At what point are adults responsible for themselves?

[bettymae1121]

While I hate the idea of anyone scaming the system, the trouble becomes that the harder we make it to get help, the harder it is for people who really need the help to get it. Allowing people who need assitance to get it with a minium of hoops to jump through (which I think we all agree is fine) means that a certain number of people who are less deserving (or don't need it at all) will be able to take advantage. The trick is to allow as many needy as possible access while trying to limit the number of moochers. It's a tough line to draw.

The OP has the right to be anoyed by the patient in her post, I probably would be too. The trouble is that in order to weed people like him out, you'd have to make it more difficult or impossible for others to get the help that they do need.

 

[Arielle22]

OP, I understand your frustration and agree with you.

I have never smoked. However my sister smoked for 30 years and my MIL smoked for 40 years. My MIL quit cold turkey on my niece's birthday about 12 years ago. She said it was her present to my niece.

My sister went to a hypotist recently. She walked out of the office and has not smoked since, not even a craving. My niece has smoked for a couple of years and also went to the hypnotist. She too has stopped.

So I do think everyone can quit if they have the proper mindset. I don't think it is easy and it may take several tries but it can be done.

 

[Carly_Roach]

Being that just about everyone in my family smokes at one time or another and some for 30 plus years and we have all quit, I don't believe that you can't quit. I speak from experience, and anyone that says they can't is a cop out. You don't know me and you don't know how my addiction was, I went into a panick just thinking about quiting, I finally did. Went cold turkey 12 years ago and never looked back as did most of my family. So yes it can be done.

As I stated I quit so anyone can. Sorry but it is the truth.

It isn't easy for ANYBODY. it is extemely addictive, but it can be done and it is done all the time. NOt an excuse in my book.

You strike me as someone who didn't quit because they wanted to, but actually quit because the peer pressure got to be too much.

I see this all the time - former smokers (or former obese people) who caved to the constant cajoling, rude remarks and outright bullying from others and gave up something they didn't really want to give up. Now these former smokers (or former obese) believe that they can use the same peer pressure tactics on others because they worked so well on them.

Truly: Does someone telling you that if they can do it so can you ever really work as any kind of incentive? That's been the staple tag line of the get-rich-quick MLM schemes and shyster diet pill industries for years.

 

[Cooky]

.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

Does someone telling you that if they can do it so can you ever really work as any kind of incentive? That's been the staple tag line of the get-rich-quick MLM schemes and shyster diet pill industries for years.

Ha!

To cease smoking is the easiest thing I ever did. I ought to know because I've done it a thousand times. ~Mark Twain, attributed

Thank heaven, I have given up smoking again!... God! I feel fit. Homicidal, but fit. A different man. Irritable, moody, depressed, rude, nervy, perhaps; but the lungs are fine. ~A.P. Herbert

 

[Tinkermommy]

To OP,

You ask when should adults be responsible for themselves. Do you feel that posting the personal medical information about this man was a responsible thing to do? Would you do the same for a middle-class person with private insurance who say had accidentally cut himself?

Do you think it is okay to post confidential information about someone because they are receiving public assistance? Because they are making choices you disagree with?

How do you think your employer would feel if they knew you were posting medical information about patients on the Internet? I know you are not posting his name, but do you really think that makes a difference, ethically speaking?

Did you get his permission to write about him, like if someone participates in a study where he agrees to personal information being collected and used in reports with the participants remaining anonymous?

I’m sure it’s not unusual for health care providers to discuss patients out of the work environment or maybe even share information with a spouse at home. But it seems really egregious to post it on the Internet.

You are in a position of trust. We are trusting people like you to keep our personal information confidential. I hope before you judge the responsible or irresponsible behavior of others and the ethics of how they are living their lives, you will consider examining your own behavior and the responsibility you have to those who come to you seeking help.

To Other Posters,

Where are you going to draw the line? Should people who have food addictions or eat “bad” foods, use illicit drugs or abuse of prescription drugs be denied medical care because they are on public assistance? People who cannot adequately care for themselves and don’t take their anti-depressants or diabetes medication, should they be denied medical care because they are on public assistance?

What about people who do not wear their seatbelts, people who drive over the speed limit, people who jaywalk and then have accidents; people who don't manage their stress and develop high blood pressure; should they all be denied medical treatment if they receive public assistance?

I don't think the OP broke any HIPPA laws since there is now way we could trace back this story to a particular person.

I do agree with you and several other pps about disqualifying people based on their habits. That's a slippery slope I don't want to go near.

This man was not denied any benefits though, and in fact he got more than his medical plans called for.

The bottom line the man is making choices that work for him. He would rather put up with being sick and having to go to the hospital than take his meds, stop smoking and change his lifestyle.

I think once his free meds runs out, he will probably end up back in the ER and the cycle will start again.

 

[Acklander]

Sadly we have created an entitlement class in this society. It needs a major overhaul, where most people are dropped.

I'd drop this guy for the smoking. I have no issues making it a requirement of Medicaid/Medicare or any gov't assitance to be drug free, including cigarettes.

But where do you stop? Should you drop everyone who is overweight? Everyone who doesn't exercise? Everyone who doesn't eat their fruits and veggies? Anyone who's ever had an addiction? or mental illness?
You talk about an entitlement class - does that mean everyone is entitled to health care except those who smoke? Where would you draw the line???

 

[3Minnies2Mickeys]

So then you would deny him medical care because he's not drug free? interesting. Doesn't that open up all types of ethical questions? who gets to decide? do we pay for the old guy who is 85 but wants a heart transplant even though statistically he has a short life span?

What about the boozer who needs a liver transplant but is on medicaid? Does he not get it because you think he shouldn't be drinking in the first place?

And all these dropped people? Do they magically disappear and never get sick again? or do they have to pass a test where they only get treatment and services if they sign some morality clause to live they way we deem is acceptable?

Heck why not add all types of requirements? can't be overweight, can't have bad breath, can't be old, can't be Jewish? yes, I'm being extreme but when you start down the slippery slope of trying to regulate morality and life style 9/10 it leads to gross abuse and discrimination.

If we are going to run around screaming, FREEDOM, FREEDOM, FREEDOM at the top of our lungs while wrapped in a flag, that means everyone one gets to make personal choices. even the ones we abhor.

I doubt very seriously that a guy who can't afford 10 meds is rolling around town in a limo feeling real entitled.

Wow!! I could not have said that better myself. I agree. It is indeed a slippery slope. We don't know this man's history, his level of education, his upbringing, or the trials and tribulations that he has had to endure on a daily basis yet many seem to be writing him off as someone who lives to work the system. It just seems sad. I know many nurses and none of them have ever tied their ability to show compassion for a patient to the patient's method of payment or their inability to stop an addiction.

 

[laurie31]

I wonder what would happen if we took the issue of smoking out of the equation. What if he was spending his money on clothes, a car, anything else? Let's even take health care out of it. What about someone who lives in Section 8 housing but has a Smartphone and a nice car? (I understand people need a phone, but not an expensive phone with internet access).

The issue is, that it isn't fair for taxpayers to buy people their necessities when they are spending the money they DO have on things they WANT and not things they NEED.

Why can't I go out and buy a new car and remodel my kitchen with my paycheck, and then have the government pay my mortgage and buy my food? It's the same thing. *I* as an adult, have the responsibility to pay my bills FIRST and then if there's anything left over, I can buy what I want, whether it's a Big Mac, a cell phone, a car, fancy clothes, or whatever. But ONLY then. And yes, I have the right to buy whatever I want (legally of course) with my money. But when it becomes YOUR money I'm spending, then yeah, I'd say you have a stake in it.

 

[sbell111]

I wonder what would happen if we took the issue of smoking out of the equation. What if he was spending his money on clothes, a car, anything else? Let's even take health care out of it. What about someone who lives in Section 8 housing but has a Smartphone and a nice car? (I understand people need a phone, but not an expensive phone with internet access).

The issue is, that it isn't fair for taxpayers to buy people their necessities when they are spending the money they DO have on things they WANT and not things they NEED.

Why can't I go out and buy a new car and remodel my kitchen with my paycheck, and then have the government pay my mortgage and buy my food? It's the same thing. *I* as an adult, have the responsibility to pay my bills FIRST and then if there's anything left over, I can buy what I want, whether it's a Big Mac, a cell phone, a car, fancy clothes, or whatever. But ONLY then. And yes, I have the right to buy whatever I want (legally of course) with my money. But when it becomes YOUR money I'm spending, then yeah, I'd say you have a stake in it.

I'm sorry. I'm having trouble connecting your question to the OP's example. I suppose that it is because you have decided that the man is somehow scamming the system. I have seen no evidence that this is correct.

 

[RadioFanatic]

No problem what so ever. And I know that it is hard, however, I don't like giving it to him for free when he could buy it but refuses to spend the money and yet he buys his cigs. I don't have a problem with medicaid for those who need it, but they have to help themselves a little

Another thing, you hear all the time about the elderly not being able to afford their prescriptions, so they either don't take them or occasionally you hear about them eating dog food so they can pay for them. 'Yet this man won't pay the $4.00 for this meds yet he buys cigs. Yes, that really burns me up. I have the weakest will power out there, and I managed to quit and if I can then anyone can.

IN NY, the meds for a month are actually less expensive than one pack of cigarettes.

 

[laurie31]

I'm sorry. I'm having trouble connecting your question to the OP's example. I suppose that it is because you have decided that the man is somehow scamming the system. I have seen no evidence that this is correct.

In the OP's example, the man has money (we know this because he is buying cigarettes with it) but he chooses NOT to buy necessities (his medication).

I don't know if he meant to scam the system or not, and maybe he's truly so addited to nicotine that he chose cigarettes over life-saving meds, but the point is, he bought a WANT before he bought a NEED. That's irresponsible. Period.

People seemed to be focusing on the fact that he bought cigarettes (which are bad for you) and not simply that he took the money that he had and bought something he wanted. What it was doesn't really matter.

 

[sbell111]

In the OP's example, the man has money (we know this because he is buying cigarettes with it) but he chooses NOT to buy necessities (his medication).

Clearly, you missed my earlier post that discussed the relative costs of cigs and his medications. Suffice it to say that I don't think that you can draw a conclusion from the fact that he is a smoker to him scamming the system or, as I tried to also address in the earlier post, that he is irresponsible.

I don't know if he meant to scam the system or not, and maybe he's truly so addited to nicotine that he chose cigarettes over life-saving meds, but the point is, he bought a WANT before he bought a NEED. That's irresponsible. Period.

People seemed to be focusing on the fact that he bought cigarettes (which are bad for you) and not simply that he took the money that he had and bought something he wanted. What it was doesn't really matter.

Imagine that a person loses his job and can't replace it with one that makes enough money to pay his bills. He tries his best, but he simply can't pay his mortgage. Now imagine that you spot him in the convenience store buying a soda and a candy bar. Is he irresposible because he bought a soda and a candy bar when he couldn't afford to pay his mortgage?

 

[Jaime4004]

To OP,

You ask when should adults be responsible for themselves. Do you feel that posting the personal medical information about this man was a responsible thing to do? Would you do the same for a middle-class person with private insurance who say had accidentally cut himself?

Do you think it is okay to post confidential information about someone because they are receiving public assistance? Because they are making choices you disagree with?

How do you think your employer would feel if they knew you were posting medical information about patients on the Internet? I know you are not posting his name, but do you really think that makes a difference, ethically speaking?

Did you get his permission to write about him, like if someone participates in a study where he agrees to personal information being collected and used in reports with the participants remaining anonymous?

I’m sure it’s not unusual for health care providers to discuss patients out of the work environment or maybe even share information with a spouse at home. But it seems really egregious to post it on the Internet.

You are in a position of trust. We are trusting people like you to keep our personal information confidential. I hope before you judge the responsible or irresponsible behavior of others and the ethics of how they are living their lives, you will consider examining your own behavior and the responsibility you have to those who come to you seeking help.

To Other Posters,

Where are you going to draw the line? Should people who have food addictions or eat “bad” foods, use illicit drugs or abuse of prescription drugs be denied medical care because they are on public assistance? People who cannot adequately care for themselves and don’t take their anti-depressants or diabetes medication, should they be denied medical care because they are on public assistance?

What about people who do not wear their seatbelts, people who drive over the speed limit, people who jaywalk and then have accidents; people who don't manage their stress and develop high blood pressure; should they all be denied medical treatment if they receive public assistance?

Well, that's a bit over the top... The OP didn't give out any personal information at all. Anyone learn the ID of this patient given the info?? The internet is full of generic "56 y.o. male with history of blah blah, comes in complaining of..." It helps your patients to run things by colleagues.

I totally understand the OP's need to vent. I come across this all the time and it is very frustrating and not at all uncommon. To me, this was less about a specific person, than about a more widespread problem.

 

[eliza61]

I wonder what would happen if we took the issue of smoking out of the equation. What if he was spending his money on clothes, a car, anything else? Let's even take health care out of it. What about someone who lives in Section 8 housing but has a Smartphone and a nice car? (I understand people need a phone, but not an expensive phone with internet access).

The issue is, that it isn't fair for taxpayers to buy people their necessities when they are spending the money they DO have on things they WANT and not things they NEED.
Why can't I go out and buy a new car and remodel my kitchen with my paycheck, and then have the government pay my mortgage and buy my food? It's the same thing. *I* as an adult, have the responsibility to pay my bills FIRST and then if there's anything left over, I can buy what I want, whether it's a Big Mac, a cell phone, a car, fancy clothes, or whatever. But ONLY then. And yes, I have the right to buy whatever I want (legally of course) with my money. But when it becomes YOUR money I'm spending, then yeah, I'd say you have a stake in it.

I have 2 issues,
First, as many people have stated taxes are the price we pay for the ability to make the choices we do. Was it fair for me to fund a war in Iraq when I was vehemently opposed to it? that wasn't a neccessity. Not to get into that argument, my point is, if we are going to claim we love our "freedoms" as much as we say we do, then unfortunately it means paying for some really irresponsible people.
So if you feel you have a choice about what to fund (you don't want your taxes to go to people who you feel are making life style choices you oppose, I don't want my taxes to go to a illegal war enterprise) then every one should get that choice. Once again, very slippery slope.

Next,
Is there some standard that a poor person has to reach before we deem them "worthy" enough?
I hear this "cell phone" argument all the time against the poor. They can have a cell phone only if it has the features we deem as "poor approved" which apparently means no texting or no internet services.
So what are the rules, they have to have ripped torn clothing in order to qualify for food stamps.

I 100% agree that there are abuses in the system. I see it, in my volunteer work with the working poor and I know every one here on the dis knows some one who has a cadillac escalade and goes to wdw 4X's a year while on welfare. but I challenge anyone to spend a month down at the local food bank or human resource department and see exactly who all these so called people living "la vida Loca off of my tax dollars" really are.

 

[mhsjax]

You strike me as someone who didn't quit because they wanted to, but actually quit because the peer pressure got to be too much.

I see this all the time - former smokers (or former obese people) who caved to the constant cajoling, rude remarks and outright bullying from others and gave up something they didn't really want to give up. Now these former smokers (or former obese) believe that they can use the same peer pressure tactics on others because they worked so well on them.

Truly: Does someone telling you that if they can do it so can you ever really work as any kind of incentive? That's been the staple tag line of the get-rich-quick MLM schemes and shyster diet pill industries for years.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong, the only people that knew I smoked were my hubby, my mom and my friends that smoked. No peer pressure, the only pressure was from myself and what would my kids do without a mom to take care of them. I don't know where you got that idea. My family that smoked did so when I was young and too young to smoke, then when I was old enough, I lived 5 states away and really had no contact with them.

It is strange the things that people come up with her at the Dis boards, and never once did I say anything about anyone giving me peer pressure to quit.
Also, there is no amount of peer pressure out there that can cause a person to quit smoking or over eating or whatever their vice may be. It doesn't work that way. This comment alone tells me that I need to leave the Dis boards, I just can't understand for the life of me how you got that info. just blows my mind.

 

[mhsjax]

Clearly, you missed my earlier post that discussed the relative costs of cigs and his medications. Suffice it to say that I don't think that you can draw a conclusion from the fact that he is a smoker to him scamming the system or, as I tried to also address in the earlier post, that he is irresponsible. Imagine that a person loses his job and can't replace it with one that makes enough money to pay his bills. He tries his best, but he simply can't pay his mortgage. Now imagine that you spot him in the convenience store buying a soda and a candy bar. Is he irresposible because he bought a soda and a candy bar when he couldn't afford to pay his mortgage?

Sorry you can't compare a mortgage that can be hundreds or thousands of dollars, to a prescription that the op said costs less than a pack of cigs. That just doesn't make sense. And yes he is totally irresponsible for that.

I see over and over again people here getting bent out of shape because someone may take a small vacation or buy something when they may be losing their house, when the truth is, giving up that thing wouldn't cover the house, yet when this man chooses to indulge in a bad habit, when he is already not in a healthy condition, then it is ok, even thought the tax payers are footing the bill for the drugs that he can't afford, bit could is he gave up the cigs. According to the OP

 

[Cooky]

.

 

[Acklander]

I totally understand the OP's need to vent. I come across this all the time and it is very frustrating and not at all uncommon. To me, this was less about a specific person, than about a more widespread problem.

But the OP was doing more than venting. The OP herself stated that instead of calling a cab (like she might do for someone who doesn't smoke???) she sent him to sit by a phone and find someone to come get him.
She also stated "I told the doctor about the med situation. He made me hold Mr X until the caseworker could fill all of his medications for free."
The doctor MADE HER???? does that mean if it were up to her, she would have done it differently.
I don't see her actions as "venting" but that her bias may be effecting treatment for the low income patients who happen to also smoke. Big differentce

 

[Carly_Roach]

But the OP was doing more than venting. The OP herself stated that instead of calling a cab (like she might do for someone who doesn't smoke???) she sent him to sit by a phone and find someone to come get him.
She also stated "I told the doctor about the med situation. He made me hold Mr X until the caseworker could fill all of his medications for free."
The doctor MADE HER???? does that mean if it were up to her, she would have done it differently.
I don't see her actions as "venting" but that her bias may be effecting treatment for the low income patients who happen to also smoke. Big differentce

Yeah, I caught that too and, frankly, it offended me tremendously. I'd hate to think of my 75 y/o father or mother (or any relative for that matter) being parked by the pay phone and told to "figure out how you're getting home" because they said or did something that offended the person who was being paid to take care of him/her. I'm surprised more people didn't call the OP on that particular bit of vengeance.

Sorry you can't compare a mortgage that can be hundreds or thousands of dollars, to a prescription that the op said costs less than a pack of cigs. That just doesn't make sense. And yes he is totally irresponsible for that.

I see over and over again people here getting bent out of shape because someone may take a small vacation or buy something when they may be losing their house, when the truth is, giving up that thing wouldn't cover the house, yet when this man chooses to indulge in a bad habit, when he is already not in a healthy condition, then it is ok, even thought the tax payers are footing the bill for the drugs that he can't afford, bit could is he gave up the cigs. According to the OP

Don't know about you, but I don't pay $5.00 or $6.00 for a pack of cigarettes. No one I know does that. We roll our own which brings the price down to less than a dollar a pack. Much less than the cost of prescription medicines, even if they are "only" $4 each. For all we know the man in the OP may have been a RYO person.

No, what I got out of the OP's vent was that she doesn't approve of people who smoke and will use whatever little power she has to make their lives uncomfortable for them whenever she can. And then she'll vent about it to strangers.

To which I say "Fine". I think it's a win-win situation for everyone involved that she and I won't be experiencing each other in real life. Because if she'd done that to one of my loved ones (just about all of whom smoke) you'd better believe we'd be suing the hospital for neglect faster than you can say Call Lee Free.