Accountable for your health

[afro-elf]

Should one accountable for their health?

If you smoke, are overweight (non-biological),drink and drive, etc...should you be charged more for health care.

[The Telcontarion]

I think you shouldn't be charged at all for health care!!!!!

That's why big pharma is in the business of getting people sick, so they can get more money; why you think they haven't found a cure for aids yet, because the money is not in the cure, it's in the comeback!!! And the doctors are covering up for them or they are willfully being ignorant, because they get a big fat check for whatever prescription they prescribe from whichever big pharmecuetical company.

[The Gaffer]

Agree with your first sentence, Telcontarion, but the rest is dangerously paranoid IMO.

I say dangerously because it misses the ways in which pharma is really distorting health care systems. But that's for another thread (I think there used to be one).

Smokers already pay more tax (in this country) because when you buy fags most of the money goes in tax. Around £10bn, or over 10% of the NHS budget. So, I've already paid for my extra health care.

It's also rather less than certain that smoking results in increased overall costs to society. Most cost-effectiveness studies I've seen don't take a sufficiently broad perspective to be able to say that for sure.

Finally, I would say it's morally wrong: all health care should be based on clinical need, not personal worthiness.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Agree with your first sentence, Telcontarion, but the rest is dangerously paranoid IMO.

I say dangerously because it misses the ways in which pharma is really distorting health care systems. But that's for another thread (I think there used to be one).

Smokers already pay more tax (in this country) because when you buy fags most of the money goes in tax. Around £10bn, or over 10% of the NHS budget. So, I've already paid for my extra health care.

It's also rather less than certain that smoking results in increased overall costs to society. Most cost-effectiveness studies I've seen don't take a sufficiently broad perspective to be able to say that for sure.

Finally, I would say it's morally wrong: all health care should be based on clinical need, not personal worthiness.

I agree with all those points as well. But to understand why I say what I say checkout the "most useless actual professions" thread to see why exactly I say what I say.

[The Gaffer]

I did; I still don't get it.

However, you might enjoy this article in this week's British Medical Journal.

I particularly liked the quote for former BMJ editor Richard Smith:

A conflict for journal editors: publish a [pharma-sponsored] trial that will bring US$100,000 of profit or meet the end-of-year budget by firing an editor?"

Be aware that many, many health care professionals are well aware of the quite subtle ways in which pharma distorts the health agenda (many of them more subtle than these authors credit) and moves are in place to counter them (e.g. a central register of all clinical trial protocols: you can't get published unless you've registered the methods in detail at the start of the study).

[GreyMouser]

Originally Posted by afro-elf

Should one accountable for their health?

If you smoke, are overweight (non-biological),drink and drive, etc...should you be charged more for health care.

Good question- private companies certainly do it for smokers. How about people who indulge in extreme sports? Is that riskier than a deep-fried Twinky? I know that professional sports teams sometimes ban their athletes from riding motorcycles etc.

[Spock]

..it's like watching mice scurry through a maze.....

[brownjenkins]

With co-pays and taxation of certain substances that are bad for you health, in reality most are "accountable" for what they do.

I'm also for universal healthcare, but I think it should only apply to basic healthcare, normal treatment of disease and injuries, but not multi-million dollar procedures that only extend the life of someone with a basically terminal illness for a few months.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

With co-pays and taxation of certain substances that are bad for you health, in reality most are "accountable" for what they do.

I'm also for universal healthcare, but I think it should only apply to basic healthcare, normal treatment of disease and injuries, but not multi-million dollar procedures that only extend the life of someone with a basically terminal illness for a few months.

True dat!!

[Elfhelm]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

With co-pays and taxation of certain substances that are bad for you health, in reality most are "accountable" for what they do.

I'm also for universal healthcare, but I think it should only apply to basic healthcare, normal treatment of disease and injuries, but not multi-million dollar procedures that only extend the life of someone with a basically terminal illness for a few months.

Actually, it takes about 800,000 dollars US to extend a cancer patient's life. There is a blues guitarist/harp player in my town who is somewhat famous and we are trying to raise the funds because he's not covered. We all hope a few more years of his life can make all of our lives better for a while. He has played pro bono concerts for numerous charities over the years. He has probably personally raised several times what we're trying to raise, but he raised it for the food bank and such. But his hard living, drinking, smoking, etc. is probably a contributing factor to his liver cancer.

It somehow seems wrong that the chemo and radiation therapies over a 6 month period should cost four times what you'd pay for a house. How could it possibly be that expensive? And if it is, how much IN TOTAL are they racking up from all the insurance companies. And why are the insurance companies letting them? I thought the insurance companies and the pharmaceutical companies in America pretty much run the FDA and set the policies of the AMA. They do it through PACs and the congressman and the president whose campaigns they finance. So I think we the people have little hope of influencing these decisions anyway. There will be no national health care because the insurance companies are somehow making tons of money, though we're not entitled to examine their books.

So should people whose behaviors increase the financial burden on the health system pay more? Frankly, I don't think we'll ever have enough real facts to assess this. And there will never be a congressional investigation to open their books, so we're stuck with this.

[The Gaffer]

What are PACs?

Insurance is inherently a less efficient way to provide care than taxation.

Sure, cancer care can be expensive, and we can't draw the line on "oh well, you're going to snuff it anyway". The survival rate is always 0% if you take a long enough follow-up rate!

In terms of public health care:
- There are certain things we should always do (e.g. palliative care for the dying) because they are right
- There are certain things we should always do (e.g. stuff that improves quality of life but isn't too expensive)
- And there are certain things we should never do (e.g. stuff that is so expensive that it effectively deprives others of treatment from limited HC budgets). People should still be free to buy that stuff if they are so inclined.

There are always ultra-expensive ways of doing more, the difficult bit is coming up with a rational way of drawing the line under the stuff that's not cost effective.

Sir Muir Gray once said "We can have more impact on health and well being by applying what we already know than by any new technology or treatment". That's an important point. I think health inequality is a huge issue worldwide, and is something that all countries need to address.

[inked]

AfroElf,

People actually are doing this already if they purchase insurance. Smokers for instance pay a higher rate for health insurance.

If you mean in the public square should those who fail to maintain health be charged, good luck. People feel entitled to health care at no cost for some stange reason.

And, if you inhibit one form of health coverage due to behaviours, that will open a sticky wicket for all behaviours ... .

The best thing is to never get sick.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Elfhelm

Actually, it takes about 800,000 dollars US to extend a cancer patient's life.

My point is that people, and maybe Americans in particular, have a very hard time prioritizing when it comes to health care. It's hard to judge one life over another, but when dollars come into the picture you have to.

[Elfhelm]

PAC means political action committee and it's a legal entity in the US that can contribute to political campaigns. When someone says a candidate serves special interests, they are often assumed to mean the candidate listen to small groups of liberals who whine about anything, when the fact is, these PACs are the real special interests. A corporation can have a PAC, you see. So the corp. has more power than a person. It's one of those things we have to fix before we can fix anything else.

[The Telcontarion]

Originally Posted by The Telcontarion

I think you shouldn't be charged at all for health care!!!!!

That's why big pharma is in the business of getting people sick, so they can get more money; why you think they haven't found a cure for aids yet, because the money is not in the cure, it's in the comeback!!! And the doctors are covering up for them or they are willfully being ignorant, because they get a big fat check for whatever prescription they prescribe from whichever big pharmecuetical company.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Agree with your first sentence, Telcontarion, but the rest is dangerously paranoid IMO.

I say dangerously because it misses the ways in which pharma is really distorting health care systems. But that's for another thread (I think there used to be one).

Smokers already pay more tax (in this country) because when you buy fags most of the money goes in tax. Around £10bn, or over 10% of the NHS budget. So, I've already paid for my extra health care.

It's also rather less than certain that smoking results in increased overall costs to society. Most cost-effectiveness studies I've seen don't take a sufficiently broad perspective to be able to say that for sure.

Finally, I would say it's morally wrong: all health care should be based on clinical need, not personal worthiness.

Play the video of this MSNBC Piece done on bayer and an aids coverup!!!
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/jul...20706Bayer.htm