[Lenser]

Fair. So you agree that AIDS is not a gay issue, but rather a sexual behavior/promiscuity issue, which I always firmly believes.

I don't judge on commitment, which is a personal choice, but should millions of public money be spent to help s very small group who choose to experience extramarital sex, or experimental 3somes/4somes and swinging, knowing the health risks? It should, if the money is unlimited, but due to the budget deficits, I am sure there are better ways to spend it than to help people to have more reckless sex. AIDS is unlike other diseases such as cancer or the flu, which is hard to prevent. Don't have sex with strangers, don't have sex with multiple partners, don't inject drugs into your vein, and you won't catch it.

You are taking some appalling leaps of logic. How do you link the annual Pride event with helping people to have more reckless sex? Do you actually see a direct causal link?

You say you don't judge on commitment, but you certainly judge on this laundry list of things you find horrid: "don't have sex with strangers, don't have sex with multiple partners, don't inject drugs into your vein." Evidently those who don't abide by your moral standards are worthless. Let them die in the gutter.

You conveniently ignore the fact that AIDS carriers can and do spread the disease by sexual contact with those who are allegedly in "committed," monogamous relationships. All sort of people hide their affairs from others, regardless of your personal approval level of said behaviour. If public authorities decided to cut all spending on AIDS education simply because it was deemed too expensive, you don't think we would in time see a spike in the disease rate in the general population? Do you think it would still be "a very small group," nothing to worry about?

You evidently want people to be accountable for their own actions; fine. It's a noble sentiment. But people rarely actually live that way. Health authorities should be prepared to deal with the health issues on the ground rather than aspring to lofty ideals because it's somehow prettier or it's deemed fiscally preferable.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I don't judge on commitment, which is a personal choice, but should millions of public money be spent to help s very small group who choose to experience extramarital sex, or experimental 3somes/4somes and swinging, knowing the health risks? It should, if the money is unlimited, but due to the budget deficits, I am sure there are better ways to spend it than to help people to have more reckless sex. AIDS is unlike other diseases such as cancer or the flu, which is hard to prevent. Don't have sex with strangers, don't have sex with multiple partners, don't inject drugs into your vein, and you won't catch it.

Really, considering the lifestyle risk factors for cancer (tobacco use, diet, level of activity, environmental exposure) and other a good number of other chronic care conditions are pretty well known, easily preventable, and the overall cost to the health system is leaps and bounds higher than HIV/AIDS, perhaps we should stop treating those too? And just what does "having sex with strangers" or "sex with multiple partners" actually meant? One? Two? Ten?

BTW, just to remind you, this "very small group" by and large don't have kids, so why should they, taking your logic, be responsible for the multitude of government expenditures and benefits aimed for the segment of the population that does?

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Yes, and if we're going to start morally judging people before treating them then I think I'd rather opt for a private health care system, thank you very much!

 

[kkgg7]

Really, considering the lifestyle risk factors for cancer (tobacco use, diet, level of activity, environmental exposure) and other a good number of other chronic care conditions are pretty well known, easily preventable, and the overall cost to the health system is leaps and bounds higher than HIV/AIDS, perhaps we should stop treating those too? And just what does "having sex with strangers" or "sex with multiple partners" actually meant? One? Two? Ten?

BTW, just to remind you, this "very small group" by and large don't have kids, so why should they, taking your logic, be responsible for the multitude of government expenditures and benefits aimed for the segment of the population that does?


AoD

I do think the health insurance system should be overhauled. Like you said, many diseases are a lifestyle problem which are due to the person's bad and irresponsible habit. So I don't think it is fair just to cover the healthcare for each other, spreading the cost evenly among all the taxpayers. For example, being fat and getting all the weight related problem is a personal choice (in most cases at least). Therefore, people of healthier lifestyle should pay the high cost of these patients. Not saying we should let the fat people die, but they should pay a higher health premium than others. For example, people with a riskily higher BMI should pay higher healthcare premium every year to cover their higher cost. The same with tabacco users. You can't say "Eating fried chicken and smoke 2 packs of cigarettes everyday is my own business but when I get sick because of this, everyone has to pay my bill!" It is difficult to implement as what kind of bahavior should be considered highly risky needs to be determined, but it should be tried as much as possible.

In Japan, office workers do have a abnormally high BMI are forced to participate in active physical exercies after work. If they are not committed to bring their weight down, their health benefits will be reduced and they would need to pay more out of their own pockets. I think that's an innovative way to encourage healthy living. Only 3.6 percent of Japanese have a BMI over 30, the international standard for obesity, whereas 32.0 percent of Americans do. Canadians stats are probably similar to American.

Regarding your second point, I always support flat tax. Whether one has kids is irrelevant to tax.

 

[kkgg7]

Yes, and if we're going to start morally judging people before treating them then I think I'd rather opt for a private health care system, thank you very much!

no, not "judging" them, but if a person chooses to live unhealthily, the state should force to to pay higher health premium vis-a-vis healthy living people to offset the high risk. It is like in the insurance industry, when you are more likely to incurr a payment, you pay higher insurance premium. It is not about morality, it is about fairness.This will serve as an incentive for most people to be as healthy as they can.

 

[ttk77]

Fair. So you agree that AIDS is not a gay issue, but rather a sexual behavior/promiscuity issue, which I always firmly believes.

Your argument is completely ignorant of historical context. I can see why you get accused of trolling so often.

In the even you truly are ignorant and are not being purposefully obtuse, 30+ years ago an unknown epidemic hit the gay community hard. Gay men were dying by the thousands. People were scared; their closest friends were dropping like flies, and no one knew why. No one knew how to protect themselves. It was eventually discovered that this disease could lay dormant in your system for years or even decades before it made you sick, and by the time people figured out how to protect themselves from it, a massive percentage of the gay community had already been infected. To this day, few people in the community have not been touched in some way by HIV/AIDS. It may not be a gay disease anymore, but to insinuate that it is not a gay issue is an insult to the lives of all those in the community who have died from it, and all those who are still living with it.

 

[Lenser]

kkgg7: why not go all the way and just go to a Logan's Run scenario? When you turn 30, the state executes you. Presto - no more worries about getting old, feeble and sick, with the state being obliged to pick up the tab, suffering terribly for it. Think of the savings! And the cities would suddenly feel less crowded, too.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not saying we should let the fat people die, but they should pay a higher health premium than others.

And if they can't afford it, then what? The state will inevitably be picking up the tab. And frankly, if one's health and well-being isn't incentive enough, I highly doubt that cost will deter unhealthy living. Not to mention, such a scheme will necessitate a significant increase in the amount bureaucracy needed to monitor individuals, plus there is the underlying issue of fairness when health indicators and risk factors aren't as deterministic as you think it is.

AoD

 

[kkgg7]

kkgg7: why not go all the way and just go to a Logan's Run scenario? When you turn 30, the state executes you. Presto - no more worries about getting old, feeble and sick, with the state being obliged to pick up the tab, suffering terribly for it. Think of the savings! And the cities would suddenly feel less crowded, too.

I don't know how you come to this suggestion. Getting old, feeble and sick is a natural process. Everyone does so and of course the state should provide support to take care of the old. Getting old and feeble is not one's own fault, nor a lifestyle choice.

On the other hand, eating 5000 calories and smoke 2 packs of cigarettes every day is not "natural". It is controllable. When you knowingly engaged in risky heath related behaviour and therefore incur much higher social costs than an average person, you should pay a higher price. Why is that unreasonable?

 

[PinkLucy]

But what if you are old and feeble AND you are fat and smoke? What then?

 

[Lenser]

Getting old, feeble and sick is a natural process. Everyone does so and of course the state should provide support to take care of the old. Getting old and feeble is not one's own fault, nor a lifestyle choice.

OK, so how much support should the state give you when you're old and feeble? Do you have some sort of sliding scale you're prepared to discuss? Heck - extending your own logic, why should the state support you at all? They didn't ask for you to get old and feeble, did they? Did they require it of you? Does your existence serve a purpose for them? Or aren't you just really a dried-up old sack of organs that's draining their coffers, one dollar at a time?

Just asking.

 

[kkgg7]

And if they can't afford it, then what? The state will inevitably be picking up the tab. And frankly, if one's health and well-being isn't incentive enough, I highly doubt that cost will deter unhealthy living. Not to mention, such a scheme will necessitate a significant increase in the amount bureaucracy needed to monitor individuals, plus there is the underlying issue of fairness when health indicators and risk factors aren't as deterministic as you think it is.

AoD

I admit it is hard to implement, but it is a good start I would say.
Can't afford it? Tax premium gets deducted from one's salary. I don't think I can afford the $600 Ontario health premium either, it gets deducted anyway. At least make them pay more, maybe not the fair amount.

I agree there is an underlying fairness issue as these indicators are not perfect. But it is at least more fair than NOT consider one's lifestyle and corresponding man-made risks at all and force everyone else to pick up the tab, isn't it?

Why do think Japan has such a lower obesity rate? They must have done something right, and we should at least look at it. When I look at our budget, health care is the biggest chunk by far, and everyone is nitpicking on tiny items representing less than 1% of the total spending, and nobody seems dare to touch healthcare. There is a lot of potential savings and waste I am sure. For example, charging $10 co-payment every time one goes to see a doctor will likely result in reduction of a lot of unnecessary costs.

 

[kkgg7]

OK, so how much support should the state give you when you're old and feeble? Do you have some sort of sliding scale you're prepared to discuss? Heck - extending your own logic, why should the state support you at all? They didn't ask for you to get old and feeble, did they? Did they require it of you? Does your existence serve a purpose for them? Or aren't you just really a dried-up old sack of organs that's draining their coffers, one dollar at a time?

Just asking.

If you REALLY ask me,my view is that everyone should be responsible for his/her own medical expenses. When we are young, do two responsible things 1) save as much as we can 2) stay as fit/healthy as we can. That the state should provide support is what seems to be generally accepted, but it is NOT what I believe. I am not rich, but I save 20% income each month, and I spend 1 hour at the gym 3-4 times a week. Plus I walk most of the time, not drive 800meters to buy a bottle of milk. By doing so, I am minimizing the social burden to the society when I get old.

Is it fair for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy? Is it fair for the rich to subsidize the poor? It is a matter of perspective. The consensus here seems to be yes it is (we should take care of each etc), but I don't necessarily agree. We morally should, but shouldn't be legally forced to. You shouldn't force one to help the other. If you next door neighbour can't pay for the tuition of her daughter, are you willing to chip in? You probably would say, it is his business.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

To bring it back to focus - just what does it all have to do with the mayor refusing to march at the parade?

AoD

 

[ttk77]

If you REALLY ask me,my view is that everyone should be responsible for his/her own medical expenses. When we are young, do two responsible things 1) save as much as we can 2) stay as fit/healthy as we can. That the state should provide support is what seems to be generally accepted, but it is NOT what I believe. I am not rich, but I save 20% income each month, and I spend 1 hour at the gym 3-4 times a week. Plus I walk most of the time, not drive 800meters to buy a bottle of milk. By doing so, I am minimizing the social burden to the society when I get old.

Is it fair for the healthy to subsidize the unhealthy? Is it fair for the rich to subsidize the poor? It is a matter of perspective. The consensus here seems to be yes it is (we should take care of each etc), but I don't necessarily agree. We morally should, but shouldn't be legally forced to. You shouldn't force one to help the other. If you next door neighbour can't pay for the tuition of her daughter, are you willing to chip in? You probably would say, it is his business.

Thankfully the generous still outnumber the selfish.