The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Lexicus]

Depending on a person's choices, yes it is acceptable.

K, well, it's not acceptable to me or millions of others, and we will bury you

There's a non-trivial issue in terms of how such systems drive cost and quality of healthcare though, so you'll also have people who do the right things die anyway because the system is crap. I do not find this acceptable, especially if concessions for the smoker above lead to it.

Honestly it's kind of insane to me that you apparently think health outcomes are somehow tied to virtue.

 

[rah]

If you are going to single out smokers (which is easier to detect) how about those 64 oz. sodas. or those Fries. How do you rate those? by how fat a person is? Since determining those won't be fair it seems silly to just make the obvious ones pay.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Even in the bath or shower?

If I had it on my person before I got in the bath or shower then it would be in the bathroom near me and easily accessible. And if I lived with other people then the bathroom door would presumably be locked at that point.

 

[AmazonQueen]

It does sound reasonable, there's not much point in having a weapon if the person doesn't know how to use it. Since there are lots of different kinds of guns it might be more complicated than anticipated though. I'd imagine firing a 12 gauge shotgun vs one of those questionable-utility purse handguns to be sufficiently different that you'd need different training between the two for example, and both would be at least somewhat different from a hunting rifle. Same for how you'd store these safely.

My driving license only covers me for driving certain types of vehicle, but if I took an HGV or PSV test I could have that added to my license.

 

[Sommerswerd]

If you are going to single out smokers (which is easier to detect) how about those 64 oz. sodas. or those Fries. How do you rate those? by how fat a person is? Since determining those won't be fair it seems silly to just make the obvious ones pay.

Don't forget about all those dummies who chose to go work at an asbestos-laden submarine shipyard, or in coal mine... when they get cancer its their own fault ... and all those truck drivers that foolishly choose a job where they would be sitting on their rear-end all day eating unhealthy truck stop food... when they get sick they're getting just what was coming to them... don't forget the stupid teachers that go to work in the kind of white suburban neighborhoods where school shootings happen... you pays your money, you takes yer chances amirite... and don't get me started on the soldiers... why should we have to pay 10x as much for the PTSD of a guy who got his leg blown off by a IED... he made his choices

Cancer, heart disease, mental illness etc... are their own punishment... no need to pile on by guilt tripping sick people as well.

 

[rah]

or those that sit in front of a computer screen for hours a day posting at gaming sites.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

If you are going to single out smokers (which is easier to detect) how about those 64 oz. sodas. or those Fries. How do you rate those? by how fat a person is? Since determining those won't be fair it seems silly to just make the obvious ones pay.

I did mention overeating.

For MOST cases, whether it's a 64oz soda or fries doesn't matter. You get empty calories and the result is weight gain. Body fat can be measured/detected as easily as smoking, and will similarly have a higher-than-baseline healthcare cost. You absolutely could penalize this in principle, and it money gets tight it will happen.

What bothers me about it is that there are some rare metabolic conditions where people eat near or even below the BMR of a normal person of their height/age and can't lose weight anyway. For this small percentage of the population they'd be unduly penalized by something they can't control, and would struggle to realistically prove the negative (that they didn't eat bad crap). Right now this is non-trivial to diagnose and in some cases (such as kids that get hypothalamus damaged) no known way to completely mitigate it.

Massive top-down programs don't do so well with that kind of nuance.

Don't forget about all those dummies who chose to go work at an asbestos-laden submarine shipyard, or in coal mine... when they get cancer its their own fault ... and all those truck drivers that foolishly choose a job where they would be sitting on their rear-end all day eating unhealthy truck stop food... when they get sick they're getting just what was coming to them... don't forget the stupid teachers that go to work in the kind of white suburban neighborhoods where school shootings happen... you pays your money, you takes yer chances amirite... and don't get me started on the soldiers... why should we have to pay 10x as much for the PTSD of a guy who got his leg blown off by a IED... he made his choices

Or this kind of nuance (though truck drivers can buy and bring food in advance). The others would have to either pay more to compensate the health risk (good luck) or have exemptions that fairly offset the cost (good luck).

 

[rah]

As I said, just silly.

 

[Sommerswerd]

or those that sit in front of a computer screen for hours a day posting at gaming sites.

May we each receive all of what we need, some of what we want, and none of what we deserve... cheers

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As I said, just silly.

It is a necessary implication of socialized medicine. I agree it's silly.

 

[Lexicus]

Massive top-down programs don't do so well with that kind of nuance.

Can you demonstrate that the US lacks the medical resources to meet the medical needs of its population? Can you demonstrate that the US is incapable of investing to produce the necessary medical resources?

It is a necessary implication of socialized medicine.

Then it's weird that all the other countries with socialized medicine don't seem to have the government telling people what they can and can't do because it's paying their medical expenses.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Can you demonstrate that the US lacks the medical resources to meet the medical needs of its population?

What standard are you setting when asking this? If you lower the standard enough you can meet it for sure. If you increase it enough even excellent, efficient systems couldn't put bionic parts on everybody in 20 years. I'm guessing you intend something in between, but specifics matter when you ask this question.

Then it's weird that all the other countries with socialized medicine don't seem to have the government telling people what they can and can't do because it's paying their medical expenses.

Yet.

There is an alternative to that, and many of the countries you reference have chosen it: simply make the wait list take increasingly long, until people start dying before they're able to actually get access to the care that could save them. Of course this is less fair since it's non-discriminatory between healthy and unhealthy practices, but it's also easier to implement which is probably why it's the common choice.

Or they come to the US to get the procedures done.

 

[Lexicus]

There is an alternative to that, and many of the countries you reference have chosen it: simply make the wait list take increasingly long, until people start dying before they're able to actually get access to the care that could save them.

Ahh, so you're just operating on lies. That explains a lot.

 

[Estebonrober]

Massive top-down programs don't do so well with that kind of nuance.


.

Of course neither do diffuse profit seeking programs, arguably they handle it much much worse, so your argument here fails.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of course neither do diffuse profit seeking programs, arguably they handle it much much worse, so your argument here fails.

I'm not sure how you'd argue they "handle it much much worse", considering the standard of care in some of these cases is already "basically none".

 

[Lexicus]

I'm not sure how you'd argue they "handle it much much worse", considering the standard of care in some of these cases is already "basically none".

Again for emphasis: you have been lied to by whoever told you how things work in countries with socialized medicine.

 

[Estebonrober]

There is an alternative to that, and many of the countries you reference have chosen it: simply make the wait list take increasingly long, until people start dying before they're able to actually get access to the care that could save them. Of course this is less fair since it's non-discriminatory between healthy and unhealthy practices, but it's also easier to implement which is probably why it's the common choice.

Or they come to the US to get the procedures done.

Yea this isn't a thing and when compared to the outcomes across society that the private market produces the socialized version actually works much better. We have more that die or wait until its an emergency of life and death to seek treatment to avoid declaring health debt bankruptcy. That is both vile and stupid.

I have wonderful anecdotal stories about people who let cancer spread across their entire face for the shame of not being able to afford treatment and such. Its a uniquely American experience in the industrialized world.

 

[Estebonrober]

I'm not sure how you'd argue they "handle it much much worse", considering the standard of care in some of these cases is already "basically none".

We have far more cases where the standard of care is none, and of course that is if I take your lie as an honest representation of socialized medicine which it is not.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

We have far more cases where the standard of care is none, and of course that is if I take your lie as an honest representation of socialized medicine which it is not.

I'd like to see data to back that, somewhat frustrating to find precise figures on specific things.

USA is some frankenstein nonsense of partial socialization and "everyone including physician is pocketed by insurance companies" with gouged cost. It doesn't surprise me that at least some countries outperform that but cutting down at least one of the players in it.

 

[Lexicus]

I'd like to see data to back that, somewhat frustrating to find precise figures on specific things.

Well here's maternal mortality:

Good thing the US is safe from the terrible scourge of socialized medicine.