which, frankly, is a much bigger and costlier issue in the U.S. these days

and genital prostheses?

Wild >> do we start penalizing people for genetic predispositions? <<

In the same way that actuaries can calculate increased premiums for smokers, they could reduce premiums for genetic predispositions. A smoker with a genetic predisposition to smoking would then have a lower premium than one who was not predisposed.

>>and that would mean that anything else that qualifies as an addiction
drugs, alcohol, sex, food, and all of the health problems that can arise
from these things would also have to be penalized<<

All of these issues(except sex addiction) would bring about higher life and (likely) health insurance premiums, as they probably should.

Bo >> There are many who can be held accountable, not just the smokers themselves. <<

Agreed.

Wild >> it seems like you're saying that unless a person has the funds to pay for treatment, they should refrain from doing anything that might
cause them to need said treatment. <<

No.
I didn't refuse treatment that I needed. I refused treatment that I didn't need.
I also didn't say anything about a "person". I referred only to myself and my own ethics, no one else's.

Fifi >> Your judgments about right and wrong are just your opinions, not universal facts, <<

Obviously, and I have stated as much. Another straw man.

Fifi >> despite your guru aspirations. <<

And I have stated I have no guru aspirations, but you seem to think you that you have some special insight into what goes on in my mind. Sounds like projection, ad-hominem attack and another straw man.

Fifi >> Sure you can ask for opinions and make a decision based upon the opinions of others (not sure how you're taking responsibility for your own decisions though if they're influenced by, and made up of, other people's opinions...if you were asking for facts it would be different but you're merely asking for and asserting opinions). <<

Since you seem to have trouble understanding how I could ask for an opinion and still take responsibility for my actions, I will provide an example.

Me: Do you like the red shirt or the blue shirt?
Friend: The red shirt.
Me: Really? Why?
Friend: The red shirt has a pocket.
Me: Oh. I didn’t see the pocket. Thanks for pointing that out, but I don’t like pockets on shirts very much. Is there anything else about the red shirt that you particularly like?
Friend: Nope.
Me: I think I will get the blue shirt then, because you pointed something out to me that I didn’t realize about the red shirt. Thank you for pointing that out to me, and I won’t blame you if I end up not liking the blue shirt even though you suggested the red shirt and I didn’t buy it.

Fifi >> However, if you're actually taking responsibility for making your own decision regarding the hollow inquiry you constructed to illustrate whatever meandering point you're attempting about self responsibility, you'd have just made your decision for yourself or investigated facts rather than fishing for opinions to base your decision upon. <<

Words like *hollow*, *meandering*, and *fishing* are loaded words. www.fallacyfiles.org/loadword.html.

Fifi >> The fact that the Canadian medicare system uses money has nothing to do with your question vis a vis personal responsibility. <<

I disagree, but you rely heavily on straw men, presumptions, ad-hominem attacks and loaded words to support your arguments, so I am disinclined to debate this with you.

Fifi >> Universal healthcare systems are based upon the premise that our society is collectively responsible for the health of its members. <<

This seems reasonable. I also feel that I have a personal responsibility not to take advantage of the graciousness of the people who are taking care of my health. I am not asking you to approve of or abide by my personal ethics.

Fifi >> We all pay into it and it's there for all of us when we need it. <<

While I am no fan of the American health care system, apparently, Canada’s health care system has financial problems as well.

www.cbsnews.com/stories/20...81801.shtml

Fifi >> It's a bit like the traditional Chinese system where you payed the doctor when you were well and didn't have to pay when you were sick. <<

Sounds oddly like insurance.

Fifi >> But I guess this is so far outside of your understanding that you can only think of these things in terms of money and who's paying who and who's getting what. <<

Yes Fifi. I am an immoral bean counter. Ad hominem attack.

Fifi >> Our discussions vis a vis prevention, personal responsibility and access to treatment tend to have a more practical tone and be based in what is the most compassionate and ethical choice rather than the most profitable or "moral". <<

Another straw man. I never suggested that the American health care system was superior.

Fifi >> As for your example refusing x-rays. From what you write and how you write it, it seems to be a choice predicated on ego and a desire to feel morally superior rather than actual practical ethics or considerations. <<

Wow Fifi. You really can read my mind. I am egotistical and a fraud. Ad hominem attack and presumption.

Fifi >> You will cost your coworkers more money by allowing a small cavity to go undetected and grow than you would by having a simple diagnostic x-ray which doesn't cost much. <<

And you know more about the odds of my getting a cavity than I do.

Fifi >> Your righteousness serves no one but yourself. <<

Did you mean self-righteousness?

1. Piously sure of one's own righteousness; moralistic.

Which would *not* serve me or anyone else, or plain old generic righteousness.

1. goodness

which would serve both myself and others?

If I were self righteous, I would probably claim that choices which I consider ethical *should* be adopted by others, or I might have suggested that my ethics are somehow superior, but I don’t and haven’t made those claims, so this sounds like another straw man.

Fifi >> And there's no taking of personal responsibility involved in turning down an x-ray at the dentist, unless of course you forgo treatment when you get a cavity or other problem that could potentially be diagnosed via an x-ray. <<

A valid point.

I find myself in agreement with virtually everything Fifi has stated in this post to Josh. The fundamental driver of the current health care mess is greed, profit for the companies and power for the politicians that take bribes, er… I mean, campaign contributions from the companies. I hope that insurance companies would not be able to get away with charging people more for genetic predispositions. For example, I would hope that they would use that information to charge smokers who have genetic predispositions less. On the other hand, insurance companies, like casinos, always win in the long run. It’s financially prudent to stay away from both.

you know what I think is funny... (and this is a bit off topic.. but what the hell)

How it is illegal to sell pot on the streets, and if you get caught with more than an ounce of it it goes to a felony... YET you can buy it off eBay or any other site that offers it. Google it if you don't believe me. How is it that instead of going over to a good friends house and buying it, the government would rather you put your credit card number over the internet and have it shipped to you via Express and arrive on your front pourch in 3 to 7 days!

Next thing you know you will be able to buy Ether, Cocaine, and Meth online... or hell.. can you already?!

Michele - Well I'm pro-legalization for a great number of reasons (and all drugs, not just pot).

What conversations like this always get me back to is what I've known since I was a child - if we stopped putting so many of our resources, so much of our intelligence, and so much time and energy into building things to kill people we'd have plenty of money to educated, feed, house our communities and look after our children, and provide extremely good healthcare. Maybe even throw some fun parties and stuff ;-) If we made people our priority, not profit, then we'd also be looking at and promoting prevention. We'd create a system that feeds people rather than consuming them. Wage slavery and economic imperialism is only slightly kinder and gentler than what it was forced to transform from due to people standing up to their masters.

Just as an aside, people without a genetic predisposition to addiction don't generally become addicts. They're the people who are generally referred to as "casual users". And I'm not quite sure why people give those with genetic predispositions a pass on personal responsibility. Most of us are genetically predisposed to all kinds of things, whether this predisposition is expressed or not usually involves a lot of factors. Are people actually proposing that insurance companies *should* insure people with genetic predispositions toward illnesses they're predisposed for at a rate that doesn't penalize them? But not insure people who don't eat their leafy green veggies and eat bbq for cancer related health issues? (All of this, of course, totally ignores the fact that we've still not unraveled the lifestyle and genetic factors, let alone the viral ones, vis a vis cancer.)