No Help For Self-Inflicted Wounds

I believe we should take care of our citizens who are unable to take care of themselves, as every civilized country does. In fact, one of the primary marks of civilization (in the highest sense of the word) is that willingness. We don't abandon our sick and helpless to the wolves of this world.
On the other hand, I strongly object to paying for the care of those who choose to shoot themselves in the foot, especially when they do so in the full knowledge of what they are doing.

For instance, I object to paying for medical treatment of people who have knowingly accepted the potential consequences of risky behavior, such as smokers. This category, which I call the Self-Wounded, includes people who ride on motorcycles, especially without helmets. It includes the morbidly obese, alcoholics with liver damage, people who are injured as a result of a wreck resulting from driving at excessive speeds or while impaired, people who poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick, and probably a host of others with equivalent problems.

The crucial distinction is that the Self-Wounded knowingly chose to engage in risky behavior. I have no objection to this, of course. People should have the right to behave as stupidly and with as much risk as they wish. What I object to is their assumption that if something "goes wrong" and they are injured, the rest of the population should chip in to pay for their treatment. Should we expect the government (i.e. us) or insurance (i.e. us) to pay for medical treatment for conditions known to result from a specific risk?

I propose that Self-Wounded people assume the costs for the specific risks they knowingly take. For instance, I think medical insurance should exclude costs for lung cancer arising from cigarette smoking. For instance, I think medical insurance should not pay for head injuries suffered by motorcyclists riding without a helmet. For instance, I think that medical insurance should not pay for treatment of cirrhosis of the liver for alcoholics. For instance, I think that we should not pay for joint replacement for the morbidly obese or for their heart damage as a result of excessive fats in their diet.

By excluding such conditions from medical insurance or government medical benefits, people engaging in risky behavior would do so knowing that they, and they alone, assume the responsibility for the consequences. Spelling out the exact definitions of "risky behavior" would require some careful thought, time and attention. Clearly there is room for exception, so there would need to be an impartial committee or the equivalent.

I am fed up with paying for the foolishness and irresponsibility of others. It's expensive enough to pay for my own.

The Point System in Love and Marriage

Perhaps you think that couples rarely keep track of good deeds and jobs well done by either party. Or maybe you believe that couples keep only enough of a rough balance so that chores and tasks don't get too lopsided. Well, in an ideal world that would be the case, But in this world there is a system that women use to track the affectional part of the relationship, which I call the Point System. Points are used to keep track of how loving the male partner is with his woman. If this sounds a little one-sided, that's because it is. Men don't track women's romantic attachment. They simply assume it is there.

Men are aware, however, that they are being tracked. Points are being counted. We have a general sense of how well or how poorly we are doing. Interestingly, relatively soon after the marriage ceremony, we begin to have a vague and uncomfortable feeling that we are not doing something right. This is correct. I will explain how this comes about, from having had years of marriage (to various women) and from years of listening to them as a therapist.

Women keep a mental account of how they are treated by us. When we do something that strikes them as a positive, loving thing, we get a plus point. When we do something that strikes them us uncaring or even unkind, we lose a point. So much is obvious. What is not obvious is that we lose points whenever we merely do the expectedly nice things. To gain a point or even to stay even we have to go beyond the call of duty.

For instance, on Valentine's Day, taking her out to dinner and giving her a nice and loving (not comic) card gets you no negative points. It does NOT give you positive points, because you have not gone above and beyond the expected. You have only done your duty, and that's a zero-point operation. We lose points whenever we might have done something especially nice, without having been hinted at or coaxed, and we didn't. As an example, a female patient told me that her husband had driven the car right past a road-side stand selling her favorite flowers, and he didn't stop. He lost points. Being loving and affectionate while expecting or hoping for sex later is at best a zero point operation, and if egregious enough, is a major point-coster.

It should be clear that we men will spend our lives with points steadily going down. By the time we have been together a while, the points are generally overwhelmingly negative, which results in irritated, caustic and resentful behavior by the women in our lives. This does not cost them points, of course. Responding to their negative behavior in an irritated way costs us points. Treating them nicely when they have said something caustic is just a zero-point option. Just reading this blog to her has undoubtedly cost me a bunch of points.

It's technically possible, I suppose, to have at some time a positive point balance. It is not possible, however, to keep it positive. It's just a matter of time.