4 ms·

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

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