MnSpring wrote on 08/08/18 at 12:29:42:



Don't be so quick... I agree that "welfare" needs revision, but....

the solution, as I see it, is to INCREASE welfare support and reform it so that it rewards people for doing the right things instead of taking it away when they start to get a bit successful.  

a great way of doing this is a Universal Basic Income

 I'm not saying its exclusively about shortsightedness or complacency, I am saying that a lack of imminence regarding very common health risks is a hard issue to resolve in a Universal healthcare system.

 Not everyone fails to prepare for retirement, but some do because its so far away.  Some don't prepare because they can't afford it, while others just don't care.

 We can help people who can't afford it, but its a lot harder to help people who don't care unless we put our own money away for them to use later.  With health issues we can't just store good health in a trust fund for later.

LostArtist wrote on 08/09/18 at 12:32:45:


--------------------

so, condemn those that can't afford it but care to spite the ones that just don't care?

Eegore wrote on 08/09/18 at 17:48:45:



well, you are arguing AGAINST setting up free healthcare or retirement or welfare for people...

"well, you are arguing AGAINST setting up free healthcare or retirement or welfare for people... "

 Incorrect.  I stated:

I believe including imminence assessment by age and other factors into the psychological components of any empowering-based healthcare process would improve the program

 In this statement the word "including" is an attempt to convey that it would be in addition to any planning of a Universal healthcare system.  This is not intended to remove or replace the planning stage, but compliment it, or otherwise provide additional support.

 The portion "would improve the program" is intended to convey that the program with the inclusion (as in addition to as described above) of the appropriate psychological components would result in a higher efficiency.  Improvement of a program would not by my definition mean to stop, remove, replace, dismantle or otherwise reduce the current planning process.

“…its a lot harder to help people who don’t care unless we put our own money away for them to use later. …”

WOW, that’s Great !
Tell everybody, that they do NOT have to ‘care’, because someone will put away money for them.
They can drive the latest and greatest car/MC/truck, have the fanciest boat, have snowmobiles & quads.
Everything the newest and greatest. Nothing used, because it does not matter that all extra money goes to interest for borrowing, because someone else, will save for them.  What a Great Future, the young have.

Oh Wait, hasn’t  that been happening for 20-30  years already ?
And the last 8 years gathered speed and risen faster than ever before.

Is that not, the reason, some are complaining about the Gimme, Gimme, Gimme, Gimmers today.
And some are standing in the street, crying,   “What - Me Work”,  (aka A. E. Newman)

"so you're more or less for "Medicare for all" using that as a catch all phrase for a government managed healthcare system or would you prefer some kinda capitalistic system where it's all about the money still? "

 I am saying that people who are younger do not typically take into account the things they need to do now to mitigate common foreseeable health issues.

 I think that concept should be taken into account when planning any type of Universal healthcare system.

 That is literally all I am trying to say.

 Yes.  Plan for it and conduct case studies.  

 I already stated that there is no reason for healthcare providers to lobby for laws to illegalize risk behavior, its costly and unenforceable.

 There is zero percentage of planning or applied skillsets recommended in any way to create legislation to reduce risk of any kind while planning a Universal healthcare budget.  

 Lets take diabetes as an example.  Its not illegal to get diabetes or engage in diets that would increase ones chance of getting diabetes.  No part of Universal healthcare planning would attempt to make any part of becoming diabetic against the law.  

 If 20% of the total population are diabetic and within that group 50% are male, white, and over the age 50, then creating a budget that allocates about half of its insulin distribution and dialysis treatment program funding to match about the time that white males are reaching 50 that is better than just allocating 20% of total budget to diabetes treatments in general.

 If 5% of males and females under 25 need level II trauma treatment for auto accidents, and 5% of males and females over the age 75 also need this then allocating resources of 50% standard and 50% geriatric is more accurate than allocating 10% trauma budget for the population as a whole.

 Not everyone wants to make a law, or restrict/control people to solve a problem.