Stronger Pot Causes Governmental Policy Shift

[The Emperor Fabulous]

I played rugby for two years. I now have pain running from my lower back to my right calf, mostly because of a situation in my lower back. I knew what the dangers were when I joined the team. When I'm older and I need doctor's help, etc, should I be denied medicare?

[chequita guevara]

Dancing cows don't get free healthcare.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

You'd be surpised how good care is under Moodicare.

Ok, sorry, that pun was udderly pointless...

[chequita guevara]

I suppose you're going to try and milk these puns for all you can?

[Berzerker]

No, because the medicare money is supposed to go to people who deserve it (on the theory that those who cannot help their ailments have a right to demand treatment from society - something I'm not necessarily supporting, but since it's here we might as well deal with it), so not deserving the money doesn't remove your obligation as a member of society to provide that right.

God, where do I begin? Most everyone (aside from actually dying from old age) with an ailment could have helped it before they got the ailment, diet, exercise, lifestyle choices, etc... People who pay into the Medicare program "deserve" it by virtue of the fact they payed into the program, that was the "promise" made by the politicians who created the program. So how you got the notion that Medicare was "supposed" to go to people you think deserve it requires a question - did you create Medicare? If not, then you have no right to re-define the program to exclude people who were promised some return on their compelled participation.

As for this "obligation", do you have an actual contract upon which the rest of us agreed to pay for other people's health care? No, so don't stick people with "obligations" you've dreamt up, it's bad enough people are forced to pay taxes so politicians can buy votes; don't add insult to injury by claiming we have an "obligation" to let people steal from us.

Second, your understanding of what "rights" are is flawed, no one has a right to force you to pay for my health care any more than I have a right to force you to practice my religion. Rights belong to individuals and they cannot oblige others to act on our behalf. When "civil rights" are created that violate this standard, immorality has been legislated.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I see a string of five posts without Diss contradicting anything

Yeah, he gets kinda random at times.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


It's not a "perceived" "bad" habit, it's a habit that has a known, quantifiable, and detrimental effect on your health, one that would increase the amount of money you would have to claim from medicare. Sorry, no, if you get lung cancer from smoking it's your own fault.

Smokers actually save programs like Medicare money because they die earlier and suck up less money during those extraordinarily medically expensive later years. Plus they also save money paid out for Social Security etc. If they died in middle age in significant numbers then you'd have a point (we'd lose tax money from their prime earning years), but they don't.

[Evil Knevil]

Re: Drug Laws.

As long as the law ignores me, I'll ignore it

However, personally, I can't take pot. Last time I did, it triggered a flashback

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
It's not a "perceived" "bad" habit, it's a habit that has a known, quantifiable, and detrimental effect on your health, one that would increase the amount of money you would have to claim from medicare. Sorry, no, if you get lung cancer from smoking it's your own fault.

While I was refering to smoking, there are many other bad habits that lead to other medical problems, mostly when it comes to ones diet. If you are going to pick on one group, you would then have to pick on all other "perceived" bad habits... including eating too much fat, drinking, and other such things.

While smoking does increase the probability of getting cancer, not all people who smoke get cancer, and people who don't smoke still get lung cancer... So your comment that it will increase the amount of money you claim isn't necessarily true... My comment was, if you are going to disqualify me from ever being able to claim funds just because I smoke, you have no right to make me pay to support others.

While Kuciwalker raises an interesting point

No, because the medicare money is supposed to go to people who deserve it (on the theory that those who cannot help their ailments have a right to demand treatment from society - something I'm not necessarily supporting, but since it's here we might as well deal with it), so not deserving the money doesn't remove your obligation as a member of society to provide that right.

I would disagree... I have no problem paying into programs that help people... AND that would help me if I were in a situation to need the help. I would have a problem paying into a system (let's say welfare) where I was told up front, even if you lose your job and are desperate for help, you won't get a dime, even though you have to pay into the system. That would be a BIG a problem... and that is what Kuciwalker is advocating

And before people jump in with the obligation to society crap... I give money to charity voluntarily... That is a choice I make. But it when it comes to my taxes going to social programs, whether it's welfare, medicaid or other such programs... I do demand the right to the same bennifits if I should ever be in a situation to need them.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by The Emperor Fabulous
I played rugby for two years. I now have pain running from my lower back to my right calf, mostly because of a situation in my lower back. I knew what the dangers were when I joined the team. When I'm older and I need doctor's help, etc, should I be denied medicare?

If it's your own fault, then yes.

[The Emperor Fabulous]

Since its obvious you've decided to keep your head lodged in your nether regions, there's no point in arguing with you, so I will just quote Berz...

Most everyone (aside from actually dying from old age) with an ailment could have helped it before they got the ailment, diet, exercise, lifestyle choices, etc... People who pay into the Medicare program "deserve" it by virtue of the fact they payed into the program, that was the "promise" made by the politicians who created the program.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
God, where do I begin? Most everyone (aside from actually dying from old age) with an ailment could have helped it before they got the ailment, diet, exercise, lifestyle choices, etc...

The difference being they didn't make a clear-cut choice that increases dramatically the amount of money medicare would have to pay them.

People who pay into the Medicare program "deserve" it by virtue of the fact they payed into the program, that was the "promise" made by the politicians who created the program.

Actually, even those who HAVEN'T payed medicare taxes can get money from it (and people pay taxes in different amounts). So ANYONE "deserves" it on the basis of they're right to treatment. I'd say it's absurd to make this right extend to problems that are the receiver's own fault.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ming
While smoking does increase the probability of getting cancer, not all people who smoke get cancer, and people who don't smoke still get lung cancer... So your comment that it will increase the amount of money you claim isn't necessarily true... My comment was, if you are going to disqualify me from ever being able to claim funds just because I smoke, you have no right to make me pay to support others.

Let me clarify: you can't claim funds to treat something that's your own fault. Clearly it wouldn't affect, say, alzheimer's medication. Just lung cancer.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Let me clarify: you can't claim funds to treat something that's your own fault. Clearly it wouldn't affect, say, alzheimer's medication. Just lung cancer.

People who DON'T smoke can get lung cancer, so should they be denied coverage? And if your answer is no...

While the chance of lung cancer increase for those that smoke, it is impossible to determine if smoking actually caused it.

It's all fine and dandy to say if it's your own fault, you don't deserve coverage... but then it comes back to proof. Where do you draw the line, and how can you possible be fair about it.

What about people that eat fast food... should they not be covered if they have heart problems later? What about people that get sun tans... skin cancer is a big problem... but do you deny people coverage because somewhere in the past, they went to a tanning salon?

[Mr. Harley]

Two clarifications. First, a limited number of hard drugs will cause psychotic behavior with normal use. The two I know of off hand are Angel Dust (PCP) and meth. In fact, methamphetamine pyschosis is a well documented result of routine use of that substance, though I would have to get my wife's DSM IV out to get the technical term and she just left so our little girl could get her vaccines. I would ban those, and only those drugs. If you want a benchmark, use alchohol as we have already determined that it represents an acceptable level of societal risk. As an aside, I've never heard of someone coming home and beating their spouse/children after toking pot. It's a stupid habit (pot) but part of being a true libetarian is supporting those things you DON'T approve of.

Secondly, as the admittedly tobacco industry funded study in the Czech Republic showed, and what anybody with any kind of a basic grasp of statistics comprehends, we are all going to die. Most expenses, if my memory serves me correctly, occur in the last two years of life, especially in the last six months. Whether you are fat, smoke, or a healthy triathelete, you will have a "last six months." The best video I ever saw on that was when I took my fiancee's (now wife) dog to the vet, and as they worked me in I watched a video on "How to prevent the premature death of your pet." We need to take that attitude towards death in general.

Now your family and spouse may prefer that death comes for you later rather than sooner, in fact, that's my preference for me. That's why I don't smoke, don't use drugs, try to watch my weight and exercise, while taking my drugs because I chose the wrong grandparents. I strongly suspect if I would blow an aneurism now, it would cost alot less than if I live until 80 with let's say two bypasses, several angioplasties, and rehab for a stroke in my 70's. On the insurance bit, let's look at reasonable versus unreasonable expense and find some middle ground that balances personal responsibility with the reality health care is ALWAYS rationed, if not de facto then economically. Look at Mickey Mantle and his liver transplant. 'nuff said.