Who should be restricted from receiving government paid for healthcare?

[rinsd]

It took me awhile to get on board the single payer express because I have been apprehensive of the government deciding who is eligible for healthcare and doing serious behavior restriction to comply as a means of cost control. Given what had happened with the smoking bans and one of the justification being health cost savings, that would seem to have some merit.

Eventually I moved past those concerns and started really buying into the theory of single payer strictly as a pay mechanism replacing insurance companies. I have done so for very selfish reasons as someone I know and care very much about has been struggling with insurance and her health for a few years now.

Then the Edwards "mandatory checkups" quote has come up and from the discussions apparently there are quite a few people don't have an issue with behavior restrictions and they seem to be the most vocal advocates of single payer.

So I am curious as to what behaviors should be restricted either by law or by making said "offenders" pay a large portion of their health care (let's say 30%) to make single payer "cost effective".

Now I am only naming a couple of things, feel free to add your own restrictions/risk group.

[AngryAmish]

1. Rethuglikkkans

[niyad]

2. what restrictions and conditions do the civilized countries with national health care have?

[CTyankee]

10. I've never heard of any. Yet the French, Italians and Spanish

smoke an awful lot.

This is such a faux argument, really. Universal health care means universal and that includes the smokers, thrill seekers, etc.

I wish DU would stop it already with all of the hysteria. Freepers are probably delighted to see the spectacle!

[Vinca]

3. Universal healthcare = everyone is entitled.

As a guy just mentioned on Thom Hartmann's show, everytime he lands in a new age bracket his insurance rates go way up. People can't change aging and that's one of the "bad things" according to health insurance companies. The same with any chronic illness you're genetically predispositioned to have.

[RaleighNCDUer]

4. What is the Edwards 'mandatory checkup' quote? nt

[rinsd]

8. A DUer has posted the video

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3497701

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Thanks. nt

[NC_Nurse]

5. No one.

Period.

Trying to limit access would just cause more bureaucratic nonsense anyway and
people would just lie to get around it. Pointless.

[endarkenment]

6. UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE

I want this to be a fundamental entitlement: everyone gets access to healthcare services. The only decision making going on at the federal level is how much money we voters decide to pour into it and what is covered. Who gets covered should be all legal residents and anyone needing emergency services. This crap about nanny-state triage putting bad people into some sort of punitive regime is nonsense designed to once again head off UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE.

[rinsd]

9. Bingo!

"This crap about nanny-state triage putting bad people into some sort of punitive regime is nonsense designed to once again head off UNIVERSAL SINGLE PAYER HEALTHCARE."

[BattyDem]

7. No restrictions.

If the government can restrict health care because of one particular reason, it won't be long before they begin adding other reasons. That can become very intrusive in our lives. What if they put restrictions on unmarried, sexually active people? Or restrictions based on the number of sexual partners you have per year or the amount of junk food you eat or the amount of exercise you get (or don't get) or the amount of alcohol you drink, etc. Speeding ticket? You're now high risk and you have to pay for health care. Bar fight? You pay. STD? Show me the money. You ride a motorcycle? Pay up. You live in a bad neighborhood and are at a higher risk of becoming a crime victim? No free ride for you. The list goes on and on.

Where do we draw the line? Who decides what is an acceptable amount of "risk" and what isn't? :shrug:

[mohc]

14. But that goes both ways....

What if I want a checkup every week, is that covered? What if I want a limitless supply of prescription painkillers, is that covered? What if I want non-emergency surgery with no wait time, is that covered as well? Many single payer systems require individuals to pay something toward prescriptions drugs, ration appointments for non-emergency, etc. We as a nation must decide what gets covered and how the funding for that coverage works. Simply saying "no restrictions" is non-sensical. Universal health care is not giving every citizen/resident a government credit card to use as they wish, its making a list of procedures and treatments that will be free to the public, defining the funding mechanism, and often times rationing out non emergency treatment. If rationing is not an issue, I really do not see why incentivizing regular checkups would be an issue. Maybe the problem is the implementation. Would you have an issue with the government giving a tax credit to those that got their checkup? Basically setting the tax structure to assume worst case, and then provide credits/deductions for preventative care.

[BattyDem]

18. You're talking about something completely different

The OP was talking about restricting health care coverage based on how people choose to live their lives ... and that's wrong. I don't support any restrictions on care based on a person's lifestyle. If we demonize certain groups of people, the entire program is doomed because it will become a question of who "deserves" health care and who doesn't.

You're rebuttal addresses issues of quality, timing, financing and necessity, which I never even mentioned in my post. Of course, those things have to be worked out, but the rules have to apply to everyone equally. I never said the system shouldn't have any rules at all - I said there shouldn't be any restrictions on RECEIVING health care based on a person's decisions or behavior because the potential for discrimination is great. That was the OP's poll question: "Who should be restricted from receiving government paid for healthcare?" There was no mention of the way the plan would be implemented or financed - it was strictly about who should not get coverage because of the choices they made.

[Warpy]

11. I don't believe in financially penalizing anyone for legal decisions

even those decisions I would never make for myself. To do so smacks of busy body-ism. I'm not their nanny.

This makes as much sense as penalizing people for bad genes, the ones that predispose them to expensive illnesses like cancer and heart disease. I don't have those genes, no skin off my nose.

Besides, most of those things listed already carry their own punishment.

[beberocks]

12. Those who think that government healthcare is socialist

In other words, the repukes. They think that healthcare should be restricted to only those who can pay for it. Funny thing is, most repukes aren't rich. Their just parroting what the RNC wants them to say. The biggest repuke I know is now in a nursing home, paid for by mediCAL.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. If you place restrictions on it, it becomes "welfare," which

middle Americans don't like.

If a benefit isn't universal, like Social Security, then it's easy to demonize the recipients as "free-loaders."

It's sad that Americans are so selfish, but that's the way it is.

[bluethruandthru]

16. That's so true.

My sister...who has more money than she knows what to do with...is soooo concerned that people will abuse their free healthcare and go to the doctor every time they have a splinter in their finger. I told her that may happen on very rare occassions...but I don't think it would be a huge problem. She's so worried that someone may get more than she does...or more than she thinks they're entitled to.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

17. What tends to happen when medical benefits become available is

that there's an initial surge of demand, as people who have been unable to afford necessary care can finally get it.

However, having access to care soon becomes normal, so aside from a few hypochondriacs, there's not much sponging going on at all.