that don't deserve entitlements. Other people who appreciate what they are getting will take care of the homes and in some cases make improvements on their own.

I don't see anything wrong with limiting the range of products that people on welfare can buy with foodstamps if it results in them being forced to have a healthier diet. healthier diet for them= less money I have to spend on top of what they are already getting. I'm not certain but it really doesn't seem like a topic for this thread. Maybe I'm wrong. It wouldn't be the first time:p
 
Last edited:
Yes, we're hearing these arguments from fearmongering conservatives who are ignoring the fact that nothing of the sort happens in countries with UHC.
Click to expand...

You meant this sarcastically, right? Because it is happening with smokers and the obese in UHC countries, right now. Some UHC supporters deny it, others justify it, and the really amusing ones do both.

Nobody has banned smoking, or alcohol, or skiing, or motorbikes, or mountaineering, or Big Macs.
Click to expand...

No, they just get denied some health care for smokers and fatties. Just some, for now. But the wise and benevolent government would never expand that. Because, they're so, you know, wise and benevolent and all. We can always trust the government to know what's best for us, and do it.

I'm still rather amused at how you completely ignored my concerns with the US government's long and historic incompetence, twice, with lame brewery joke.
 
You meant this sarcastically, right? Because it is happening with smokers and the obese in UHC countries, right now.
Click to expand...

Show me just ONE country with UHC where smoking or fatness is banned.

No, they just get denied some health care for smokers and fatties
Click to expand...

Where?
 
Hittman said:
You meant this sarcastically, right? Because it is happening with smokers and the obese in UHC countries, right now. Some UHC supporters deny it, others justify it, and the really amusing ones do both.

...snip...
Click to expand...

Can you provide any evidence for this assertion?


Hittman said:
...snip...

We can always trust the government to know what's best for us, and do it.
Click to expand...

As I often say I don't trust any particular government however overall I do "trust" the system of government in my country. (That is not to say I consider it perfect, indeed I've often campaigned to get aspects of it changed.) And since in my country "I" am the government as much as anyone else my expectations of the level of competence I can expect is quite realistic!

Thankfully in the NHS the medical and clinical decision are on the whole made by people that we have educated and trained to make such decisions. So again whilst I don't trust any particular doctor or nurse or pharmacist I do "trust" (but to a lesser degree than I trust the system of governance in the UK) the system to produce people that can make those decision competently.

Hittman said:
I'm still rather amused at how you completely ignored my concerns with the US government's long and historic incompetence, twice, with lame brewery joke.
Click to expand...

I actually don't see any unique incompetence in USA governments however lets put that aside and just accept that your assertion is correct, why are you so incompetent?
 
My mother-in-law who is pretty obese had a hip replacement operation on the NHS last year. All that happened as regards her weight was that the surgeon told her that the risks of any operation are higher when you are heavier and asked her (very politely) to try to lose a bit of weight before the operation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom