Quit smoking or no surgery for you...

[Goofball]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Render&c=Article&cid=1139526651879&call_pageid=968332188492

What do you guys think of this?

In a country with public health care can a doctor refuse surgery for a patient (who presumably has paid his share of taxes toward the health care system) because he happens to smoke cigarettes, which are perfectly legal and the right of any adult in the country to enjoy if they so please?

[Byzantine Prince]

Maybe if the intake of cigarettes is reasonable. But we would run into problems with this. Food has just as bad of an effect if abused, and so do many substances. Where do we draw the line? I think if we are all paying for something we should all also take personal responsibility. The money that could be saved from most of us being healthy could help advance research for children's deseases.

[Papewaio]

If his blood flow is being inhibited due to his smoking it will make recovery from surgery very hard.

That and putting him under may be problematic.

[caravel]

Definitely not. For the reasons you've stated above:

1) Cigarettes are legal
2) He/she has payed the same taxes as anyone else
3) The smoking has nothing to do with the accident

This is probably just the usual cynical ploy to cut spending on health and try to find a popular justification for it, instead of actually combatting tobacco addiction or the doctor is trying to start his own mini crusade against smoking at this man's expense. A heroine addict would probably be better treated.

[hellenes]

Definitely not. For the reasons you've stated above:

1) Cigarettes are legal
2) He/she has payed the same taxes as anyone else
3) The smoking has nothing to do with the accident

This is probably just the usual cynical ploy to cut spending on health and try to find a popular justification for it, instead of actually combatting tobacco addiction or the doctor is trying to start his own mini crusade against smoking at this man's expense. A heroine addict would probably be better treated.

I admire the USA's antismoking campaign...to give up so much cash that was circulating in the cancerspreading business...
I just wish that heroin gets legalised then Ill come and say that these are "adults" that pay taxes and that have any right to pleasure themselves.

Hellenes

[caravel]

I admire the USA's antismoking campaign...to give up so much cash that was circulating in the cancerspreading business...
I just wish that heroin gets legalised then Ill come and say that these are "adults" that pay taxes and that have any right to pleasure themselves.

Hellenes

No one is saying that they have a "right to pleasure themselves" what I am saying is that as tax payers, and/or as those in need of hospital treatment for an accident, not due to their addiction or even related to it, then surely they are entitled to this treatment and should not be refused purely on the grounds that they are an addict? Addicts are victims of the people that sell this crap, whether tobacco companies or drug pushers. Victims are generally supported in a civilised society, not shown the door.

If the person that was refused treatment died as a result of their injuries and lack of said treatment, then, in many countries, the doctor would be liable as would the health authority because refusal to treat people is both illegal and against a doctor's code of conduct in some countries. Should a doctor be making these sort of decisions as to who he should or should not treat anyway?

[Just A Girl]

Smokers pay MORE taxes than non smokers Due to the heavy taxation of cigaretts.

If you are a smoker and theres no Physical reason for you not to have surgey,
That is Unfair discrimination.

Its not right to introduce smoking to the people, Say its fine.
and take there money and taxes from them Then say.
Sorry mate.
No surgery for you you've been a bad smoker havent you.

if smokers arent allowed surgery,
Then the smoker should be helth Tax exempt. (NI)
And the tax on cigaretts/ tobaccko should be removed.

Its not right to make smokers Pay for other peoples health service,
and then deny them theirs.

[Crazed Rabbit]

This is rediculous. He's paid his taxes for the health system, they can't deny him because he chooses to do a legal activity.

Crazed Rabbit

[Samurai Waki]

what kind of double standard bs is that? If he pays the same taxes as everyone else does, he should recieve the same benefits, irregardless of what he does in his leisure time.

[Watchman]

His doctor has told him he will not perform more surgery on his knee and leg unless he quits smoking for two months before and four months after any operation.
Orthopedic doctors have known for years that smoking impedes healing, especially in bone.Wouldn't be the first odd prohibition pre somethingorothermedicaloperation. The doctor apprently thinks letting the system get purged from all that gunk before the operation, and not throwing grain in the gears during the healing process, is beneficial.

Just out of curiosity, how many here actually have the professional competence to deny it ? I know I don't.

It does sound a bit odd granted, but makes sense too.

[Navaros]

It's a legitimate medical order that the doctor has given therefore if the man will not follow doctor's orders then he deserves to die.

For future cases the government should just make all smoking illegal.

[Watchman]

It's a legitimate medical order that the doctor has given therefore if the man will not follow doctor's orders then he deserves to die.Dude. Talk about "expert power"... [student mode off]

[Proletariat]

What a complete crock. Unless your willing to deny any form of cardiac medicine or treatment to every fat schmuck who eats at McDonald's eight times a month.

[Watchman]

You sure it's not just like one of those "can't drink milk within four hours of taking Medicine X or the effects get buggered" things...?

[Reverend Joe]

Every man and woman has the abslute and unalienable right to do what they will to their bodies. It is not a law, but it is as necessary as universal representation and the absolute right to free speech. Infringement upon this right is Facism, pure and simple, and it tramoles all over the very ideas and basis of socialism.

[lars573]

Well accept for the fact that he's going for surgery in New Brunswick. :skull: :toilet: The request is resonable. The Doctor feels that the mans smoking habit will impede his recovery.

[rory_20_uk]

FINALLY!!!

Oh, pinch me!!! ~:cheers: :jumping: :elephant: :cheerleader: :dancing:

I am sick and tired of treating fatties, druggies, smokers and winos coming in with their self inflicted problems.

Smokers on average pay their way. Essentially because loads have no problems for years / most of their lives. There are the few that suck up MASSES of funding (same with drinking).

They are often the self same rude bastards that make me think about quitting, as I've no choice but to put up with whatever crap they choose to throw in my direction.

Surgery is basically the same. They are risk factors, and yes, the more you drink or smoke or eat, the worse the prognosis. So with limited resources they are less likely to benefit than someone without these co-morbidities.

If the state is to pay for the treatment, the state should be able to dictate who gets it. Sure, smoke drink and be overweight - and enjoy your right to die.

~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

EDIT: should have read the article before posting...

I think that in this case the doctor does have a point. The guy smokes 2 packs a day and this is detrimental to his recovery process. It's not as if he's withholding treatment because smoking costs the state money because of increased health care cost.
Refusing treatment is over the top, though. The doctor has a duty to provide the best care possible to his patient and shouldn't use blackmail to force him to quit a certain habit, even if it's for his own good.

It would be different of course if the surgery would weaken the patient and the recovery would be brutal if the patient doesn't stop smoking, in wich case the patient would be better off with a bad yet functioning leg.

[rory_20_uk]

First off: there are many other things that the smokers and drinkers do like fight, drink and drive (and of course second hand smoke).

The other factor is that there are increasingly larger numbers of treatment to keep these Gomers alive. And guess what? All are increasingly expensive!!!

Whereas there used to be the fact that people would die they can be kept alive for longer at increased cost to the state.

The solution would be to increase tax to the point where it did pay for the services that are required. How people who get hit by drink drivers and die of second hand smoke get their renumeration is a difficult one though...


~:smoking:

[Kralizec]

Most smokers eventually die without having contracted cancer or other serious diseases, so the point is moot. And if smoking causes shorter life expectencies, that actually saves money because supporting the elderly costs money to the state. If you're going to argue that the huge amounts of cash the government rakes in because of taxes on alcohol and tobocco don't weigh up against the health care costs you're going to have to prove that with figures.

Lastly, if you're goign to substantially raise taxes on alcohol and tobacco be sure to introduce a "fat tax" also for the people who eat at McDonalds on a daily basis and make no effort to stay in shape. Otherwise it's just pure hypocrisy.

[rory_20_uk]

First off I agree that a "fat tax" would be a great idea.

I do not believe that there are any figures to assess the cost of alcohol and cigarettes as trying to factor in the time of the police, hospital services and customs and excise is extremely difficult.

I am well aware that cancer is not the biggest cause of cancer deaths. COPD finishes most of 'em off. And that is a very expensive way to go! Every slight sniffle and they're back to A&E via ambulance - £500 a time...

Nowhere does it say tax on smoking or drinking goes to their healthcare.

~:smoking:

[Byzantine Prince]

~:smoking:
How do deliciously ironic that you light up after both those posts. :grin3:

[Kralizec]

First off I agree that a "fat tax" would be a great idea.

I do not believe that there are any figures to assess the cost of alcohol and cigarettes as trying to factor in the time of the police, hospital services and customs and excise is extremely difficult.

I am well aware that cancer is not the biggest cause of cancer deaths.

The backroom is great, I learn something new every day :2thumbsup:


COPD finishes most of 'em off. And that is a very expensive way to go! Every slight sniffle and they're back to A&E via ambulance - £500 a time...

Nowhere does it say tax on smoking or drinking goes to their healthcare.

~:smoking:

So the majority of smokers die of respiratory problems? That's new to me...

Of course alcohol & tobocco taxes doesn't go directly to health care. It ends up in the treasury, and health care is payed from the treasury chest.
Taxes on tobocco and alcohol have only 2 legit functions, that is to partly pay for the increased health care costs and to discourage behaviour that is unhealthy (and therefore increases health care costs)

[rory_20_uk]

ROFLMAO!!! Here's £50 - don't tell the GMC I said that...:oops:

I agree that in an ideal world the money would go straight to the police and healthcare. Sadly it doesn't

Proof-read posts? Pah, there's no fun in that...

~:smoking:

[AntiochusIII]

Wouldn't be the first odd prohibition pre somethingorothermedicaloperation. The doctor apprently thinks letting the system get purged from all that gunk before the operation, and not throwing grain in the gears during the healing process, is beneficial.Yeah, I was thinking that...

...rather than the impression gained from the first post that this doctor is a Crusader Against Smoking (tm) kind of guy, who refuses to give a person his rightful access to health care. You know, smoke isn't very good for your body, anyway, so it rather makes sense that it might impede surgery in whatever stages it might.

[Watchman]

Truth be told, IMO this thread seemed to be making mountains out of molehills from the start.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that it is something that in the UK the NHS is going to have to increasingly look at, lest the budget goes out of all control.

People seem to have the view that the NHS is there to patch them up no matter how slovenly, how stupid or how irresponsible they are / were,

I've had one patient, a heavy alcoholic, brought in vomiting blood. He required 8 units, plus fluid and emergency endoscopy. We saved his life.

Was he happy, greatful? :laugh4: He complained that his throat hurt from the endoscopy... Utter scum. :furious3:

If there was a greater responsibility on the individual to care for him/herself, the funds would be able to go far further. One step towards that would be to make it clear that proceedures and operations are only to be done on people with a certain basline of health, or good evidence that they have improved.

The one case is not significant, but the molehill does resemble the larger mountain.

~:smoking:

[ScionTheWorm]

~:smoking:

smoking is GOOD for you!
http://www.gbsbrig.ch/schulerseiten/schreiner3b/deutsch/humor/bilder/smoking_baby.jpg

[hellenes]

Every man and woman has the abslute and unalienable right to do what they will to their bodies. It is not a law, but it is as necessary as universal representation and the absolute right to free speech. Infringement upon this right is Facism, pure and simple, and it tramoles all over the very ideas and basis of socialism.

Well if you consider that "socialists" imprison people that disagree with the reality or the extent of Holocaust, then its very sad to support any notion that there is any kind of "freedom of speech".

Hellenes

[BDC]

If you smoke your clearly do not care about your body. Therefore no surgery. Brutal but to the point. It's hardly as if anyone is in the dark anymore about how bad smoking is for you.

[Goofball]

If the state is to pay for the treatment, the state should be able to dictate who gets it.

"The state" is not paying for the treatment. The treatment is paid for by the "fatties, druggies, smokers and winos," along with everybody else out of their tax dollars. You can't take away their access to the system when they have paid for it. Where are you going to draw the line?

"What's that Mr. Smith? Need knee surgery because of a football injury? Sorry, but you chose to engage in a high health risk activity, no surgery for you."

"What's that Mrs. Jones? Need a c-section because of a problem pregnancy? Sorry, but you chose to engage in a high health risk activity, no surgery for you."

"What's that Mr. Brown? Need extensive rehab and several surgeries because of a motorcycle accident? Sorry, but you chose to engage in a high health risk activity, no treatment for you."

[rory_20_uk]

The money is taken from the individual into the hands of the state, and regardless of its source is the state's money.

Although you are taking the very thick end of the wedge, I agree with your examples: those that do such activities should be lower down the list than those that do not.

Football is dangerous. And guess what? The time for that person with his knee is time away from someone else!

Motorbike drivers know it's dangerous. The vast monies that the example you give is money that no one else can receive - people who didn't require treatment because they think they look good in leathers.

What activities were you thinking of concerning lifestyle and the need for a C-section?

IMO insurance of cars and motorbikes should include treatment costs incurred in crashes. Then they could say that they are paying for their own treatment. Similarly a healthcare tax on alcohol and cigarettes would again mean that they were taking money out of their own supply - and if the pot enpties then they have to wait until next year. That would be much more fair.

There is NOT infinite money. It's a zero sum game. The selfish are taking it off others, and this should not be allowed.

~:smoking:

[Goofball]

The money is taken from the individual into the hands of the state, and regardless of its source is the state's money.

Although you are taking the very thick end of the wedge, I agree with your examples: those that do such activities should be lower down the list than those that do not.

Football is dangerous. And guess what? The time for that person with his knee is time away from someone else!

Motorbike drivers know it's dangerous. The vast monies that the example you give is money that no one else can receive - people who didn't require treatment because they think they look good in leathers.

What activities were you thinking of concerning lifestyle and the need for a C-section?

IMO insurance of cars and motorbikes should include treatment costs incurred in crashes. Then they could say that they are paying for their own treatment. Similarly a healthcare tax on alcohol and cigarettes would again mean that they were taking money out of their own supply - and if the pot enpties then they have to wait until next year. That would be much more fair.

There is NOT infinite money. It's a zero sum game. The selfish are taking it off others, and this should not be allowed.

~:smoking:

The "selfish?"

So I guess you would include in that category the growing number of people who are so inconsiderate as to live past the age of 65, and because of that consume the vast majority of health care dollars?

"Sorry old-timer, I know you've paid into the system your whole life, but since you are now choosing to engage in the high health risk activity of continuing to breath after your 65th birthday we will no longer provide health care for you."

[rory_20_uk]

From one standpoint of supposed extremism to another??!? Oh well, hardly surprising.

Tell you what: I'll wait until you come up with an argument and not tabloid comments OK... :coffeenews:

~:smoking:

[Goofball]

From one standpoint of supposed extremism to another??!? Oh well, hardly surprising.

Tell you what: I'll wait until you come up with an argument and not tabloid comments OK... :coffeenews:

~:smoking:

Sorry, I didn't mean to poke such gaping holes in your arguments.

I'll go easier next time.

Let me know when you're back on your feet...

[rory_20_uk]

Ok - I'll recap:

You: list what you consider tabliod absurdities.
I: point by point explain them.
You: Ignore everything I wrote and choose something completely different - choosing one particular word and then choose your own meaning.
I: consider that NO argument
You: for some reason think that beating your own men of straw is an "argument".

Oh yes well done you beat whoever it was that you were arguing with inside your own head. Perhaps someone else can read the posts and try to come up with some valid points against what I wrote.

Please - list the holes, really, I'd like to see them. They are there, but it'd be nice to think you can do more than state your own point of view and only throw the toys out of the pram when someone dares to voice conflicting ones with more coherance

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

Sorry, I didn't mean to poke such gaping holes in your arguments.

I'll go easier next time.

Let me know when you're back on your feet...Yeah, you really savaged that strawman... it wont soon bother you again. Until you put it up again at least. :2thumbsup:

Everyone is ignoring the subject of the article anyhow. The doctor doesnt want to operate on him because he's afraid that the man's heavy smoking will cause complications during sugery and impede his healing afterwards. If there's any scientific basis for this at all- I'd say it's the doctor's perrogative.

[Ser Clegane]

The joy of trying to make public health or pensions fair ~:)

In the end the easiest way of solving the issue probably is to just accpet that there is no completely fair way to run an insurance system.

There are always some examples that seem to be clear - like higher contributions or limited service for "risk" groups (e.g., smokers, people who go skiing) - but as Goofball pointed out there is always the "next level".
If you start to treat certain groups of people differently you will end up having to maintain a very detailed profile of all people to stay really fair - which would not only cause a loss of privacy but would create additional costs (and there would still be those who abuse the system).

Recently I read an article about a study that showed that in the German pension system the poor are actually subsidizing the rich as people with a higher income have on average significantly higher life expectancy than people with a very low income, so that on average the poor are supporting the rich - not really what's usually the intention of such a system.
Of course some "lifestyle choices" (e.g., smoking, alcohol, food) contributed to the lower life expectancy of the "poor" and one could argue that based on this the "poor" use the public health system to a higher extent which might even out some pension disadvantages - but this would probably get a bit too complicated to prove.

In the end, the only "fair" system is to get rid of all social security and let everybody pay his own bills - but I don't think that's what most of us really want...

[Watchman]

Given that that particular brand of "fair" is observeable in situ in the Third World (most of which at least functionally lacks all such systems), I don't think too many actually want it.

[Goofball]

Yeah, you really savaged that strawman... it wont soon bother you again. Until you put it up again at least. :2thumbsup:

The following is for select members of the Backroom who seem to have some difficulty grasping the definition of the "strawman" argument, because they have resorted to throwing that term out there every time they disagree with an opinion in here of late.

The gist of Rory's arguments was that the state should be able to deny health care/surgery to individuals whose health problems were self-inflicted or a result of engaging in activities that cause high health risk, or to individuals who were less likely to benefit from the proposed treatment because of those same life choices. While there is a certain amount of merit to Rory's arguments, I disagree with them.

My counter argument was that that is a dangerous path to go down, because there are many activities that people engage in every day that could very well be considered activities that carry a high risk of injury or illness, so where would we draw the line? My other argument was that high-risk activity or not, these people had paid into the state health care system, so it was unfair for the state to turn them away when they needed it.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with my two arguments, they both are aimed at, and logically related to the arguments of Rory's that I was aiming to counter. They were not, on the other hand, aimed at a weak argument that I had set up myself for the sole purpose of refuting.

So, to summarize:

When somebody makes an argument, then another person offers counters to that argument, that is not an example of a "strawman" argument.

But just so we're crystal clear:

A strawman argument is a "weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted." A strawman argument is not any argument that one disagrees with or cannot counter, and therefor accuses of being a strawman argument as a last resort.

There. I hope that clears things up a little bit for future discussions.

~;)


Everyone is ignoring the subject of the article anyhow. The doctor doesnt want to operate on him because he's afraid that the man's heavy smoking will cause complications during sugery

I wasn't ignoring that part, I just don't see that said anywhere in the article. If that is the case, I would say the doctor is justified in his decision. The benefit in this case (a fixed knee) would not be worth the risk (a dead patient).


and impede his healing afterwards. If there's any scientific basis for this at all- I'd say it's the doctor's perrogative.

I wasn't ignoring that either. Just because a person might not have as great a chance of healing from the surgery is no reason (IMO) to deny them that surgery, especially if not having the surgery has drawbacks worse than those of not healing properly.

On one hand I would agree with you; if the doctor were to demonstrate that there was a significant risk that the guy could be worse off after the surgery, than I would say the doctor has a valid case. But if the only risk is that the guy might take a week longer to heal, or have a greater risk of infection after surgery, then I think the doctor (no pun intended) doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[rory_20_uk]

There! A proper argument, not some statements thrown out. If you think I can't counter where your thoughts go, you think too little of me. I am a medic and so probably ponder the issue more than most.

What you said appeared to be an extremely weak argument against what I said. Nay hardly an argument at all. Picking a line or two and refusing that I thought was the essence of why I stated you posted a strawman argument. And seeing as I was not the only one to make this observation I think is evidence that I was not the only one that did not view my comments out of desperation, but of surprise that nothing better could be found.

The point I make is that I see no option rather than a more fair and transparent system of healthcare. That would base treatment on ability to benefit from it, and as it happens alcohol, obesity and smoking all reduce outcomes. Any doctor worthy of membership can show given a small count of time masses of evidence that this is the case.

Yes, wouldn't it be lovely if all could have treatment? And perhaps you can banish poverty and hunger whilst you're at it. The stark reality is that all are not possible, and it is foolish to think otherwise.

~:smoking:

[Xiahou]

The following is for select members of the Backroom who seem to have some difficulty grasping the definition of the "strawman" argument, because they have resorted to throwing that term out there every time they disagree with an opinion in here of late.I am well aware of what a strawman is, proffessor, and that was indeed a textbook example.


My counter argument was that that is a dangerous path to go down, because there are many activities that people engage in every day that could very well be considered activities that carry a high risk of injury or illness, so where would we draw the line? My other argument was that high-risk activity or not, these people had paid into the state health care system, so it was unfair for the state to turn them away when they needed it.Your reply stated none of that.


The "selfish?"

So I guess you would include in that category the growing number of people who are so inconsiderate as to live past the age of 65, and because of that consume the vast majority of health care dollars?

"Sorry old-timer, I know you've paid into the system your whole life, but since you are now choosing to engage in the high health risk activity of continuing to breath after your 65th birthday we will no longer provide health care for you."You suggested the he was including people who were over 65, in who would be denied healthcare. He never said or suggested anything to that effect. That position was a strawman (an extreme position, not stated by the person you were refuting) that you setup and then attacked. Again- a textbook case. I don't know who your little lesson was directed at, but if it was me- it was misplaced.

[Mongoose]

I am well aware of what a strawman is, proffessor, and that was indeed a textbook example.





Your reply stated none of that.

You suggested the he was including people who were over 65, in who would be denied healthcare. He never said or suggested anything to that effect. That position was a strawman (an extreme position, not stated by the person you were refuting) that you setup and then attacked. Again- a textbook case. I don't know who your little lesson was directed at, but if it was me- it was misplaced.


He's applying the same logic. If people who do risky activity A are denied B, then people who do risky activity C should also be denied B, if C and A are equal. and I would be williing to argue that insisting on living past the age of 65 costs the system alot more them smoking...

[Xiahou]

He's applying the same logic. If people who do risky activity A are denied B, then people who do risky activity C should also be denied B, if C and A are equal. and I would be williing to argue that insisting on living past the age of 65 costs the system alot more them smoking...Had he asked if that was also his position, it wouldn't have drawn a comment from me. He didnt, he stated that was rory's position, then painted it as absurd and went on to claim that he had defeated rory's argument as a result. Again, that's textbook strawman. :book:

1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

[Mongoose]

I think it was more like this:

A: If someone makes you angry, anything you do to them is justified.

B: So, if a someone cuts infront of you in line at the store, you would be justified inkilling them?

A: That was a straw man!

[Goofball]

My counter argument was that that is a dangerous path to go down, because there are many activities that people engage in every day that could very well be considered activities that carry a high risk of injury or illness, so where would we draw the line? My other argument was that high-risk activity or not, these people had paid into the state health care system, so it was unfair for the state to turn them away when they needed it.Your reply stated none of that.

Okay, I'll humor you:

For this part: "that is a dangerous path to go down, because there are many activities that people engage in every day that could very well be considered activities that carry a high risk of injury or illness, so where would we draw the line?" please see below (I put the really important part in bold, so you wouldn't miss it again):


Where are you going to draw the line?

"What's that Mr. Smith? Need knee surgery because of a football injury? Sorry, but you chose to engage in a high health risk activity, no surgery for you."

"What's that Mrs. Jones? Need a c-section because of a problem pregnancy? Sorry, but you chose to engage in a high health risk activity, no surgery for you."

"What's that Mr. Brown? Need extensive rehab and several surgeries because of a motorcycle accident? Sorry, but you chose to engage in a high health risk activity, no treatment for you."

For this part "these people had paid into the state health care system, so it was unfair for the state to turn them away when they needed it," please see below (again with some boldfaced words, for ease of reading comprehension):


"The state" is not paying for the treatment. The treatment is paid for by the "fatties, druggies, smokers and winos," along with everybody else out of their tax dollars. You can't take away their access to the system when they have paid for it.

So not only did my reply state exactly what I said it did in my later reiteration, it actually used almost the exact same wording. For some reason, this seems to have escaped you.



He's applying the same logic. If people who do risky activity A are denied B, then people who do risky activity C should also be denied B, if C and A are equal. and I would be williing to argue that insisting on living past the age of 65 costs the system alot more them smoking...Had he asked if that was also his position, it wouldn't have drawn a comment from me. He didnt, he stated that was rory's position, then painted it as absurd and went on to claim that he had defeated rory's argument as a result. Again, that's textbook strawman. :book:

Really? Let's go back to the relevant text:


So I guess you would include in that category the growing number of people who are so inconsiderate as to live past the age of 65, and because of that consume the vast majority of health care dollars?

Note the question mark, which in its common English usage denotes a question.

If you are going to embark on an apparently personally motivated pissing contest about strawman arguments, then you should probably have at least read and understood the posts in question before giving the "weapons free" order.

Just a thought...

[rory_20_uk]

Right, the last one was as you have highlighted rhetoric you commenced and I never implied. I said nothing about 65 year olds. Indeed, I feel that basing treatment on one's chronological age rather than physiological age shows a profound lack of understanding.

It seems that you are advocating: it could be difficult to draw the line... so I'm giving up before trying. There's no problem that sticking my head in the sand won't make better! :dizzy2:

Important fact: healthcare spending is going up
Another one: Either we pay more for it in real terms year on year, orit is rationalised.
Finally: Taxes don't go to a set place. Healthcare changes over time...

Best stop for a break eh? Stretching stuff... :coffeenews:

Right... so if we avoid again those rather irrelevant examples you managed to think of all by yourself (good for you! :2thumbsup:) we have to face the conundrum of what to do, if we accept that the aforementioned giving up isn't productive, nor is the militant socialist "I know my rights" rant...

Physiological age is an arbitrary determinant that bases one's "age" on the state of one's body and mind. As such it is possible that a 70 year old is "younger" than a 50 year old. the assessment can be simple, or complex, depending on the number of factors one uses, but there are several basic ones that give a pretty good idea.

So, now we could have it that "younger" people get treatment first, thus in the main those most able to benefit will get treated first.

Yes, it's not fair - but possibly fairer than the existing system. No system is completely fair, either discriminating on the ability to pay into a scheme, discriminating on other arbitrary (although medically useful as possible) or just slow and creaking with aging buildings as the "frequent fliers" come in again, and again, and again...

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Okay, I'll humor you: (..) If you are going to embark on an apparently personally motivated pissing contest about strawman arguments, then you should probably have at least read and understood the posts in question before giving the "weapons free" order.Whoah, someone gave up smoking recently. :laugh4:

[Xiahou]

If you are going to embark on an apparently personally motivated pissing contest about strawman arguments, then you should probably have at least read and understood the posts in question before giving the "weapons free" order.

Just a thought...That's a laugh, considering that you were the one who made the first swipe. You can dress it up however you want- it was a textbook strawman.

I see where your problem is though, you apparently don't understand the post I was referring to... let me attempt to make it clear to you.

The "selfish?"

So I guess you would include in that category the growing number of people who are so inconsiderate as to live past the age of 65, and because of that consume the vast majority of health care dollars?

"Sorry old-timer, I know you've paid into the system your whole life, but since you are now choosing to engage in the high health risk activity of continuing to breath after your 65th birthday we will no longer provide health care for you."

Your statement prior to that, imo, would not be a strawman because you were addressing his argument. I hope that clears up your apparent confusion.

I had not wanted to derail the thread with this, but I suppose it is a dialog worth having since there are some who throw around "strawman" and other terms in a willy-nilly manner. :bow:

[Goofball]

That's a laugh, considering that you were the one who made the first swipe. You can dress it up however you want- it was a textbook strawman.

I see where your problem is though, you apparently don't understand the post I was referring to... let me attempt to make it clear to you.


Your statement prior to that, imo, would not be a strawman because you were addressing his argument. I hope that clears up your apparent confusion.

I had not wanted to derail the thread with this, but I suppose it is a dialog worth having since there are some who throw around "strawman" and other terms in a willy-nilly manner. :bow:

Present company excluded, of course?

~;)

[Just A Girl]

I only ever heard the term STRAWMAN used in this forum.

Are you sure you guys didnt just make it up?

[caravel]

For the definition of a "straw man" or, more commonly "man of straw": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man