The States is the only developed country in the world where this is the case. In any case, the point stands in every country that does have socialized health care.radred said:
Poll: Should smokers be denied access to Medicare? (Australian Medicare)
- Thread starter Lem0nade Inlay
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Absolutely
I would be more sympathetic but, every time I encounter a smoker it tries to bind me up in it's tongue! It also has an annoying habit of exploding into a noxious cloud of Gawd-knows what. It isn't that they aren't worth health care it's just that they aren't mature enough to appreciate it. I personally would like to see them given cosmetic surgery. Have you seen their faces? Like a shih-tsu who talks out of it's spinal...
...we are talking about the infected, right?
I would be more sympathetic but, every time I encounter a smoker it tries to bind me up in it's tongue! It also has an annoying habit of exploding into a noxious cloud of Gawd-knows what. It isn't that they aren't worth health care it's just that they aren't mature enough to appreciate it. I personally would like to see them given cosmetic surgery. Have you seen their faces? Like a shih-tsu who talks out of it's spinal...
...we are talking about the infected, right?
Yes, because everyone has an unhealthy habit or hobby.
Should skaters be denied healthcare because the nature of their sport has a high risk for injury?
Should overweight people be denied healthcare because they're more at risk for heart disease, diabetes and diseases of that nature?
Should alcoholics be denied healthcare?
How about construction workers?
Should skaters be denied healthcare because the nature of their sport has a high risk for injury?
Should overweight people be denied healthcare because they're more at risk for heart disease, diabetes and diseases of that nature?
Should alcoholics be denied healthcare?
How about construction workers?
What exactly do governments do with the millions earned from tobacco taxation? Because my local hospital was promised a cancer-treatment facility 5 years ago, and it still hasn't surfaced. Then free buses were offered so patients could get their chemotherapy elsewhere. These are also mysteriously absent.
I rest my case.
I rest my case.
Misleading title, I voted by reading the title, actual vote should say yes. If you deny healthcare to a certain group of people you are opening a door that should remain closed, by this I mean, if you do so, why not deny this also to fat people, why not deny it to alcoholics? Free health is either for everyone or for nobody.
Just for your information, saying "Yes" in the poll means that smokers should get free health care too. This thread is a bit confusing, because the title's and the poll's questions are the opposites. I wonder how many people who voted "No" meant to vote "Yes", and the other way around.Mavvy said:
On Topic: I replied "Yes" to the poll's question. I don't like smoking, but smokers are humans too, and they pay taxes from the cigarettes. Plus, I think everyone should have the right for free healthcare.
Edit: And by the way, welcome to the Escapist!
i say deny smokers the same coverage or make then pay more then after ppl are angry with that for a couple years announce a plan to ban smoking but also say that anyone who quits will pay normal rates so theyll go for it and quit since nothing is more important to ppl than money
Until we're all living pure, clean, perfectly healthy lives, I don't believe any of us are in any position to judge another's actions. A society that can't sympathize with the misfortunes of its members is a sad thing. And before we start banning the imperfect or addicted from health care, why don't we first all shake their hands for shouldering a heavy tax burden for the rest of us? Maybe a smoker's health costs are higher than a non-smoker's but at least in the US smokers pay outrageous amounts of tax, supposedly to pay for their medical care. It's not their fault our local governments use that tax money for something other than the smoking cessation and prevention programs it was intended for. This opinion holds for drinkers too (and I'm about as vehement an anti-drinker as you'll ever meet). Now bring up lung transplants for active smokers or liver transplants for active drinkers and I back down somewhat.
Well since the hospitals are funded by the taxes that they still pay it would seem a tad rash to ban them from free healthcare.
EDIT: Also it would make free healthcare a bit of a hollow right if it could be revoked for being unhealthy.
EDIT: Also it would make free healthcare a bit of a hollow right if it could be revoked for being unhealthy.
How about when they go in to get a check-up, the smokers are required to have a surgery where the doctors take one organ from them, and sell it on the black market?
I know I accidentally clicked no when I wanted to vote for yes >.>Hafnium said:
The poll question is opposite of the thread title question. People like me probably didn't realize that until they voted already, so the poll's statistics are suspect at best. Also, while it is easy to label someone a smoker, it is a little harder to name someone an alcoholic. So if smokers get band then alcoholics need to be banned, but they need some way to track how much alcohol one would drink. In the end it would cost more than it would gain to ban smokers from medicare.Mavvy said:
I would say not fully denied, but partially. They are bringing most of the harm to themselves, but there are injuries that smoking takes no part in. They should be able to have Medicare for that.
Really? See, certainly in the case of smoking ciggies are taxed so highly that at the moment that money is almost double that spent on treating those with conditions caused by smoking. So it isn't enough that they pay all this tax, they should also have to pay for this treatment themselves?captainfluoxetine said:
I'm not sure about the figures on obesity and alcohol but I know that compared to other countries these things are taxed heavily too, much of which is poured back into healthcare. So really, one might argue that they're already paying for their treatment, why should they have to pay for it again? Not to mention the NHS actually does sod all to help people lose weight a lot of the time...
As a Portuguese citizen I'm lucky to have free access to healthcare. I always had. But that is not important for this I suppose. I believe that it shouldn't matter the healthcare system implemented, everyone should have free access to at least the most basic healthcare. Smokers, Drug addicts and people with other dependencies should in fact have priority on the system. They need it more.
"It's their problem, they made their choice to drink, smoke or use drugs" I hear you say. But, shouldn't we help them to make the right decision? Even if they are the biggest douchebags in the world?
"It's their problem, they made their choice to drink, smoke or use drugs" I hear you say. But, shouldn't we help them to make the right decision? Even if they are the biggest douchebags in the world?
This poll is quite poorly set up.
The question is not whether or not we should take healthcare away from a group, but if we should give healthcare to a specific group, which gives the impression that this is some unieque previledge that is bestowed upon the group as a reward for their activities.
Anyway no, we should not discriminate.
If the goal is to enhance public health then raising taxes and in other ways inhibit the unhealthy businesses from expanding their consumer base.
If the goal is to save money then for this question to be posed, Australia must be bankrupt in it's finances, morals or wits. If you start confiscating people's rights based on your dislike of their habits then the course is set towards a nannystate at best. If you start excluding expensive illnesses then you are not going to have trustworthy public healthcare for long. If you have to do the former, then perhaps it's time to review whether public healthcare is even possible when finances are in such dire straits.
On the subject of smoking and unhealthy food, raise taxes on them, and lower it on healthy food and services that are beneficial to public health. Make it attractive and affordable to be healthy while ramping up the cost of an unhealthy lifestyle and the state will have done it's part without stepping on the rights of the individual.
The question is not whether or not we should take healthcare away from a group, but if we should give healthcare to a specific group, which gives the impression that this is some unieque previledge that is bestowed upon the group as a reward for their activities.
Anyway no, we should not discriminate.
If the goal is to enhance public health then raising taxes and in other ways inhibit the unhealthy businesses from expanding their consumer base.
If the goal is to save money then for this question to be posed, Australia must be bankrupt in it's finances, morals or wits. If you start confiscating people's rights based on your dislike of their habits then the course is set towards a nannystate at best. If you start excluding expensive illnesses then you are not going to have trustworthy public healthcare for long. If you have to do the former, then perhaps it's time to review whether public healthcare is even possible when finances are in such dire straits.
On the subject of smoking and unhealthy food, raise taxes on them, and lower it on healthy food and services that are beneficial to public health. Make it attractive and affordable to be healthy while ramping up the cost of an unhealthy lifestyle and the state will have done it's part without stepping on the rights of the individual.