3 ms·
I think morally there is a relevant distinction between congenital disease, environmental disease over which you had no control (asbestos, smog), and lifestyle
by cmurf 8y ago
I think morally there is a relevant distinction between congenital disease, environmental disease over which you had no control (asbestos, smog), and lifestyle choices (I'm going to eat fast food, lots of sugar, smoke cigarettes, and drink booze as often as possible).
Beriatric surgery should be 100% covered. But if you refuse such surgery and eat yourself into a 400 pound oblivion, then I don't think anyone should have to contribute to managing the ensuing completely predictable problems - insurance is about protecting against unknowns. We know exactly what happens if you drink too much, if you eat too much, if you pickle your organs by eating too much sugar, with 100% certainty.
It is not moral to take resources from responsible people in order to coddle the emotional state of people who want to do what they want because they want to. There's no way to argue it is. Even as an advocate of universal health care I'm hyper aware of the folly that follows which is if I'm paying for you, then I get to have a say in what you consume and your relative activity level, or else you get cut off or sanctioned in some way. The individualism in the U.S., as cowboy mentality as it is, very much expects individual to put in a fair amount of effort in first, in order to get help from others. It's not a ask and you shall receive society, never has been, probably never will be.
- matthewmacleod 8y agoDoesn’t really work in practice though, because you rapidly deteriorate into a ludicrously invasive system. Let’s say you drive - why should I, as a non-driver, be paying for your medical care because you chose to drive? You cycle? Dangerous! Wait, you don’t sleep eight hours?? Statistically, you’re doomed! It doesn’t work. Life is an inherently dangerous environment. Some of the things we do increase our risk of illness massively, but so many things increase our risk in so many ways that it’s surely better to manage this as a public health matter, rather than simply accepting that people will die en masse. Coordinated and sustained public health programs can reduce the adverse effects of lifestyle choices. But rationing healthcare on that basis is ultimately going to benefit nobody.
- conanbatt 8y agoI think it works really well: different people do different levels of investment and decisions regarding the personal health. Some to scooter, others to bike, others to walk. Some choose to live in a more crime ridden area, others safer. Some people choose to avoid gluten, others to avoid carbs. Even on healthcare, in countries were the system is not so busted as in the us, people choose to have premium insurances over regular ones, to get better care ,and others choose not to. > But rationing healthcare on that basis is ultimately going to benefit nobody. Its not rationing healthcare: its bearing the burden of individual choices.
- sheepmullet 8y ago> Doesn’t really work in practice though, because you rapidly deteriorate into a ludicrously invasive system In practice there is a small core group of activities that cause the vast majority of the problems. > Coordinated and sustained public health programs can reduce the adverse effects of lifestyle In practice we don’t have the stomach to use techniques that are time tested. Take obesity - fat shaming works but it’s rough on the people who are being shamed. Instead of fat shaming though there is a fat acceptance movement.