Serious Thread #4: Other People's Health

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

People often complain about smokers driving up health-care costs, to which someone always responds something like "well we should ban cheeseburgers too," etc. The real answer is that smokers wind up costing society less in the long run because they die earlier. But my question is at what point, in a private or public health-care / insurance kind of situation, you feel people are taking such great risks with their health that it becomes a burden to everyone else involved. Or does the very idea of such a cut-off point erode the very idea of pool health insurance?

― nabisco (nabisco), Saturday, 25 January 2003 23:38 (twenty-three years ago)

There is a certain line drawn which marks the point where taxpayers in a democracy must be restricted from controlling government expenditures, which is part of why representative democracy and appointed offices are necessary. Health issues are only one small part of this problem.

While I disagree on the subject of San Luis Obispo's publicly funded tattoo-removal program, I fully support the right of other people to participate in publicly funded adult education programs even though I and many others were able to get it right the first time. Point being that tattoos are a choice you make after turning 18 and getting a decent education is not.

Smoking is also a choice you make after legally becoming an adult, but as you point out wheezing smokers don't actually cost more money than anybody else. In fact, as the profits the tobacco companies glean from us are fed back into to state budgets via massive lawsuits, smokers probably actually contribute more to the state ledgers that anyone else in the same income bracket.

Alcoholism is a good one, but it's also a case where extra taxes applied by the state and fed govts. more or less pay for the problems caused (inasmuch as one can 'pay' to compensate for the number of lives lost in drinking-related auto accidents).

Cheeseburgers et al. are about the only thing I can think of in which chronic health problems could overtax the state coffers and cause trouble without paying for themselves. However, cheeseburgers are available to people before they become legally culpable for all of their choices and have not been proven to be addictive in any way. Therefore it becomes similar to the adult education issue - mistakes were made, whether you are to blame for your obesity and adult-onset diabetes or not cannot be determined with any accuracy and thus I hand over my tax money to you in the knowledge that you would do the same for me.

― Millar (Millar), Sunday, 26 January 2003 00:30 (twenty-three years ago)

What about mandatory seatbelt laws? New York passed one a couple of years ago.

― Maria (Maria), Sunday, 26 January 2003 04:51 (twenty-three years ago)

And what about the helmet laws for motorcyclists? Florida just revoked its helmet law (thank you ever so much, Mr. Bush the younger) provided that the individual carries $10,000 in personal injury insurance, while the statistics show that the average head injury resulting from a motorcycle accident is around $250,000 (or something close to that, I can't recall the specific amount).

I am really torn between personal issues/decisions and how they affect the larger community. But I am strongly in favor of a nationwide health program for personal reasons - I've a neurological disorder (can't be treated, has been stable for years, haven't see a Dr. for it in nine years) and I cannot purchase insurance for myself. (The state Insurance Commish convinced one company to take me on, with pemiums of $2721 a month, no drug benefits, and a $5000.00 deductible. Frustrating.) And then I look at all of the problems that Canada is currently experiencing with their national health program and wonder if such a system could ever succeed in the states. Maybe basic insurance for everyone, and then some purchasing additional coverage?

― I'm Passing Open Windows (Ms Laura), Sunday, 26 January 2003 05:03 (twenty-three years ago)

The real answer is that smokers wind up costing society less in the long run because they die earlier.

so smokers are the only ones affected by smoking?

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Sunday, 26 January 2003 06:20 (twenty-three years ago)

i am also v. suspect of that claim! i would think that a healthy person who passes quietly during their sleep at 82 was less expensive than the 62 yr old who had two triple bypass surgeries and chemotherapy (sp?) etc.

― ron (ron), Sunday, 26 January 2003 06:35 (twenty-three years ago)

From a UK perspective, we don't have so much of this who should be treated stuff/ driving up healthcare costs (this is not to say it doesn't exist). But, with demographic change, I'm sure it's going to become an issue, an ageing population etc = the spectre of rationing/encouraging private health care. I think it's about the balance between health promotion and primary health care, but ultimately you can't refuse to treat someone or give them a second class service because they smoked, ate lots of cheeseburgers or didn't wear a crash helmet.

― jel -- (jel), Sunday, 26 January 2003 09:47 (twenty-three years ago)

less expensive than the 62 yr old who had two triple bypass surgeries and chemotherapy (sp?) etc.

Yes, but first of all realize that with taxes on tobacco and the recent windfall of lawsuit money flooding into govt coffers from the tobacco industry, that 62 year old paid for himself probably twice over. The 82 year old has been collecting social security for 17 years.

― Millar (Millar), Monday, 27 January 2003 04:50 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.