PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)
-   Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)
-   -   Should some folks contribute more for gov't health care? (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/258658-should-some-folks-contribute-more-govt-health-care.html)

cscmc1 08-09-2009 07:37 PM
Should some folks contribute more for gov't health care?
 
Since we're fixated in the possibility of some sort of health care reform, riddle me this: if a person engages in high-risk behavior (i.e. smoking, eating to obesity, excessive drinking, illegal drug use), should they be expected to contribute more for their health care? I'm not talking about genetic issues that may be well beyond the victim's control, but life decisions that put the individual at increased risk of health problems.

I'm wondering also about people with high-risk hobbies...

Just curious what everyone thinks.

Matt L 08-09-2009 07:44 PM
Perhaps so, but how do you judge? I currently pay more for life insurance because I am a smoker, but I tell them that. You see, there are few repercussions of admitting to tobacco use.

This isn't what you asked, but I would be happy to pay more than I do now, simply because I make a comfortable wage and I could easily pay more. What I would be paying for is the comfort of knowing that should I have to take a lower wage job in the future, that my health care costs could go down. Or, horrors of horrors, I set off on my own and don't have any income for a few years. It is my belief that health insurance is stopping a lot of people from quitting their jobs and starting a business, and adding to a lot of small business failures.

loepke72 08-09-2009 07:48 PM
If government were not involved in health care, there would be no need to even ask this question. If government were to get involved as a significant player, they would have a rightful argument against what kinds of risky activites people engage in. That opens the door to government restrictions on all sorts of personal behavior. That's why it's best to keep government out as much as possible.

cscmc1 08-09-2009 07:51 PM
Perhaps a better question is: assuming some sort of universal health care is enacted, what is the incentive to make healthy choices? Not that folks are making very healthy choices these days as it is...

Matt L 08-09-2009 07:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cscmc1 (Post 2266054)
Perhaps a better question is: assuming some sort of universal health care is enacted, what is the incentive to make healthy choices? Not that folks are making very healthy choices these days as it is...
Now that's a good question.

Here is one possibility. Preventive care becomes free. That is, you can go for a check-up with no co-pay. People will go, even though the doctor tells them to quit smoking, reduce drinking or lose weight every time. But hearing that will make them think. Well, some of them anyway.

loepke72 08-09-2009 08:30 PM
Quote:
Perhaps a better question is: assuming some sort of universal health care is enacted, what is the incentive to make healthy choices? Not that folks are making very healthy choices these days as it is...
There would be no such incentive under a "free" government administered health care system. The only incentives in such a case would come in the form of draconian laws governing what activities a person can engage in. Again, the only way to avoid this is to not get government involved to begin with.

Matt L 08-09-2009 08:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loepke72 (Post 2266067)
There would be no such incentive under a "free" government administered health care system. The only incentives in such a case would come in the form of draconian laws governing what activities a person can engage in. Again, the only way to avoid this is to not get government involved to begin with.
What's the incentive now?

Chas H 08-09-2009 09:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loepke72 (Post 2266067)
There would be no such incentive under a "free" government administered health care system. The only incentives in such a case would come in the form of draconian laws governing what activities a person can engage in. Again, the only way to avoid this is to not get government involved to begin with.
The g'ment is heavily, even exclusively, involved in medicare and medicaid. I can't speak to medicaid, but medicare makes no distinction beween subscribers having a "healthful" lifestyle and subscribers that don't.

loepke72 08-09-2009 09:55 PM
Quote:
What's the incentive now?
Well, if one were paying out of their own pocket for medical expenses, they would have to make smarter choices than those in either private insurance or one of the current government programs. Whenever someone else is paying, the incentives for a consumer to make wise decisions are much less.


Quote:
The g'ment is heavily, even exclusively, involved in medicare and medicaid. I can't speak to medicaid, but medicare makes no distinction beween subscribers having a "healthful" lifestyle and subscribers that don't.
I should have been a bit clearer; I should have said "further government involvement". AFAIK, Medicare does not pay 100% of all expenses. I can't speak to Medicaid at this time since I am unfamiliar with it.

I'll say it again, the "incentives" under a government-administered health care system would take the form of laws and regulations regarding personal behavior, all in the name of the public good. There's just too much opportunity for further government intervention in all facets of life if universal government health care were to ever come into being. A government plan COULD work, but both the public and those in government would have to rid themselves of human nature. Not going to happen ever.

Chas H 08-09-2009 10:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loepke72 (Post 2266117)
Well, if one were paying out of their own pocket for medical expenses, they would have to make smarter choices than those in either private insurance or one of the current government programs. Whenever someone else is paying, the incentives for a consumer to make wise decisions are much less.




I should have been a bit clearer; I should have said "further government involvement". AFAIK, Medicare does not pay 100% of all expenses. I can't speak to Medicaid at this time since I am unfamiliar with it.

I'll say it again, the "incentives" under a government-administered health care system would take the form of laws and regulations regarding personal behavior, all in the name of the public good. There's just too much opportunity for further government intervention in all facets of life if universal government health care were to ever come into being. A government plan COULD work, but both the public and those in government would have to rid themselves of human nature. Not going to happen ever.
It's true Medicare does not provide 100% coverage. It 's also true that fact isn't relevent. The current g'ment run programs do not get invovled with personal likestyle choices. I see no reason to think that would change. But the current proposed healthcare reform does not increase the g'ment role in healthcare, does it?

Chas H 08-09-2009 10:17 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cscmc1 (Post 2266043)
Since we're fixated in the possibility of some sort of health care reform, riddle me this: if a person engages in high-risk behavior (i.e. smoking, eating to obesity, excessive drinking, illegal drug use), should they be expected to contribute more for their health care? I'm not talking about genetic issues that may be well beyond the victim's control, but life decisions that put the individual at increased risk of health problems.

I'm wondering also about people with high-risk hobbies...

Just curious what everyone thinks.
When I carried my own private health insurance, there were exceptions to coverage. No coverage for flying in private planes, acts of war, and IIRC competition in a vehicle.

tbomachines 08-09-2009 11:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by loepke72 (Post 2266117)
Well, if one were paying out of their own pocket for medical expenses, they would have to make smarter choices than those in either private insurance or one of the current government programs. Whenever someone else is paying, the incentives for a consumer to make wise decisions are much less.
So you are in favor of no insurance industry at all? I'm not sure I follow.

tankdriver 08-09-2009 11:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tbomachines (Post 2266176)
So you are in favor of no insurance industry at all? I'm not sure I follow.
No, he's saying increased cost makes people not smoke because health care is more expensive for smokers.
IOW, people would be as healthy as they could personally afford to be.

tankdriver 08-09-2009 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cscmc1 (Post 2266043)
Since we're fixated in the possibility of some sort of health care reform, riddle me this: if a person engages in high-risk behavior (i.e. smoking, eating to obesity, excessive drinking, illegal drug use), should they be expected to contribute more for their health care? I'm not talking about genetic issues that may be well beyond the victim's control, but life decisions that put the individual at increased risk of health problems.

I'm wondering also about people with high-risk hobbies...

Just curious what everyone thinks.
An interesting question. I will answer with another question: If you are covered by employer purchased insurance, do they have the right to force you to exercise? To eat healthy? To stop smoking?



Quote:
Originally Posted by cscmc1 (Post 2266054)
Perhaps a better question is: assuming some sort of universal health care is enacted, what is the incentive to make healthy choices? Not that folks are making very healthy choices these days as it is...
What is the incentive to make healthy choices now? I would say that money is not the only incentive. I think not dying of emphysema is an incentive not to smoke. Not having a heart attack at 30 is an incentive not to let one's cholesterol out of control. Some people are not as incentivized as others.

mpolli 08-09-2009 11:48 PM
Just tax processed food the way tobacco and alcohol are taxed. Tax added salt, added sugar. Tax high fat. Then the low fat low salt soup would cost less than high fat high salt, instead of the reverse as it is now.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:00 PM.
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Show 50 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website