OT Healthcare

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Well, besides that it's not just people who "eat potato chips and ice cream" all day, it's also people who don't have jobs that offer them decent health care options, or as with a friend of mine, has to spend 700 a month because of her health issues (that aren't related to ice cream and potato chip consumption).

But mostly, as CN said, it's actually cheaper to pay for everyone, instead of having to cover the costs of the uninsured/underinsured.

But i never said all people. I just said i dont want to pay for those peoples choices.

Health care should be individualist based on an individuals needs vs risks they take.


If we all pay into it im fine but those with higher risks need to pay more into it.
When i say higher risks, i mean choices. Not dissabilities.
 
someone with diabetes will have a higher premium…

so should someone who was born with diabetes, did nothing to cause it and their only behavior that created the situation was simply being born, be forced to pay more?
 
Why are we talking about health insurance costs without talking about the benefits as well?

The most important resource of a modern economy is the human capital. A healthy work force is good for the economy, even if it cost more for universal health care (it would not) - it would still be worth it for the economy at large.

Arguing against investing in the most important resource for the economy would be like shouting against investing in machinery for a factory or vehicles for a transportation company. It's grade A idiotic.
 
so should someone who was born with diabetes, did nothing to cause it and their only behavior that created the situation was simply being born, be forced to pay for?

yes. Its unfortunate but its reality.

Read. Above though it might explain a bit more of my opinion on this.
 
Why are we talking about health insurance costs without talking about the benefits as well?

The most important resource of a modern economy is the human capital. A healthy work force is good for the economy, even if it cost more for universal health care (it would not) - it would still be worth it for the economy at large.

Arguing against investing in the most important resource for the economy would be like shouting against investing in machinery for a factory or vehicles for a transportation company. It's grade A idiotic.

so idiotic no one has figured it out in this country yet. Every person in this country is an idiot then.
 
Wow, that is heartless.

did you read above? Did you catch my opinion on health risks being a choice not a disability? So on your instance yes they should be covered. Its not a choice to have diabetes. But they still need to pay in.
 
so idiotic no one has figured it out in this country yet. Every person in this country is an idiot then.

Another logic failure. Only the people that do not understand that you need to invest in the resources required for a strong economy to rip the benefits are the idiots.
 
Another logic failure. Only the people that do not understand that you need to invest in the resources required for a strong economy to rip the benefits are the idiots.

so every leader who has not pushed for this is an idiot. Got it.
 
were all entitled to our own opinions.
Mine being i dont want to pay for other peoples unhealthy habits is by far not isolated and is indeed a widespread consensus among many.
I could also say that anyones stance that tbinks i should have to pay for someone else who wants to eat potato chips and ice ream all day is complete bullshit too.
Who actually thinks they have the right or is in the dight demanding one person to lay for another persons consequences when making open conscious decisions that hinder their health?

thats complete bullshit to think i should have to do that.
You're advocating spending twice as much so you can punish fat people and keep them fat. Just like you advocate spending 4 times as much to punish homeless people and keep them homeless.

While this is effective at making the problem worse it is not good public policy.

This is why we need more investment in education rather than less.

In response to McDonald's introducing the Quarter Pounder A&W introduced a 1/3 lb burger at a lower price to compete.

Unfortunately too many Americans thought the 1/4 was larger than 1/3, and hence thought the Quarter Pounder was a better deal, so A&W dropped it...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Okay too many hopping on the band wagon.
Im not for paying more into a health are system that doesn't hold high riskers due to lifestyle, responsible. Period.
Hate me for it or think I'm a bad person, idgaf.
Nobody is advocating for that. You would be paying less.
 
Lets put it another way. Most of you who disagree with my opinion would consider the following to be perfectly fine.
An unvaccinated person should not get help before a vaccinated person if they get covid and meed health care.

How can this same thought process not be equated to other health risks?

a person who eats potato chips all day shouldn't get help before someone who eats fruits and vegetables. Or they should pay more.


If one doesn't agree with that them there is a serious double standard going on.
Ill just leave it at that.
 
oh come on. You know we all take a survey and health insurance premiums are based upon our risks. A smoker pays more than a nonsmoker.

nice try. :)
Not true. Everybody in the company gets the same rate, except they charge less for individuals vs married and families.
 
Not true. Everybody in the company gets the same rate, except they charge less for individuals vs married and families.

your wrong. I compared tow years ago with a coworker who is married without children just like me. The only real difference is they are both smokers. They pay more.
How is that possible?
 
Lets put it another way. Most of you who disagree with my opinion would consider the following to be perfectly fine.
An unvaccinated person should not get help before a vaccinated person if they get covid and meed health care.

How can this same thought process not be equated to other health risks?

a person who eats potato chips all day shouldn't get help before someone who eats fruits and vegetables. Or they should pay more.


If one doesn't agree with that them there is a serious double standard going on.
Ill just leave it at that.

This right here.
Im done until someone can logically refute this.
 
someone with diabetes will have a higher premium…
My son is 11, plays sports and is healthy. We are having a blast paying for all of his insulin, supplies, pump, CGM. For a disease he didn’t “deserve” due to lifestyle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
But i never said all people. I just said i dont want to pay for those peoples choices.

Health care should be individualist based on an individuals needs vs risks they take.


If we all pay into it im fine but those with higher risks need to pay more into it.
When i say higher risks, i mean choices. Not dissabilities.

My son is 11, plays sports and is healthy. We are having a blast paying for all of his insulin, supplies, pump, CGM. For a disease he didn’t “deserve” due to lifestyle.

i clarified above.
 
OB honestly this is one of those times someone should have an open mind and try to get educated about the issue. Healthcare for everyone isn’t just some socialist handout. It’s life and death, it’s the economy, it’s not just some additional cost - there is so much waste in healthcare and so much abuse of spending/charging, it’s criminal. It needs to be cleaned up and we need healthier people.
 
did you read above? Did you catch my opinion on health risks being a choice not a disability? So on your instance yes they should be covered. Its not a choice to have diabetes. But they still need to pay in.

You do know people who are healthy get diabetes, right? My grandfather had it, but he was always in good shape, fought for this country in the war, didn't drink, didn't smoke, didn't sit on the couch eating ice cream and potato chips.

Again, heartless.
 
Lets put it another way. Most of you who disagree with my opinion would consider the following to be perfectly fine.
An unvaccinated person should not get help before a vaccinated person if they get covid and meed health care.

How can this same thought process not be equated to other health risks?

a person who eats potato chips all day shouldn't get help before someone who eats fruits and vegetables. Or they should pay more.


If one doesn't agree with that them there is a serious double standard going on.
Ill just leave it at that.
You're comparing a triage situation with a typical healthcare situation.
These are not the same. But yes, in an emergency triage situation (meaning not enough care for both) if you have to choose between giving a heart transplant to a 600 lb person and a 180 lb person you would give it to the 180 lb person.

Completely agree. The operation has a far higher chance of success.

Just like the unvaccinated are currently CAUSING the shortage of healthcare, choosing to disregard the advice and pleas of healthcare workers, so every person who is following medical advice to limit the shortage should be given a bed, even if that means denying a bed to a person who chose to disregard medical advise until they were on their death bed.

Absolutely. I'm glad we agree on these points.
 
your wrong. I compared tow years ago with a coworker who is married without children just like me. The only real difference is they are both smokers. They pay more.
How is that possible?
It's possible your employer and their provider have that agreement. I've never taken a survey that included a question about smoking for healthcare, so I assume my company doesn't do that. Or maybe I just don't pay attention since I don't smoke? So I guess I could be misremembering on the smoking point.

But again, that is somebody choosing to put a known poison into their body. Totally different than somebody with diabetes or who eats unhealthy food that the government subsidizes to make more affordable for the masses (like your potato chip example).

And again, under my proposal, every American would be paying the same as they are currently paying or less (there would be no premiums).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RR7
Can we keep this thread about Covid-19 please?
At the beginning of Covid's spread, the obesity rate in the United States stood at 42.4%, up from 30.5% just twenty years ago. If the overweight category is included too, the number jumps to a shocking 73.6% of the US population.

Just this August, JAMA reported that obesity in American children ages 5 to 11 had increased during the pandemic from 36.2% to 45.7%; disturbingly, data was only gathered through January 2021, so the number may be even higher now. When viewed in the light of obesity's proven association with Covid, the consequences of these figures become dire indeed. From a physiological standpoint, it makes sense that the overweight and obese struggle with Covid and the havoc it wreaks on the lungs. Obesity impairs normal respiratory mechanics and is an underlying cause of serious chronic disease, including type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and cardiovascular disease – all of which also correlate with poor outcomes in coronavirus patients.

The benefits of using the immediacy of the Covid pandemic to address America's obesity problem are clear, but ironically, it almost seems that authority figures, public policies, and social phenomena have actively opposed efforts to stay physically fit.

Citizens by the millions have been obligated by their governments to stay home, watching streaming services or playing video games, ordering processed, calorie-dense delivery junk food. Months upon months of behavioral habits won't disappear soon or without effort; the obesity rates keep rising. The irony would be almost comical, were the consequences to health and life not so dire. Link
 
Of course. Again. You must have missed the health risk CHOICE i explained.
Again. Reading comprehension. :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top