Pretty much this, right? Besides you wouldn't be able to draw the line at smokers. It would have to include people who drink alcohol, do drugs, don't excercise? What then? The person who is the main cause of a car crash shouldn't get treatment? Someone who attempts suicide?Snipermanic said:
Poll: Should smokers be denied access to Medicare? (Australian Medicare)
- Thread starter Lem0nade Inlay
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Okay as a smoker I pay a ridiculous amount of tax on my tobacco. Then I pay tax on my earnings. Than I pay VAT on any items that have it included. I don't drive, but if I did I'd be paying tax on my petrol and simply for having a car on the road. Plus the tax included when the car was bought new. I also pay tax on my home simply for living here. Much tax that all goes where ever the government decides it wants it to go. I think I pay enough for my healthcare.
Should I develop some form of smoking related disease and decide my doctor can go stuff himself if he tells me to quit, then yeah, sure he can tell me to stuff my medical care. Getting yourself into the mess shouldn't be a requisite to stopping the mess getting sorted. Refusing to help myself get out of the mess should.
Should I develop some form of smoking related disease and decide my doctor can go stuff himself if he tells me to quit, then yeah, sure he can tell me to stuff my medical care. Getting yourself into the mess shouldn't be a requisite to stopping the mess getting sorted. Refusing to help myself get out of the mess should.
I guess they should be denied access. I mean they ARE harming themselves. Then again, people who drive fossil fueled cars are also hurting the planet, which in turn hurts the inhabitants of this planet and as such we should deny them medicare as well. What about litterers? They are damaging the ecosystem of an environment which in turn damages the quality of the air which also damages the quality of life. I guess they're off the list as well. Alcoholics are damaging themselves by drinking so they're off. What about people who eat fast food? They're damaging their bodies so they should be off the list as well.
Yes, you're all right. Let's deny anyone who will not subscribe to our way of life healthcare because as we all know we're these perfect beings who have the right to judge other people for their habits.
Yes, you're all right. Let's deny anyone who will not subscribe to our way of life healthcare because as we all know we're these perfect beings who have the right to judge other people for their habits.
Agreed. I've already did some estimates and if every smoker from every country would stop buying for a week, the world would be in serious financial trouble, resulting in a budget cut on healthcare in general, education and so on.Kermi said:
So all in all, smokers should pay less as we are willingly sacrificing our own life for the wellbeing of others.
On a more serious note: Stop complaining.
Yes and No.
I've heard this argument before and I will give my opinion on it. I'm entering the medical field and have had to learn A LOT about the human body and human mind.
People who continue in bad habits while under medical care (or who have been diagnosed with a medical condition cause be a bad habit like smoking/drinking) are very hard to treat.
I think the main problem is people who refuse to give up their addiction even after they've been diagnosed with a serious medical condition. If people will not quit their addiction, then I'm not sure they should be allowed to get Medicare.
I've heard this argument before and I will give my opinion on it. I'm entering the medical field and have had to learn A LOT about the human body and human mind.
People who continue in bad habits while under medical care (or who have been diagnosed with a medical condition cause be a bad habit like smoking/drinking) are very hard to treat.
I think the main problem is people who refuse to give up their addiction even after they've been diagnosed with a serious medical condition. If people will not quit their addiction, then I'm not sure they should be allowed to get Medicare.
"According to this you were born with certain genes that almost guarantee you will get cancer so no Medicare for you. Also you're being sent away to the desert mines and man an unperson."
Why not? If you're going to set a bar for Medicare it's going to end up pretty arbitrary and can probably be applied to different people like drinkers, construction workers etc.
Whats the point in keeping Medicare just for the healthy anyway?
Why not? If you're going to set a bar for Medicare it's going to end up pretty arbitrary and can probably be applied to different people like drinkers, construction workers etc.
Whats the point in keeping Medicare just for the healthy anyway?
I think they should be allowed medicare within reasons. My pop died a fortnight ago from lung cancer from smoking, but he also took smoking up back in the 40's-50's, when there was no warnings etc about smoking and cancer-of-the-everything. 'Course he quit in the 90's when it was offical about cancer-of-the-everything but sadly was too late. Still, he lived to 73 and had a good life so it wasn't wasted.
At 16 why the hell did you even take it up to begin with? (or possibly 15 when you took it up) fit in? family did it? an alternative to stress relief?AxCx said:
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.ShrooM_DoughKiD said:
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.
This makes me also very undecided, a damn good arguement. The issue is these people willingly harm themselves then expect other peoples tax money to treat and fix it. Thats like driving irresponsibly because you have insurance and a good doctor, who cares what i do cus someone else can fix it for free.Fire Daemon said:
Tell you what, if you want to deny healthcare coverage to smokers, the government needs to get out of bed with tobacco companies and stop taxing the hell out of cigarettes.
I going to say they should be allowed free health care.
Yes it's a self destructive habit that no one forces you to do, but if you ban people who smoke, then you have to ban other things.
What about heavy drinkers, or drinkers full stop, criminals injured 'in the line of duty' or athletes or even people who pick up infections from unprotected sex. They're all doing things they know could and probably would get them hurt and put a strain on free medical care, so ban them too.
It's a slippery slope and it leads to a US type system where people cannot get health care at all (even if they pay) because of some arbitrary tick on a box.
Yes it's a self destructive habit that no one forces you to do, but if you ban people who smoke, then you have to ban other things.
What about heavy drinkers, or drinkers full stop, criminals injured 'in the line of duty' or athletes or even people who pick up infections from unprotected sex. They're all doing things they know could and probably would get them hurt and put a strain on free medical care, so ban them too.
It's a slippery slope and it leads to a US type system where people cannot get health care at all (even if they pay) because of some arbitrary tick on a box.
Why should they be denied the medicine they need just because they might have caused it themselves.
I can help you out there. At the moment prices are around $20 a packet (thats for a packet of 30). So thats 13 Euro (or 11 Pounds and 18 US). How much of that is tax i'm not sure, but i'm sure its something similar percentage wise. If anyone here actually knows, please comment.AxCx said: