Doctors are refusing to operate on smokers. Here’s why the trend will grow

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

We do not have (currently) a right to medical treatment in the United States.

Im really torn here. I hate the idea of people destroying their bodies then throwing themselves, diseased and broken, onto a medical establishment that (at this point) is essentially a giant cost sharing scheme (with a siphon in the middle adding unnecessary cost).

Should you and I be asked to pay for a scooter for someone who is obese and finds walking difficult? Its not that I dont pity their situation....but if I am paying a hefty price increase to cover an insurance program meant to provide healthcare to the poor....i have a financial stake in seeing the poor (and anyone else using the insurance company I use) remain in better health.

I didn't ask for ACA. But it seems as though its the de facto public health system that makes us all responsible for paying for each others healthcare.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

So how far does this go?

How about sterilizing anyone who has the genes to pass a disease onto their children?

Death at birth for any child with major disabilities?

So far, the public health community has used epidimiology (statistics) to establish a "link" between certain behaviors and a disease. Notice that epidimiology cannot prove that the link is real or that the behavior does in fact CAUSE the disease.

They have succeeded in establishing almost any disease as the "fault" of the victim.

Now, half the population believes that they have the right to "punish" the victims by withholding health care. Health care that the victim was forced to pay for all their lives.

We are already too far down the road.

For an example: Public Health told us for 40 years that if we had a heart disease, it was from too much fat in our diet.

We now know that this advice was full of #. But it did not prevent campaigners from demanding that food processors remove fat from our food (it was replaced with sugar or salt)

Many scientists believe that the low fat diet advice was perhaps what is responsible for the obesity crisis as well as the diabetes crises.

can you imagine if we had withheld health care from people until they followed the low fat diet regime????

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I say lets look at what works all over the world and apply to our system.

How do you think the over lobbied Dems who voted for this mess would feel?

How do you think the lobbyist would feel?

That's why I've been calling for single payer along with the rest of us Berners.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is single payer working all over the world?

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

The best post of all. thank you

That is a way of looking at it that I hadn't considered. 40 years ago our diet was swayed by "fake science". We run on fat, and only a tiny little bit of sugar and some cabs.

Heck, if I understand it correctly, our brains are cholesterol/fat and out diet has little to do with over all blood cholesterol. Brain-cholesterol-lack of fat in diet-epidemic of dementia-MS-ALS???

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are you OK with auto insurance and people driving too fast?

How about renters/home insurance and your neighbors deck they put on with out a permit/ inspection? After all this could lead to a law suit if some one is injured in a fall related to the deck.

How about countries around the world that are backwards. Our military goes in (and free of charge) cleans up/builds up and hands it back to the civilians. Yep we pay for that too

Govt grants too.

There is a long list of things that we (tax payer and consumer) shell out money to but have little control over.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Is single payer working all over the world?

No. But it is the most successful working solution of all the solutions around the world. If you want to literally take "what works all over the world" then you would have no solution because there is no healthcare solution that is implemented worldwide. So you were either baiting me with that response or you just moved the goal posts back on me.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No baiting or goal post moving.

I have no idea what is working. I do on the other hand know what is not, at least here in the US. Well the US system is working if you are a lobbyist or make your money off insurance required procedures.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Are you OK with auto insurance and people driving too fast?

People driving too fast is a common sense safety issue. Auto insurance is government forcing you to buy a product....its wrong. Just like ACA is.

How about renters/home insurance and your neighbors deck they put on with out a permit/ inspection? After all this could lead to a law suit if some one is injured in a fall related to the deck.

Its ill advised to not insure your home. Of all things, your home should be insured. Its the only real property most property owners have. The majority of the world spends all their money on depreciable products like cars, phones....things that lose all their value after a couple of years. I see no reason to insure something that depreciates. But insuring REAL property? Absolutely. But it shouldn't be legally required (unless you owe on a mortgage).

building permits....they should be necessary, but bureaucracy has made them ridiculous. Im not a fan of building permits for things like sheds or decks. I am a fan when it comes to adding rooms onto real property that can then be sold to another family. And I am a fan of building permits/inspections on publicly used buildings like hotels, banks, etc.

How about countries around the world that are backwards. Our military goes in (and free of charge) cleans up/builds up and hands it back to the civilians. Yep we pay for that too

Our military razes countries. Sure, we may rebuild....but I think they destroy far more than they build. What's your point here?

Govt grants too.

There is a long list of things that we (tax payer and consumer) shell out money to but have little control over.

Sure you do. You vote.

Look, im not saying I get to approve dinner menus for the country here. Im saying that as someone who is now paying twice the insurance premium that he was paying (with a MASSIVE decrease in service, like quintupled copays), Im raw and salty as hell about it.

Insurance is a risk assessment gamble. Plain and simple. My premium doubled because I now have to chip in for poorer people. And the premium is determined on risk. If we decrease the risk pool, my premium drops. There is a direct correlation from people smoking and the amount of money I have to pay. Damn straight I assert that I have input. The same as you: i can vote.

a reply to: seasonal

I'm all for fixing the ACA or going to single payer. Repeal and replace is a bad idea though.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I thought the costs were supposed to come down because we are all insured. Nope, price goes up. Because it can.

My main point is we are quickly becoming a hi-bred socialized-crony capitalistic-oligarchy.

I have to say that in some respects an all in approach is the best way.

With medical, the fox is indeed watching the hen house.

a reply to: seasonal

I think that we are all pointing the finger at each other and being extremely intrusive, judgmental and offensive in the process.

Why aren't we looking at the cost of health care in Canada and United States and then comparing this cost to other countries. Why are costs so high

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

It is by design we are pointing fingers.

It is expensive because it can be, Canada has price controls.

Well, if you are going to ban smokers from treatment for self inflicted harm, then you'll also, for the same reasons, have to ban fatties, marathon runners, rugby, football and soccer players, cyclists, motorcyclists, car drivers who speed, anyone who ever had a beer, according to vegans, any omnivores, any one who deviates from the standard, advised food pyramid....The list could go on for the same reasons couldn't it? You could make everyone pay for health care that would then be denied them.
A sort of ultomato, anti socialised health care plan.

a reply to: SprocketUK

And the insurance companies stand and clap at your proposal.

a reply to: seasonal

Unless people realise the con and decide not to pay for insurance that won't actually pay for their treatment...

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Keep in mind, though, what single payer will mean.

It will mean 'single payer and reduced choices for the common people, best concierge medical care for the 1% who go around the system'.

I don't know if I am okay with that, personally. I don't like the reduced choices part so much.

a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks

Costs are high because we have a middle man between the patient and doctor: insurance companies. Its paying someone to do something that is wholly unneccessary outside of a "for profit" system.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

People who pay cash also pay outrageous costs.

a reply to: seasonal

Cash is actually usually very cheap. Many places offer HUGE discounts.

When Nancy Surdoval, a retired lawyer, needed a knee X-ray last year, Boulder Community Hospital in Colorado said it would cost her $600, out of pocket, using her high-deductible insurance, or just $70 if she paid cash upfront.

www.wsj.com...