5 ms·

If people do this the government should never pay for anything related to their eye care for the rest of their lives.

by grbrr 2y ago

FriendofChicken 2y ago
I'm interested in knowing more about your opinion on this. Can you tell me why you believe this?
- Eumenes 2y ago
  You shouldn't be eligible to receive tax payer funded healthcare assistance if you electively pay for a vanity procedure that has inherit risks: https://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-releases/detail/academy-issues-warning-on-eye-color-procedures https://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-releases/detail/academy-is... Fwiw, I feel the same about: smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, extreme sports, etc.
  - epmatsw 2y ago
    What qualifies as an extreme sport? Does skiing count? Football? Soccer? Does moderate alcohol factor in? Being obese? What’s your line where a personal choice that has some risk disqualifies you?
    - Eumenes 2y ago
      Adventure insurance is a thing - esp. for mountaineering, scuba diving, skydiving, etc. Alot of healthcare plans wont' cover things like this. They usually cover expenses related to search/rescue or a helicopter ride out from remote areas. I don't think people on government subsidized healthcare are involved in these activates so its not a big deal. To clarify, public health care shouldn't cover complications related to elective or vanity procedures, because they are not necessary.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - spanktheuser 2y ago
    What about food addicts? It’s well understood that drive negative health outcomes and costs and are under the control of anyone with a decent income. Want ozempic to treat your diabetes? Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis.
    - Eumenes 2y ago
      > Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis. why not? when you file for unemployment, you need to prove that you're looking for a job. if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. we have the technology, just not the political will.
      - gruez 2y ago
        >if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. This makes as much sense as "if you want anti-depressants, you have to prove you aren't being sad".
        Eumenes 2y ago
        I mean, there's a case to be made there. More often than not, anti-depressants are the first option given when someone is presenting those symptoms. There is little to no effort to address the root cause. It should be a last resort. Sadly young people, esp young girls, are being given these drugs like candy. It should be medical malpractice.
      - BobaFloutist 2y ago
        Do you know how those weight loss drugs work? They reduce your appetite. They're literally designed to "fix" the problem of "being a glutton." They don't magically burn more calories or whatever you think they do, they just make you eat less.
  - Spivak 2y ago
    You and others with this take are why I'm staunchly against single-payer healthcare. It's seems impossible for it to not get politicized in this manner and be used to effectively control other's behavior in ways that would be flagrantly unconstitutional otherwise. Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      We do, however, absolutely need a public option.
    - Eumenes 2y ago
      where in the constitution does it say I have to pay for someone's drug addiction rehab or cosmetic eye surgery? i don't expect anyone to cover my vices or vanity. not wanting to fund vice/vanity is not "controlling behavior" .. by all means, kill yourself with substance abuse or change your eye color, but expecting your fellow citizen to bail you out is certainly a form of "control".
      - kelseyfrog 2y ago
        The constitution places limits on the government. Unless you're telling me that you are literally The United States Federal Government, it doesn't apply to you.
        Eumenes 2y ago
        Actually, the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do. Fortunately with the Chevron deference, unelected bureaucrats and "experts" can no longer do whatever they please. Congress, who directly represent the People, will have to craft laws/policy and not the smug busybodies of DC. This is Democracy.
        2y ago
bdcravens 2y ago
That seems reasonable, but a significant amount of illnesses can tracked back to personal choices as well.
- notjoemama 2y ago
  In which case, and I know this is the antithesis of far left ycombonator, maybe everyone ought to be paying their own way and bearing the cost of their own choices. I’m not the person you replied to but I share their outlook on this specific viewpoint.
  - LocutusOfBorges 2y ago
    > far left ycombonator The sight of somebody, seemingly seriously, describing this site's userbase in this way is the funniest thing I've seen all day.
- armada651 2y ago
  Smoking for example, even though I consider smoking a terrible habit I would never advocate that society should not help pay for their lung cancer treatment. We already heavily tax cigarettes anyway, so anyone who smokes is basically already paying for their future healthcare needs in small installments. Besides, I like having an alcoholic beverage every now and then so I need society to help pay for my future liver/colon/throat cancer treatment.
bastawhiz 2y ago
That's an outrageous take. Should they be disqualified for screening and treatment for glaucoma, cataracts, or macular degeneration as they age? What about diabetic retinopathy? There's plenty of conditions that are obviously unrelated to such a procedure where the obvious cause is age. We don't deny breast cancer screening or treatment to women who have had silicone implants, or testicular cancer treatment to men who have had vasectomies. Or treatment for throat and lung conditions to smokers, or diabetes treatment to people who have eaten shit food their whole adult life. Or skin cancer treatment to people with tattoos
- rayiner 2y ago
  Yes, to all of those things. It’s not even controversial.
  - tzs 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure the idea that older people should be denied treatment for conditions that are common at their age [1] because years or decades earlier they did something that has no relation whatsoever to that condition is in fact controversial. [1] Nearly a quarter of people have cataracts before 70 and 10% of people have some form of age-related macular degeneration by 50.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Denying people welfare benefits for antisocial behavior is not controversial.
      - tzs 2y ago
        Say a 68 year old veteran went to a VA doctor for a facial skin cancer, and was denied treatment because when he enlisted 50 years earlier he got a tattoo of his unit on his buttocks. Do you really believe that denial would not be controversial?
        2y ago
lm28469 2y ago
What about people who drink coke, or smoke, or don't exercise? The vast majority of the burden on the health care system comes from very preventable causes

If people do this the government should never pay for anything related to their eye care for the rest of their lives.

by grbrr 2y ago

If people do this the government should never pay for anything related to their eye care for the rest of their lives.

FriendofChicken 2y ago

I'm interested in knowing more about your opinion on this. Can you tell me why you believe this?

Eumenes 2y ago
You shouldn't be eligible to receive tax payer funded healthcare assistance if you electively pay for a vanity procedure that has inherit risks: https://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-releases/detail/academy-issues-warning-on-eye-color-procedures https://www.aao.org/newsroom/news-releases/detail/academy-is... Fwiw, I feel the same about: smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, extreme sports, etc.
- epmatsw 2y ago
  What qualifies as an extreme sport? Does skiing count? Football? Soccer? Does moderate alcohol factor in? Being obese? What’s your line where a personal choice that has some risk disqualifies you?
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    Adventure insurance is a thing - esp. for mountaineering, scuba diving, skydiving, etc. Alot of healthcare plans wont' cover things like this. They usually cover expenses related to search/rescue or a helicopter ride out from remote areas. I don't think people on government subsidized healthcare are involved in these activates so its not a big deal. To clarify, public health care shouldn't cover complications related to elective or vanity procedures, because they are not necessary.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- spanktheuser 2y ago
  What about food addicts? It’s well understood that drive negative health outcomes and costs and are under the control of anyone with a decent income. Want ozempic to treat your diabetes? Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis.
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    > Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis. why not? when you file for unemployment, you need to prove that you're looking for a job. if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. we have the technology, just not the political will.
    - gruez 2y ago
      >if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. This makes as much sense as "if you want anti-depressants, you have to prove you aren't being sad".
      - Eumenes 2y ago
        I mean, there's a case to be made there. More often than not, anti-depressants are the first option given when someone is presenting those symptoms. There is little to no effort to address the root cause. It should be a last resort. Sadly young people, esp young girls, are being given these drugs like candy. It should be medical malpractice.
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      Do you know how those weight loss drugs work? They reduce your appetite. They're literally designed to "fix" the problem of "being a glutton." They don't magically burn more calories or whatever you think they do, they just make you eat less.
- Spivak 2y ago
  You and others with this take are why I'm staunchly against single-payer healthcare. It's seems impossible for it to not get politicized in this manner and be used to effectively control other's behavior in ways that would be flagrantly unconstitutional otherwise. Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    We do, however, absolutely need a public option.
  - Eumenes 2y ago
    where in the constitution does it say I have to pay for someone's drug addiction rehab or cosmetic eye surgery? i don't expect anyone to cover my vices or vanity. not wanting to fund vice/vanity is not "controlling behavior" .. by all means, kill yourself with substance abuse or change your eye color, but expecting your fellow citizen to bail you out is certainly a form of "control".
    - kelseyfrog 2y ago
      The constitution places limits on the government. Unless you're telling me that you are literally The United States Federal Government, it doesn't apply to you.
      - Eumenes 2y ago
        Actually, the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do. Fortunately with the Chevron deference, unelected bureaucrats and "experts" can no longer do whatever they please. Congress, who directly represent the People, will have to craft laws/policy and not the smug busybodies of DC. This is Democracy.
        2y ago

bdcravens 2y ago

That seems reasonable, but a significant amount of illnesses can tracked back to personal choices as well.

notjoemama 2y ago
In which case, and I know this is the antithesis of far left ycombonator, maybe everyone ought to be paying their own way and bearing the cost of their own choices. I’m not the person you replied to but I share their outlook on this specific viewpoint.
- LocutusOfBorges 2y ago
  > far left ycombonator The sight of somebody, seemingly seriously, describing this site's userbase in this way is the funniest thing I've seen all day.
armada651 2y ago
Smoking for example, even though I consider smoking a terrible habit I would never advocate that society should not help pay for their lung cancer treatment. We already heavily tax cigarettes anyway, so anyone who smokes is basically already paying for their future healthcare needs in small installments. Besides, I like having an alcoholic beverage every now and then so I need society to help pay for my future liver/colon/throat cancer treatment.

bastawhiz 2y ago

That's an outrageous take. Should they be disqualified for screening and treatment for glaucoma, cataracts, or macular degeneration as they age? What about diabetic retinopathy? There's plenty of conditions that are obviously unrelated to such a procedure where the obvious cause is age. We don't deny breast cancer screening or treatment to women who have had silicone implants, or testicular cancer treatment to men who have had vasectomies. Or treatment for throat and lung conditions to smokers, or diabetes treatment to people who have eaten shit food their whole adult life. Or skin cancer treatment to people with tattoos

rayiner 2y ago
Yes, to all of those things. It’s not even controversial.
- tzs 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure the idea that older people should be denied treatment for conditions that are common at their age [1] because years or decades earlier they did something that has no relation whatsoever to that condition is in fact controversial. [1] Nearly a quarter of people have cataracts before 70 and 10% of people have some form of age-related macular degeneration by 50.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Denying people welfare benefits for antisocial behavior is not controversial.
    - tzs 2y ago
      Say a 68 year old veteran went to a VA doctor for a facial skin cancer, and was denied treatment because when he enlisted 50 years earlier he got a tattoo of his unit on his buttocks. Do you really believe that denial would not be controversial?
      - 2y ago

lm28469 2y ago

What about people who drink coke, or smoke, or don't exercise? The vast majority of the burden on the health care system comes from very preventable causes