LAist: Personal Responsibility

Elise Thompson

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 19:11:14 -0800

Not only that, but who got us "hooked" on cigarettes in the first place? Who is putting fast food franchises on every corner? How big are the tobacco and liquor lobbies? Then "big business" wants to put the onus back on the individual? Who is not taking responsibility here? Not to mention the fact it is not fat, smoking, whiskey-guzzling workers who are overtaxing the system, it is people who cannot afford health care. So the answer is to make health care even less affordable for them, making even more people uninsured?

brainylagirl

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 18:35:55 -0800

smoking, drugs, alcoholism, obesity -- these are related to addiction, often genetically linked, i.e., not simply a matter of "self control" or "will power." raising premiums for the economically disadvantaged, who are disproportionately represented among smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics and the obese -- is just one more way to keep them from getting the help they need from doctors -- medical & psychological -- in treatment programs and with preventative intervention and care. the *real* bottom line is that we *all* benefit when our nation's citizens are healthy. employers trying to cut costs don't take this into account, nor are they encouraged to do so by the gov't, say, subsidizing companies for absorbing the rising costs of premiums for their employees. ps -- great comment elise.

guest

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:46:47 -0800

smoking/drugs/obesity yes.... age/genetic disorders/disabilities? questionable ---- there is just that fine line where something that might qualify someone as more expensive falls under discrimination-- i say anyone who does the things they can control -- eat sausage sandwiches 3 times a day and smoking -- make them pay!!!

Elise Thompson

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:55:06 -0800

One of the few examples of socialism in America lies in taxation. People who choose not to have children because of overpopulation are still forced to pay for the education of other people's children. People who choose to bike to work instead of driving still have to pay for highways. "Healthy" people skiing, mountain biking, and participating in other "extreme sports" also end up in the hospital, after being airlifted out at taxpayer expense. Some people might even consider having eight kids or driving a sports car an "unhealthy habit". It all comes down to the greater good. We are all responsible for keeping this society running, whether it be by keeping people educated, driving on safe roads, or keeping them healthy through preventative care. And we are not even talking about taxpayers here. We are talking about corporations who are doing anything they can to reduce their bottom line. They don't exacly have our best interests at heart. It is just one more excuse for them to screw us over. If you have not seen the movie "Sicko" I suggest you check it out.

michael

Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:51:47 -0800

while i feel that this is a good thing; something also must be done for those who need health care and can't afford it. it's one thing to knowingly put yourself in danger, but it's another to face a problem you have no control over and not be able to find any help. i'm younger, in moderately good health, and i don't put myself into any kind of danger... but what if something goes wrong, an accident, or something else unforseen? what am i to do? i don't make enough money to seek the health care i need, nor can i afford insurance... health-care is always a touchy issue. it's just hard to find what we can and cannot do that pleases everyone. and believe me, if i could afford it, i wouldn't be happy about paying for everyone else all the same. but subsidized care must come in somewhere. universal healthcare, not so much. we've seen in other countries (canada, france, etc..) where healthcare from the top down can leave full hospitals and long waiting lists. is there an in-between?