• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How much does a gastro-bypass surgery cost?

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why do people need gastro-bypass surgery? And why is it ethical or moral for ALL taxpayers to foot the medical bills of drug addicts and food addicts?
 

justabubba

long standing member
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 22, 2005
Messages
50,410
Reaction score
32,162
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why do people need gastro-bypass surgery? And why is it ethical or moral for ALL taxpayers to foot the medical bills of drug addicts and food addicts?
do only drug and food addicts receive taxpayer funded gastric bypass surgery? please show us the source of your argument
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
do only drug and food addicts receive taxpayer funded gastric bypass surgery? please show us the source of your argument
No they don't. But the surgeries and treatment necessary for such conditions are VERY expensive. And, as it just so happens, things like fried food, alcohol, and drugs are big reasons why our health care costs are currently so outrageous. I'm not for a trans fat tax, but rather I would like to see people paying for their own mistakes.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Gastro-bypass surgery usually pays for itself by reducing overall health care costs, so I don't have much of a problem with that. I'd be up for taxpayer-sponsored lap bands and vasectomies.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Gastro-bypass surgery usually pays for itself by reducing overall health care costs, so I don't have much of a problem with that. I'd be up for taxpayer-sponsored lap bands and vasectomies.
Ok, would you mind if the government took more of your income to pay for my gym membership? That might reduce my overall health care costs. Thanks for the free gym membership!
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Ok, would you mind if the government took more of your income to pay for my gym membership? That might reduce my overall health care costs. Thanks for the free gym membership!
I'm not talking about your healthcare costs, I'm talking about the amount of money that government spends on your healthcare.

What I'm saying is not particularly controversial - Imagine that Medicaid pays for glasses, and that that costs the government $250/year. Now imagine that $1000 lasik surgery would eliminate the need for Medicaid to ever pay for glasses again. In this case, it would be a smart fiscal decision for the government to offer Lasik as an option to those on Medicaid.

In the same vein, the upfront cost of a lapband for someone who is morbidly obese and on medicaid is probably less than the long-term cost of to the government of paying for their their health complications.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not talking about your healthcare costs, I'm talking about the amount of money that government spends on your healthcare.

What I'm saying is not particularly controversial - Imagine that Medicaid pays for glasses, and that that costs the government $250/year. Now imagine that $1000 lasik surgery would eliminate the need for Medicaid to ever pay for glasses again. In this case, it would be a smart fiscal decision for the government to offer Lasik as an option to those on Medicaid.

In the same vein, the upfront cost of a lapband for someone who is morbidly obese and on medicaid is probably less than the long-term cost of to the government of paying for their their health complications.
True, but what's even more cost-saving and ethical is to have the morbidly obsese person may for his/her own lapband.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
True, but what's even more cost-saving and ethical is to have the morbidly obsese person may for his/her own lapband.
I'm talking about people on Medicaid who probably don't have $6k laying around.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Perhaps a cut in the grocery budget may do wonders for their savings.
This isn't about personal responsibility, it's about making the best of a bad situation. Again, consider the Lasik example above. It would be penny-wise, pound-foolish for the government to refuse to cover something with a larger short-term but smaller long-term cost.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Gastro-bypass surgery usually pays for itself by reducing overall health care costs, so I don't have much of a problem with that. I'd be up for taxpayer-sponsored lap bands and vasectomies.
Unless the surgery has improved a lot recently, I was under the impression that it was very dangerous, led to severe health complications in many instances, and often had to be reversed anyway.
I wonder if statistics would bear you out.
As much negative stuff as I've heard about gastric bypass surgery, i can't imagine people who get it are healthier.
It sounds like many of them become permanently disabled and unable to work.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Unless the surgery has improved a lot recently, I was under the impression that it was very dangerous, led to severe health complications in many instances, and often had to be reversed anyway.
I wonder if statistics would bear you out.
As much negative stuff as I've heard about gastric bypass surgery, i can't imagine people who get it are healthier.
It sounds like many of them become permanently disabled and unable to work.
Modern lap band surgery is very safe. Adjustable gastric band - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For people who are mordbidly obese, it's much less risky than living with all that extra weight. My uncle got the surgery a year or two ago and was back at his job as a prison guard almost immediately. His health has improved dramatically.
 

1069

Banned
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
24,978
Reaction score
5,126
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Modern lap band surgery is very safe. Adjustable gastric band - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For people who are mordbidly obese, it's much less risky than living with all that extra weight. My uncle got the surgery a year or two ago and was back at his job as a prison guard almost immediately. His health has improved dramatically.
Oh, that's good to hear.
I remember hearing some awful things about it previously.
Unacceptably high mortality rates, as far as I was concerned.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Oh, that's good to hear.
I remember hearing some awful things about it previously.
Unacceptably high mortality rates, as far as I was concerned.
Back in the day, 1/50 died within a month. That particular procedure has improved to 1/250, but the new procedure is only 1/2000 which is comparable to any open surgery.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,061
Reaction score
32,895
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Perhaps a cut in the grocery budget may do wonders for their savings.
Well, you can either restrict people's choices to buy fatty foods or you can accept the consequences of them buying that food. They paid into the medicare system, wouldn't you say they should get some of that back by receiving the benefits of that system?
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
This isn't about personal responsibility, it's about making the best of a bad situation. Again, consider the Lasik example above. It would be penny-wise, pound-foolish for the government to refuse to cover something with a larger short-term but smaller long-term cost.
This has everything to do with personal responsibility, and the role of the federal government. I understand that this proposal may have some gains in the cutting of costs. But it doesn't go far enough.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well, you can either restrict people's choices to buy fatty foods or you can accept the consequences of them buying that food. They paid into the medicare system, wouldn't you say they should get some of that back by receiving the benefits of that system?
That is if you consider these programs to be legitimate insurance programs. But with our changing demographics and wasteful spending by the feds, it is definitely NOT an insurance program. It's also a program that is forced upon you, which is unethical.

I also would not tax or outlaw the fatty foods. Instead, allow the individual to assume full responsibility for their decisions. They can keep spending money on fatty foods instead of their health, just as smokers and drug-addicts should have the right to spend their resources on poison rather than nutrition. Have the freedom, just don't expect me to fix their mistake.
 
Last edited:

drz-400

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
2,357
Reaction score
551
Location
North Dakota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That is if you consider these programs to be legitimate insurance programs. But with our changing demographics and wasteful spending by the feds, it is definitely NOT an insurance program. It's also a program that is forced upon you, which is unethical.

I also would not tax or outlaw the fatty foods. Instead, allow the individual to assume full responsibility for their decisions. They can keep spending money on fatty foods instead of their health, just as smokers and drug-addicts should have the right to spend their resources on poison rather than nutrition. Have the freedom, just don't expect me to fix their mistake.
Question: Does (for example) smoking have additional costs that are not included in the market price?

Remember our discussion about externalities, this is an example of a negative externality.

As far as government programs like medicare, medicaid, etc. There are ways to justify them as ethical. For example, what if I believe from an ethical standpoint, that if any benefit can be given in our society, it should be given to those least well off? Then providing health insurance for the elderly and poor would meet my definition of ethical.

I think your definition of "ethical" is short cited. How do you feel about handicap parking spots. They are forced upon you and make someone elses problem your problem. Are they unethical? How could we possibly justify them as being ethical?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
75,061
Reaction score
32,895
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That is if you consider these programs to be legitimate insurance programs. But with our changing demographics and wasteful spending by the feds, it is definitely NOT an insurance program. It's also a program that is forced upon you, which is unethical.

I also would not tax or outlaw the fatty foods. Instead, allow the individual to assume full responsibility for their decisions. They can keep spending money on fatty foods instead of their health, just as smokers and drug-addicts should have the right to spend their resources on poison rather than nutrition. Have the freedom, just don't expect me to fix their mistake.
Medicare has a lower overhead than any private insurance company and their payouts are lower than private insurance companies pay. (a subject of much discontent for doctors!) I don't see how you can claim medicare is wasting money. You are also not forced to use medicare, I don't know where you got that idea. Unless you're talking about the taxes paid in? I'm "forced" to pay for roads I don't drive on, and for fighter planes I don't fly, and for schools I don't attend. Is that unethical?
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Question: Does (for example) smoking have additional costs that are not included in the market price?

Remember our discussion about externalities, this is an example of a negative externality.

As far as government programs like medicare, medicaid, etc. There are ways to justify them as ethical. For example, what if I believe from an ethical standpoint, that if any benefit can be given in our society, it should be given to those least well off? Then providing health insurance for the elderly and poor would meet my definition of ethical.

I think your definition of "ethical" is short cited. How do you feel about handicap parking spots. They are forced upon you and make someone elses problem your problem. Are they unethical? How could we possibly justify them as being ethical?
Sure, there are negative externalities. There are negative externalities in almost any market transaction. What is your point?

Second, there is nothing wrong with giving benefits to those are "least well off." I just don't favor the top-down, centralized approach to providing to some what others must sacrifice. Legalize cottage industries, reduce the taxes significantly, and leave people to their own devices. The elderly are capable of sustaining a fiscal crisis come 2030. We already spend something like six dollars on every senior for every dollar we spend on children. And the elderly make up the one of the wealthiest brackets of society. They've had years to invest and save for their retirement needs, while we're stealing from younger generations that will have to work twice as hard and face cuts that the baby boomers will never have to deal with. And that is ethical?

Finally, handicap parking spots are not bankrupting the country. They are the least of my worries, in terms of fiscal policy. I would rather favor the bottom-up approach to this problem, and leave businesses alone. Would it be easier for a smaller business to give a woman in a wheelchair an office on the first floor, or to force them to construct a $300,000 elevator? We wonder why small businesses can never keep up.

Have you ever looked at the effects of the government managing our graduate medical schools? Since they froze funding these schools since 1994 and have forced the hospitals to find alternative approaches to funding resident training, the same number (or less) physicians are being trained today then were in 2000. This is true despite our aging population. What is the result? Physician shortages in many areas. Next, the government routinely denies the construction of new hospitals in some states unless they are found to be needed in a certain community by state planners. So, now we are faced wth a shortage of hospitals and a shortage of physicians, thanks largely to government restrictions and licensing procedures. And businesses have taken full advantage of the law, as many communities are faced with having only one large hospital that lobbies to restrict a certificate of need (CON) for any emerging competition. Without competition, you can't expect to see the supply boosted, the costs reduced, or the quality improved.
 
Last edited:

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Medicare has a lower overhead than any private insurance company and their payouts are lower than private insurance companies pay. (a subject of much discontent for doctors!) I don't see how you can claim medicare is wasting money. You are also not forced to use medicare, I don't know where you got that idea. Unless you're talking about the taxes paid in? I'm "forced" to pay for roads I don't drive on, and for fighter planes I don't fly, and for schools I don't attend. Is that unethical?
HR 3962 capped the amount of money that could be reimbursed for medicare providers. What a fantastic incentive! Which state faces the highest premiums in the country? Massachusettes. Any idea why that might be? Governments do a horrible job accounting for the costs of various programs. Medicare was projected to cost $12 billion in 1990; instead the cost came in at almost ten times that figure. Some states require all insurance companies to cover things like acupuncture and chiropractic treatments, thus raising the overall premium costs. So, there are a lot of reasons why private insurance companies have such a high overhead, and it stems from excessive regulation. Is it higher than Medicare? Possibly, but I've never heard that claim nor have I seen any evidence to suggest it is credible.

Do you really deny that medicare is wasting money? Americans generally agree that medicare fraud is costing the taxpayer tens of billions of dollars, yet only 5% of medicare claims are audited by the Fed.

As for the last statement, I see no harm in privatizing roads and transportation and issuing vouchers to give parents choice in their children's education. Why not? As for defense, though I think private mercenaries can do a better job, it is one of the fundamental roles of the federal government, as outlined by the U.S. Constitution.
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm gonna have to side with those who take the externality view. Having these procedures covered tends to be a smaller price than to maintain the lifestyle for some.

You can't be "too libertarian" on things like this. Hell, if you really want to go hardcore, you'll remove any chance of a meritocracy and strictly enforce a plutocracy. I don't want Paris Hilton having any sort of command.
 

Mensch

Mr. Professional
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2010
Messages
3,715
Reaction score
751
Location
Northern Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm gonna have to side with those who take the externality view. Having these procedures covered tends to be a smaller price than to maintain the lifestyle for some.

You can't be "too libertarian" on things like this. Hell, if you really want to go hardcore, you'll remove any chance of a meritocracy and strictly enforce a plutocracy. I don't want Paris Hilton having any sort of command.
So, you're in favor of subsidizing the surgery, but not for "maintaining <their> lifestyle?" I assume by "maintaining lifestyle," you're implying medicare and social security? I may be confused. I don't understand why it is my responsibility to pay for the mistakes of others. How do people learn from mistakes if any mistake is always forgiven by the government through some sort of bailout?

Of course it is cheaper to subsidize the treatment of drug-addicts as it is to subsidize their lifestyle, but I don't believe in either subsidy.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
So, you're in favor of subsidizing the surgery, but not for "maintaining <their> lifestyle?" I assume by "maintaining lifestyle," you're implying medicare and social security? I may be confused. I don't understand why it is my responsibility to pay for the mistakes of others. How do people learn from mistakes if any mistake is always forgiven by the government through some sort of bailout?

Of course it is cheaper to subsidize the treatment of drug-addicts as it is to subsidize their lifestyle, but I don't believe in either subsidy.
But you have to acknowledge that whether or not you agree with them, some subsidies will not be eliminated. Again, look back to the glasses/Lasik example. Pretend that we currently spend $250/year on glasses and that eliminating that portion of the program is not an option. Would you still refuse to offer Lasik, instead shelling out $250 every year in order to punish people for their mistakes?
 

Gipper

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2008
Messages
25,120
Reaction score
7,658
Location
Theoretical Physics Lab
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
ElijahGalt said:
So, you're in favor of subsidizing the surgery, but not for "maintaining <their> lifestyle?" I assume by "maintaining lifestyle," you're implying medicare and social security? I may be confused.
No, I'm implying the lifestyle of being lazy and fat. Frankly, the cross we bare is a self-inflicted burden. With the rampant corruption going on at the FDA, not to mention the idiots calling shots, it's not entirely someone's fault if they display somewhat poor eating habits.

I think you're envisioning a utopian society where everyone is fit, intelligent, moral, wealthy, communicative, and peaceful. Let's face it - man is man because of inherent errors. People are going to slip through the cracks. If we educate people about the simplistics of nutrition (and it is very easy), they can make better choices, and make this pandemic cut down. Having said that, I have no problem helping someone who's willing to help themselves. If someone got pretty heavy and wanted to make a commitment to change their sedentary lifestyle, sure - give them a helping hand. After all, it's not like getting a gastric bypass or a lap-band is an instant cure-all. They don't wake up the next morning perfectly healthy. It's a tool to help achieve a goal - a goal they still have to try for.

This is an extremely slippery slope you're heading down. Next, it may be removal of college loans and reverting back to the day where only the rich go to school.

Use of public funds is not, in an of itself, an evil or amoral act. Abuse of it is.
 
Top Bottom