Politics in Arizona is picking another major nerve to poke regarding health care. The proposal is to start taxing individuals who are on AHCCCS who make poor health-care choices regarding smoking, being overweight or regarding their diabetes. (More Information)
My Feelings:
From a economic, ethical and health-care stance I feel this measure barely scratches the surface. At issue here is the definition of what welfare should be. Does depending upon society for aid mean you still have the right to do whatever you want? Does it mean that you can continually harm yourself against medical advice and expect everyone else to pick up the bill for the consequences? Does it mean you should get care over someone else who is trying to take care of himself? Scarcity dictates that there is not enough money for everything, so who gets the care?
Also at issue here is incentives to encourage individuals to make better choices for themselves. Yes, taxes on indulgences can seem not nice, but by mere supply/demand they keep fewer individuals from doing them. As a health-care provider-to-be, I want to see people healthier, and logic dictates that means it may be a rough road for some. Of note, if individuals are healthier on average, that would decrease costs on the health-care system.
Finally, ethics play a major role. Coming from a Biblical background I will quote Scripture, "If a man will not work, he shall not eat." (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Since even Paul, who was physically handicapped (1 Corinthians 16:21, 2 Corinthians 12:7, etc.) knew that work meant more than just physical activity, even if someone cannot physically work, the mindset should be concern for one's fellow person. Those physically disabled can still encourage, give advice, develop their intellect, and, if you believe in the power of prayer, they can pray for others. If the mindset of welfare is "what can society give me?" instead of "what can I do with the help society provides?" the individual becomes a hole that only takes and does not give back. Why should this individual receive help over another individual who desires to give back? (again scarcity)
These are issue arguing questions, and I mean them as such. This issue is extremely important because it pokes at the very central nerve of why welfare provides health-care benefits.
Please feel free to post your comments regarding this below. Also please use this post to organize your thoughts, feelings and rationals regarding this issue and take a few minutes to write your legislators.
While I initially agree that if we, the taxpayers, are paying for your (the proverbial "you" who has the government provide your healthcare) healthcare, should we not have some say in your actions that affect your level of health that we carry the burden and costs of? This becomes an even greater issue if you look at it at a national level.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the level of grey area in this is too great. Do we limit smoking? Bad food? What defines "bad." etc. and when in doubt I prefer to error on the side of freedom. "...they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of Happiness."
"Death panels" may never exist de facto, however, cost-benefit analysis will always be made and it will come to a point where the cost to provide care will outweigh the perceived benefit of someone's quality of life, or actual life, and the government will do what government healthcare plans around the world already do: stop providing care.
I find this kind of cost-benefit analysis atrocious: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1211950/Premature-baby-left-die-doctors-mother-gives-birth-just-days-22-week-care-limit.html