3 ms·

That's an outrageous take. Should they be disqualified for screening and treatment for glaucoma, cataracts, or macular degeneration as they age? What about diab

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?
      - rayiner 2y ago
        No, but only because he made up for it by being a veteran.
        tzs 2y ago
        What if he was a retired farmer, the 50 year old tattoo was to commemorate the year he led his high school football team to the state championship, and it was Medicare denying coverage for a facial skin cancer because of that old buttocks tattoo?
        rayiner 2y ago
        Probably not controversial.
        tzs 2y ago
        I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. About 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo [1]. Of the people without tattoos 66% say seeing a tattoo on someone gives them neither a negative or positive opinion of the person. A tattoo on the buttocks will not cause skin cancer on the face. (There is a small association between tattoos and skin cancer but that is skin cancers at the tattoo sight, and it is not so much that they cause the cancer but rather make it harder to notice the cancer so it tends to be farther along before detected). So I don't see how it could not be controversial to cut of Medicare to someone over something that a solid majority don't care about and that almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin cancer. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-americans-have-a-tattoo-including-22-who-have-more-than-one/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-ame...
        tptacek 2y ago
        He's saying he doesn't personally approve of tattoos. I don't think there's any further place you can productively take this conversation.
    - tptacek 2y ago
      Medicare isn't "welfare", it's the standard American health system for people over the age of 65. Moreover, there's no good-faith way to call it "welfare". Please stop doing this here; you have other venues for this kind of rhetoric.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Medicare is obviously welfare! It’s a socialized system that involves society paying for medical care for old people, instead of leaving old people or their families to pay for it themselves.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Medicare is obviously welfare! It’s a socialized system where society pays for medical care for old people, instead of leaving old people or their families to pay for it themselves. Of course whenever you have taxpayers paying for something for individuals, those taxpayers may properly decide to exclude undeserving individuals from receiving benefits.
        tzs 2y ago
        Excluding undeserving individuals from government benefits is not controversial. What would be controversial is classifying people as undeserving for past actions that (1) were and are completely legal, (2) are not even considered to be bad by a large fraction of the country, and (3) have nothing whatsoever to do with what they are being excluded from.
        tptacek 2y ago
        Well over 90% of Americans aged over 65 are Medicare beneficiaries, most of them having paid into the program throughout their whole lives. I think this argument is probably better suited to your twitter TL.
      - somecontext 2y ago
        > Moreover, there's no good-faith way to call [Medicare] "welfare". For some context, Wikipedia says: > In the United States, depending on the context, the term "welfare" ... can also include social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_spending#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_spending#United_States
notjoemama 2y ago
The fact you call that opinion outrageous is outrageous itself. Here you have people getting cosmetic surgery which sets them up for risk and yet it’s shocking to you that someone has a different opinion than you? That they’d prefer the money they are forced to contribute NOT go to people who intentionally do risky surgeries? The fact you can’t even see the reasonable difference is insane to me.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason. I can't imagine a justifiable position where you think someone should suffer because they can't afford care that the government would otherwise pay for, regardless of the reason for their ailment and regardless if it's a stupid reason. And doubly so if the reason you're denying them care is because they had an elective or cosmetic procedure that almost certainly didn't contribute to their risk factor for the condition they're suffering from. Triply so if it's something debilitating, like blindness. Even from a common sense perspective, someone who is blind and on disability because they had a risky procedure is unquestionably worse for the country and society than someone who is able to return to work and pay taxes. What you're advocating for is literally just pettiness. It doesn't benefit anyone. It's not saving the taxpayers money. It's not reasonable in any way.
  - gruez 2y ago
    >It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason. I don't see why universal or government provided healthcare has to be for "compassionate" reasons. It's perfectly consistent to interpret it as an insurance program, where you pay a premium to avoid catastrophic costs. Indeed in many countries that's how healthcare is structured (eg. [1]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
    - bastawhiz 2y ago
      Is avoiding catastrophic costs not a compassionate reason? Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered? Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters? Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?
readthenotes1 2y ago
So your point is that we don't hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions. I don't think a contrarian opinion to that should be considered outrageous.
- bastawhiz 2y ago
  How are age-related conditions the consequences of their actions? And how is someone collecting disability because they can't work because they have a condition that could be (or could have been) treated better than someone being able to work and pay taxes? What you're defending benefits nobody, it's just punishing people for doing something you find distasteful.
flakeoil 2y ago
If they are willing to pay for this kind of eye surgery out of pocket, then I suppose it is not too much asked that they pay a treatment for glaucoma, cataract or macular degeneration out of pocket.

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?
    - rayiner 2y ago
      No, but only because he made up for it by being a veteran.
      - tzs 2y ago
        What if he was a retired farmer, the 50 year old tattoo was to commemorate the year he led his high school football team to the state championship, and it was Medicare denying coverage for a facial skin cancer because of that old buttocks tattoo?
        rayiner 2y ago
        Probably not controversial.
        tzs 2y ago
        I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. About 1/3 of Americans have a tattoo [1]. Of the people without tattoos 66% say seeing a tattoo on someone gives them neither a negative or positive opinion of the person. A tattoo on the buttocks will not cause skin cancer on the face. (There is a small association between tattoos and skin cancer but that is skin cancers at the tattoo sight, and it is not so much that they cause the cancer but rather make it harder to notice the cancer so it tends to be farther along before detected). So I don't see how it could not be controversial to cut of Medicare to someone over something that a solid majority don't care about and that almost certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with their skin cancer. [1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-americans-have-a-tattoo-including-22-who-have-more-than-one/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/08/15/32-of-ame...
        tptacek 2y ago
        He's saying he doesn't personally approve of tattoos. I don't think there's any further place you can productively take this conversation.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    Medicare isn't "welfare", it's the standard American health system for people over the age of 65. Moreover, there's no good-faith way to call it "welfare". Please stop doing this here; you have other venues for this kind of rhetoric.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Medicare is obviously welfare! It’s a socialized system that involves society paying for medical care for old people, instead of leaving old people or their families to pay for it themselves.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Medicare is obviously welfare! It’s a socialized system where society pays for medical care for old people, instead of leaving old people or their families to pay for it themselves. Of course whenever you have taxpayers paying for something for individuals, those taxpayers may properly decide to exclude undeserving individuals from receiving benefits.
      - tzs 2y ago
        Excluding undeserving individuals from government benefits is not controversial. What would be controversial is classifying people as undeserving for past actions that (1) were and are completely legal, (2) are not even considered to be bad by a large fraction of the country, and (3) have nothing whatsoever to do with what they are being excluded from.
      - tptacek 2y ago
        Well over 90% of Americans aged over 65 are Medicare beneficiaries, most of them having paid into the program throughout their whole lives. I think this argument is probably better suited to your twitter TL.
    - somecontext 2y ago
      > Moreover, there's no good-faith way to call [Medicare] "welfare". For some context, Wikipedia says: > In the United States, depending on the context, the term "welfare" ... can also include social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance, Social Security, and Medicare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_spending#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_spending#United_States

notjoemama 2y ago

The fact you call that opinion outrageous is outrageous itself. Here you have people getting cosmetic surgery which sets them up for risk and yet it’s shocking to you that someone has a different opinion than you? That they’d prefer the money they are forced to contribute NOT go to people who intentionally do risky surgeries? The fact you can’t even see the reasonable difference is insane to me.

bastawhiz 2y ago
It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason. I can't imagine a justifiable position where you think someone should suffer because they can't afford care that the government would otherwise pay for, regardless of the reason for their ailment and regardless if it's a stupid reason. And doubly so if the reason you're denying them care is because they had an elective or cosmetic procedure that almost certainly didn't contribute to their risk factor for the condition they're suffering from. Triply so if it's something debilitating, like blindness. Even from a common sense perspective, someone who is blind and on disability because they had a risky procedure is unquestionably worse for the country and society than someone who is able to return to work and pay taxes. What you're advocating for is literally just pettiness. It doesn't benefit anyone. It's not saving the taxpayers money. It's not reasonable in any way.
- gruez 2y ago
  >It's outrageous because the government pays for medical care so that people don't suffer. It's an inherently compassionate reason. I don't see why universal or government provided healthcare has to be for "compassionate" reasons. It's perfectly consistent to interpret it as an insurance program, where you pay a premium to avoid catastrophic costs. Indeed in many countries that's how healthcare is structured (eg. [1]). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
  - bastawhiz 2y ago
    Is avoiding catastrophic costs not a compassionate reason? Why should someone not be eligible/worthy to avoid catastrophic costs? If someone is paying their premium (be it from a Medicare/Medicaid plan or from their tax dollars), why should they not be covered? Should we also refuse to rescue people who went hiking in deep wilderness or boating in unsafe waters? Or negotiate the release of citizens taken prisoner by hostile foreign regimes or gotten seriously ill while vacationing against government advice? Since when is it good policy to refuse help to people who have made poor choices or taken risks?

readthenotes1 2y ago

So your point is that we don't hold people responsible for the consequences of their actions. I don't think a contrarian opinion to that should be considered outrageous.

bastawhiz 2y ago
How are age-related conditions the consequences of their actions? And how is someone collecting disability because they can't work because they have a condition that could be (or could have been) treated better than someone being able to work and pay taxes? What you're defending benefits nobody, it's just punishing people for doing something you find distasteful.

flakeoil 2y ago

If they are willing to pay for this kind of eye surgery out of pocket, then I suppose it is not too much asked that they pay a treatment for glaucoma, cataract or macular degeneration out of pocket.