I would rather burn all my money in a bonfire than pay for your f*cking healthcare

not true wrote:

John Utah wrote:

The far cheaper option in for people to be responsible about their own health and not make society pay for the consequences of their unhealthy lifestyle choices.

thats just not true. distributing costs across the population is cheaper and better for the economy than individuals saving in case they incur a high magnitude medical cost. that’s why we have insurance. sometimes you’re both so dumb and so confident you’re right that it astounds me. every time you post this happens. will you ever learn that not everything fits in your simple black and white conception of the world?

You are absolutely correct, insurance companies do distribute costs across a population. And they are very good at calculating the risks and cost for various population. There is no need for the government to get involved. When the government gets involved, it forces insurance companies to recalculate their risk/cost projections. This is why premiums have risen under Obamacare.

You were so close to making a good point, before you spun off into an insulting rant.

prove it wrote:

John Utah wrote:

The overwhelming majority of healthcare costs come as a result of lifestyle choices.

Provide proof for this statement, or continue to be known as an idiot who spouts nonsense. Your posts are littered with this black-and-white statements supported by no facts whatsoever. When you finally move out of your mom's basement maybe you'll realize how wrong you are...

If growing old is a lifestyle choice, then Johnny Crapper is right. The majority of healthcare costs are derived from end of life care.

lol so you’re saying i’m right...

There are certain rights an advanced society should strive to provide for everybody:

1) Food and water

2) Housing and warmth

3) Healthcare

4) Education

If your government isn't providing the resources to ensure everybody has access to the above then what are you honestly paying your taxes for?

Where are your taxes being spent?

Beaurocracy and military?

I can put this in words that the capitalist might understand - investing in education and good (physical and mental) health provides the greatest ROI achieveable.

custom R wrote:

FelonDJT wrote:

Too bad. You will pay for it regardless. You can pay for it in the form of higher overall healthcare costs, as people delay preventative treatments due to cost concerns, thereby escalating costs which are written off and then paid by the general public. OR you can invest in healthcare infrastructure which allows people to get say insulin and diabetes treatments, which keeps them out of the hospital and ER, and allows them to work and consume more and for longer, which is better for the economy i.e. you.

There is scarcely any such thing as "preventative" treatment. Modern medicine does almost nothing to prevent disease.

Managing diabetes prevents the onset/exacerbation of all kinds of diseases.

I'm a retarded Canadian and don't understand a thing about US healthcare.

If I have cancer and I'm poor, in the US, I won't receive treatment ? WTF is that ?

It's a no brainer that anybody could consult a doctor as much as they need to.

custom R wrote:

FelonDJT wrote:

Too bad. You will pay for it regardless. You can pay for it in the form of higher overall healthcare costs, as people delay preventative treatments due to cost concerns, thereby escalating costs which are written off and then paid by the general public. OR you can invest in healthcare infrastructure which allows people to get say insulin and diabetes treatments, which keeps them out of the hospital and ER, and allows them to work and consume more and for longer, which is better for the economy i.e. you.

There is scarcely any such thing as "preventative" treatment. Modern medicine does almost nothing to prevent disease.

There is indeed such a thing as "preventive treatment". Several issues however:

1.) This isn't taught in medical schools to any degree.

2.) MD's/DO's are mostly focused on prescribing medicine to treat the symptoms of a disease, not typically to address the primary cause.

3.) Surgeons are Surgeons because they like to do surgery (a quot from one to me, years ago).

The typical lazy american facilitates this, they don't want to control their diet, quit smoking, exercise, control their weight or put any significant effort into their own health management. Too much work. Guy in my clinic with significant diabetes the other day told me he'd rather have his leg amputated instead of undergo 30 hyperbaric treatments that might save his leg. he also refuses to quit smoking. There are obviously exceptions to every rule, but thats the reality.

You are correct lets remove all govt regulatory controls. Would be cheaper if anyone could hang a sign up and be a doc too. Now back to reality.

John Utah wrote:

FelonDJT wrote:

The far cheaper option is preventative care, esp for the poor.

The far cheaper option in for people to be responsible about their own health and not make society pay for the consequences of their unhealthy lifestyle choices.

Rights wrote:

Where are your taxes being spent?

Beaurocracy and military?

I can put this in words that the capitalist might understand - investing in education and good (physical and mental) health provides the greatest ROI achieveable.

You forgot bailing out banks and supporting perhaps the leech on our society that we call the financial sector, which provides almost no function except to make a few elites even more wealthy, by basically playing games with money. Speaking of paying for other peoples' health care.

John Utah wrote:

FelonDJT wrote:

The far cheaper option is preventative care, esp for the poor.

The far cheaper option in for people to be responsible about their own health and not make society pay for the consequences of their unhealthy lifestyle choices.

you do understand that there are diseases and illnesses that have nothing to do with someones lifestyle choices, right?

stick man wrote:

John Utah wrote:

The far cheaper option in for people to be responsible about their own health and not make society pay for the consequences of their unhealthy lifestyle choices.

you do understand that there are diseases and illnesses that have nothing to do with someones lifestyle choices, right?

There are certainly...............however the cost to treat is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to the lifestyle related ones, IE atherosclerotic vascular disease (CAD, CVD, RVD, PVD), diabetes, cancer (lung, colon, pancreatic, breast) and hypertension.

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

stick man wrote:

you do understand that there are diseases and illnesses that have nothing to do with someones lifestyle choices, right?

There are certainly...............however the cost to treat is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to the lifestyle related ones, IE atherosclerotic vascular disease (CAD, CVD, RVD, PVD), diabetes, cancer (lung, colon, pancreatic, breast) and hypertension.

so you just decided those diseases are primalily caused by lifestyle choices with no evidence? are you aware how dumb that is?

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

There are certainly...............however the cost to treat is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to the lifestyle related ones, IE atherosclerotic vascular disease (CAD, CVD, RVD, PVD), diabetes, cancer (lung, colon, pancreatic, breast) and hypertension.

According to this study, 42% of cancers are related to lifestyle.

That still leaves a lot of cancer cases that were simply the result of bad luck. And while you can make a statistical estimate for populations, in many individual cases, you can't tell when cancer was caused by lifestyle and when it was caused by bad luck. With Diabetes Type 1 is largely genetic, not lifestyle.

Then there's the huge social pushback on trying to improve diet and lifestyle - from food industries (sugar, dairy, meat) affected, from conservatives complaining about the "Nanny state" like with Michelle Obama and school lunches, to "fat acceptance" feminists, and so on. No one in the US wants to be told to change their lifestyle in order to reduce medical costs.

There is no such thing as "luck" in the development of disease, its always a combination of factors that precipitate it.............environmental, lifestyle, genetic predisposition, individual biologic response to the presence of disease precipitating factors (IE high LDL cholesterol, carcinogens in cigarette smoke for example) present in any one individual. My focus has always been to educate people on what they can control, and maximize the benefit from that aspect. Genetic predisposition MAY be mitigated in the event that the known risk factor (s) for a specific disease in an individual are identified and controlled. So of the leading causes of death in the US, cardiovascular disease and cancer top the list. Cardiovascular disease is largely lifestyle related, with genetic predisposition playing a more minor role. Relative to cancer, lung (smoking, radon exposure), colon (diet) and breast cancer (diet) have a huge lifestyle component as well. Its true that there is a lot of social push back relative to trying to force people into adopting a healthy lifestyle, however this is an individual choice that every person can and should make.

what a shame wrote:

OLD SMTC SOB wrote:

There are certainly...............however the cost to treat is but a drop in the bucket in comparison to the lifestyle related ones, IE atherosclerotic vascular disease (CAD, CVD, RVD, PVD), diabetes, cancer (lung, colon, pancreatic, breast) and hypertension.

so you just decided those diseases are primalily caused by lifestyle choices with no evidence? are you aware how dumb that is?

I didn't decide anything, I just read the research..........and have been for 30+ years.