Taxing Poor Health (or Banning it)

[Figleaf]

Auto insurance prices are unconscionable.

If it were a free market, I'd say let them charge whatever the market would bear -- but it's NOT a free market. Insurance is mandatory if you want to drive on the public highways, ergo the government has a duty to ensure that the insurance providers are not taking advantage of the regulation to gouge customers.

We pay our taxes for the roads -- we shouldn't be turned into feudal serfs in order to use them.

[geoffrey]

Auto insurance prices are unconscionable.

If it were a free market, I'd say let them charge whatever the market would bear -- but it's NOT a free market. Insurance is mandatory if you want to drive on the public highways, ergo the government has a duty to ensure that the insurance providers are not taking advantage of the regulation to gouge customers.

We pay our taxes for the roads -- we shouldn't be turned into feudal serfs in order to use them.

What are you talking about? Mandatory insurance makes sense, I sure wouldn't want to get hit by an uninsured driver.

[betsy]

What exactly is the logic? How far do you want to go?

The logic is that if you agree that any risk factor should determine the funding contribution to health coverage, then it should extend to all risk factors. I'd go as far as is practically possible.

Practically everything could be determined as a risk factor.

Sometime ago there was even a finding that taking vitamine A supplements could contribute to heart disease. This was after vitamin A was touted to be good for you.

Those subsititutes they put in food in lieu of fats (for non-fat items)...or low-calorie drinks (sugar substitutes): on one hand they're being sold as something that is supposed to be "healthy" for you....but are they really?

All those herbal medicines and supplements that we take thinking they are beneficial to us health-wise could actually be fatal for you, since they are unregulated and not much studies had gone into some of them. And yet they're being sold at health stores.

What we've been told before are being revised these days...because of technology. So how can we truly say that one thing is bad for you. For all you know, it isn't solely just that one thing....but a combination of other things that's making it bad for you.

[Renegade]

Practically everything could be determined as a risk factor.

True, but not all risk factors can be used. A risk factor must be easily measurable, and a risk factor must have a significant impact on risk. If it doesn't meet these criteria it cannot be used. For example life insurance companies use a a binary factor (smoking or not-smoking) as a risk factor because it is easily measurable and it does significantly affect risk. It would be more precise to determine how many cigarettes are smoked, but that is much less measurable. Similarly age is easily measurable.

In addition a risk factor used cannot violate legal statutes. For example, even if you could prove through data that aborignials have a higher risk, you may not be able to use race as a risk factor.

Sometime ago there was even a finding that taking vitamine A supplements could contribute to heart disease. This was after vitamin A was touted to be good for you.

Those subsititutes they put in food in lieu of fats (for non-fat items)...or low-calorie drinks (sugar substitutes): on one hand they're being sold as something that is supposed to be "healthy" for you....but are they really?

All those herbal medicines and supplements that we take thinking they are beneficial to us health-wise could actually be fatal for you, since they are unregulated and not much studies had gone into some of them. And yet they're being sold at health stores.

What we've been told before are being revised these days...because of technology. So how can we truly say that one thing is bad for you. For all you know, it isn't solely just that one thing....but a combination of other things that's making it bad for you.

You can't say definatively what is bad, but you can draw reasonable conclusions based upon data. That is what insurance companies do. Of course they revise their conclusions as new or more data emerges. No one has suggested that whatever risk factors are picked are set in stone for eternity.

[watching&waiting]

This is sooo stupid. For one thing your health insurance is not something that expires and gets renewed. It is for life and that was the way we agreed to long ago. Car insurance has nothing incommon with healthcare. We do not do risk assesment for healthcare because it would be saying you are not fit enough to live so we condemn you to a slow painful death. We do not even treat murders that way. The healtier you are the more likely you will live to an old age and as all you young people out there you will find that no matter your health, once you age you will be seeing a lot of doctors. The unhealthy people see doctors earlier and die sooner. They probably in the grand scheme of things cost us less. So before you go spout all the youthful crys against those who are less healthy, you need to learn some thing that old age shows you, and that is no matter the health you are in now, once above 50 and older you will see the doctors more often then most others, who are younger.

[Renegade]

This is sooo stupid.

you are of course entitled to your opinion.

For one thing your health insurance is not something that expires and gets renewed. It is for life and that was the way we agreed to long ago.

There is no reason an assessment of risk cannot be done yearly. When you say "we agreed", who do you mean? Certainly I had no say in an agreement which took place 40 years ago. Despite that, any "agreement" is subject to change at any time. Just look at the program changes to EI, welfare, etc.

Car insurance has nothing incommon with healthcare. We do not do risk assesment for healthcare because it would be saying you are not fit enough to live so we condemn you to a slow painful death.

No, it is not saying that. It is saying that if you are fit, you contribubte less to the cost. If you are not, you contribute more. Somewhat different than what you are saying.

The healtier you are the more likely you will live to an old age and as all you young people out there you will find that no matter your health, once you age you will be seeing a lot of doctors. The unhealthy people see doctors earlier and die sooner. They probably in the grand scheme of things cost us less.

Yes, and the longer you live, they more you pay because you pay annually. Conversely, once you die, you consume nothing, but you also pay nothing.

So before you go spout all the youthful crys against those who are less healthy, you need to learn some thing that old age shows you, and that is no matter the health you are in now, once above 50 and older you will see the doctors more often then most others, who are younger.

Of course, and IMV everyone shoudl expect to contribute more to the system as they age and consume more.

[watching&waiting]

Renegade, you said you were not there when the healthcare agreement went into effect. So maybe you should go back and do a little reading about who, why and when all this took place and then you will see just how stupid all this talk is. The same thing you are saying now were being brought up back then, and yes people were left dieing in pain, and no chance of hope. Canada can be proud of the way it went on this, and it was thought through very much so. It was then writen and designed to never allow the interferring that you are now talking about to happen. It would take almost a constitutional type change to make the changes you are talking about.

If you want a system that is much like what you describe, the USA is the place for you to go. Their HMO type care is exactly like what you want. You pay very little until your sick then they drop you at the first chance, and then pay either huge fees or like many americans die with out the care they need.

[Renegade]

Renegade, you said you were not there when the healthcare agreement went into effect. So maybe you should go back and do a little reading about who, why and when all this took place and then you will see just how stupid all this talk is.

What I said was that I wasn't present and party to the agreement. I am well aware of the circumstances around the implemntation of healthcare. In addition what as the norm in healthcare then is vastly different than the norm today. Healthcare costs have escalated considerably. In the 70s and 80s governments went into debt to finance social programs. Much of the "agreements" you refer to, were done without adequate forsight on the costs.

It was then writen and designed to never allow the interferring that you are now talking about to happen. It would take almost a constitutional type change to make the changes you are talking about.

You are quite wrong on this. I don't believe that there is anywhere in the constitution or charter which guarantees that medical care should be provided to a certain level or guarantees about how it is funded. If you have a cite refuting this, I'd be interested to see it. As far as I'm aware, a change only requires a simple act of federal and provincial legislature.

If you want a system that is much like what you describe, the USA is the place for you to go. Their HMO type care is exactly like what you want. You pay very little until your sick then they drop you at the first chance, and then pay either huge fees or like many americans die with out the care they need.

Yes the US has some aspect of the system I describe, but it has other deficiencies. I don't think it is necessary to move to effect change. Once there is enough acceptance of it, change will happen. The SCC has already ruled that private systems must be allowed where the government cannot provide adequate access. It is simply a matter of time before private parallel systems will be available in Canada.

[watching&waiting]

Just as a quick note the Supreme court did rule about wait times etc as being a constitutional right extra. So yes, it was what put many of us on full alert. You will have to look it up at their site though.

[Renegade]

Just as a quick note the Supreme court did rule about wait times etc as being a constitutional right extra. So yes, it was what put many of us on full alert. You will have to look it up at their site though.

I'm aware of the decision. It basicly said that the govenrment could not ban private healthcare if it couldn't itself provide adequate care. The decision did not say that the government was obligated to provide that care, only that it couldn't do both (ban private offering of the service, and not provide timely access to the service).

[betsy]

There are 300 people on this plane you asshole, what if it's one of THEIR times to go?", she replied.

You should have rebutted: "if it's not your time to go,you will survive. If you don't survive, then your time is up."

[betsy]

People who let themselves go due to their choice in lifestyle, are more then likely those who you see dying before they are 50.

"It's all in your genes!" .... or ... "When it's your time to go, it's your time to go!" ... some say, carelessly.

Or some say: "well I'd rather die having enjoyed life the way I want to."

For some it's the "quality" of life they've lived that counts.

[betsy]

So what about those high risk or extreme sports?

Health care includes those...and sometimes taxpayers pay for rescue efforts. And rescue efforts needlessly endanger the lives of resuers too.

[BubberMiley]

For some it's the "quality" of life they've lived that counts.

Philosophies like that can get you addicted to things.

[betsy]

For some it's the "quality" of life they've lived that counts.

Philosophies like that can get you addicted to things.

I know. It took several attempts before I finally booted cigarettes out of my life. Cold turkey!

Fourteen years ago! And I was smoking two packs a day.

Voluntarily. No pressure from anyone. That's the best way I think.

[cybercoma]

Parents with disabled children should be taxed higher because their kids are a burden to the system.

[betsy]

On one hand I understand what the argiment is all about. The intention may mean well....but it is something that is worrisome.

It is very controlling and it steps on the people's right to choose.

IF IT HAD TO COME TO THAT, I think we're better off to scrap the whole health care system....and let people pay for usage. Then maybe people will start being more responsible...and of their own volition...try to acquire a healthy lifestyle. The less reason they need to see the doctor, the better for them.

It will be too bad for those who cannot afford medical asstance....but it will be too bad for everyone if we start getting pushed to follow whoever decides what is the best for us.

Anyway, right now the poor are in no better position to adapt to a real good healthy eating. Have you guys checked the bulk section in freezers and shelves? The ones the poor or those who are trying to stretch a paycheque may buy...do check out the ingredients and nutritional info.

[margrace]

On one hand I understand what the argiment is all about. The intention may mean well....but it is something that is worrisome.

It is very controlling and it steps on the people's right to choose.

IF IT HAD TO COME TO THAT, I think we're better off to scrap the whole health care system....and let people pay for usage. Then maybe people will start being more responsible...and of their own volition...try to acquire a healthy lifestyle. The less reason they need to see the doctor, the better for them.

It will be too bad for those who cannot afford medical asstance....but it will be too bad for everyone if we start getting pushed to follow whoever decides what is the best for us.

Anyway, right now the poor are in no better position to adapt to a real good healthy eating. Have you guys checked the bulk section in freezers and shelves? The ones the poor or those who are trying to stretch a paycheque may buy...do check out the ingredients and nutritional info.

Yes if one wants to eat healthily then it costs more. Food banks cannot afford much in the way of fresh fruit and vegetables. Our food bank buys potatoes, carrots and onions but anything else including fruit does not fit into our budget.

Here is a typical single basket as far as I can remember. Canned vegetables (2 cans), small peanut butter, 2 small cans of canned fish or meat, 1 large can of tomato pasta sauce, 3 cans soup, 1 pkg speggetti, small bag of instant milk, 2 Lbs of rice,1 box cereal, 2 boxes of Kraft dinner, . 5 lb of potatoes, 2 lbs of carrots, 2 lbs of onions. If we have been donated fresh meat then they get a package of that, one pkg of margarine, half doz. eggs. If the Harvest Share has been in then there is a good choice of bread products, however when we do not have that choice they get 2 loaves of white bread. This is supposed to last 10 days, however a lot of people getting this box are older men on welfare who a living in motels paid for by welfare. There are few cooking facilities.

There are a lot of people who are diabetic and a fair amount of this food is off the scale for them. But we have to raise every cent for this food besides electicity we use for freezers and fridges. Luckily we have a wonderful landlord who waives the rent, however our building is for sale.

When one talks of health care and by the rules being promoted these people, who are mostly older men would not qualify. So what happens to them? Do we just let they die?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think people need to give their heads a shake! Public healthcare is here to stay. The majority of citizens in any country would support the concept 10 times out of 10.

[BubberMiley]

I know. It took several attempts before I finally booted cigarettes out of my life. Cold turkey!

Fourteen years ago! And I was smoking two packs a day.

Do you ever go a day without missing it?

[betsy]

Yes if one wants to eat healthily then it costs more. Food banks cannot afford much in the way of fresh fruit and vegetables. Our food bank buys potatoes, carrots and onions but anything else including fruit does not fit into our budget.

Here is a typical single basket as far as I can remember. Canned vegetables (2 cans), small peanut butter, 2 small cans of canned fish or meat, 1 large can of tomato pasta sauce, 3 cans soup, 1 pkg speggetti, small bag of instant milk, 2 Lbs of rice,1 box cereal, 2 boxes of Kraft dinner, . 5 lb of potatoes, 2 lbs of carrots, 2 lbs of onions. If we have been donated fresh meat then they get a package of that, one pkg of margarine, half doz. eggs. If the Harvest Share has been in then there is a good choice of bread products, however when we do not have that choice they get 2 loaves of white bread. This is supposed to last 10 days, however a lot of people getting this box are older men on welfare who a living in motels paid for by welfare. There are few cooking facilities.

There are a lot of people who are diabetic and a fair amount of this food is off the scale for them. But we have to raise every cent for this food besides electicity we use for freezers and fridges. Luckily we have a wonderful landlord who waives the rent, however our building is for sale.

When one talks of health care and by the rules being promoted these people, who are mostly older men would not qualify. So what happens to them? Do we just let they die?

Wouldn't it be much better if we operated soup kitchens and deliver already-prepared food for those who are old and disabled?

Nothing fancy (could be just soup and sandwiches ready to pop in a micro)....ready-to-eat, including diabetic or diet-restricted food (since I find that most old folks tend not to bother preparing their food, that's why a lot of them are not eating properly). Like each community have their own.

[betsy]

I know. It took several attempts before I finally booted cigarettes out of my life. Cold turkey!

Fourteen years ago! And I was smoking two packs a day.

Do you ever go a day without missing it?

About thrice I dreamt in my sleep of smoking. Boy, I did enjoy it in my dream...but I also felt the guilt along with it in my dream. It was like getting caught with my hands in the cookie jar.

But wide awake....no, I don't miss it anymore. And when we socialize, we're usually surrounded by smokers. Mind you they smoke outside...but you could still see them enjoying their puffs with their drinks.

[Renegade]

Parents with disabled children should be taxed higher because their kids are a burden to the system.

Yes, if they can afford it.

[cybercoma]

Parents with disabled children should be taxed higher because their kids are a burden to the system.

Yes, if they can afford it.

What they can afford is not the issue. Obese people may not be able to afford paying more, so neither should parents of disabled children.

Of course, I'm being facetious to illustrate a point.

[Renegade]

Parents with disabled children should be taxed higher because their kids are a burden to the system.

Yes, if they can afford it.

What they can afford is not the issue. Obese people may not be able to afford paying more, so neither should parents of disabled children.

Of course, I'm being facetious to illustrate a point.

What point is that?

The same principal applies for obese and for disabled. If the premium required by an individual for being obese was affordable to them, they should pay it.