19 total posts
fairly old news isn't it? at least I thought it was
the one that gets me is the huge increase in risk from just a few bad sunburns when you're young. If I recall correctly, the younger the sunburn, the higher the risk.
While I realize you're not serious about the tanning booths, it just reminds me how much it astonishes me that people still use them as much as they do.
Of course it's not absolute, just like not all heavy smokers get lung cancer, not all heavy tanners get skin cancer. But the known risk for heavy tanning seems plain to me.
And if I understand the risk, tanning beds are more risk than sun tanning. Moderate tanning does make sunburn less likely so not totally bad I guess.
I'm only using the fair skinned as an example
It's just that, no matter how much we try and say it, we were not all made equal in every way. Each of us has his/her own strengths and weaknesses within our bodies...all of which are pre-existing at any moment in time. I'm just opining that the new healthcare law will open a floodgate of "maladies" in a similar way that social justice awareness has already done. As Paul Harvey would remark..."just so you won't run out of things to worry about..."
So we only take care of problems that 99%
of the population have. That will save cost for sure.
There will be problems, with outright fraud, exaggerated seriousness, hypocrodriatic systems, and on and on.
There will also be those that are excluded when they shouldn't be.
Both situations existed before this, exist now and will exist in the future, no matter what the laws are.
Should we worry about either more than the other?
Just look at the fact the worse employment has gotten, the more disability claims have gone up. Again some are outright fraud, some are desperation when can't cope anymore, some are people that as long as they could pushed on despite having real problems but now can't find anything they can manage anymore.
This will be the exception, not the rule.
The truth of the matter is that far too many lack healthcare AT ALL in this country and all they want is to be able to have a doctor and treat whatever ails them. All the bull about cost is just that..bull. People clog up ERs every day with crap that can easily be taken care of at a doctor's office, but because they don't have insurance they can't see a doctor. But what they CAN do is visit an ER, they have to treat you no matter what.
Insurance companies can't deny you health insurance based on markers, or any other pseudo predictive tests for diseases or conditions that we have no way of knowing whether we'll contract or not..and that's the whole friggin' point. Health insurers CAN, however, discriminate against people who make stupid conscious decisions...like smokers.
Spa bronzing treatments don't cause cancer. Tanning booths, another story.
And no, insurance companies in general don't deny you coverage for your "risky" behaviors..they just charge you more because they know you're dangerous. Hell, if it WERE true that they denied coverage, every one of the dip sh2ts who texted and drove would be driving sans insurance.
So, why not
just get rid of all the health insurance companies and be responsible for ourselves? Is that too radical a concept?!
Not the worst idea...or just return them
to their former selves where they didn't control medicine. I believe it's actually insurance that largely responsible for higher than necessary medical costs. It's another layer in the system that needs to be paid. That alone adds to your bill.
Why not do away with all insurance
Tanning promotes melanoma by causing sub-cutaneous damage
to skin cells. The proper response is to avoid excessive exposure to the sun the way the Arabs do, as in wearing opaque clothing in layers. White folks became white (we all started out in Africa and were therefore dark skinned) in order to facilitate Vitamin D synthesis in the skin at northern Latitudes where sunshine is less strong. Inuk (Eskimos) get their vitamin D from their diet, which is very high in protein and meat products.
Black people have a predisposition to blood dyscrazias like sickle cell, and to high blood pressure at earlier ages.
Generally, white folks have a smaller reservoir of congenital disease than blacks. That's because we're a somewhat younger population and because we got lucky genetically.
Nobody knows that
There's less evidence both genetically and historically than the concept that people became black due to the mark on Ham's decendents.
Not my point but on the right track
It was about "normal" genetic differences being a qualifying factor in what is considered a preexisting condition for covered medical treatments. Generally we think of these conditions as being something a person has contracted unexpectedly. There are already known genetic predispositions to many diseases and surely more will follow. In fact, we're probably creating such conditions even as we try to address others.
Should a genetic predisposition exclude insurance coverage?
Afterall, every year it seems now there is a new discovery of a gene or group of gene that makes those that have it more susceptible to a particular health problem.
I can't remember what it was, but there was some early (1980's maybe) marker identification and there was a furor when some insurance floated the idea of requiring testing for known markers before approving a policy.
I can imagine a scenario where there is a list of markers and an additional charge for each one you have on your medical, life, and long care insurance just as now many choose different deductables and coverage for different premiums.
I don't know if the law has changed, I know several years ago there was a court ruling that an employer insurance policy could exclude any disease or condition specifically as long as it did for all the members of that insurance policy. Don't some insurance exclude medical and life insurance for claims resulting for specific risky behavior? Not talking about just bad health choices like bad diet, too much drinking or smoking, etc, but for for dangerous hobbies such as mountain climbing, parachuting, etc.
I never heard but I would think insurance companies would want to exclude any claims from more modern risk taking like bungee jumping and base jumping with glider chutes etc.
I remember years ago
in areas where people knew each other for generations, often some family groups would be known for certain traits that other families in the area might not want in their offspring, and those family groups would find their offspring less in demand for marriage. Idiocy, alcoholism, violent tendencies, sexual perversions, erratic character, epilepsy, and other maladies that might seem higher in such family groups were noted and other family groups would try and steer their children away from marrying into such affected family group, even if the particular individual from that family seemed OK and not affected by the malady. For instance the royals of Europe with their hemophilia, in such areas would be considered off limits.
and a lot of that was from inbreeding because
a majority of people were born, grew up, married, had kids, and died in less than a 100 miles, hell less than 50.
So how are you suggesting this be applied to insurance.
Nothing other than history repeats itself
Constantly. Insurance companies will do the same as those before them.
The problem with royalty
was that there was a requirement to marry other royalty which kept the gene pool rather tight. I believe there are old biblical references bans on marriage to those too closely related and I'm wanting to say it used to be seven degrees of consanguinity . I do remember reading that, at the request of kings, the church excepted royalty allowing them to marry within 4 degrees.
in the bible one wasn't supposed to marry a relative any closer than a second cousin.
the population in the Bible
was somewhat restrained in terms of diversity also wasn't it?
Smaller population to choose a mate, since you were forbidden to chose outside, even though there were 12 tribes of Jews historically (if I remember correctly) people you met were mostly people your family knew.
I suppose that is one reason arranged marriages had such a wide spread adoption historically, to arrange for marriages that provided "new blood" into families often from outside the known/local availbility. And some cultures maintained blood line records as carefully as a race horse breeder to make sure of relationship of potential mates. Or so I understand.
There was both consanguinity and affinity
and then you add direct and collateral to the mix. I was mistaken about the 7 degrees as that was from Roman law as noted here which was used commonly throughout Europe at one time. Apparently that changed to the Lev. interpretation but even that one is a bit convoluted. It's no wonder that finding a legal spouse was such a mess.