Question for libertarians & conservatives

The poorest lifestyle choice is supporting big government that is forcing us to pay for what is making people in the first place. First subsidize unhealthy, addictive foods/beverages, pay people to sit on the couch, and now pay for the pharm products to keep them comfortable so they can continue to produce record profits for their friends.

What you are asking is if people should be refused emergency medical care based on their political views. Even though I go to the gym regularly, live an active lifestyle, NEVER consume processed foods, and pay excessive taxes, I should not receive emergency medical care because I refused to consume an experimental pharm product that comes with a "use at your own risk" disclaimer?

How about those that support big government pay more and once they recover, they stay at the hospital to take care of all the other patients they were complicit in making ill?

 

I'm not a conservative, but I absolutely think public healthcare systems should exclude those with self-inflicted conditions. And it's not just a bloody minded revenge emote, it's a practicality. If we want our public health systems to keep providing the best care to as many as possible, something is going to have to give.

I have to ask you - why would any egalitarian-minded person think it's okay to keep using up those valuable resources on people who deliberately chose their fate - not caring what it did to system (and thus their communities), while people who didn't choose their fate are dying from lack of care?

PS: When you say not all obese people are overweight because of lifestyle choices, you are technically correct - but what you failed to mention is that those 'non-lifestyle' cases are exceedingly rare. Also, metabolism is a response body system, it does not have a fixed capacity. If you are sluggish, it will be sluggish. It's activity is directly proportional to your activity.

 

No one is forced to eat crap food or smoke. These are freely made choices.

We're fatter and sicker because we're lazier and greedier. It could be argued that that's a function of the apathy enabled by the Welfare State, but it really isn't about subsidies.

 

I don't suppose you noticed that the magazine article was over four months old back when the delta virus was first starting and the immunizations were all very recent.

 

You do it on a case by case basis, in this case its covid.

 

True, however, these foods trigger the brains reward system creating addiction. One can also get this feeling from exercise. Of course, going for a run does not produce the profits enjoyed by food giants that are very familiar with profiting from addiction. Tobacco companies are in the food business now.

If you pay taxes, you are buying these products for them through subsidies. We are fatter and sicker because of the Standard American Diet (SAD) most of which is subsidized.

 

Your question has nothing to do with Medicare, you asked should hospitals turn away COVID victims who have not been vaccinated and on what basis should decisions to admit or not be made.

I gave you my answer. No.

 

I have little problem with universal healthcare so long as they don't use it to justify sin taxes and nanny statism, as they have in my country, big time.

 

To be honest I do not have a problem with universal health care. In fact I was originally looking forward to Trump repealing and replacing Obama care with something better that would cover people with pre-existing conditions. If you go back to the old thread you will see my post on how disappointed I was when he failed to do this after the failed vote.

I do not believe in prioritizing people based on their actions. I believe that doctors should be given the option to use their judgement to use the resources they and try to save the maximum number of people possible. I would hope they do this solely on medical data rather than choosing people they believe deserve to live more. What I have no problems with is higher insurance premiums for people that choose not to get the vaccine or smoke or that are obese. They should cover the extra cost they add to the system. If people do not like the idea of charging people more for not doing something then give people discounts for doing the things that would lead to lower cost. We already do this for other forms of insurance.

 

It's still a freely made choice, regardless. No one is forced to eat specific foods. As long as that remains true, we have no one to blame but ourselves for any bad food habits.

Again, the Standard American Diet is a choice. Subsidised or not, no one is compelled to eat that stuff.

PS: While there is a reward loop with certain sugars, obesity doesn't result from a food addiction - it results from an EATING addiction. There's a very important difference. Food on its own isn't powerful enough to create the addiction. If it was, every living thing would be obese. The problem arises when the action of eating (and even the thought of eating) produces mood spikes. That's why obese people often have a much lower level of interest in the quality and taste of their food. There is more addiction in the thoughts produced, than in the food eaten. It's the mind doing all the addiction work when that cream cake is heading towards the mouth, or that four cheese mac'n'cheese is being piled onto the plate.

 

Private health insurance is a very good solution for those who've deliberately made themselves ineligible for public health treatment. It provides all the choices necessary. Give up your bad habits and get free healthcare, or keep your habits and pay for them yourself. No one could ever claim that is unfair.

 

From your link:

1: Not fully vaccinated. IE: the 99.75% number includes those who are partially vaccinated but have not gotten their second shot yet.

2: Your statistic is based on one city. A city that isn't even in the states that you mention in your OP. And you're trying to apply that statistic to the whole country.

 

I am a libertarian, however I believe that for my liberty, and the liberty of others to have meaning and effect, universal healthcare and education must be mandatory.

 

I started an exercise program a little over a year ago after being a couch potato most of my adult life. Doctor approved, started working out with a personal trainer, have stuck with it over a year. Obviously, I've seen improvement in my physical condition. I have YET to get any kind of positive feeling or mood lifter from exercise other than "thank God that's over for another day". It's a bummer, because I was really hoping to. People ask me if I "like" it......I have to honestly say no. I think those "endorphins" people talk about from exercise are like other things like alcohol and drugs -- some people are genetically disposed to certain reactions from certain things/behaviors, and others aren't.

 

Certainly family should not be burdened with a cost they did not commit to accept. They are no more responsible for the medical bills of their mother, or sibling or cousin than they are responsible for their electric bill, their mortgage or their overdue taxes. If there is an estate, of course the estate may owe an unpaid balance, but the debt does not transfer to relations. We can preclude that option. Unless the govt has committed itself to pay those bills, via a medicaid, medicare , veterans or special benefit, it hits the estate, and then it just goes unpaid and costs are absorbed by the hospital and doctors and guess what happens thereafter.

 

I framed a question based on viewpoints given to me by libertarians and conservatives on this forum.

That, at the minimum, their position has been always 'personal responsibility' which is to say, against paying taxes that pay for health care for people whose life style choices hasten illness and/or at the maximum they don't want taxes to go to health care whatsoever.

Is that about right? You tell me. That's what a number of conservatives and libertarians have told me.

 

I know you want the gov to promote healthy lifestyle choices, like they did with cigarettes, but, other than that point, you're against taxes going to heath care?

 

You either support taxes for health care or you don't. Some abusers are always going to game the system, no matter how hard they try, but that is not an excuse to throw the baby out with the bath water.

 

I don't think not providing care in a UHC system is the way to go.

Maybe the unvaxxed and obese should pay a higher tax? I'm open to ideas, but no health care isn't compatible with UHC philosophy, ( if you are a liberal ).

 

CDC report issued in August

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/24/cdc...ore-likely-to-be-hospitalized-with-covid.html

 

I didn't ask hospitals, I asked conservatives and libertarians ( assuming they got their way ) would they turn away people whose life style choice made the them ill in the Crisis Care environment.

 

Most conservatives and libertarians I know would assert that universal health care IS 'nanny statism'.

 

CDC report, august

 

Should be noted that your graph does not give percentages, it just goes by per 100,000. Also it does not differentiate those that are partially vaccinated from the fully vaccinated and unvaccinated. As such we can probably assume that the unvaccinated rate includes the partially vaccinated, which would just artificially drive up the numbers for that column. Therefore we do not know how much of those in the unvaccinated column are made up of partially vaccinated. Hardly fair, or right, to include the partially vaccinated in among the unvaccinated wouldn't you say? After all we don't know if they were waiting their 2 weeks in between shots when they got covid bad enough to send them to the hospital or not. Also the unvaccinated are getting a lot of hate right now and those that are partially vaccinated have shown that they do not mind getting the vaccine.

Either way, its not showing what you claimed earlier. That 99.5% of those hospitalized are unvaccinated.

 

99.5% is 199 out of 200. That is a long way from 28 out of 29. I agree that people should be vaccinated. But the numbers were simply wrong, as I pointed out.