Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Paying the healthcare costs of obesity
Options
Replies
-
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
So you're been fine, you drop in thr street tomorrow, who's paying a 3-400k medical bill?
They won't let you lay there and die.
They won't have any choice. That's as far as I will expand upon the matter.
@Gallowmere1984 - I've been following the thread and am still wondering how, when you are in a serious accident or have a medical emergency that renders you unconscious, no one will be responsible for treating you or having to pay? And what if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow? You're a pretty young person... would you really not seek treatment past what you could pay for out of your own pocket? BTW, I'm all for personal responsibility and we have always paid our own bills, but it's the catastrophic health event that none of us can afford.2 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »Interesting topic! Especially since I am a tax accountant! However, I think the problem is more deeply rooted. Taxing junk food is likely to be a harder tax hit on the poor. Unfortunately, junk food is way more bang for your buck from a calorie perspective than what the produce department can provide. Plus, we live in such a fast paced society, that's the american, faster quicker better.....It kills me. I wish we could live a little slower paced life, grow some of our own food, take time to cook from scratch, etc....it's just not that simple anymore.... So, no I don't agree with taxing the junk food. Promoting and educating consumers about what they should be eating to stay healthy and providing families with more flexibility at work to live healthy lives, that topic should be up for discussion.
I keep reading things like this, and I ain't buying it. First, people who are so poor that they have to buy junk food, are also probably the demographic that might need to lose weight, and it is not difficult to put together a great 1500 calorie meal plan on $194/month in SNAP benefits for a single person (after consulting with a coworker, this is what her sister qualified for). You can saute a lb of green beans ($1, 144 calories) in a tablespoon of bacon grease (free if you save your drippings, 120 calories) and eat with with a 4-oz chicken breats (42 cents, 140 calories) and maybe some sauteed potatoes (4 oz, 13 cents, 89 calories) for an extremely cheap, healthy, nutritious, 500-calorie lunch. You could go extra-crazy and even throw in some (free!!) dandelion greans if you want even more insane nutrition.
Also, my region has a lot of Burmese and Somalian refugees--talk about poor; yet they all have gardens, and grow the crap out of a ton of produce and grains, as well as foraging the crap out of the local wild mulberry population. It's all a matter of will power and work ethic when it comes to growing and finding free food, unless you are truly in a destitute, living out of your car situation. Most people just don't want to do it.
People in that demographic also often have limited access to kitchens/cooking supplies, as well as food storage and refrigeration. Most food pantries collect non-perishable items that only require a microwave/hotplate or one pot to cook for that reason. Taxing "junk" foods which provide calories with little to no preparation would hit that demographic more than others.1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
So you're been fine, you drop in thr street tomorrow, who's paying a 3-400k medical bill?
They won't let you lay there and die.
They won't have any choice. That's as far as I will expand upon the matter.
@Gallowmere1984 - I've been following the thread and am still wondering how, when you are in a serious accident or have a medical emergency that renders you unconscious, no one will be responsible for treating you or having to pay? And what if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow? You're a pretty young person... would you really not seek treatment past what you could pay for out of your own pocket? BTW, I'm all for personal responsibility and we have always paid our own bills, but it's the catastrophic health event that none of us can afford.
No, I would not. I've actually made several attempts to have a DNR order put in place, but due to my age, no doctor is willing to. Yet another reason that I really dislike the medical community. This life and body belong to me. They need to step away with their opinions and "saving me from myself". Unlike most, I actually apply my feelings on the whole of society to myself as well. I'm no better, nor more deserving of any treatment that I would deny to another person for fiscal reasons. If I can't afford it, it's not mine to have.
And again, I will not expand upon my earlier statement any further.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
So you're been fine, you drop in thr street tomorrow, who's paying a 3-400k medical bill?
They won't let you lay there and die.
They won't have any choice. That's as far as I will expand upon the matter.
@Gallowmere1984 - I've been following the thread and am still wondering how, when you are in a serious accident or have a medical emergency that renders you unconscious, no one will be responsible for treating you or having to pay? And what if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow? You're a pretty young person... would you really not seek treatment past what you could pay for out of your own pocket? BTW, I'm all for personal responsibility and we have always paid our own bills, but it's the catastrophic health event that none of us can afford.
No, I would not. I've actually made several attempts to have a DNR order put in place, but due to my age, no doctor is willing to. Yet another reason that I really dislike the medical community. This life and body belong to me. They need to step away with their opinions and "saving me from myself". Unlike most, I actually apply my feelings on the whole of society to myself as well. I'm no better, nor more deserving of any treatment that I would deny to another person for fiscal reasons. If I can't afford it, it's not mine to have.
And again, I will not expand upon my earlier statement any further.
Respect your feelings, just hoping you enjoy many years of good health, and remain single & childless!
1 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Gallowmere1984 wrote: »Let them pay for it themselves. They did it to themselves. Allow hospitals the right to turn away people who cannot afford to pay for their services.
And this is coming from someone who refuses to have health insurance, so yeah, I'd probably get turned away too. Doesn't change the fact that I don't deserve to receive anyone else's labor value for free.
U nfortunately if you pass put on a street and someone calls 911 the hospital will still treat you and if you can't pay it.the hospital eats the cost.
This isn't the old west where you can just go.out back and die in peace. Sack up and get insurance so the rest of us aren't paying for you
You aren't paying for anything. I haven't been to a doctor or hospital (other than for my CDL physicals, which my company pays for) in more than 20 years. I'm not paying in on a "maybe". Not the gambling type. I've been injured several times in that duration, but the fact is, I utterly loathe the medical provider community, and would quite literally rather die than go to a hospital.
And the fact that you are paying for others is your own fault. The day everyone who pays says no at once, it ends.
So you're been fine, you drop in thr street tomorrow, who's paying a 3-400k medical bill?
They won't let you lay there and die.
They won't have any choice. That's as far as I will expand upon the matter.
@Gallowmere1984 - I've been following the thread and am still wondering how, when you are in a serious accident or have a medical emergency that renders you unconscious, no one will be responsible for treating you or having to pay? And what if you are diagnosed with cancer tomorrow? You're a pretty young person... would you really not seek treatment past what you could pay for out of your own pocket? BTW, I'm all for personal responsibility and we have always paid our own bills, but it's the catastrophic health event that none of us can afford.
No, I would not. I've actually made several attempts to have a DNR order put in place, but due to my age, no doctor is willing to. Yet another reason that I really dislike the medical community. This life and body belong to me. They need to step away with their opinions and "saving me from myself". Unlike most, I actually apply my feelings on the whole of society to myself as well. I'm no better, nor more deserving of any treatment that I would deny to another person for fiscal reasons. If I can't afford it, it's not mine to have.
And again, I will not expand upon my earlier statement any further.
Respect your feelings, just hoping you enjoy many years of good health, and remain single & childless!
I'm all for the single and childless. Though really, they'd only stand to gain from my stance, assuming that they themselves were in good condition. When I did kick the bucket, there would be no unnecessary expenses to worry over, and my "burial" wishes consist of "cheapest possible". Therefore, that would leave my entire involuntary life insurance policy (company provides it for free), plus whatever I have banked as their windfall. xD0 -
CipherZero wrote: »xmichaelyx wrote: »It's funny how many "I'm not paying for insurance because I don't need it" folks wind up with a chronic disease or serious injury and immediately run to the ER and collect their welfare. And then they whine about having to declare bankruptcy, which the rest of us also pay for.
A statistic I read a while ago: 65% of bankruptcies have a root cause of a health crises. 85% of those bankruptcies had health insurance.
Something is fundamentally broken.
We are self-insured. Have been for years. Our standard of living would be different if for not paying the high premiums. I moaned about it for years until I got cancer. Turns out those high premiums are a drop in the bucket compared to paying for cancer treatment. Very thankful for the excellent medical I received and continue to receive.
Medical costs are so high because of the drugs. $25k for 1 cycle of 3 chemo drugs. I had 6 cycles. Plus another drug that was thousands like $125k before I was done.
Just agreeing with this. I ended up with a high risk twin pregnancy (My identical twins shared a placenta and the blood supply for one twin went to the other twin). This pregnancy was so high risk, I had to drive 3 hours one way, out of state twice a week for months, for care. The end cost, about $250,000. We are extremely frugal, we live within our means, we save but that would have ruined us. Thankfully because we also believe that stuff does happen and made sure we had health insurance before getting pregnant, we only ended up paying $7,000 out of pocket by the time it was all said and done. For the record, my boys are healthy ten year olds now.
3 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »Interesting topic! Especially since I am a tax accountant! However, I think the problem is more deeply rooted. Taxing junk food is likely to be a harder tax hit on the poor. Unfortunately, junk food is way more bang for your buck from a calorie perspective than what the produce department can provide. Plus, we live in such a fast paced society, that's the american, faster quicker better.....It kills me. I wish we could live a little slower paced life, grow some of our own food, take time to cook from scratch, etc....it's just not that simple anymore.... So, no I don't agree with taxing the junk food. Promoting and educating consumers about what they should be eating to stay healthy and providing families with more flexibility at work to live healthy lives, that topic should be up for discussion.
I keep reading things like this, and I ain't buying it. First, people who are so poor that they have to buy junk food, are also probably the demographic that might need to lose weight, and it is not difficult to put together a great 1500 calorie meal plan on $194/month in SNAP benefits for a single person (after consulting with a coworker, this is what her sister qualified for). You can saute a lb of green beans ($1, 144 calories) in a tablespoon of bacon grease (free if you save your drippings, 120 calories) and eat with with a 4-oz chicken breats (42 cents, 140 calories) and maybe some sauteed potatoes (4 oz, 13 cents, 89 calories) for an extremely cheap, healthy, nutritious, 500-calorie lunch. You could go extra-crazy and even throw in some (free!!) dandelion greans if you want even more insane nutrition.
Also, my region has a lot of Burmese and Somalian refugees--talk about poor; yet they all have gardens, and grow the crap out of a ton of produce and grains, as well as foraging the crap out of the local wild mulberry population. It's all a matter of will power and work ethic when it comes to growing and finding free food, unless you are truly in a destitute, living out of your car situation. Most people just don't want to do it.
People in that demographic also often have limited access to kitchens/cooking supplies, as well as food storage and refrigeration. Most food pantries collect non-perishable items that only require a microwave/hotplate or one pot to cook for that reason. Taxing "junk" foods which provide calories with little to no preparation would hit that demographic more than others.
I also think there's a correlation between having an unsatisfying job and maybe two to make ends meet and not much else in your life that's all that pleasurable and using junk food as a cheap pleasure. It's understandable, even if not the best decision. And similarly, while the food desert areas in my city have public transportation so you can go elsewhere, there's often a long travel time or inconvenience involved which I can understand someone tired and stressed not wanting to add to their day (especially if childcare or bringing the children along is an issue), among some other things. Not saying it's impossible, but it's harder. Also depending on where you live a functional garden is more or less possible. (There are actually some good programs here for urban gardening in some of the worst neighborhoods, because land is cheap.) Add to everything fear of crime and various social/cultural traditions about food, even if one was raised functionally enough and with the equipment to learn to cook.2 -
One day last fall I was doing hill repeats on my bike, in my neighborhood. You know, improving cardiovascular fitness and burning calories, being healthy.
A car ran a red light and hit me, it was going 35 to 40 mph at the time. $20,000 bill from the hospital.
I'm lucky the driver stopped. And had insurance. A lot of people aren't so lucky.1 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »Interesting topic! Especially since I am a tax accountant! However, I think the problem is more deeply rooted. Taxing junk food is likely to be a harder tax hit on the poor. Unfortunately, junk food is way more bang for your buck from a calorie perspective than what the produce department can provide. Plus, we live in such a fast paced society, that's the american, faster quicker better.....It kills me. I wish we could live a little slower paced life, grow some of our own food, take time to cook from scratch, etc....it's just not that simple anymore.... So, no I don't agree with taxing the junk food. Promoting and educating consumers about what they should be eating to stay healthy and providing families with more flexibility at work to live healthy lives, that topic should be up for discussion.
I keep reading things like this, and I ain't buying it. First, people who are so poor that they have to buy junk food, are also probably the demographic that might need to lose weight, and it is not difficult to put together a great 1500 calorie meal plan on $194/month in SNAP benefits for a single person (after consulting with a coworker, this is what her sister qualified for). You can saute a lb of green beans ($1, 144 calories) in a tablespoon of bacon grease (free if you save your drippings, 120 calories) and eat with with a 4-oz chicken breats (42 cents, 140 calories) and maybe some sauteed potatoes (4 oz, 13 cents, 89 calories) for an extremely cheap, healthy, nutritious, 500-calorie lunch. You could go extra-crazy and even throw in some (free!!) dandelion greans if you want even more insane nutrition.
Also, my region has a lot of Burmese and Somalian refugees--talk about poor; yet they all have gardens, and grow the crap out of a ton of produce and grains, as well as foraging the crap out of the local wild mulberry population. It's all a matter of will power and work ethic when it comes to growing and finding free food, unless you are truly in a destitute, living out of your car situation. Most people just don't want to do it.
People in that demographic also often have limited access to kitchens/cooking supplies, as well as food storage and refrigeration. Most food pantries collect non-perishable items that only require a microwave/hotplate or one pot to cook for that reason. Taxing "junk" foods which provide calories with little to no preparation would hit that demographic more than others.jmbmilholland wrote: »Interesting topic! Especially since I am a tax accountant! However, I think the problem is more deeply rooted. Taxing junk food is likely to be a harder tax hit on the poor. Unfortunately, junk food is way more bang for your buck from a calorie perspective than what the produce department can provide. Plus, we live in such a fast paced society, that's the american, faster quicker better.....It kills me. I wish we could live a little slower paced life, grow some of our own food, take time to cook from scratch, etc....it's just not that simple anymore.... So, no I don't agree with taxing the junk food. Promoting and educating consumers about what they should be eating to stay healthy and providing families with more flexibility at work to live healthy lives, that topic should be up for discussion.
I keep reading things like this, and I ain't buying it. First, people who are so poor that they have to buy junk food, are also probably the demographic that might need to lose weight, and it is not difficult to put together a great 1500 calorie meal plan on $194/month in SNAP benefits for a single person (after consulting with a coworker, this is what her sister qualified for). You can saute a lb of green beans ($1, 144 calories) in a tablespoon of bacon grease (free if you save your drippings, 120 calories) and eat with with a 4-oz chicken breats (42 cents, 140 calories) and maybe some sauteed potatoes (4 oz, 13 cents, 89 calories) for an extremely cheap, healthy, nutritious, 500-calorie lunch. You could go extra-crazy and even throw in some (free!!) dandelion greans if you want even more insane nutrition.
Also, my region has a lot of Burmese and Somalian refugees--talk about poor; yet they all have gardens, and grow the crap out of a ton of produce and grains, as well as foraging the crap out of the local wild mulberry population. It's all a matter of will power and work ethic when it comes to growing and finding free food, unless you are truly in a destitute, living out of your car situation. Most people just don't want to do it.
People in that demographic also often have limited access to kitchens/cooking supplies, as well as food storage and refrigeration. Most food pantries collect non-perishable items that only require a microwave/hotplate or one pot to cook for that reason. Taxing "junk" foods which provide calories with little to no preparation would hit that demographic more than others.
Well, this is the problem right here. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that you can create that whole meal with a single pan and a spoon. You just keep the grease in a tin can under the sink. Keep the potatoes and beans on the counter. If you lack basic refrigeration that is a complicating factor for meats but as noted above this doesn't apply to the slim tranche of SNAP users who are living out of a car, a box, a tent, or just about.
I am also staunchly against taxing junk foods. I just feel like people could empower themselves by doing what their grandparents did.0 -
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
Current HSA's aren't that great. If you don't use it, you lose it at the end of the year. An HSA that rolled over every year that you didn't use it up would be great! You could accumulate quite a savings in your healthy years. It would be like self-insuring. I already have a savings account set aside for medical emergencies, but since it's not an HSA, it doesn't save me anything on taxes. I'm not sure about requiring a set amount or capping the amount you can put in or that can roll over. I'd like to be able to choose what I put in.0 -
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
Current HSA's aren't that great. If you don't use it, you lose it at the end of the year. An HSA that rolled over every year that you didn't use it up would be great! You could accumulate quite a savings in your healthy years. It would be like self-insuring. I already have a savings account set aside for medical emergencies, but since it's not an HSA, it doesn't save me anything on taxes. I'm not sure about requiring a set amount or capping the amount you can put in or that can roll over. I'd like to be able to choose what I put in.
Are you sure you don't mean an FSA? HSAs rollover every year. I've got about 5 years' worth of accumulated savings in mine.2 -
This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.2
-
I've always thought that an HSA would be the right solution for the healthcare issue (to include obesity). Individuals would be required to save a portion of their pay (before taxes) for broadly defined healthcare expenses. They could use these funds at their discretion for things like normal health costs, lasik, weight loss surgery, Insurance premiums, almost anything health related. These funds could also be willed or donated.
As people begin working while young, they will likely build up a surplus. This could be coupled high deductible insurance at affordable rates. It could also cause deflation in the lower healthcare market as people will be more judicious with their funds.
Current HSA's aren't that great. If you don't use it, you lose it at the end of the year. An HSA that rolled over every year that you didn't use it up would be great! You could accumulate quite a savings in your healthy years. It would be like self-insuring. I already have a savings account set aside for medical emergencies, but since it's not an HSA, it doesn't save me anything on taxes. I'm not sure about requiring a set amount or capping the amount you can put in or that can roll over. I'd like to be able to choose what I put in.
Yeah, in my experience what you are talking about is a flexible spending account, which is stupid compared to an HSA. I had one this year and chose not to renew it.0 -
happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.0 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
My friend is in her 30s and has a three-year-old. She got rectal cancer and caught it early. She had surgery and 6 chemo treatments. There's no way she would have been able to afford that. She's healthy now. You REALLY think she should have just died before her life was halfway over, leaving her kid without a mom? I would have lost my dad to cancer when he was 49 and I was 17. He's turning 60 this year and has had a great, healthy past 11 years. He intends to have many more. It's not just "a few extra years" for many, many people.13 -
Gallowmere1984 wrote: »happysquidmuffin wrote: »This discussion is fascinating. I still feel though, that Gallowmere hasn't really answered the question: Is someone who ends up having a catastrophic emergency which they cannot pay for simply supposed to be discharged and die, since they cannot pay for it? If you got cancer, and ran out of money halfway through treatment, would you just stop? I find it hard to believe you have absolutely no drive for self-preservation and have such a la-di-da attitude about life and a person's worth based on their ability to pay their own way, etc.
I did answer it, and the answer is yes. I've seen what cancer treatment does to people (many times). So far as I am concerned, the best cure for it travels at 600 feet per second. I cannot fathom someone being willing to endure the treatment, let alone the financial burden, in order to snatch a few extra years from the tree of life. Kids, I am a bit more understanding of. That's who we SHOULD be investing in, but no, most of the acailable funding is sopped up by those who's live are effectively already over.
You do realize that many people can be healthy after cancer treatment right? Some show no evidence of disease for many years after treatment and die of old age.
4 -
*ignorance
The great majority of cancers are no longer a death sentence. How about my girlfriend who is mother of four and foster mother to a half-dozen children, who fifteen years ago was diagnosed with stage 3 breast cancer? The treatment itself nearly killed her. Would a bullet have solved the dilemma for all the people whose lives she has touched since? She still treats every year as a bonus, which I think makes her an even more amazing person....and example.5 -
As I said, it's usually impossible to be objective when one has personally benefited from something.2
-
I do feel that the HSA solution could also help to fund at least a portion of the cost to care for those unable to pay due to whatever circumstances. There would undoubtedly be some slippage as people would pass with no next of kin. Likewise, people could donate these their HSA monies to charities that would pay some of those bills.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 996 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions