Do overweight people deserve healthcare from the province?

[blueblood]

I disagree. I think there will be a wide variation in cost incurred within the population. People with severe, chronic but not-life threatening aliments will impose a heavy cost on the system. Healthy individuals who die young from accidents will not. If people age and then impose heavy costs on the system, why should they too not be required to pay higher premiums than those who impose low costs on he system?

Because they paid premiums and taxes to support the system for 50 years when they didn't take anything out of it.

Those premiums and taxes are being paid in the event that you will need it at the drop of a hat, not to give you the right to be a burden on society. That's like saying oh the motor's about to go in the car, i've paid into insurance forever, now it's time to make it pay for itself and write the car off in an accident.

[Wilber]

Those premiums and taxes are being paid in the event that you will need it at the drop of a hat, not to give you the right to be a burden on society. That's like saying oh the motor's about to go in the car, i've paid into insurance forever, now it's time to make it pay for itself and write the car off in an accident.

Or you could sell the car. The insurance company is not going to give you more than it is worth. How does that have anything to do with your health?

[Wilber]

Those premiums and taxes are being paid in the event that you will need it at the drop of a hat, not to give you the right to be a burden on society.

Tell you what, it wasn't an option for me but if you want to go that way I want all the money back that I put into the system. I figure that the portion of my income tax alone that went into health care over the past 40 years plus interest must be at least a half million, not to mention the portion of all the sales and other taxes I have paid over those years which have gone into health care. Give me my money back.

[Renegade]

Because they paid premiums and taxes to support the system for 50 years when they didn't take anything out of it.

Do you know how much they paid? Do you know how much cost they imposed on the system?

The system hasn't even been around for 50 years. By my estimate people, even contributing their entire working lives, contribte far less then the cost they impose on the system.

[Renegade]

Unfortunately I can't accept a a "truth" evidience which cannot be challenged. I don't think it is a given that everyone at some point puts a substantial burden on the system. Many do, some don't.

Check the link.

I did. It shows that people consume a lot as they age. OK I agree with that, but it doesn't show that the obese or smokers consume similar amounts as the rest of the population. Afterall, many obese get old and still consume substantial healthcare costs.

[Renegade]

I figure that the portion of my income tax alone that went into health care over the past 40 years plus interest must be at least a half million

That's an interesting estimate. How did you arrive at it?

[Wilber]

Because they paid premiums and taxes to support the system for 50 years when they didn't take anything out of it.

Do you know how much they paid? Do you know how much cost they imposed on the system?

The system hasn't even been around for 50 years. By my estimate people, even contributing their entire working lives, contribute far less then the cost they impose on the system.

Ok, it's only been around for about 40 years. I'll give you that. Health care costs as a percentage of Provincial budgets are a matter of record. The more you have made and consumed, the more you have contributed. By your estimate? Now who is throwing in unsubstantiated "facts". If we contribute less than we impose, how can we have a system without running deficits? We can't take out more on average than we put in without the system eventually collapsing.

Certainly some will contribute more than others but that will be because of their higher incomes, not necessarily their lifestyle.

Got to go.

[Renegade]

By your estimate? Now who is throwing in unsubstantiated "facts".

Yes, by my estimate. I have yet to throw one fact into the discussion, but will provide the basis of my estimate now: link

If we contribute less than we impose, how can we have a system without running deficits? We can't take out more on average than we put in without the system eventually collapsing.

Exactly. The only reason the system has worked so far is by either incurring deficits as was done in the 70s and 80s or by growing the contribution base in a pyramid scheme. If the contibution base stopped growing the system as it is now, would collapse. This is exactly what some people are worried about when boomers retire.

Certainly some will contribute more than others but that will be because of their higher incomes, not necessarily their lifestyle.

Ok some contributed more, so what? It still doesn't support your contention that somehow the contributions made over "50 years" justify the burden they will impose through their lives.

[Wilber]

Yes, by my estimate. I have yet to throw one fact into the discussion, but will provide the basis of my estimate now: link

Your link is to another post of yours.

Your comment regarding one of my claims.

Do you have any substantiation for this claim? If you do, then I would suggest that smokers/the obese/ or whomever incurs less costs in the system, should also contribute less.

I provided a link to an all government report, not to one of my own posts.

Exactly. The only reason the system has worked so far is by either incurring deficits as was done in the 70s and 80s or by growing the contribution base in a pyramid scheme. If the contibution base stopped growing the system as it is now, would collapse. This is exactly what some people are worried about when boomers retire.

And so they should be. I'm concerned about it. What do you propose, the system changes until the boomers die then magically reinstates itself in time for your retirement. It's the boomers who have been supporting the system for the past 30 years with their taxes, not you.

It still doesn't support your contention that somehow the made over "50 years" justify the burden they will impose through their lives.

Gee, all those years they supported a system that has benefited you but when they've outlived their usefulness they are now a burden to you. Poor baby.

[Renegade]

Your link is to another post of yours.

Your comment regarding one of my claims.

Yes, as I said. it is MY estimate, so the link is to my post. Go ahead and challenge any one of the assumptions I used to come up with the estimate, or go ahead and challenge the math. Just because I provided it doesn't mean it is wrong.

I provided a link to an all government report, not to one of my own posts.

True you provided a link, but it didn't prove anything you claimed. It simply proved tha old people consume more health care, something I always agreed with.

What do you propose.

I'd propose a system of risk-based premiums with the addition of health-care savings accounts.

the system changes until the boomers die then magically reinstates itself in time for your retirement. It's the boomers who have been supporting the system for the past 30 years with their taxes, not you.

You seem to know a lot about me. How do you know I havent been supporting the system for 30 years. How do you know I'm not a boomer?

Gee, all those years they supported a system that has benefited you but when they've outlived their usefulness they are now a burden to you. Poor baby.

Hmm, a lot of assumptions thrown in here. How do you know I've benifited, and to what extent? Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. Your own stats show that as people age they are a burden. I've challenged you to show that the system that they supported for "all those years" will equal the burden they put on it. You have yet to show any evidence of that.

[White Doors]

Now I know who all the fat people on this board are.

[Wilber]

True you provided a link, but it didn't prove anything you claimed. It simply proved tha old people consume more health care, something I always agreed with.

We agree on something then. I provided the link to show that unless we die unnaturally, eventually we all put a heavy load on the system regardless of our lifestyle.

I'd propose a system of risk-based premiums with the addition of health-care savings accounts.

I assume you are not in favour of universal care then because many will not be able to afford such a thing through no fault of their own. Either from medical conditions they are not responsible for, their financial position or both. We don't need a public system for something like that.

You seem to know a lot about me. How do you know I havent been supporting the system for 30 years. How do you know I'm not a boomer?

If you are I hope you have saved up enough for you and your spouse's medical needs in your old age.

Hmm, a lot of assumptions thrown in here. How do you know I've benifited, and to what extent? Maybe I have, maybe I haven't. Your own stats show that as people age they are a burden. I've challenged you to show that the system that they supported for "all those years" will equal the burden they put on it. You have yet to show any evidence of that.

If we don't want any "burdens" on the system then lets get rid of the system all together because if we can't have any "burdens" on it there is no point in having the system.

At least I'm honest about who I am and where I'm coming from. Put up or shut up.

You are missing a fundamental point. Before we had Medicare we had insurance. We decided that wasn't good enough and that all Canadians would have access to care regardless of their age, medical condition or financial position. You want to change that? I think you are in a very small minority.

[guyser]

Of course they do. Why wouldn't they. Slippery slope if you ask me.

What about....

1) you have ten kids?....you sure arent paying into healthcare the equivalent of ten kids

2) athletic endeavours eat up a ton of healthcare dollars-going to pay extra?

3) your child is born with a disease or malfunction- the kid hasnt paid a dime-going to refuse them?

we could keep going on this round and round

[BubberMiley]

Now I know who all the fat people on this board are.

Some people are just firm believers in personal autonomy with no conditions for others' arbitrary, self-righteous provisions.

[Renegade]

I assume you are not in favour of universal care then because many will not be able to afford such a thing through no fault of their own. Either from medical conditions they are not responsible for, their financial position or both. We don't need a public system for something like that.

That's correct. I not suggesting what I propose will provide universal care.

If you are I hope you have saved up enough for you and your spouse's medical needs in your old age.

I intend to freeload off the system, just like the rest of the aging population until enough taxpayers get fed up an put stop to it.

If we don't want any "burdens" on the system then lets get rid of the system all together because if we can't have any "burdens" on it there is no point in having the system.

ok.

At least I'm honest about who I am and where I'm coming from. Put up or shut up.

Are you suggesting I or someone else has been dishonest? If so how? Put up what?

You are missing a fundamental point. Before we had Medicare we had insurance. We decided that wasn't good enough and that all Canadians would have access to care regardless of their age, medical condition or financial position. You want to change that? I think you are in a very small minority.

The "we" you refer to, was the government 40 years ago. That is vastly different than the population today, so I don't think you can cliam that "we" decided anything. Further, policies and opinions change as evidenced by the changes to many programs like the CPP and EI.

I think you are right about one thing though, I'm in the small minority. That's ok, though. I've not minded being in the minority before.

[Wilber]

Are you suggesting I or someone else has been dishonest? If so how? Put up what?

You say you might be a boomer, you might have contributed, you might have benifited. Well, which is it?

[Charles Anthony]

You say you might be a boomer, you might have contributed, you might have benifited. Well, which is it?

That is irrelevent to the argument and impossible to prove either way.

[Renegade]

Are you suggesting I or someone else has been dishonest? If so how? Put up what?

You say you might be a boomer, you might have contributed, you might have benifited. Well, which is it?

No, I didn't say I might be a boomer. I asked how you knew I wasnt since you seemed to jump to those conclusions. Same with the other questions. Is is somehow crucial to making a case for your position to know my personal attributes? If not why is it relevant?

I have no intention of disclosing personal attributes on an intenet forum. I fail to see how that is dishonest. Have I somehow lied about it? None of my arguments have depended upon my personal attributes, so I keep them private.

[Wilber]

I have no intention of disclosing personal attributes on an intenet forum. I fail to see how that is dishonest. Have I somehow lied about it? None of my arguments have depended upon my personal attributes, so I keep them private.

They do if you want credibility. Why shouldn't I just assume that you are whiner who wants to benefit from a system that others have built but want to opt out of until it is your turn to collect?

[Wilber]

You say you might be a boomer, you might have contributed, you might have benifited. Well, which is it?

That is irrelevent to the argument and impossible to prove either way.

It's not irrelevent. If you take a position you have to show that you would be prepared to live with its consequences. However, it would be impossible to prove here.

[Renegade]

They do if you want credibility. Why shouldn't I just assume that you are whiner who wants to benefit from a system that others have built but want to opt out of until it is your turn to collect?

Credibility comes from the supporting reasoning and facts behind my arguments and position. Feel free to attack them if you wish. As CA has pointed out, my personal attributes are irrelevant, as are yours. Feel free to assume what you like, as it seems that you freely jump to conclusions that suit you without supporting data.

[geoffrey]

Some people are just firm believers in personal autonomy with no conditions for others' arbitrary, self-righteous provisions.

Supporting my freedom from subsizing other's poor choices too? Or just the freedom to make poor choices?

You lose that freedom when the 'cure' is state provided by everyone.

[Renegade]

It's not irrelevent. If you take a position you have to show that you would be prepared to live with its consequences. However, it would be impossible to prove here.

How do personal attributes demonstrate whether or now I'm "prepared to live with its consequences"?

For the record, I am willing to live with the consequences of my position, though I have no way to demonstrate that to you.

[Wilber]

Credibility comes from the supporting reasoning and facts behind my arguments and position. Feel free to attack them if you wish. As CA has pointed out, my personal attributes are irrelevant, as are yours. Feel free to assume what you like, as it seems that you freely jump to conclusions that suit you without supporting data.

I intend to freeload off the system, just like the rest of the aging population until enough taxpayers get fed up an put stop to it.

For the record, I am willing to live with the consequences of my position, though I have no way to demonstrate that to you.

Really.

We all make assumptions about others from what they put in their posts.

[Renegade]

Really.

Yes, really.

I intend to freeload off the system, just like the rest of the aging population until enough taxpayers get fed up an put stop to it.

And by that statement you asume what? That I'm a boomer or not? That I've benefited or not?

We all make assumptions about others from what they put in their posts.

I'm not sure who the "we" you speak for. Certainly the assumptions I make are the ones I'm prepared to defend. You have been unable to answer what your assumptions have been supported by.