"The NHS is a precious thing. Try being ill in the US if you don’t believe this"

@wajoma said
So Ewe agree with my statement: People who abuse their health and are reckless with their health require greater healthcare.

Of course.
You are just saying (albeit tangentially) that people who make themselves
unhealthy are unhealthy. That's not really saying anything, is it?

I would agree with you that that those who partake of dangerous activities
such as rock-climbing or scuba-diving should pay an insurance premium.
But nobody chooses to be fat or unfit, they are just a product of an unfettered
advertising industry and lack of education. Would you support more money
invested in education and legislation on advertising?

@wolfgang59 said
But nobody chooses to be fat or unfit, they are just a product of an unfetteredadvertising industry and lack of education. Would you support more moneyinvested in education and legislation on advertising?

You truly are a idiot in an ivory tower.

@divegeester

The Divvy & Wacky Show!
(to the soundtrack of Itchy & Scratchy)

@wolfgang59 said
@divegeester

The Divvy & Wacky Show!
(to the soundtrack of Itchy & Scratchy)

Stop pissing about on the Internet, get off your lazy arse and make some use of your last bit of life you have left. At least clean your own house ffs!

@kazetnagorra said
Being on Medicare doesn't prevent seeking private treatment, does it? So why would Medicare-for-all be any different?

Because, at least Warren's proposal, is a single payer system that would ban private insurance.

If you ban private insurance, every doctor (or almost every doctor) would have to conform the federal insurance requirements to survive. Doctors would have not the freedom to choose which insurance's rules conform to their schedule and practice preferences.

https://slate.com/business/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-health-care-transition-medicare-for-all.html

@sh76 said
Because, at least Warren's proposal, is a single payer system that would ban private insurance.

If you ban private insurance, every doctor (or almost every doctor) would have to conform the federal insurance requirements to survive. Doctors would have not the freedom to choose which insurance's rules conform to their schedule and practice preferences.

https://slate.com/business/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-health-care-transition-medicare-for-all.html

Yeah, that's a bad idea. Private health care can help highlight shortcomings in the public system, if people opt for the private option en masse. Some people who are loaded will always choose private because of more comfortable hospital beds, more tasty meals or more channels on the TV, stuff like that, which is fine by me.

@wajoma said
So Ewe agree with my statement: People who abuse their health and are reckless with their health require greater healthcare.

So we should help inform them about healthier choices so they require less health care.

@kazetnagorra said
So we should help inform them about healthier choices so they require less health care.

When you say 'we' you do not speak for everyone, you've got your pet project i.e. telling obese people they're killing themselves, good luck with that.

Abusing your health leads to bad health outcomes, wolfgang commented it was like saying nothing because it is so self evident (even though it took 10 posts of him being a contrarian awkward little bytch to get him to admit to it).

People who are reckless and careless with their health should bear the costs of being reckless and careless, this should not be loaded onto those that make an effort to lead healthy lifestyles. Nor is it the duty of healthy folk to inform sloths who sit all day playing video games that they're damaging their health. That they 'should' go and knock on their door to tell them 'hey you're ruining your health' is debatable.

So long as you're taking a break from the 'must' inform through goobermint force we'll let it go.

@wajoma said
So Ewe agree with my statement: People who abuse their health and are reckless with their health require greater healthcare.

On average, yes.

But there are plenty of people who do not "abuse their health" nor "are reckless with their health" who get medical conditions that require extensive healthcare. There also are people who do "abuse their health" who do not require greater healthcare (than average anyway).

Your reliance on a "just world" hypothesis is misplaced.

@sh76 said
Because, at least Warren's proposal, is a single payer system that would ban private insurance.

If you ban private insurance, every doctor (or almost every doctor) would have to conform the federal insurance requirements to survive. Doctors would have not the freedom to choose which insurance's rules conform to their schedule and practice preferences.

https://slate.com/business/2019/11/elizabeth-warren-health-care-transition-medicare-for-all.html

Most single payer proposals would ban private insurance but then wouldn't ban private medical practices. If you wanted to pay cash for your medical treatment, you could so you'd still have choice you do now i.e. to use out of network providers.

@no1marauder said
Most single payer proposals would ban private insurance but then wouldn't ban private medical practices. If you wanted to pay cash for your medical treatment, you could so you'd still have choice you do now i.e. to use out of network providers.

No, because you're also paying for UHC which reduces your ability to go private.

This is the control freaks sleight of hand trick, they try to make it appear UHC pops out of the hat by majic.

@no1marauder said
On average, yes.

But there are plenty of people who do not "abuse their health" nor "are reckless with their health" who get medical conditions that require extensive healthcare. There also are people who do "abuse their health" who do not require greater healthcare (than average anyway).

Your reliance on a "just world" hypothesis is misplaced.

And here it is, No1 admits his philosophy is based on throwing out that which is just.

@wajoma said
And here it is, No1 admits his philosophy is based on throwing out that which is just.

I don't see anything "just" in letting a poor person's child die because it has leukemia, which is what would be the practical consequences of your philosophy.

Healthcare shouldn't be dependent on such arbitrary factors as how much money your family has; that is nothing "just" about such a capricious system.

@wajoma said
No, because you're also paying for UHC which reduces your ability to go private.

This is the control freaks sleight of hand trick, they try to make it appear UHC pops out of the hat by majic.

That is your nonsensical take; no one is trying to hide that a government health care system would require taxpayer funds.