The Right to Health.

[wayfriend]

"freeloaders" are a bogeyman. The concept is straightforward fear-mongering.

"We shouldn't help poor people because one of them might be a freeloader! I don't want to pay for freeloaders!!! Do you want to pay for freeloaders!!!"

It's a perjorative, and hence emotional, term by anyone's standard.

The whole point of invoking the fear of freeloaders is to encourage one's sense of unfairness to outweigh one's sense of social responsibility. As if it is better for thousands to go hungry rather than one man take advantage of us for the cost of a meal. So this, too, shows it is appealing to emotion rather than rationality.

[Vraith]

If someone spends their life living in a way that gives them a high probability of not being able to afford their own healthcare, then they have freeloaded on society. Calling someone a freeloader is going to hurt their feelings but it could still be a true statement about that person.

And type 1 diabetes is not tied to obesity. It's a different disease than type 2.

True, yet type 2 diabetes, in many cases is controllable and is occuring more frequently in younger people.

In addition to weight, activity level is also important. Diabetes occurs in children and teens who are inactive. With the sharp rise in computer games and TV-watching and the trend toward abandoning physical education in schools, fewer children are participating in sports. This increase in sedentary lifestyle has contributed to the type 2 diabetes epidemic.

On the first, the freeloading and laziness is a bit of a myth [at best a vastly over-played hand]. Take cardiovascular disease...the number one killer in the U.S.
Roughly 1/3rd of the cases is due to "controllable" risks. But only 1/2 of that 1/3rd is controllable by diet/exercise/not smoking, etc. the rest is only controllable with healthcare...mostly drugs.

On the second: an easy solution everyone will hate [I'm sure I've suggested it before].
Tax all sweeteners at the same rate as tobacco. And stop all subsidies to the people who grow and make it.
We eat so much sugar [and not all by choice] that this alone would generate almost a TRILLION dollars per year. It will also lower obesity, lower diabetes, lower cancer lower heart disease. AT LEAST those things...possibly others as well.

And a significant driver of healthcare costs is LACK OF HEALTHCARE.
We end up paying enormous costs for emergency and chronic care that would never have been necessary if we had cheap, readily available basic services and access.

Heh...here's a fun one, though, to make up for hurting the sugar industry and sweet-addicts killing themselves.
We could remove all the sin taxes from alcohol and encourage people to drink more. Cuz abstainers die younger, [definitely] and are sicker [maybe...still under study, but seems so] In order to match their sickness and mortality, you'd have to drink more than six drinks a day.
[[I know there are other issues besides physical health with booze...but it amused me anyway]]

[Ananda]

"Societal freeload" is a loaded phrase. That's what I mean when I say there's an emotional component to it.

If someone spends their life living in a way that gives them a high probability of not being able to afford their own healthcare, then they have freeloaded on society. Calling someone a freeloader is going to hurt their feelings but it could still be a true statement about that person.

This is an interesting point of view.

Think about how much money the americans tolerate being spent on perpetual war. Trillions. This is something they accept even though it is completely out of step with the rest of the world's spending on war machinery. Their corporations run their government so that they can do what they like legally and this is tolerated. Yet, ask an american to pay for their fatt assed neighbour's healthcare and it has gone a step too far. They draw the line there. Why? And, why are the priorities set up like this?

What if just half of the money spent on perpetual war and corporate favouritism was spent on education, healthcare and research (and for cures, not for symptom suppressants that people have to take the rest of their lives), opportunity creation and so?

Personally, I think that the basic concept of abundance mentality vs scarcity mentality plays a part here. I am not really into Covey, but I think there were some very interesting aspects to his ideas. And this mentality is deeply emotional/psychological. I think you guys against this stuff are missing the enlightened self interest part of the equation. When someone else gets something, it doesn't mean you have something taken from you. In this case, you do get a fair exchange in my opinion: you get a better society to live in.

Covey coined the idea of abundance mentality or abundance mindset, a concept in which a person believes there are enough resources and successes to share with others. He contrasts it with the scarcity mindset (i.e., destructive and unnecessary competition), which is founded on the idea that, if someone else wins or is successful in a situation, that means you lose; not considering the possibility of all parties winning (in some way or another) in a given situation (see zero-sum game). Individuals with an abundance mentality reject the notion of zero-sum games and are able to celebrate the success of others rather than feel threatened by it.[6]

[Hashi Lebwohl]

"freeloaders" are a bogeyman. The concept is straightforward fear-mongering.

"We shouldn't help poor people because one of them might be a freeloader! I don't want to pay for freeloaders!!! Do you want to pay for freeloaders!!!"

It's a perjorative, and hence emotional, term by anyone's standard.

The whole point of invoking the fear of freeloaders is to encourage one's sense of unfairness to outweigh one's sense of social responsibility. As if it is better for thousands to go hungry rather than one man take advantage of us for the cost of a meal. So this, too, shows it is appealing to emotion rather than rationality.

An excellent post, this.

Lately, I have cut the vast majority of sugar out of my diet--I simply can't stand sugar in my coffee any more and I don't drink carbonated beverages (except on rare occasions). Once Leibeschoen's ankles get a little better (she twisted one while running) she and I will resume our jogs through the neighborhood. No, this old man in his mid-40s finds it difficult to keep up with her but I am getting better and regaining muscle endurance.

[SoulBiter]

"freeloaders" are a bogeyman. The concept is straightforward fear-mongering.

Its just a word. Its just not a nice one. But it can be applicable. My nephew is freeloading on his mom. He is +25 years old and single with a job who pays nothing to live at home. He will possibly never leave. She enables the behavior but he is the one freeloading.

You can call it a concept but its not. Its a description. There are people who freeload on others. I didnt give a percentage, I didnt infer a majority or minority.

Think about how much money the americans tolerate being spent on perpetual war. Trillions. This is something they accept even though it is completely out of step with the rest of the world's spending on war machinery. Their corporations run their government so that they can do what they like legally and this is tolerated. Yet, ask an american to pay for their fatt assed neighbour's healthcare and it has gone a step too far. They draw the line there. Why? And, why are the priorities set up like this?

What if just half of the money spent on perpetual war and corporate favouritism was spent on education, healthcare and research (and for cures, not for symptom suppressants that people have to take the rest of their lives), opportunity creation and so?

I would be all about that. Tell the rest of the World 'good luck' draw back the military to what it would take to stay on top of the food chain militarily compared to the rest of the world and let the other countries fend for themselves.

[SoulBiter]

Back to the topic, a right to health(care).

As stated a few post ago. I do believe that everyone should get a minimal amount of care from society. We decide what that should be as a society.

Example: People dont have a 'right' to have a firetruck in their town. Some small towns dont have one. But the people of that society (town) may decide that they wish to have the ability to protect from fire and to keep it from spreading and buy a firetruck and use taxes to pay for the trucks and services.

Similarly, society may choose to pay for healthcare for the people in that society. That doesnt make it a 'right', merely a decision that society has made to offer that service.

[Zarathustra]

Yes. We can as easily say that Z's argument is driven by an emotional need to keep as much of his own money as possible.

I've already noted the difference between being motivated by emotion vs making an emotional argument. I admit to doing the former--I'm motivated by emotion--but I'm distinguishing that from the latter. I *do* want to keep as much of my money as possible. I'm not cloaking anything. However, I also think the concept of property rights are vital to a functioning economy and rational self-interest isn't an oxymoron. It is a logical concept, or at least reasonable/pragmatic concept. The free market is a rational way to channel selfishness to achieve positive results that no other top-down economy has ever achieved.

Also, he continually plays the shame card with his argument about people who stuff their faces, etc. -- all the while ignoring the fact that a whole lot of people who go bankrupt paying for healthcare in the US didn't do anything to give themselves their disease. (Yes, I have a dog in this hunt; no, it's not me.)

I'm not playing the shame card, I'm stating facts. America does have an obesity epidemic. It is one of the main reasons we're unhealthy and spend more than we need to on health care. Identifying problems accurately isn't playing a shame card. Now, I admit that my tone is frustrated and indignant, but that's only because people are insisting that they have a right to my money to take care of health issues, even for problems they created themselves. You can be as unhealthy as you want, and I won't complain. But when you are unhealthy due to your own choices, and then insist that I finance the consequences, yes, I complain. And yes, you ought to be ashamed.

"freeloaders" are a bogeyman. The concept is straightforward fear-mongering.

"We shouldn't help poor people because one of them might be a freeloader! I don't want to pay for freeloaders!!! Do you want to pay for freeloaders!!!"

This thread is mixing many different issues. No one is saying that we shouldn't help the poor. The argument for "health care is a right" means that it's a right for everyone, not merely the poor. That's what we're arguing about: universal health care, not a safety net [I've already made this distinction several times]. Introducing the poor is a red herring. "Everyone" includes millions of people who create their own health problems, and million of people who can already afford health care. What would you call people who create their own health problems, or people who can pay for their own health care, but still insist upon others picking up the tab as a "right?" Model citizens?

Here is what Z does not see: that he cannot affirm the benefits of society on the one hand (his rights, relative prosperity and security, etc.) without also affirming the necessary enabling facts (taxes and other social encumbrances, a political process that does not depend on his individual affirmation, etc.) on the other. That is the source of his inconsistency.

What inconsistency? I affirm both the rights and the responsibilities, both the benefits as well as the encumbrances. Is the inconsistency affirming them, or not affirming them? I don't think they're mutually exclusive, so I don't see a problem. But if they are inconsistent, then your accusation (even if accurate) would make no sense.

Just because we have taxes doesn't mean that those taxes should be spent to enable an invented, nonsensical "right" that's actually just a cloaked entitlement. I don't have an objection against taxation in general. The objections I have against specific examples are all consistent with my overall libertarian philosophy about the role of government in a free market.

On the issue of law being a legitimate power to enforce our values on others, Cail and I have both made the distinction between being kept from not violating others' rights, and being forced to pay for their stuff because they want it so bad they merely call it a right. I think this is an important, vital distinction.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Yes. We can as easily say that Z's argument is driven by an emotional need to keep as much of his own money as possible.

I've already noted the difference between being motivated by emotion vs making an emotional argument. I admit to doing the former--I'm motivated by emotion--but I'm distinguishing that from the latter. I *do* want to keep as much of my money as possible. I'm not cloaking anything. However, I also think the concept of property rights are vital to a functioning economy and rational self-interest isn't an oxymoron. It is a logical concept, or at least reasonable/pragmatic concept. The free market is a rational way to channel selfishness to achieve positive results that no other top-down economy has ever achieved.

Also, he continually plays the shame card with his argument about people who stuff their faces, etc. -- all the while ignoring the fact that a whole lot of people who go bankrupt paying for healthcare in the US didn't do anything to give themselves their disease. (Yes, I have a dog in this hunt; no, it's not me.)

I'm not playing the shame card, I'm stating facts. America does have an obesity epidemic. It is one of the main reasons we're unhealthy and spend more than we need to on health care. Identifying problems accurately isn't playing a shame card. Now, I admit that my tone is frustrated and indignant, but that's only because people are insisting that they have a right to my money to take care of health issues, even for problems they created themselves. You can be as unhealthy as you want, and I won't complain. But when you are unhealthy due to your own choices, and then insist that I finance the consequences, yes, I complain. And yes, you ought to be ashamed.

"freeloaders" are a bogeyman. The concept is straightforward fear-mongering.

"We shouldn't help poor people because one of them might be a freeloader! I don't want to pay for freeloaders!!! Do you want to pay for freeloaders!!!"

This thread is mixing many different issues. No one is saying that we shouldn't help the poor. The argument for "health care is a right" means that it's a right for everyone, not merely the poor. That's what we're arguing about: universal health care, not a safety net [I've already made this distinction several times]. Introducing the poor is a red herring. "Everyone" includes millions of people who create their own health problems, and million of people who can already afford health care. What would you call people who create their own health problems, or people who can pay for their own health care, but still insist upon others picking up the tab as a "right?" Model citizens?

Here is what Z does not see: that he cannot affirm the benefits of society on the one hand (his rights, relative prosperity and security, etc.) without also affirming the necessary enabling facts (taxes and other social encumbrances, a political process that does not depend on his individual affirmation, etc.) on the other. That is the source of his inconsistency.

What inconsistency? I affirm both the rights and the responsibilities, both the benefits as well as the encumbrances. Is the inconsistency affirming them, or not affirming them? I don't think they're mutually exclusive, so I don't see a problem. But if they are inconsistent, then your accusation (even if accurate) would make no sense.

Just because we have taxes doesn't mean that those taxes should be spent to enable an invented, nonsensical "right" that's actually just a cloaked entitlement. I don't have an objection against taxation in general. The objections I have against specific examples are all consistent with my overall libertarian philosophy about the role of government in a free market.

On the issue of law being a legitimate power to enforce our values on others, Cail and I have both made the distinction between being kept from not violating others' rights, and being forced to pay for their stuff because they want it so bad they merely call it a right. I think this is an important, vital distinction.

I'd argue that the central function of the law is to impose by force our (collective) values upon individuals that act at cross purposes to them.

Actually, you are rejecting the legitimacy of taxation where it is applied to social programs on the basis of property rights. Namely that your property rights are violated by said taxation. If your compliance is secured only by force it hardly matters, but the notion that your property must be regarded as existing in a vacuum where society is concerned, and that no valid claim can be made upon it that does not fit with your immediate and limited conception of your own self interest, is fallacious. Naturally the disposition of your property would be quite different, or even non-existent if no society existed at all.

Property rights can only have a meaning under a social umbrella anyway, as nature admits none in itself. Does the deer sue the wolf for his liver back? Of course not, the law of nature is the law of force; thus it has always been and ever will be. Much as Native Americans might sue and be given a pittance by our courts in comparison with what they have lost, while the seemingly airtight legality of their much more expansive claims is void. Their former life as viable societies is held at a remove, both legally and ethically, by the institutions of the society that conquered them. Concessions at odds with this notion are motivated by pity or guilt and nothing more. If the law of the Indian says that Chief X is entitled to these woods and this river, but his society cannot enforce that claim on his behalf, it is meaningless. As our society, the society that has conquered Chief X and his people, is capable of enforcement of its borders and its laws, that collective social dominion over territory and chattel is the sole fount of all subsequent property claims. That dominion, which exists as a collective act in itself, is the agency of the legal title itself and the enforcer of all subsequent rights. So when you say that your money and your land ought to be yours to do with what you please without the encumbrance of others, perhaps you should glance down at the Federal Reserve Note in your hand and see what is said upon it, or examine the deed to your property and take note of its original signatory and notary. Yes you own those things, and yet they are also a subordinate part of a collective enterprise; and sometimes Caesar comes round to take his due.

[Ananda]

Back to the topic, a right to health(care).

...

Similarly, society may choose to pay for healthcare for the people in that society. That doesnt make it a 'right', merely a decision that society has made to offer that service.

Sorry, I did think my point was on topic as it is just a matter of priorities for a people, saying, 'this is important to us' and I was curious why these other things are allowed, but healthcare for the fat neighbour is off the table. Was curious about the philosophy there (since this philosophy that a society holds determines whether or not you provide healthcare).

To the second thing, totally agree that nothing is a right objectively. The concept of rights is made up by us. Nature doesn't give two objective shits about our rights. In sweden, healthcare is a basic right to the people. Same with germany, france, danmark, norway, et cetera. In countries that don't provide it like afghanistan, iraq, haiti, the us, et cetera, it is not a right. So, the term right is just a label for things we expect as a baseline for our specific societies. Just as you claim the right to free speech, but it is obviously not an objective right, but just an idea that your country, among many others, happens to hold. For people living in n. korea this isn't a right. Something is only a right if the group with the power says it is. For us, we say that healthcare is a right, therefore it isa right within our borders. The world is what we say it is to a great extent for things we can control.

I also don't understand singling out these fat people, chain smokers, drinkers and so and holding them up as a reason to not provide healthcare because they are 'freeloaders' by existing as they are. So what if some people do stupid things. All people do stupid things. How does it hurt you if some people are fat and get healthcare from a system that you pay into? How would it benefit you from an enlightened self interest point of view?

And, as I mentioned, we also get selfish benefits from having this sort of system: a better society to live in. We live in our societies, so why not choose to make them nice? Beyond feeling 'right' for me, it is also practical in that people are healthier, happier, and therefore more risk averse. But, unlike some here, I think that healthcare is part of the social safety net just as opportunity is part of it. It is a package deal. We treat people better, people have better lives, people therefore become more risk averse and, in return, we get a better place to live. It's like a virtuous circle if you are familiar with that one. At least that is how I and the society I am from sees it. I get that you have been socialised differently and so see it differently.

You mentioned that you do believe in some minimal care. Is it just emergency care, or does it go deeper?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Rights are written in force. If it is true that the will to enforce one's dignity as an irreducible element of a polity is too strong to be subdued when that ethos is acted upon with alacrity among some minimal mass of people, then as far as I'm concerned the elements of that ethos amount to natural rights. If no one can stop it, how else can it be viewed? That is where I find the transcendence in the American Revolution: its faith in the intrinsic dignity of the individual provided each acts with the will to enforce it.

[Avatar]

Oh there are rights all right.

What rights?

--A

[peter]

One of the critical problems in the UK health service is it's failure to sensibly see what it can and cannot be expected to provide. Example; we have a guy who comes into the shop who drinks 6 litres of 9% Alc vol White Cider a day [say 5 bottles of wine a day to me and you]. He has multiple repeat visits to a 'rehab' clinic [courtesy of the NHS] that cost £4 million to build alone [the guy is proud of this fact and tells us], and God knows how much more to run. And it never works. It never works because people have to actually want to go dry - and they have to want to do it and actually achieve it in the real world, not for 6 weeks in a clinic. Thus the expenditure, which is repeated hundreds of times up and down the country, is just pouring money down the drain. Similarly with gastric bands, with breast implants, with acupuncture and head massages, with homeopathy and herbalism, all of which are available courtesy of the public purse to treat conditions [real and imagined] across the length and bredth of the country. Instead of concentrating on a core of established pharmacutical and surgical treatments where genuine conditions are treated with genuine medicine and surgury money is poured into an ever widening array of obscure and pointless treatments to adress ill undestood and quite possibly nonexistant conditions and peripheral services such as bereavement clinics and the like. And yes - add a degree of coercion into it where necessary. Tell a thirty stone man The his treatment for his weight related condition will be encumbent upon his demonstration of having the 'will to help himself' as well as recieving the help provided by the state. By the reigning in of the cost re wages and supplies at the one end, and the types and efficiency of treatment at the other, should it not be posible for all wealthy countries to provide at least a modicum of health-care, free at the point of service, to all it's citzens.

[SoulBiter]

Back to the topic, a right to health(care).

...

Similarly, society may choose to pay for healthcare for the people in that society. That doesnt make it a 'right', merely a decision that society has made to offer that service.

Sorry, I did think my point was on topic

You were on topic. I was referring to a debate that was starting to come out of this over the semantics of a word.

as it is just a matter of priorities for a people, saying, 'this is important to us' and I was curious why these other things are allowed, but healthcare for the fat neighbour is off the table. Was curious about the philosophy there (since this philosophy that a society holds determines whether or not you provide healthcare).


I also don't understand singling out these fat people, chain smokers, drinkers and so and holding them up as a reason to not provide healthcare because they are 'freeloaders' by existing as they are. So what if some people do stupid things. All people do stupid things. How does it hurt you if some people are fat and get healthcare from a system that you pay into?

Obesity is just one of the many things that people do that is self destructive and is an epidemic in this country (moreso than the others on your list) and its not getting better. Its due to the food we eat, whats in it, and how much we eat. But it doesn't end there. Its also due to the modern sedentary lifestyle that most people have. That's why more and more kids are overweight as well and the risk of disease from that has gone up.
By being self destructive, it increases the amount that everyone has to pay to make the system work due to the increased healthcare costs due to. Thus I get to keep less of my money so that someone else can abuse themselves and the system. Its again the cost component that needs to be addressed. Even with some form of universal healthcare, if the cost component continues to spiral out of control, we will still be paying through the nose for healthcare through our taxes (see the link below)

www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/w ... ludicrous/

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

All you really have to know is that the US pays more per capita for less coverage than any other industrial nation. There are better approaches out there, if we are only willing to learn.

[Rawedge Rim]

couple of points:

1. When I was in the military, we obviously had "free" health care. Of course most of us were young and fairly healthy, so overall the day to day costs were minimal.

There were some limitations though;

We technically were not supposed to take over the counter meds (not enforced, but was a regulation)

We could only go to the doctors on base. We were not free to "out of pocket" for procedures not covered by military medical

If involved in a motor vehicle accident, resulting from operating said vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or without utilizing proper safety gear (helmets and clothing for motorcyles, seatbelts for automobiles), then the military could decline to cover those medical issues that arose from that accident.

The military could forbid us from participating in activities it considered too hazardous (rodeo, rock climbing, etc.)

The vast majority of folks in the USA would lose it if the government was to place the same restrictions on them.


2. My grandparents were farmers. My grandmother would get up in the morning, cook a breakfast that would feed the 82nd Airborne, they would eat like horses, then go out and work like mules for several hours; come in and eat lunch, go back out and work until nearly dark, like mules, and then eat like horses again at dinner. Neither were obese (my grandmother go a bit large in her later years, my grandfather never did).

Today we eat like that, but we normally don't work like mules. That's why we have the obesity problem.

3. And a question: would it be wrong to charge folks more for their "free" healthcare if they engage in practices that are known to have a high probability of bringing on other conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular problems, cancer, or even the risk of serious injury, such as extreme sports?

[SerScot]

RR,

The military will not allow you to take an asprin or an advil for a headache?

[Rawedge Rim]

RR,

The military will not allow you to take an asprin or an advil for a headache?

It wasn't enforced, but if you took an OTC and it had a bad reaction with something the military had proscribed, then you were subject to discipline. Sorta like the sunburn thing.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

couple of points:

1. When I was in the military, we obviously had "free" health care. Of course most of us were young and fairly healthy, so overall the day to day costs were minimal.

There were some limitations though;

We technically were not supposed to take over the counter meds (not enforced, but was a regulation)

We could only go to the doctors on base. We were not free to "out of pocket" for procedures not covered by military medical

If involved in a motor vehicle accident, resulting from operating said vehicle under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or without utilizing proper safety gear (helmets and clothing for motorcyles, seatbelts for automobiles), then the military could decline to cover those medical issues that arose from that accident.

The military could forbid us from participating in activities it considered too hazardous (rodeo, rock climbing, etc.)

The vast majority of folks in the USA would lose it if the government was to place the same restrictions on them.


2. My grandparents were farmers. My grandmother would get up in the morning, cook a breakfast that would feed the 82nd Airborne, they would eat like horses, then go out and work like mules for several hours; come in and eat lunch, go back out and work until nearly dark, like mules, and then eat like horses again at dinner. Neither were obese (my grandmother go a bit large in her later years, my grandfather never did).

Today we eat like that, but we normally don't work like mules. That's why we have the obesity problem.

3. And a question: would it be wrong to charge folks more for their "free" healthcare if they engage in practices that are known to have a high probability of bringing on other conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular problems, cancer, or even the risk of serious injury, such as extreme sports?

Fair points all around, good post. I think that people that abuse their bodies and create avoidable problems should find themselves at a very low priority level when it comes to the distribution of healthcare resources. Now they are more or less at the front of the line.

[wayfriend]

I think that people that abuse their bodies and create avoidable problems should find themselves at a very low priority level when it comes to the distribution of healthcare resources.

Someone should really examine that [very common] sentiment.

Basically you are saying that some people do not deserve such a societal benefit. But do you know why you wish this? Possible reasons could be:
- these people are criminals and so should forfeit the benefits of society
- these people are imperfect and so should forfeit the benefits of society
- these people are unwise and so should forfeit the benefits of society
- these people could have saved me money and so should forfeit the benefits of society

I would not be proud to claim any of these reasons as mine. Perhaps this is why people always gloss over this aspect and never put a name to it.

The fact that you're mitigating your position ("a very low priority") rather than taking the harder stance that many people might take (being denied healthcare altogether) sounds like you at least feel the ethical paucity of this position.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I think that people that abuse their bodies and create avoidable problems should find themselves at a very low priority level when it comes to the distribution of healthcare resources.

Someone should really examine that [very common] sentiment.

Basically you are saying that some people do not deserve such a societal benefit. But do you know why you wish this? Possible reasons could be:
- these people are criminals and so should forfeit the benefits of society
- these people are imperfect and so should forfeit the benefits of society
- these people are unwise and so should forfeit the benefits of society
- these people could have saved me money and so should forfeit the benefits of society

I would not be proud to claim any of these reasons as mine. Perhaps this is why people always gloss over this aspect and never put a name to it.

The fact that you're mitigating your position ("a very low priority") rather than taking the harder stance that many people might take (being denied healthcare altogether) sounds like you at least feel the ethical paucity of this position.

Actually, WF, as someone espousing common sense healthcare reform on a pragmatic basis, I don't feel the least compunction about telling the 62 year old morbidly obese diabetic smoker that needs a heart lung transplant that the money simply isn't there because it is being used to help other people who didn't inflict all of their own health problems on themselves. And it isn't black and white, just a question of resources. I'd rather put more resources towards pediatric cancer patients than people that have demolished their liver with decades of alcoholism. Not to say that we should spend no money on those people, but I would be more inclined to spend on education and prevention than on remediating the perfect health storm that is the product of what is essentially self abuse.