Rationing Health Care of Those Who Don't Take Care of Themselves

[SoulSearcher]

The thread on restaurants being required to post nutritional information under the new health care regulations made me wonder something. And let's get this right out front, I am NOT suggesting that rationing of care is a provision of the bill, though I personally believe that on some level, it's going to be unavoidable. But to the point, what would be your response if the government came out and said that if you grossly and persistently abuse or fail to take care of your body, you may not be entitled to having certain medical procedures paid for, especially past a certain age? Possible examples:

1) Liver transplant where there's evidence of chronic alcohol or drug abuse.
2) Certain life-saving heart and vascular operations if you're grossly obese.
3) Certain cancer treatments if you're a smoker.

Do you feel that a person should have to take ANY responsibility for their health, and (constitutional issues aside) that people who do and don't should always be treated identically in a healthcare system, either with respect to care or the money they have to pay?

The discussion on this would be more relevant if America's "health care" system was about health to begin it. It is not even close to a holistic prevention based program, and is centred more on drugs and medical procedures, and it is understandable. Industry is about profits, and there is no profit in prevention.

Either way, illnesses are unpredictable, in your first example, addiction or alcoholism is in itself a disease, which can lead to other diseases, like liver failure. I hope I never see a day when people with your mentality are able to look in someone's eye and say that their operations will not be paid for because you didn't take care of yourself.

 

[Lukeee]

Isn't it already like that? I thought if you want to have a transplant you have to give up smoking/drinking/whatever else is going to be bad for that organ or they won't give it to you.

 

[NYtiger6]

Don't former-alcoholic recipients of liver transplants have to be sober for a year or two before they can even be put on the wait list? I know lung transplants are very rare, but I assume there are some stipulations before you can be put on that as well.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

I think just as it didn't matter what we thought when they passed the healthcare bill itself, it won't matter what we think no matter what they decide to do. They'll do whatever the fuck they want.

And they'll play this fake ass Democrat/Republican nonsense on us and get what they want regardless of what we vote for.

 

[Edward Twinkletoes]

When I read the original post my first thought was of George Orwells 1984.

Now wait for it. Someone will pop up like a jack in the box to call you paranoid. Even though the people they always used to call paranoid were actually right and were proved right this week. Those people used to say that someday, the government would find a way to tax you just for being alive and people made fun of them and talked about tin foil hats and so forth. Well, guess what?

 

[bankside]

The thread on restaurants being required to post nutritional information under the new health care regulations made me wonder something. And let's get this right out front, I am NOT suggesting that rationing of care is a provision of the bill, though I personally believe that on some level, it's going to be unavoidable. But to the point, what would be your response if the government came out and said that if you grossly and persistently abuse or fail to take care of your body, you may not be entitled to having certain medical procedures paid for, especially past a certain age? Possible examples:

1) Liver transplant where there's evidence of chronic alcohol or drug abuse.
2) Certain life-saving heart and vascular operations if you're grossly obese.
3) Certain cancer treatments if you're a smoker.

Do you feel that a person should have to take ANY responsibility for their health, and (constitutional issues aside) that people who do and don't should always be treated identically in a healthcare system, either with respect to care or the money they have to pay?

Except researchers can show that it is not a person's moral choices that lead to addiction, it is brain neurology that varies from person to person. Susceptibility to addiction varies because the underlying biology reacts differently from one person to another.

Researchers are also actively investigating the role of infection in obesity. Most of us have a set-point that helps us regulate our appetite and keep our bodies' nutritional needs met. It may be possible that a virus can re-set your body's set-point. Evidence is only now emerging.

So, even if a person has an adequate ordinary amounts of self-control, their body may be pushing them very hard to override their judgement in ways that ordinary responsible people can't handle.

Telling them at that point they get cut off from their health care seems more than just a bit cruel. It's like telling someone with a broken leg that they'll get the cast for free as long as they will show some good faith and walk into the hospital on their own. Cause if they're just going to be lazy and sit there on the ground wailing about the pain in their broken leg then obviously the money spent on the cast would be a waste...

I know what you mean though. A diabetic can't help the fact that too much sugar can kill them. It is their pancreas's fault, so to speak, not theirs. However that doesn't excuse personal responsibility or exempt them from personal consequences if they eat irresponsibly.

And, given that most people don't know how susceptible they are to certain kinds of drug addiction, it is better to stick with the prescribed stuff under the supervision of a doctor instead of taking random street drugs.

I would probably be okay with charging an additional premium to cover extreme sports injuries though. And cosmetic stuff should usually be a personal responsibility.

 

[chuck10x]

Have you seen the rise in Type 2 Diabetes in the young?
Poor diet and too much time on the computer and playing video games.
Personal responsibility only goes so far.
Today it is smokers , Obese and drug addicts.
What about AIDS, At one time they wanted to quarantine and let those affected die out and solve the problem- (Reagan)
It's a never ending cycle.
Years from now, Those with genetic problems will be deemed irresponsible for having children and passing on hereditary diseases.
Personal responsibility is great - Government regulating it is not.

 

[freefall]

For me, the health care system is neutral on any aspect; they help out people regardless their condition. And this is why it's an emerging ethical issue, because certain groups of people see no benefits in helping those who damages themselves (and thus, the treatments will be damaged again) while the remaining sees those people as patients which have the rights to be treated like others.

Like the case when a doctor was urged to make a choice whether or not to save his patient's critical life as a result of suicide attempt.

In the end, it's up to someone if they want to break themselves down (this is where the health care system try to modify so as to improve quality of life), but this must not reduce their rights to be treated and aided. It's called 'justice'.

 

[The_Reaper]

It's my understanding, at least in regards of organ transplants, the system is already like that; given that a panel signs off on who receives a transplant, where factors like age, smoking, drinking, mental health, etc are considered and weighed before a transplant is signed off on.

So, at least in regards to organ transfers, the system already makes it so that a person with a better quality of life/higher chance of survival would receive a transplant before someone in a lower health category/higher chance of death after the transplant.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

...and how about people who take needless risks and play dangerous sports.

Bingo!

Threads like this are so biased. Always about smoking, drinking, & fun foods.
Seems like its different if were talking about common and long term injury due to sports or other life style activities that cost millions a year.
Pleasure boating, and personal watercraft (jet skies, snow mobiles)
How about cutting the strings on skiing? snow and water,
Skating that has to go I mean ice, skateboard and roller skating.
Football, or hockey?.
We can ban sky diving but why most die who don't have a good jump.
Lets cut out motocross, and that rodeo shit for the cowboys thats just as stupid a thing as you can do next to eating 3 whoppers at a single sitting.
Next lets ban civilian use of chain saws......... the red necks will go ape shit but that damn chain saw is the most dangerous easy to buy power tool ever known to man. A Godsend for the emergency room $$$$.

Holy shit they are tying to pass a law where a 8 yr old kid has to sit in a baby seat in a car in Florida. You got to wear a frigging helmet to ride a horse if you're 16 or under and the perfect safe life seems so close.


Stop trying to regulate everything. Because you may not want to drink soda doesn't mean the soda Burger King 350 pounder won't out live you with hardly any health problems. Maybe the fast food king doesn't think that health care should be given to people who bungee jump or like ultra lights, or take a jeep over a fucking cliff ?

 

[slickery]

I find it astounding that people get so up in arms over healthcare. Yet I find it even more astounding that "world power" and supposedly best place to live in the world cannot provide healthcare for its citizens.

I find the OP to be unrealistic. To take it to an extreme, we as gay men could be seen as having risky behaviour. There are nuts out there that could argue that engaging in homosexual sex greatly increases the risk of the spread of HIV. Should gays not get healthcare because of this?

People need to pull their head out of their asses and realise that healthcare needs to be about health and not money. If someone is sick they should be able to walk into a hospital and get help. The last thing anyone should be worrying about when they are ill is how they are going to afford treatment, its cruel and its not the way we should be living in 2010.

 

[freedbarton]

With this new healthcare reform has anyone given thought as to who will care for these newly previously uninsured individuals. Physicians in charity institutions and university based clinics are already overworked and underpaid. NURSES are the most neglected among the healthcare providers, they are the backbone of the health delivery system. In my state the nurses have not had raises in 5 years yet with inflation many have lost their homes and have had to file bankruptcy. Hospitals continue to overwork nursing staff by increasing the patient to nurse ratio even in the most critical of areas.

For those individuals that do not keep physician appointments, take their medication prescribed, as evidence by lab reports, should be limited to healthcare; so those who are concerned about their health and are doing what they were instructed to do will have appropriate healthcare.
Family size should be limited or a limit to what the goverment will pay for (2) offsprings.
With physical childhood abuse increasing there needs to be family size limitations so the parents can get into the work force. Put them to work in jobs for their educational level, housekeeping and cooks in hospitals/clinics,correctional facilities.