Skip to comments.In UK survey, doctors support denying treatment to smokers, the obese
Posted on 04/29/2012 7:06:05 AM PDT by John W
click here to read article
They’ll never deny non-emergency medical services to male homosexuals.
Thanks for the ping!
Most liberals I know would fully support similarly punitive policies here.
“Since I am a fat smoker the doctor will just have to kill me.”
You and me both. England is a pit and from some of the comments above some here would like to jump in with them.
“Kill everyone over 22”
I have a better idea. Kill everyone under 22.
Oh yeah, the HEALTHY who don't need care. Unless they get shot breaking into a private home.
It is beginning to look more and more like the only purpose of the UK is to serve as a cautionary example for the United States.
OK, then I assume they also support exempting everyone who's going to smoke or be obese in thirty years from the premiums (taxes) that pay for that care, and that they also support the establishment of a separate for-pay health care system? Even when insurance companies exclude people they don't take their money first and destroy any other means of obtaining care.
You are on a very dangerous road if you would support denying healthcare based on any lifestyle issues.
Be very careful.
No, you didn’t. Cigarette taxes hurt the poor more than anyone else. That would be okay with me, except that I’m poor and my husband smokes.
The taxes are supposed to pay for healthcare for needy children. (Hah)
So, don’t ask me for any more money. I give at 7-11.
I didn't say that I supported the *denial* of care.In fact,I specifically said that doing so is "crazy".What I *did* say that was that I might support making health insurance more *expensive* for people with certain lifestyles,smoking and obesity being two possible examples.
This is in keeping with other accepted facts of commercial life.For example,a particular person will pay more for a particular life insurance policy if he's,say,a skydiver than if he isn't.Either he'll pay more or the policy will specifically state that no payout will be made if death is the result of a skydiving accident.
I have long suspected that this is the goal of getting the USA on socialized medicine. Anything big brother no longer likes, he can ban you from getting health care if you use it.
Under a socialized system, government will have a monetary interest in reducing or even eliminating alcohol as well.
Under this system they can mandate medical treatment, ban smoking, and ban their dreaded trans fats.
Smoking is only their gateway issue because they have brainwashed the masses that even a whiff of cigarette smoke from 20 miles away will instantly give you huge tumors all over your body, and kill everyone within its path.
It’s almost as if the smoking issue is a new world agenda litmus test for how much people are willing to have their personal autonomy take away.
And just think,there didn’t have to be a law passed to make you lose the weight.
Yes, Laz, and coming soon to a country near you.
Might as well admit it and go forward.
Except for the fatties and smokers. They should be killed as soon as they are identified and turned in. /s
Nobody in this country is "poor", and at least the "poor" could drink and smoke somewhere during the last Great Depression.
I still say you are on a dangerous path. There are so many factors affecting health. It doesn’t compare to auto insurance.
What about heredity? If you had parents with diabetes or certain cancer, should you pay more.
What about exercise? Can you prove you get the recommended amount of exercise a week.
Did you eat your brocoli or did you chow down on a candy bar.
It would be way too intrusive to try to determine the cost or availability of health care based on behavior.
Making health care more expensive for people based on that criteria is just as bad and just as fruitless.
You’re right about that. No one in this country is poor, not when poor kids are buying $200 sneakers.
Let’s just say I’m not well off and I’m a lot poorer after I buy cigarettes for the old dude.
I didn't compare it to auto insurance...I compared it to life insurance.And the comparison I put forth is *absolutely* reasonable.*Skydiving* is an undeniably dangerous,and completely avoidable,activity.*Smoking* is an undeniably dangerous,and completely avoidable,activity.That's why there's a strong argument for both activities being penalized financially.
What about heredity?
Heredity is beyond a person's control.Smoking is *always* within a person's control and obesity *often* is.
If you had parents with diabetes or certain cancer, should you pay more.
There are at least two kinds of diabetes.At least one of those types is sometimes tied to obesity.I know because I *have* that type.When I'm at,or close to,my normal weight I have no diabetes and need no diabetes medications.When I'm noticeably above,I have mild diabetes and require diabetes pills (not insulin).Same with hypertension (high blood pressure) a very nasty condition that can kill you in any one of a dozen different ways.When my weight is at,or near,normal my blood pressure is normal without medications.When I'm overweight I must take medications to control it.My doctors,both faculty members of Harvard Medical School,have told me that both these phenomenons are *very* common.
We are not talking about type 1 diabetes and denying care. We are talking about obese people and smokers who knowingly harm their bodies and cause health insurance cost to $$$$
These people should pay more. We are talking about personal responsibility here. Why should my insurance rates go up every year due to the high cost of these people? I work out 6-7 days per week and really watch what I eat but I don't get a discount.