Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am officially confused as to what we are debating here then Dogma, not that this thread has been all that true to the topic .

This thread has gone to strange places, and it seems people are arguing all around the actual issues and not really talking about how each really relates to the original point. I'd just like to throw three statements out there and see if anyone can disagree with any part of any of them.

The idea that people with healthy lifestyles will suffer an additional cost for the health choices of others is valid to some extent, and may be part of a reasonable argument for adding excises to certain products and activities. However, it makes no sense as a criticism of the introduction of a more socialised system of healthcare into the US. Right now healthy employers bare the risk for the health of their fellow workers, just as is the case in the 'socialised' health systems around the world. Further, right now the inefficiencies and outright failings of the US system result in you paying around 50% more than other developed countries for healthcare, which is many times the cost born by people with healthy lifestyles for the lifestyles of the unhealthy.

There is already a huge personal motive for ensuring one's own health - not dying. To the extent that this motive doesn't encourage people to live healthy lives, then no profit motive will. If the idea of heart failure and death at the age of 43 doesn't stop someone going to Macca's, I don't think a 50c surcharge on a Big Mac is going to make much difference.

People overeat for a lot of reasons. There are learned behaviours, economic factors, social and cultural factors, behavioural disorders, some level of addiction, and some people just don't care. Within each overweight person there's some combination of the above plays a part. To be honest, though, it doesn't really matter, because one of the most important things in life is to not be judgemental. When there are so many things so badly wrong the US health system that worring about the additional cost from the unhealthy feels a lot like isolating an easily judged section of society to scapegoat.

Ahtman wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote: there's not a person alive who never enjoys themself in the present to prolong their life.

Could you expand on this a bit. I'm not 100% sure what you are trying to say and don't want to misunderstand or misinterpret.

I may have been speaking in hyperbole a little. What I'm trying to say is that no one devotes all of their time and effort to trying to live as long as possible, unless they're completely nuts.

Even someone who lives an extremely healthy lifestyle takes some risks; just going out with your friends could wind up with you in a car crash, but that doesn't result in sane people never leaving their houses for fear of death.

Redbeard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
Never heard of anyone PAYING for an internship in finance or law, probably break a law there. Maybe I am mistaking what you're intending to say.

It may not be directly paying for the internship. For example, in my wife's program, she has to have so many clinical hours. They get those by interning. While they're interning, they're on the books at the college as in some sort of class. You have to pay tuition to cover those credits. So, she's not paying the place that she's working at, (they're not paying her either), but she's paying the school while she's doing her unpaid labour.

In my industry (software) interns get paid.

OK that I understand. Paying college credits at the same time. Yes. We have an intern here doing that. In other areas people will have internships not related to school-again both legal and finance. the school may help youn get the internship, but there is no formal relationship, just accepted culture after.

Remember always make the interns go get coffee and breakfast tacos for everyone. Its what they are for!

I thought they were for sitting in front of a copier and making PDF scans of 20-year-old documentation.

They can do both... and pronto!

Trivializing pain dogma? No, its just common reality, it sucks but so does life.


But back on topic, the problem is this: Joe is totally responsible; he eats healthy, he jogs every morning, etc, etc. Jack is responsible but not as responsible as Joe and likes to have a beer every once and awhile.

One morning Jack is driving and is drunk because that's how he felt like waking up, he's driving along and suddenly hears a thump. Joe is now on the ground dead because Jack felt like driving on the sidewalk.


Mike is an emt and is proud that he helps people for a living. While loading a stretcher into his ambulance, Jack decides to give Mike a chiropractic adjustment with his car going 90 mph, Mike is dead.

You can be as healthy as you want or as good as you want, but as long as there's one prick alive your chances of death and harm increase.

halonachos wrote:Trivializing pain dogma? No, its just common reality, it sucks but so does life.

Do you know what it means to trivialize something? It doesn't seem that way, because every time I have pointed out that you seem to do so with respect to pain, you have denied it and then done it anyway.

It isn't necessarily bad to trivialize pain. There is nothing wrong with saying "Yes, I trivialize pain". However, there is something very wrong with denying that action while performing it in the same breath.

halonachos wrote:
But back on topic, the problem is this: Joe is totally responsible; he eats healthy, he jogs every morning, etc, etc. Jack is responsible but not as responsible as Joe and likes to have a beer every once and awhile.

One morning Jack is driving and is drunk because that's how he felt like waking up, he's driving along and suddenly hears a thump. Joe is now on the ground dead because Jack felt like driving on the sidewalk.


Mike is an emt and is proud that he helps people for a living. While loading a stretcher into his ambulance, Jack decides to give Mike a chiropractic adjustment with his car going 90 mph, Mike is dead.

You can be as healthy as you want or as good as you want, but as long as there's one prick alive your chances of death and harm increase.

What? This thread has been odd, but that is really out of left field.

Dogma, those last examples are there just to show that it doesn't matter how responsible you are for yourself if there are irresponsible people in the world. I believe the phrase "You'll be the healthiest person to get hit by a bus." falls into that category.

Look, all I'm saying that its going to happen, pain is inevitable, I don't see how I'm making it unimportant.

halonachos wrote:
Look, all I'm saying that its going to happen, pain is inevitable, I don't see how I'm making it unimportant.

Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
Look, all I'm saying that its going to happen, pain is inevitable, I don't see how I'm making it unimportant.

Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.

Someone just got told...

dogma wrote:Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.

That's true, but I was more interested in the examples chosen. It was interesting that in making a case about how healthy living only goes so far, all the examples given still included someone messing up in an obviously immoral way. No mention of cancer or other disease that can impact you no matter how healthy you are. It was an interesting set of choices.

Redbeard wrote:Interesting article that my wife (a dietitian-in-training) forwarded to me:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32306655/ns/health-health_care/

Summed up, it questions what good reforming healthcare will do when the people who require healthcare take little to no interest in their own wellbeing.

The price tag for obesity has soared to $147 billion a year, new government studies show, and smoking costs about $193 billion in medical expenses and lost productivity.

If we were to be a healthier society in general, saving that nearly $350 BILLION dollars each year, maybe the rest of the healthcare system would sort itself out.

Why should the cost of these completely preventable causes be born by the taxpayer?

Decided to go back to the OP to respond...

Proposition: those people from the emergency room examples in the article are not who are important here. Those are the same sorts of people who might not avail themselves of a public option in health care - drunks, drug addicts, the criminally negligent - those people are there now and they will be there when health care reform is passed. Null result. ]

Furthermore, I don't see why this doctor is talking about these emergency room patients and then says “It just makes me very upset when I have to pay more and more taxes to support government health care programs and have to work longer and longer hours to help a lot of people that just don’t seem to care,” he wrote.

Were the people he saw in the emergency room on government health care programs? I don't get the connection...


I find the whole concept of "reforming the individual" kind of communistic, to be honest. "Work out because the Motherland demands it of you, brave sons and daughters!" Feth that, we're Americans.

Now, "encouraging wellness," that's something else. I get $150 a year from my health insurance plan in reimbursement if I join a gym. That's four months' membership paid for right there. My insurance covers nutritionists. I'd say it's being encouraged already.

But you can't go around charging Americans for their lifestyles, which is really the only enforceable-by-law proposition you end up with if you follow this line of thought, and if anyone needs the slippery slope there elucidated for them please turn in your voter registration card and stay away from the booths, please, for all our sakes.


Once everyone has health insurance, those of us who already had it are going to be paying less, not more, for everyone else in the long run. It's all about preventative care. It's cheaper and more effective. Factor in the effect of widespread preventative care on a society and see how things changes in three decades. Whole different ballgame costs-wise and health-wise for everyone. A much better ballgame.


The whole obesity debate is ridiculous. My wife has spent eight years studying the obesity myth and I don't know what is more appalling, the huge pile of bull feces that's been heaped on the public or the size of the spoons they're using to shove it down their own throats. There are no scientifically-proven causal links between weight and ANY disease, including hard disease, high blood pressure disease, and diabetes. No causal effect, no argument, sorry that's how medical science works.


Want to make America a more healthful nation? Lower the work week to 30 hours a week, 4 days a week. Grant more vacation time. Give people more time to exercise, or just go for walks, and to make home-cooked meals using fresh ingredients. Make fresher vegetables more readily accessible - have you ever had an ear of corn that was picked the same day? Maybe you'd eat more corn if you have...

Part of what makes America unhealthy is the totality of our lifestyle. Trying to pick and choose different aspects is kind of ridiculous. Maybe when we cease to be a nation of "I want more!" that'll include not always wanting more food. Perhaps when avarice is less a quintessential aspect of our nature...and perhaps when Americans aren't so bloody ignorant as a whole they'll learn more about diet and exercise and what goes into their fast food and make changes not because anyone told them to but because they're smart and they care and they do it for themselves.

Rules #1 - infinity when it comes to helping people - they have to want to help themselves first. You cannot moralize or legislate the impetus. It must be self-generated.

This is a nice theoretical conversation, but ultimately that's all it is when it comes to health care. Count on everyone being as irresponsible as they currently are ad nauseum, and structure the reform accordingly. If and when people start to make healthier choices, hey, that's even less money spent on health care. Yay bonus.

sebster wrote:

dogma wrote:Because you seem to be arguing that the inevitability of pain makes avoiding it illogical. Its like arguing that life is trivial, because death is inevitable.

That's true, but I was more interested in the examples chosen. It was interesting that in making a case about how healthy living only goes so far, all the examples given still included someone messing up in an obviously immoral way. No mention of cancer or other disease that can impact you no matter how healthy you are. It was an interesting set of choices.

I like to think outside of the box.

Life isn't trivial though, just finite. So if you're going to do good, do good. If you're going to have fun, have fun. Just know that there are idiots out there who have a chance killing you by accident. Also, you shouldn't put words in people's mouths, I didn't say anything about life being trivial, just pain being inevitable.

halonachos wrote:I like to think outside of the box.

Life isn't trivial though, just finite. So if you're going to do good, do good. If you're going to have fun, have fun. Just know that there are idiots out there who have a chance killing you by accident.

That's my point. You focus on deaths caused by others, and one's with a heavy moral contingent. It's an interesting focus, instead of picking a random cause of death such as cancer. There isn't always someone to blame, you know.

Also, you shouldn't put words in people's mouths, I didn't say anything about life being trivial, just pain being inevitable.

Heh, talking of putting words in people's mouths Dogma was talking about trivial and inevitable, not me.

Sorry about that, I should've quoted you two differently. I did mean the trivial thing towards dogma though.

There isn't always someone to blame, that is correct. However there is usually someone to blame.

Let's see... without someone to blame I am going to say Klinefelter's syndrome, cancer caused by genetic birth defects, and any congenital disorders.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and let's not forget huntington's disease, angelman's syndrome, cleft palates, etc.

A nice notation on the ratio of lobbyists to legislators "working" on the bill

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aqMce51JoZWw

There's another thread with another healthcare propsition up. The guy proposes a voluntary donation on tax forms. Of course the OP is complaining that people are boycotting the company of the CEO that thought it up.

halonachos wrote:I did mean the trivial thing towards dogma though.

Mention, and he shall respond.

You don't need to mention triviality in order to actually render something trivial.

halonachos wrote:
There isn't always someone to blame, that is correct. However there is usually someone to blame.

Only if you enjoy the anthropomorphic fallacy.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/real-times-real-reporter-dana-gould-town-hall

I saw this on real time and aside from showing the protectors at the town halls was the other side: people waiting for free health care from Remote Area Medical clinic. This clinic is usually reserved for 3rd world countries but I found it amazing that the US health care system is so broke that we need aid from organizations that do their work in 3rd world countries.

I knew that Real Time with Bill Maher is often viewed as a left leaning program so I searched news reports on them and not only do they do this kind of care in LA but in places like Kentucky. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haIEXAb0Pqo

Something must be done.

dogma wrote:You don't need to mention triviality in order to actually render something trivial.

I didn't even hint at something being trivial. I will say that you misinterpreted my remarks as it is almost impossible to send clear emotional feelings through the interwebs.

Either that or your beliefs twisted my words' meaning to what you wanted them to mean instead of what I actually meant with my words. I'll go with the former.


Something must be done yes. But what shall we do? Give taxpayers money towards it? Kill all of those without health insurance? Make it a voluntary donation? Lower corporate taxes on profits?

I think it should be a voluntary (tax-deductible) donation. The added tax would only be a finite number that can be given, while if you truly want to have a public plan you could donate more than what the increased tax would take. Also, if you opposed the plan then you don't have to donate.

I.e: Taxes would take $20 for the health plan from everyone who paid taxes(middle class and up citizens, non-illegal immigrants, those making money through legal means). While in a voluntary idea one who truly believes can donate $100 and have it deducted, or if you are rich $1,000. So one person can make up for 5 people giving tax.

The principle is called hypothecation.

Once you let people pick and choose the taxes they want to pay, you end up with chaos.

Oh, it won't be a tax though. It proposed to be a donation instead of a tax.

I don't know english tax laws, but in america you get a tax deduction for donating.

What about a system where the amount of taxes you pay is fixed, but you are allowed some say in how it is allocated?

For example, say there is a list of categories (infrastructure, education, healthcare, environment, defense, and so on) on your tax return. You pay what you're required to pay, but you're allowed to rank the categories from 1 to X, and your taxes are assigned to big-picture government budgets accordingly.

Of course, this only matters if the government is required to balance its budget, but if it is, you get a far more democratized spending of money.

You do yes, however its all about the greater good now no matter what you say. If it doesn't "benefit" everyone then it doesn't matter.

halonachos wrote:Oh, it won't be a tax though. It proposed to be a donation instead of a tax.

I don't know english tax laws, but in america you get a tax deduction for donating.

In Britain you can claim a tax deduction on charitable donations.

At the moment there is nothing to stop rich Americans from giving to medical charities and claiming. Some of them do, like the Gates's. But not enough to solver the basic problems.

Part of the problem in the USA is not how the system is organised and paid for, it is that it is so expensive.

Unfortunately for poor americans they usually donate to poor africans. The thing is this though, we would have a public plan that would be funded by donations. Like when audioslave made their album free, but open to donations they made more money. Simply because instead of paying $15 or $20 people would donate things ranging from .01 to $1,000.

The system is expensive because we spend a lot of the money on research.

halonachos wrote:
The system is expensive because we spend a lot of the money on research.

It isn't quite that simple. The cost of research is a factor, but the larger issue is the market incentive structure which encourages healthcare companies to bring products to the market regardless of their expense. This summarizes the issue pretty well.

Look here if you want to see their statistics.

Another interesting fact to consider: 49% of US healthcare costs are incurred by 5% of the population. No one discusses this because older people are much more likely to be in that 5%. Not to say that the elderly don't deserve care, but it is certainly worth examining the way in which certain laws impact the decision making in this sector (especially in the absence of a clear living will, think Terry Schiavo).

dogma wrote:

halonachos wrote:
The system is expensive because we spend a lot of the money on research.

It isn't quite that simple. The cost of research is a factor, but the larger issue is the market incentive structure which encourages healthcare companies to bring products to the market regardless of their expense. This summarizes the issue pretty well.

Look here if you want to see their statistics.

Another interesting fact to consider: 49% of US healthcare costs are incurred by 5% of the population. No one discusses this because older people are much more likely to be in that 5%. Not to say that the elderly don't deserve care, but it is certainly worth examining the way in which certain laws impact the decision making in this sector (especially in the absence of a clear living will, think Terry Schiavo).

I think you'll find in most developed areas unless the government actively limits spending on old farts that the ratios are similar. Unless of course you do quality of remaining life requirements.

Its possible. Though I haven't been able to dig up statistics yet, so I don't know. Still worth looking at.