To me, noone deserves to be turned away from medical care, no matter what they've done or who they are. Everyone has the right to life and if they need medical care they should have access to it; if they can't afford it, it should be provided by the state: if it's free to everyone else, it should be free to them too.
Poll: Should smokers be denied access to Medicare? (Australian Medicare)
- Thread starter Lem0nade Inlay
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I would have to say that anyone who wants to slowly kill themselves with poison and tar and other stuff may not need health care-after all, cancer is incurable. I realize that it's addicting, but to get started in the first place is kind of suicidal...
There's a problem here.ottenni said:
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.
If i'm going to be pedantic, none of the substances mentioned in your post are poisonous. If i'm not going to be pedantic, there is a huge variety of foods on the market today which provide no nutritional benefit to the body whatsoever. In fact, fast food is causing far more health problems in the western world now than recreational drugs could ever hope to achieve. McDonalds is the poster boy of any drug dealer, it's spectacular how they've managed to become multi-millionaires through selling "poison" perfectly legitimately.Zeithri said:
As an ironic aside, i can point out a number of recreational drugs which, in even vaguely sensible use, have no toxicity whatsoever.
To be honest it seems that you are the one who is ignorant as to what the stuff really is. In most cases, smoking isn't fatal. Statistics show long term smoking shortens life span, however these statistics fail to take into account the individual, and thus aren't widely applicable. God knows what "molecular acid" is, but if it weren't fictitious i imagine it'd be considerably more dangerous to drink than reasonable smoking.Zeithri said:
Perhaps you should have left the concert then? It's a concert dude. If you were particularly vulnerable to load noises you wouldn't go to a concert and ask everyone there to turn the volume down a bit so you don't get a headache. Of course people are going to be smoking at concerts, the atmosphere of concerts in general is pretty awful anyway.ProfessorLayton said:
What of the other citizens? They pay their taxes and get the health care when they need it. Whats their problem? If i pay for something, i expect to receive it. If i buy car insurance that for some reason covers purposeful damage. I would expect the insurance company to pay up should i total the car. Thats how purchasing works. You receive what you pay for.
Governments tax extra on tobacco because they can, that's their motivation, you're right. But that's irrelevant, what is relevant is what they do with the tax money, and part of that tax goes into public health.
And for gods sake of course smokers care how much it costs, if tobacco were too expensive no one would smoke. Why must all smokers be painted up as ravenous addicts who'd do anything to get their next drag on a cig? It's silly.
i just voted yes they should and when i seen the amount of people who said no to be quite frank i was disgusted, you tell me that you would turn away a smoker if he had been in an accident or charge him for the care he received simply on the basis that he smokes?
i am seriously disgusted at any of you who voted no who would deny a human being medical care for something that they do in their social life and are legally allowed to do its horrible.
i am seriously disgusted at any of you who voted no who would deny a human being medical care for something that they do in their social life and are legally allowed to do its horrible.
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.Hairetos said:
no it shouldn't be taken from them, but they should not be able to claim on related illnesses, same with overweight people and alcoholics. so smokers don't get government funded lung cancer treatment, overweight people don't get government funded heart surgery and alcoholics don't get government funded treatment for liver failure.
but that's just how i see it
/flameshieldon true
but that's just how i see it
/flameshieldon true
Ridiculous.ottenni said:
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.
