Which may be offset by the positive impact it has on Social Security and various pensions.
The last year of your life is always expensive, whether you have it at 59 or 89. But from the State’s perspective, it would be better off if you lived a nice healthy life right up until age 65, then dropped dead of a heart attack.
There’s really very little evidence that smokers are a net drag on public finances, and some European countries actually argue the opposite - that smokers on average save the country money. The dad who dies at 65 is a dad whose family doesn’t have to support through 30 years of dotage.
That is one practical solution for the subject at hand and no, I am not kidding although I wouldn’t advocate it myself. You can spin these arguments in so many ways that it will make your head swim. Eventually it just becomes a question of what is the meaning of life? Everyone dies. The best solution is how to make the situation as ideal as possible in the mean-time. It seems obvious but most people don’t get it.
This seems to be taking a philosophical turn which makes things harder to debate. For what you’re talking about, I guess I’m going to have to go with the majority of the American people, well actually the majority of the western world. The goal of most people is to prolong life, not shorten it. Therefore, no matter what people think that the meaning of life is, or if they think it has no meaning at all, most people will not get behind any attempts to purposely shorten their lives.
No, but it shows the importance of taking a broad perspective when it comes to health-care costs. Especially if those costs are being used as a justification for increased governmental disincentives on lifestyle choices (I know the OP didn’t go this far, but now that the war on smoking has been essentially won it seems like a war on unhealthy eating has begun.)
A little while ago I briefly looked into finding out what the costs of smoking were in the US, but was unable to really make much progress. Most of the figures seem to be generated by anti-smoking groups who like to quote total costs of smoking rather than relative costs (for example, they’ll state that smoking deaths cost $100 billion in health care per year, but does that mean they $100 billion more than if they had died a non-smoking death?) and include things like productivity losses that seem (to me) to be irrelevent to the health care question.
I graduated HS in 1975, and had a daughter who graduated a little over 20 years later.
PE should be Physical Education. It should NOT be sports. Sports should be a separate class, an elective, with “General Sports” having a few classes in each sport, and then “Specific Sports” for those who want to play football, basketball, whatever. PE should be focused on how to exercise properly, and, just as importantly, how to avoid hurting yourself. There should be some classwork (learning about how the body works, and written tests) and a lot of lab work (actually doing the aerobics or running or whatever). I did play softball in PE. Basically, most of us stood around for most of the period, while waiting for our turn at bat or waiting for a ball to come our way. That’s not PE, it’s sports. Don’t even get me started on the bowling segment we had…
I wouldn’t be so quick to advocate tea, either. It’s got caffeine in it, and probably quite a bit of sugar. The main reason to choose tea over pop is that it’s much cheaper. I’m not saying that pop should be readily available as a school drink, particularly in elementary school, but I really don’t think that kids need a lot of caffeine.
Urgent care clinics are great, if you can find one. And if they’re open. Many of them seem to feel that accidents only happen during weekdays, between the hours of 9-5. Occasionally, one is open til 9 PM, and that’s the one we will usually go to.
I have no problems going to see a physician’s assistant or nurse practitioner to get my routine medical care, as long as I get part of the reward, too. I used to go to a clinic that had one doctor and several PAs. I happened to like one particular PA, and he’d made a special study of diabetes, so I would make an appointment with him if I had the choice. Usually, though, the co-pay was the same to see a PA, NP, or MD.
I think that we will have to have some sort of token co-pay. If someone has to pay seven bucks to have a professional say “You’ve just got a cold, take NSAIDS and drink plenty of liquids”, they’re far more likely to stop and think about whether they actually NEED a professional to tell them that. I know that when my husband was in the AF, a lot of people would go see the doc at the slightest excuse, as it didn’t cost them anything. This meant that getting an appointment when you really DID need a doctor was harder, and the available appointments were further in the future.
I would challenge the first notion. Seriously challenge it. I think any reasonably intelligent, lucid adult can research medical issues enough to ask good questions and make tradeoffs about treatments and what should, or shouldn’t be done. My wife does it all the time. She often knows more about the 2-3 potential diagnoses of our kids’ health than the pediatricians do.
Andy Grove (ex-CEO of Intel) wrote a long series of articles a few years back about his prostate cancer and how at the end, he basically knew more than the doctors he was talking to about the disease. I have a terrible lower back problem, and I can confidently state that I know more than about 70% of the doctors that I talk to regarding the issues involved and potential treatments. It’s not that hard.
Oh, I don’t know much about microbiology or gene therapy…thank God I haven’t had to, as of yet. But deciding whether or not to have knee surgery, or go through physical therapy instead? Once you have some data (e.g. an x-ray or MRI) and some case studies, along with a 15-20 minute chat with a doctor for advice, you should be pretty well able to decide for yourself whether it’s worth it or not.
How about when the torque converter seal blows on your driveshaft? Do you know a lot about that? Are you just going to take a mechanic’s recommendation on what to do then? Should we have a national Torque Converter Seal commission set up, to make choices for consumers on their behalf when that happens? Of course not.
The second thing above only happens if you allow it to happen. There are many risk mitigation steps you can take in advance, to ensure that you don’t show up dying on some doctor’s doorstep with no method of payment, and no choice. You can decide where to live (near or far from hospitals). You can buy insurance. You can set up ‘I help you, you help me’ relationships with friends, family or other individuals. You can take risk-mitigation steps within your personal lifestyle. All of those things are within your control.
Once you hand over decision-making to a government official, you have given up control. For good. And it ain’t coming back.
I don’t know what your third point means. But it sounds like an assertion that ‘Yeah, IdahoMauleMan, I get your point. But healthcare is different’. I disagree.
Look at the long list of posts above regarding smoking and old-age care. This is classic. It’s a classic example of the beginning of a long, ever-growing, ever-complex mess of a trip down the Road to Serfdom. It’s a classic example of what happens when the government starts to get involved in making decisions about yours and my lives.
Let’s stop people from smoking. No, wait! Let’s not. It’s actually cheaper to let them die. What? How can that be? Well, it’s true because the government is also paying for their pensions. Oh, that’s interesting. When the government gets involved in issue A, decisions around issue B start to become more and more complicated. But it sounds unethical…so let’s let them live longer, even if that costs us more money. But should we try and help them live longer, or just do nothing, or just not encourage them to smoke? If we actually try and help them live longer it actually costs us more money. Hmmmm. That’s interesting. I hadn’t thought about that. But what about fatty foods and other things? Where do you cross the line from ‘unethical’ to ‘ethical’? Darn…this is hard. It’s actually pretty complicated when you think about it…and all because the government is paying the bills. Sometimes you think you’re doing something to ‘help’ and it doesn’t really help, does it?
Don’t you see? Don’t you see how ridiculous all of that complicated mess is? That’s why people need to make their own choices, and bear the consequences accordingly. Then all of that crap goes away. Once you get the government involved, it is inevitable that rationing, choices with Unintended Consequences, and infringements on personal freedom are impossible to avoid.
Heh, what? Tea has sugar if you add it, and it’s got less caffeine than Coke (which in turn doesn’t really have all that much caffeine), which is already widely available in schools. And there are just an ungodly amount of studies that suggest a wide range of health benefits from tea.
I have a very hard time finding tea in a vending machine that isn’t sickeningly sweet (sugars = 14-16 grams or about 4 teaspoons). Remove the sugar from bottled teas, and I bet you’d see a sharp drop in their popularity.
Right. The average McDonalds worker is as smart as Andy Grove. And can afford the time to do the extensive research Grove did.
The average person should be able to figure out the impact of a mortgage also, which is a lot simpler. How did that work out? I know, I know, when thousands of people get snookered by bogus medicines, or choose exactly the wrong treatment, you’ll be saying they deserved it because they weren’t as smart as you make yourself out to be.
How do you feel about the parents of that kid who died from diabetes?
My wife is a medical writer, with a Masters in biology. She has written hundreds of articles in medical encyclopedias, and a few textbooks. A lot of this stuff is really quite complicated, requiring a deep background in physiology. Sure, a really bright person with enough time and access to the right resources (and the ability to understand journal articles) can possibly figure it out. Having seen a hundred patients with the same symptoms might help also.
That you mention case studies shows you don’t get it. How about clinical trials? How about evaluating contradictory trials over time? How many average people understand enough statistics to be able to do this?
Where the government comes in is beyond me. Is it not paying for treatments shown to be ineffective? Most (maybe all) doctors will let their patients make the final decision among several choices. However I doubt that hospitals can be forced to make a wrong or harmful treatment available, even if some overconfident nitwit is sure it’s the thing to do, since they read about it on the Internet. Are you going to forbid doctors from saying what they think the best choice is?
Sorry, I don’t have any great confidence that some guy who thinks the earth is 6,000 years old is going to be able to analyze the data well enough to pick the right treatment for himself.
Ban all soft drinks. Ban sugar. Or maybe allow purchases of sugar only by people who have a gov’t stamped card stating that they are in good health. Anyone caught selling contraband sugar gets put in prison. But softdrinks need to go. No reason for them.
Change the food stamp program to a program which, instead of giving an allowance to buy any and all food, gives people actual FOOD made by the gov’t. This food/gruel would be nutritious and sugar free. Maybe allow a food allowance for vegetables and fruits only. The rest is gov’t supplied gruel.
That would nip the overweight poor people in the bud. No money for it.
They should have yearly testing of fat people…if they are not making progress they get put in a fat camp where they are given forced exercise. No exercise, no food. Make them pick lettuce or somethign in the hot CA sun. See how that grabs them.
Why not extend that out to the public, since you want to do this with tobacco anyway? How about triple taxes on all fast food available, junk food, sodas, etc etc. After all, more people die from being overweight than from cigarette, and you are doing it for the people, no? Oh, and triple taxes on alcohol too…lots of folks die from that as well, and if it’s going to be on our collective dime anyway then it’s for their own good, ehe? Best triple taxes on cars (maybe quadruple, since cars are a twofer…dangerous AND polluting) cars away from them as well. Oh, and a lot of accidents happen in the home, so perhaps ladders, foot stools and the like should be triple taxed to discourage their use.
Fair is fair, and if you are going to tax that fine cuban cigar from my cold, dead hand then I want to tax YOU on something you enjoy that is probably equally as harmful…all in the publics interest, of course. Power to the PEOPLE!!
Naw…you are willing to tax the shit out of tobacco after all, go whole hog and do the same with all the other bad stuff too. Try and think of a way to force American’s to get off their lazy asses and exercise too…THAT should go over well.
And so on. What I I want to see if UHC is implemented? The bottom line…what’s it going to cost me (completely, including your outrageous tobacco taxes on top of the ridiculous ones I already pay), and how degraded is the service going to be compared to what I already have.
Yes, I see what you’re getting at. Ignore all good, practical suggestions for handling the impending trainwreck between being one of the most unhealthy modern nations and paying for each other’s healthcare, because it’s ultimately fascist.
P.E. class and nutritious lunches are exactly like government labor camps :rolleyes:.
Fortunately, you don’t have to. He can make whatever decision he wants, and then live with the consequences.
You’ve already shown your true colors back in the ‘Libertarian/fringe’ thread, Mr. Voyager. Back then, you were too confused and frightened by mortgage terms to make a decision on your own. You wanted the government to come in and put a stamp of approval on it. And by your own words, ‘How did that work out?’
So in other words, the more important the decision is to you…an expensive mortgage, life-saving (or threatening) treatment, etc. the more you want someone else to make the decision for you. You’re terrified of the responsibility of having to make your own decisions, and then live with the consequences of that decision. My guess is you don’t even realize this.
As a follow up to the ‘Libertarian/fringe’ thread, in Sam Stone’s FDA thread, you also wouldn’t even sign up for voluntary FDA participation…even leaving yourself the right to select a non-FDA approved drug for yourself if you wanted. You didn’t even want that option. You wanted somebody to dictate to you 100% of the time what you are allowed to ingest, and what you are not allowed to.
You want someone else to make important decisions for you. That much is clear. I would suggest then that you follow Barack Obama’s and Nancy Pelosi’s suggestions to the letter. Some of the rest of us would prefer to keep as much of the rapidly-shrinking personal freedoms that we have intact as long as possible.
Alcohol, cars, ladders, and yes even junk food have positive and practical sides*. Cigarettes don’t. If you’re indulging in cigars occasionally then the tax shouldn’t affect you much. If you’re burning through them like David Letterman then you’re probably going to end up reaping benefits from the healthcare it buys.
*Junk food is convenient, tasty, and often full of macronutrients
And yet those things are more likely to cause higher medical bills and treatments that are going to cut into your great UHC plan. Also, more American’s participate in the use of fast food and alcohol than do in tobacco…pause…oh, THAT’S why you want to go after that with even more taxes on top of the heavy taxes already on tobacco! :smack:
Never mind…makes perfect sense now. Carry on. And don’t forget my pony, ehe?
‘Good purpose’ is in the eyes of the beholder of course. Alcohol, for instance, serves ‘no good purpose’, depending on one’s perspective. Fast food serves ‘no good purpose’ if one is a vegan, for instance. You are arbitrarily deciding what is or isn’t a ‘good purpose’ based on your own internal criteria…and, frankly, because you know that tobacco users are a distinct minority that have been set upon by the rest of the public in the past and can continue to be squeezed further in the future. While you know that attempting to do such things with fast food or alcohol would get you laughed out of town.
Unfortunately you aren’t going to get much actual mileage out of tripling tobacco taxes at this point, at least not from a supposed health savings perspective. But you knew that before you tossed that part in, I’m sure. Nor are you going to get a lot from implementing such things in the schools (many schools have already taken out vending machines and the like, and serve healthier foods than they did even 5 years ago), since attempting to put in draconian health food will basically mean the kids don’t eat there anymore…and won’t address the fact that their parents will still take them to McDonald’s or Taco Bell periodically anyway.
Alcohol is a social custom and has proven health benefits in moderate amounts. I already listed some “positives” of junk food. What are the positives of tobacco?
And yes, there has to be practicality. I don’t want to ban anything. I just don’t think schools should be actively feeding kids junk as much as they do. If parents are going to make the wrong choices for their kids after school anyway, well, we can’t control everything, can we?
A lot of you are trying to frame this as an idealistic and somewhat extremist argument. I’m trying to be practical. I know we can’t force people to be healthy, and I wouldn’t want to. But that doesn’t mean we should throw our hands in the air and say we can’t do shit, let’s serve beef and bacon burritos and Code Red Mountain Dew every day because that’s what the kids want. That’s bullshit.
Cisco, do you smoke? Do you eat junk food or drink? Do you notice a pattern where you’re taxing things you don’t do and don’t like, while defending the things you yourself do and enjoy?
This is the bias I was talking about above - a sort of tribalism where we defend our own practices and castigate those habits we always disliked. If we’re fair we have to agree that things we like can fall into the taxable category, and not just use this new excuse to try to tax (and therefore lower the social status) of things we are already biased against.