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

[The Rockerfly]

I think a higher tax on things that could kill you should be created and from that go towards the medical care industry

Outright banning to citizens of the said country it is inhuman and stupid, smokers may be damaging their health and others round them but that doesn't mean they should be killed

 

[DayDark]

How about this, If a smoker needs to get treated for a smoking induced illness, they get treated, but then they'll have to quit smoking, or they will have to start paying for it themselves.

EDIT: They might even offer a program for quitting.

 

[Kaptajn Emil Alfred Conan Swagga Benzon]

That would be ridiculous. Making smokers pay a larger levy to cover the costs of their self-harm might be arguable, but denying them access altogether? That would be pretty sad for a first world country to do. Besides, it would open up so many poor precedents.

I agree. I live in nz and here we helped drop smoking rates by raising the cost of them by 20%.

The only thing that helps is that we have less money to deal with.

.. And makes us more likely to go on a killing spree

 

[Sakash]

I think a higher tax on things that could kill you should be created and from that go towards the medical care industry

Outright banning to citizens of the said country it is inhuman and stupid, smokers may be damaging their health and others round them but that doesn't mean they should be killed

Actually i don't believe the argument that smokers are harming others is valid anymore, since it has been banned practically everywhere, they can only hurt themselves. But then again smokers are easy targets to persecute, even though alcohol causes much more damage imo.

eg. You'll never hear of a smoker having a few cigarettes and then crashing his car into another and killing them

 

[SenseOfTumour]

In the UK tax on tobacco can be as high as 89%, and an average pack is around £6 / $10 ish.

And people think smokers are leeching from the medical system?

Even at only a pack a day, they're putting £1500 a year into the system on top of what an average UK resident does.

I don't smoke, but it's kinda tiresome how anti smoking people can be, compared to alcohol. Sure there's secondary smoke, but smoking a few too many doesn't turn you into a arse.

 

[RelexCryo]

You say that a moral country should give healthcare to it's people, and pay out money to support them in general. But lets look at some of the downsides of that idea.

There are finite resources. This means that:

A) You must limit immigration and deport illegal immigrants. There are finite resources and if too many people immigrate from third world countries to your country you will run out of resources. Many people here in America seem to think it is evil to deport illegal immigrants and that it is a moral requirement to allow an unlimited number of people move here. But if you give free healthcare and other social services to everyone, it simply is not mathematically feasible to let an unlimited number of people immigrate in. Unlimited immigration is only remotely feasible if you let the Law of the Jungle rule and let immigrants who are sick/weak/unsuccessful die. I am not arguing that we should do that, I am just saying that our physical limitations aren't always what we want them to be. Sometimes we cannot do as much as we wish we could. In some cases, we have to choose between doing something that one group considers immoral vs. doing something that another group considers immoral. Deportation vs. No government support is just one example.

2.) What if people have more children than the system can support? Do you begin state mandated sterilization? State mandated chastity belts? Does the government declare that it has the right to decide how your genitals are used? Or does it declare state mandated abortions? Letting people make decisions regarding their own bodies can work when the State doesn't bother supporting people. If there are more people than the system can support, the system can just let them die. But when the state believes it has a moral obligation to make sure everyone lives, how does it resolve that responsibility vs. individual rights?

 

[The Rockerfly]

Actually i don't believe the argument that smokers are harming others is valid anymore, since it has been banned practically everywhere, they can only hurt themselves. But then again smokers are easy targets to persecute, even though alcohol causes much more damage imo.

eg. You'll never hear of a smoker having a few cigarettes and then crashing his car into another and killing them

What if you're having a child and you smoke? You live in the same house as a smoker? I think it is much less valid then others but that's why I don't think smokers should be given such a bad view because they know the risks and it is much harder to harm others

 

[Naheal]

That would be ridiculous. Making smokers pay a larger levy to cover the costs of their self-harm might be arguable, but denying them access altogether? That would be pretty sad for a first world country to do. Besides, it would open up so many poor precedents.

There's currently a first world country that does little to assist in the support of their people's health care. I think the precedent has already been set, sir.

 

[Mr C]

I don't think they should be penalised in this way, smokers pay very high taxes for the pleasure of lighting up cancer sticks.

A counter argument is 'where and when do you stop'? Do you stop giving people who enjoy alcohol treatment for ailments? What about people who enjoy playing sport, picture this 'no you can't have your leg operation paid for, you're a football player' or 'skateboarder, serves you right, enjoy paying for your own treatment and wheelchair'.

I think that educating people over the past x number of years has had a great effect on the number of smokers. I'm 30 and it seems you're a minority if you smoke at my age. I'd hope for teenagers etc it would be a smaller percentage. Health, financial and opportunity cost is the way to put out this dirty habit (see what I did there :eyes roll and explode. All in all positive methods are more likely to work, people either accept them or don't notice the effects.

 

[spinFX]

No. They do pay a lot in taxes on their smokes. If it turns out they don't pay enough compared to their smoke induced medical care costs then yes. Cut 'em off.

 

[Kair]

Smokers are weak minds, but we can keep them from smoking.
We don't kill people because they are weak, we are not Adolf Hitler (or pre-health care reform Americans for that matter).

 

[Keepitclean]

I think smokers should be denied free medicare for smoking related illnesses but not for the next 30 or 40 years. This should allow the current generation of middle aged smokers who are way too far down the line to quit to die off and to educate the youth of this generation and the next about the major health hazard of smoking.

If there is a large scale public debate about this it will probably help to make smokers quit and scare potential smokers away.

Then again as people have already said, smokers pay heaps of tax on cigarettes. The best way to solve this will be to prevent the youth from taking up the habit.

The problem I will have with denying smokers medicare is finding a fair definition of 'smoker'.

 

[Adzma]

OT: Yes, I think they should be denied access to Medicare. Smokers talk like people persecute them, but the fact is they choose to slowly kill their bodies. No one forces them to take up smoking. No one forces them to continue it either.

Well then, I think we should deny gamers free healthcare(I assume you are a gamer since you are here). All they do is sit on their asses and play games. They put themselves at greater risk for various illnesses and heart diseases. If they stop playing games then we can give it to them since they aren't causing their health problems anymore.

Nice generalisation. I wasn't aware that every single gamer on the entire planet only sits on their arses and plays video games, doing nothing else with their time. You are obviously much more educated than I am.

 

[FC Groningen]

No. Medicare goes further than the parts that are affected by smoking. I can agree however, that they have to pay a higher fee as an "own risk". By the way, doctors will always try to treat these people, even they haven't got the money. Its better to have it covered than just put them with impossible debts. Some will say its their own fault, but people with huge debts will stay a burden on society (unemployed, tendence to crime, desperate).

 

[FC Groningen]

OT: Yes, I think they should be denied access to Medicare. Smokers talk like people persecute them, but the fact is they choose to slowly kill their bodies. No one forces them to take up smoking. No one forces them to continue it either.

Well then, I think we should deny gamers free healthcare(I assume you are a gamer since you are here). All they do is sit on their asses and play games. They put themselves at greater risk for various illnesses and heart diseases. If they stop playing games then we can give it to them since they aren't causing their health problems anymore.

Nice generalisation. I wasn't aware that every single gamer on the entire planet only sits on their arses and plays video games, doing nothing else with their time. You are obviously much more educated than I am.

You are right about the fact that not all gamers fit this stereotype, but you did miss the point. There are many ways of living "irresponsible" or "unhealthy" so it does seems strange then to just pick the smoking. There are people with fastfood, alcohol, caffeine, medication etc. addictions as well. It would be fair to treat them similar.

 

[fenrizz]

Yes, we should deny smokers healtcare.

Along with fat people, those involved in traffic accidents where they are to blame.
People with drug/alcohol related illnesses should also be denied at the door.

Got a sexually transmitted disease?
Too bad, should have worn a condom. Next please!


See where I'm going with this?

 

[Aardvark Soup]

In my opinion it is inhumane to deny health care to anyone, no matter how unhealthy those people live. Somewhat higher insurance feescan be justified, though.

 

[pntaylor]

I initially voted yes on instinct without reading the many good points put forward here. On hindsight I'd vote no after reading the many responses on this topic. I think my initial reaction was that like illness related to excess of anything it's for most a concious decision to do so. As such they consequence of their actions is entirely of their doing as opposed to anyone elses. However with taxation on cigarettes here in the UK as high as it is they are paying for their healthcare in the long run anyway. Not to mention we'd have to block medical care for obese people, alcoholics etc.

Shame I can't change my vote but my views on this have done.

 

[Broken Boy]

im a smoker so maby this is one sided but if smokers get xcluded then next will be alcohol fatty foods colas coffe to name a few things that hurts peoples health and which damn near all of us do.