Why Must Everything Be a Medical Condition? (no guns or fracking)

[billvon 2,991]

> Because if auto was treated like health insurance, it would cover oil changes, gas,
>tires, brakes and car washes.

?? There are plenty of health insurance policies that cover catastrophic injury only. I get such a policy when I travel to places like Thailand and Belize to skydive. It only covers things like hospitalization for traumatic injury, medical evacuation etc.

Likewise there are plenty of "full coverage" car maintenance programs you can get that cover oil changes, brakes etc. My dealer tried to sell me one when I bought our last car. You pay more but for some people it's worth it.

[wmw999 2,445]

The thread on medical conditions vs. personality defects (in which I argued for medical conditions) had me forgetting my sister-in-law's personal experience with medical conditions. She works with diabetics, and says that way, way, too many of them kind of sit back and say "Fix me." No, they don't want to change their diet, or get any exercise. They miss appointments, they don't have enough money for their medicine but they still smoke. They want a sleeping pill to help them get to sleep at night (even though they have a couple of drinks,which will also wake them up). They drink lots of coke and coffee during the day to wake them up.

I don't deal with patients; most of my friends are reasonably responsible, and the homeless people I volunteer with are disfunctional in many ways.

But I have a feeling that the op is talking about the "fix me" types, and I'm talking about the "my friend" types. Either that, or we're both trolling and arguing because we kinda like it

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lawrocket 3]

I agree 100%. But there was also something that you wrote that, in my experience in health care and from conversations with health care providers, is a key factor identified:

[Quote]They don't have enough money for their medicine but they still...

Those who aren't paying for their treatment will feel more entitled. To them, health care is a right - something given to them. The entitlement breeds the thought that someone else will take care of me.

That's the "moral hazard" I discussed. When the costs of the risky behavior are borne by others, there is an inducement to risky behavior. "Fix me" is pretty much a textbook example of it. They smoke, drink and eat poorly. Others pay for their treatment and others are responsible for ficing what they broke and keep broken.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

lawrocket

Others pay for their treatment and others are responsible for ficing what they broke and keep broken.

...the way I see it, ladies, is you owe me for one jelly doughnut!

[DanG 1]

Quote

That's the moral hazard" I discussed. When the costs of the risky behavior are borne by others, there is an inducement to risky behavior. "Fix me" is pretty much a textbook example of it. They smoke, drink and eat poorly.

Or they, like, jump out of planes for fun.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

That's the moral hazard" I discussed. When the costs of the risky behavior are borne by others, there is an inducement to risky behavior. "Fix me" is pretty much a textbook example of it. They smoke, drink and eat poorly.

Or they, like, jump out of planes for fun.

I think I've been a bit outspoken on the wrath I direct toward uninsured skydivers.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DanG 1]

Quote

I think I've been a bit outspoken on the wrath I direct toward uninsured skydivers.

Sure, but what's the functional difference between an insured skydiver and an insured couch potato Twinkie addict? In both cases the costs of the risky behavior are borne by others. The moral hazard is the same.

- Dan G

[Bolas 5]

DanG

Quote

I think I've been a bit outspoken on the wrath I direct toward uninsured skydivers.

Sure, but what's the functional difference between an insured skydiver and an insured couch potato Twinkie addict? In both cases the costs of the risky behavior are borne by others. The moral hazard is the same.

Depends on if they're paying for their own insurance or the government is making others pay for it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Depends on if they're paying for their own insurance or the government is making others pay for it.

Huh? Who is the government making pay for your insurance? Or anyone else's?

I don't follow your point.

- Dan G

[lawrocket 3]

DanG

Quote

I think I've been a bit outspoken on the wrath I direct toward uninsured skydivers.

Sure, but what's the functional difference between an insured skydiver and an insured couch potato Twinkie addict? In both cases the costs of the risky behavior are borne by others. The moral hazard is the same.

An uninsured skydiver biffing in on his new rig and main that he just spent $8k on but has no insurance? Same as an uninsured person eating himself into chronic illness.

An insured person who ends up eating himself in a chronic illness. I'm not as troubled by that as an uninsured person eating himself into chronic illness being treated like he never had it. It's the same as the skydiver biffing in and purchasing insurance to cover his rehab.

The difference, to me, is whether the person insured faces some consequence. I skydive and fly planes? I'll pay more for life insurance. That's sensible. Health insurance is now prohibited from doing the same thing (except smoking tobacco).

I pointed to uninsured people on public assistance. Breaking themselves so the taxpayer can keep them alive. There are lines to be drawn. Different people draw them in different places. The ones who say there should be no lines are the ones that piss me off.

My wife is hotter than your wife.