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

[SpecklePattern]

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

Sadly the healt effects are not instant. What if that "douchebag" smokes for 20 years and get lung cancer when he/she is 60? Was that "douchebag" stamped non-public-healthcare-person in the instant when he/she touched to smokes.

I would say yes, because it is so abstract line.

Ps. I have never ever smoked and I don't approve it (never approved).

Ps.Ps. Then we should ban all people who touches alcohol also from public medicare. And all the greasy food eaters also. The line would be so hard to draw. Basicly everything seems to be unhealthy nowadays anyways.

Ps.Ps.Ps. Maybe in the point when doctors say that "you will die very soon if you don't stop smoking" could be the point when public medicare would be taken from that person (if he/she would not stop smoking). But it is not so easy.

 

[crudus]

literally get away with murder.

I would more call it assisted suicide. They aren't making you smoke (all but) but I do understand your standpoint.

I don't know about Australia, but over a here a chunk of the overall cost of buying cigarettes is taxes. So while smokers are screwing over their own health, they're also paying in advance for their health-care expense.

I won't even pretend to guess at how the the two values balance out, my guess would be that health care is still vastly more expensive, but who knows, life-long smoking isn't cheap.

I think the balance is determined by how many packs a day you have.

 

[Good morning blues]

Absolutely not. Health care is free in the developed world because it is considered a human right; refusing it to smokers therefore necessitates either retracting that statement or labeling smokers as subhuman, both of which are absurd.

Encourage people to stop smoking, yes. Tax the hell out of it to subsidize the extra health care that these people will need. But that's all that's necessary.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

Sadly the healt effects are not instant. What if that "douchebag" smokes for 20 years and get lung cancer when he/she is 60? Was that "douchebag" stamped non-public-healthcare-person in the instant when he/she touched to smokes.

I would say yes, because it is so abstract line.

Ps. I have never ever smoked and I don't approve it (never approved).

Ps.Ps. Then we should ban all people who touches alcohol also from public medicare. And all the greasy food eaters also. The line would be so hard to draw. Basicly everything seems to be unhealthy nowadays anyways.

Ps.Ps.Ps. Maybe in the point when doctors say that "you will die very soon if you don't stop smoking" could be the point when public medicare would be taken from that person (if he/she would not stop smoking). But it is not so easy.

I mean, for the duration that that douchebag smokes and still thinks it's cool.

 

[SpecklePattern]

I don't know about Australia, but over a here a chunk of the overall cost of buying cigarettes is taxes. So while smokers are screwing over their own health, they're also paying in advance for their health-care expense.

I won't even pretend to guess at how the the two values balance out, my guess would be that health care is still vastly more expensive, but who knows, life-long smoking isn't cheap.

I think the balance is determined by how many packs a day you have.

Is it that easy now? Weight, height, bodyfat and full medical background of the family should also be included if it would make any sense, but in that point it would not make any sense because it would be so complicated. You can get lung cancer with half a pack, zero cigarettes, or like 4 packs a day. Number of packs is not measurement of any kind what comes to the healt effects of smokers. Sadly. All people are unique in this point also :-/ Drawing the line is (would be) hard.

 

[Deleted]

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

Outright denying it is going too far.

 

[SpecklePattern]

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

Sadly the healt effects are not instant. What if that "douchebag" smokes for 20 years and get lung cancer when he/she is 60? Was that "douchebag" stamped non-public-healthcare-person in the instant when he/she touched to smokes.

I would say yes, because it is so abstract line.

Ps. I have never ever smoked and I don't approve it (never approved).

Ps.Ps. Then we should ban all people who touches alcohol also from public medicare. And all the greasy food eaters also. The line would be so hard to draw. Basicly everything seems to be unhealthy nowadays anyways.

Ps.Ps.Ps. Maybe in the point when doctors say that "you will die very soon if you don't stop smoking" could be the point when public medicare would be taken from that person (if he/she would not stop smoking). But it is not so easy.

I mean, for the duration that that douchebag smokes and still thinks it's cool.

Well, yes. That is really easy to measure? It would be ridiculous to put "how cool the person thinks that smoking is" in his/hers medical papers. (I see your point, but you can not make that work in real world... sadly.)

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

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

Sadly the healt effects are not instant. What if that "douchebag" smokes for 20 years and get lung cancer when he/she is 60? Was that "douchebag" stamped non-public-healthcare-person in the instant when he/she touched to smokes.

I would say yes, because it is so abstract line.

Ps. I have never ever smoked and I don't approve it (never approved).

Ps.Ps. Then we should ban all people who touches alcohol also from public medicare. And all the greasy food eaters also. The line would be so hard to draw. Basicly everything seems to be unhealthy nowadays anyways.

Ps.Ps.Ps. Maybe in the point when doctors say that "you will die very soon if you don't stop smoking" could be the point when public medicare would be taken from that person (if he/she would not stop smoking). But it is not so easy.

I mean, for the duration that that douchebag smokes and still thinks it's cool.

Well, yes. That is really easy to measure? It would be ridiculous to put "how cool the person thinks that smoking is" in his/hers medical papers. (I see your point, but you can not make that work in real world... sadly.)

I agree, but is it really that difficult to see if someone is a douchebag who thinks smoking is cool? In my experience, no. But medically documenting a scale of douchebaggery would be difficult, yes.

 

[tomtom94]

If a smoker requires an operation, life-threatening or not, they should get it - first time around - and then they should be given help quitting smoking afterwards. Everyone needs a second chance.

If they persist in smoking after all the help we offered and then get a life-threatening disease, I would personally say that they do not deserve care. The same would apply for drug users and binge drinkers.

They'll probably get care because nobody has (or indeed wants) the power of life or death over someone - however much they try and screw themselves up.

 

[YouCallMeNighthawk]

ok if us smokers don't get it people who drink alcohol shouldn't get it! i mean they are destroying their bodies too!

 

[Wintermoot]

no smoking is their own choice getting sick isnt

 

[crudus]

Is it that easy now? Weight, height, bodyfat and full medical background of the family should also be included if it would make any sense, but in that point it would not make any sense because it would be so complicated. You can get lung cancer with half a pack, zero cigarettes, or like 4 packs a day. Number of packs is not measurement of any kind what comes to the healt effects of smokers. Sadly. All people are unique in this point also :-/ Drawing the line is (would be) hard.

I was shooting for concise. I know there are many factors in determining susceptibility to certain diseases. Also 4/5 well thought out comments in one thread in 3 minutes is pretty good for 5am. It also isn't like Australia can (read: should) say "no healthcare for you smokers unless you smoke 5+ packs a day". Hint: invest in Marlboro if that ever happens.

 

[kimba_lion]

we cant be prejudice against smokers, alcoholics...etc because they are covered under medicare anyway and have the right to claim medicare and have their own choices as to if they want to smoke or not

 

[SpecklePattern]

*snip* ... a scale of douchebaggery would be difficult, yes.

Then we we are in same page, but I really started to laugh to that "douchebaggery" word. xD Sounds like a village from the Lord of the Rings. xD

The scale of douchebaggery is also a great measure xD ... Hmmmm. I think I need some coffee.

 

[Cody211282]

That's the cast of having government run healthcare, everyone gets it and everyone pays for every mistake someone they know makes.

 

[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.

 

[SpecklePattern]

Is it that easy now? Weight, height, bodyfat and full medical background of the family should also be included if it would make any sense, but in that point it would not make any sense because it would be so complicated. You can get lung cancer with half a pack, zero cigarettes, or like 4 packs a day. Number of packs is not measurement of any kind what comes to the healt effects of smokers. Sadly. All people are unique in this point also :-/ Drawing the line is (would be) hard.

I was shooting for concise. I know there are many factors in determining susceptibility to certain diseases. Also 4/5 well thought out comments in one thread in 3 minutes is pretty good for 5am.

I am from Finland. We have also free public healt care so I took the freedom to talk about this. And the next full hour here is 1pm

It also isn't like Australia can (read: should) say "no healthcare for you smokers unless you smoke 5+ packs a day". Hint: invest in Marlboro if that ever happens.

Well that would be stupid. No country could do that. The point I was trying to make was that ABOVE some limit public healt care would end (as some suggested). And like my original post said, I don't agree limiting the public healt care as the line can not be drawn so easily as even the amount of smoking is not clear indicator for sicknesses.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

*snip* ... a scale of douchebaggery would be difficult, yes.

Then we we are in same page, but I really started to laugh to that "douchebaggery" word. xD Sounds like a village from the Lord of the Rings. xD

The scale of douchebaggery is also a great measure xD ... Hmmmm. I think I need some coffee.

Maybe just a little.