Adventure insurance is a thing - esp. for mountaineering, scuba diving, skydiving, etc. Alot of healthcare plans wont' cover things like this. They usually cover expenses related to search/rescue or a helicopter ride out from remote areas. I don't think people on government subsidized healthcare are involved in these activates so its not a big deal. To clarify, public health care shouldn't cover complications related to elective or vanity procedures, because they are not necessary.
What about food addicts? It’s well understood that drive negative health outcomes and costs and are under the control of anyone with a decent income. Want ozempic to treat your diabetes? Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis.
> Submit your grocery store purchase history for analysis.
why not? when you file for unemployment, you need to prove that you're looking for a job. if you want weight lose drugs that cost $1k+/month, you should show proof you aren't being a glutton. we have the technology, just not the political will.
I mean, there's a case to be made there. More often than not, anti-depressants are the first option given when someone is presenting those symptoms. There is little to no effort to address the root cause. It should be a last resort. Sadly young people, esp young girls, are being given these drugs like candy. It should be medical malpractice.
Do you know how those weight loss drugs work? They reduce your appetite. They're literally designed to "fix" the problem of "being a glutton." They don't magically burn more calories or whatever you think they do, they just make you eat less.
You and others with this take are why I'm staunchly against single-payer healthcare. It's seems impossible for it to not get politicized in this manner and be used to effectively control other's behavior in ways that would be flagrantly unconstitutional otherwise.
Folks desperately need to understand the dignity of risk before we can talk about health policy. You're advocating for diet eugenics. There is very little moral hazard to justify your rules because having serious medical problems is awful even without the bill.
I don't live in a socialized-medicine country, but I think this is a solved problem where capitalism still allows one to pay for private health insurance that will cover eye color change surgery.
While I appreciate your effort to avoid constitutional violations related to health care, we already walk all over (and have historically simply ignored) the constitution with regards to zoning, taxation, bank loans, voting, protests, free speech, etc, that this seems like a silly hill to die on, especially given the upsides to single-payer healthcare.
And to be clear, all those constitutional violations are abhorrent and should be actively legislatively and judicially worked against (not executive-ly because that branch almost by definition works against the constitution). But given our history of red-lining, voter suppression, un-banking, rich tax exceptions, NIMBY zoning, etc, I'm okay with single-payer, so long as there are private options if you think surgically modified eye color can make you more employable or improve your quality of life.
I think it's fine that single-payer doesn't pay for cosmetic procedures, it's the parent's take that getting an elective procedure or apparently engaging in any behavior they deem too risky locks you out of healthcare for medical-necessity seemingly forever.
where in the constitution does it say I have to pay for someone's drug addiction rehab or cosmetic eye surgery? i don't expect anyone to cover my vices or vanity. not wanting to fund vice/vanity is not "controlling behavior" .. by all means, kill yourself with substance abuse or change your eye color, but expecting your fellow citizen to bail you out is certainly a form of "control".
Drug-addiction rehab — yes, because that's a medically necessary therapy for people suffering from addiction.
Cosmetic procedures — no, wouldn't be covered.
Locking you out of public healthcare as described by the parent if you have ever engaged in behavior deemed too risky, absolutely not. That is the part that is controlling.
The constitution places limits on the government. Unless you're telling me that you are literally The United States Federal Government, it doesn't apply to you.
Actually, the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do. Fortunately with the Chevron deference, unelected bureaucrats and "experts" can no longer do whatever they please. Congress, who directly represent the People, will have to craft laws/policy and not the smug busybodies of DC. This is Democracy.
> the federal government doesn't interrupt the Constitution, the courts do
I'm hate to be the one to inform you, but the court system is part of the government. Indeed courts pertaining to federal laws are part of the federal government.
Again, unless you are literally the federal government of the United States, the constitution doesn't constrain your actions.
Fwiw, I feel the same about: smokers, drug addicts, alcoholics, extreme sports, etc.