Poll: Should smokers be denied access to Medicare? (Australian Medicare)

[Lullabye]

No. Also, people who drive should not be allowed car insurance. People who live should not be allowed life insurance.

 

[RN7]

It's pretty harsh, mirroring totalitarian tactics, but seeing as I hate smokers with the burning passion of 10,000 suns I'd say yes, they should be denied access to medicare in Australia.

 

[Deleted]

They should pay more if the healthcare isn't free.

Outright denying it is going too far.

We already do pay more, it's called cigarette tax, and boy do we pay a lot of it. It can't cost more then 10c to manufacture a pack of cigarettes and then were charged some $6+ at the store.

Well in that case I agree, because they are paying through their whole lives for the packs. Which probably adds up to more than the taxes they pay. Though I'm not sure how it works in America.

 

[ottenni]

Sure lets make them pay, but only if people who drive do so as well. Because they might crash.

In all seriousness i think smokers pay so much extra tax for cigarettes (or whatever they smoke) that they are basically covering themselves anyway.

There's a problem here.

Driving is a means to accomplish something incredible that would be unbelievably difficult without vehicles: distance travel. We live in a society centered around driving, to where 10-30 miles is a normal commute for a lot of people. It speeds travel and allows for opportunities outside a myopically sedentary existence.

Smoking is never a necessity. It doesn't accomplish anything good that a healthier, cheaper (for everyone) alternative couldn't do. It's at the least a pest to some and occasionally passes on hugely detrimental health effects to others when inhaled second-hand.

So no, they are not comparable, sir.

That is all irrelevant. In the end they both present a possible way of causing yourself serious injury. The justification for what caused the injury does not matter either because it is the hospitals job to treat the sick and injured regardless so i think we are wandering in the wrong direction.

Ridiculous.

The case for denying them medicare, which I'm not saying I support, is that smokers are irrationally harming themselves and then asking "the system" to take care of them afterwards which, understandably, many people resent.

The fact that most people NEED driving to sustain a career of some sort negates the idea that both are comparably stupid acts of risk. Also, smoking GUARANTEES someone's health will be in some way compromised, driving doesn't.

Comparison is moot.

I'm not going to disagree with you because you are in no way wrong whatsoever.

The point that i was trying to make was that denying a person who has become ill because they have taken part in an activity that they knew beforehand could cause them to become ill (in this case smoking)assistance, but then allowing someone who has become injured taking part in an activity that they knew beforehand could cause them to become injured (in this case driving) is silly. However this was probably not the best example, sorry about that.

 

[zehydra]

Just so people know, (There's no such thing as free healthcare)

 

[sammi43055]

There are a lot of things that people do that are bad for them. Smoking is just another one on the list. It wouldn't be fair to deny smokers the right to medicare when there are people doing things as bad or worse than smoking.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Depends, if they're 15 year old douchebags who smoke because they think it's cool then yeah.

As a 16 year old smoker, I even begin to explain how idiotic and backward that statement really is. You should hang your head in shame.

In case you didn't notice, I specified that statement by adding "who smoke because they think it's cool". If you have other reasons for smoking I'm fine with that.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

people deserve free health care. Thats one of the main reasons i pay taxes.. that and i kinda have to..

Not in america you dont. I love being english. Im really undecided on this one, it already kind of has an effect doesnt it? Liver Transplant surgery is very limited or even forbidden for those of an alcohloic nature, perhaps lung transplants in future could not be allowed for those still smoking.

If you ruin your lungs by smoking THEN quit, a transplant is ok, on the basis you dont ruin your new lungs. I think this is the system in america for livers. A 5% tax extra fee would be in place for assholes who continue to smoke.

Forbidden to those of an alcoholic nature because if you willingly and knowingly give a liver to an alcoholic then you're just wasting a good liver.

And not all cigarettes do your liver harm. google the E-cigarette, pure nicotine, deemed the healthy way to smoke, or to cut down. However the idea that lung transplants could, in future, be denied to a smoker is something that can, and more than likely will happen.

Also, are you trying to say that not all people should have the opportunity to have free health care?

No no no no no, im trying to say that what we take as a fundimental right is denied to large amount of the modern world. Made me think is all. I think healthcare is the best system so far. Pure nicotine? Wouldnt that make someone more addicted no?

 

[JoshGod]

should we deny health to those who are more likely to need it? no. also if smokers dont get it, soon i wont be allowed it.

 

[ShrooM_DoughKiD]

people deserve free health care. Thats one of the main reasons i pay taxes.. that and i kinda have to..

Not in america you dont. I love being english. Im really undecided on this one, it already kind of has an effect doesnt it? Liver Transplant surgery is very limited or even forbidden for those of an alcohloic nature, perhaps lung transplants in future could not be allowed for those still smoking.

If you ruin your lungs by smoking THEN quit, a transplant is ok, on the basis you dont ruin your new lungs. I think this is the system in america for livers. A 5% tax extra fee would be in place for assholes who continue to smoke.

Forbidden to those of an alcoholic nature because if you willingly and knowingly give a liver to an alcoholic then you're just wasting a good liver.

And not all cigarettes do your liver harm. google the E-cigarette, pure nicotine, deemed the healthy way to smoke, or to cut down. However the idea that lung transplants could, in future, be denied to a smoker is something that can, and more than likely will happen.

Also, are you trying to say that not all people should have the opportunity to have free health care?

No no no no no, im trying to say that what we take as a fundimental right is denied to large amount of the modern world. Made me think is all. I think healthcare is the best system so far. Pure nicotine? Wouldnt that make someone more addicted no?

Not when regulated in certain doses, every cigarette brand had a certain amount of nicotine, i smoke ones that have 16mg, the same goes for the Esmoke, just, no chemicals. And you're right, A large group of the population is denied access to one of the best tools our collective governments have to offer because of their life choices or addictions. if an alcoholic was to get a liver transplant, it should also go hand in hand with say, a rehabilitation program, to curb or even stop their drinking, so that they can get the most out of it, and to assure that it will not go to waste.

 

[teisjm]

I dunno how it is in australia but in denmark theres heavy taxing on tobacco, so i fteh government took away the free healthcare from smokers, they should cut awya at the price on tobaccoas well, cause thats what the majority of the tobacco taxing goes to.

And apart from that:
People who does extreme sports with a high risk of injory are to blame themselves as well.
People who eat too much and/or excercives too little are to blame themselves.
People who drink too much are to blame themselves.
People who does drugs are to blame themselves.
People who eats wrongly (like novegetables or something liek that) are to blame themselves.
People who starts fights and gets injured durring those fight are to blame themselves.
People who are reckless in trafic are to blame themselves when they get injured.
People who does excessive sun-bathing to get a tan are to blame themselves for exposing themselves to skin cancer.
People who gets hand/wrist inhuries due to excessive gaming are to blame themselves.
People who has unprotected sex and gets an STD are to blame themselves.
etc. etc. etc.

My point is, a whole lot of people does a whole lot of things that are unneccecery (or doesn't do neccecery things) that leads to injuries or sickness, so you could force peopel to pay themselves if they are to blame themselves, but you'll end up with many many cases where people are more or less to blame themselves. Smoking has just been trendy to hate on for the past few years.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

This is a really tough one to call.

If smokers get refused help, the so should people who refuse to eat right and pig out all the time, then you should also refuse help to people in dangerous sports / jobs, then you should refuse people who stay in the sun too long, or drink too much coffee, or swallow too many pills and so on so forth

so once a precedent is set, thats it the rest will probably follow.

I dont smoke cigarettes, and i think its a nasty habit that costs way too much money and is killing way too many people, but its all about choice. Prohibition doesnt work, so give the people a choice, and deal with the consequences.

 

[MetalMonkey74]

s

Depends, if they're 15 year old douchebags who smoke because they think it's cool then yeah.

As a 16 year old smoker, I even begin to explain how idiotic and backward that statement really is. You should hang your head in shame.

In case you didn't notice, I specified that statement by adding "who smoke because they think it's cool". If you have other reasons for smoking I'm fine with that.

Well, what if I smoke because I want to be cool? Lets say I just want to be popular, is this such a bad thing? So, people strave to be accepted by everyone around them. Its just human. So, I smoke because I want to be cool. It may be a little idiotic, but it is no reason to deny me health care. After all, it doesnt come down to why you smoke. It comes down to you smoking, paying a shitload of taxes on your smokes and having the right to health care no matter what. Perhaps years of being ridiculed by the "cool" people at school made you say that.

sorry mate, but if you think that smoking is going to make you look cooler and more socially accepted, you should work on your self confidence a bit. You should pick up a sport, a hobby, something other than turning your lungs into a tar soaked sponge. Have you heard of cancer? I know its not as cool as smoking, but its on the same path...

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

If you're denying healthcare to smokers, then - by rights - you have to deny dentalcare to sugar/fizzy drink eaters, colon treatment to meat eaters, cancer treatments to people who stay out in the sun, heart treatment to coffee drinkers...

Unless you actually make smoking illegal, then you are engaged in a form of apartheid by blocking them access.

 

[Agayek]

Seeing as I disagree with the entire concept of medicare, I would have to say they should not have it, just like everyone else.

That said, if medicare does exist, it should be all-inclusive (with the possible exception of illegal immigrants and non-citizens, or anyone else that doesn't pay taxes).

 

[Billion Backs]

Hell no. First of all, it's a VERY slippery slope - first it could be smokers, then it could be fat people, then old people (but fuck them anyways) and after some pretty unrealistic jumping you end up with Medicare that only helps the people who are in peak condition and don't need any help.

Of course, going that far is very unlikely, although given how private medical insurance usually works (And as far as I understand, this "Medicare" sounds more like some kind of governmental system, sort of like what we have in Canada...) the insurance companies aren't there to keep you healthy, they're there to make money. And if you're not getting sick, they don't have to waste money on you, so naturally they'd want the people likely to get sick to pay way more money. Ironic, to an extent. One would think a government, the body that's supposed to care about the people, would be better then that. But given the track records, it's unlikely...

It should be more about helping people then simple prejudice. It's like not being taken to hospital if you crash a car when drunk. Sure, that is illegal and pretty fucking stupid, but hey, a survivor is a survivor. Simply scoffing at some bloody dude climbing out of the car and saying "fuck you, you made an unhealthy decision and now you die!" kind of defeats the whole purpose of it all in my opinion.

Either all people deserve free healthcare or none do.

 

[Hawgh]

No, they're still citizens, even if they are more at risk for some ills. Especially since there's a lot of things that smoking won't be a factor in.

 

[FC Groningen]

Don't martyr yourself by comparing this with the Nazi regim.
If you are going to smoke, then you are going to accept the consequences.

That's =FAIR DEAL=
Same with those who drink EVEN for special occasions because they pretty well know that what they are doing is puring posion right down into their bodies.

So can I deny athletes orthopedic care when they tear an ACL? Or deny dental coverage to anyone who eats candy? Or as mentioned before, if you cause a car accident should we let you bleed to death? Hey, consequences are consequences after all.

There is a huge, HUGE difference.
But I don't expect you to see it that way since you belong to the targeted group.
Therefore you'll throw out all kinds of so-called 'comparisons', which is why it is Always pointless to even try to argue with drugaddicts, smokers and alcohol consumers. But I'll try anyway:

CAR - A vehicular. Transportation. Not poison if Electric, Poisonus if gasoline.
ATHLETIC - Keeping your body in shape. Sports. Not poison.
CANDY, UNHEALTHY FOOD - Survival and Snacks. Overeating like everything may cause obese. Not poison.

SMOKING - Inhaling an foreign substance into your lungs. May cause cancer, will fill lungs with black toxic. Poison.
DRINKING - Pouring an alcoholic beverage into your stomach. May cause memory loss, will cause drunkness. May cause puking. Poison.
DRUGS - Toxic used to get high. Different effects depending on what drug. Poison.

Everything is poisonous to humans in a certain degree. Ever heard of water poisoning? About the car, you polute the environment and require roads. Do you agree then that people that do not own a car get a tax reduction? Poor people in general pay taxes for services or options they will never ever use as well. (theaters, sports, highways etc.) Considering all this, I find it highly hypocritical of you to discriminate between people that eat "unhealthy food" and other forms of living unhealthy.