Smoking, drinking and Socialized healthcare.

[Comprehend]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

What about fat people?

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

 

[Kidblop]

no, i dont think so.

What's to stop the government from deciding those who engage in premarital sex should have to pay higher insurance?

 

[Guitar's Cry]

I think if better health care were more readily available, the abuse of such substances would be less. After all, it's not the use, it's the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, soda, McDonald's, exercise, Jenny Craig, etc. that's dangerous.

 

[Buttercup]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

Good grief, what are we supposed to drink, Kool Aid? *cracks open a frosty one while she can*

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

We're footing the bill now and don't have a say so. And, I wouldn't want to be part of a system that did anything other than encourage people to live healthfully.

 

[Willamena]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

They do that already. They apply added taxes to cigarettes and alcohol, etc.

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

Only if their constitution allows for such invasion of privacy.

 

[Comprehend]

They do that already. They apply added taxes to cigarettes and alcohol, etc.

yes. thank you....

I asked whether they *should* be able to, and included other possible policies.

Only if their constitution allows for such invasion of privacy.

You don't think the first invasion is worse than the second?

 

[Comprehend]

Good grief, what are we supposed to drink, Kool Aid? *cracks open a frosty one while she can*

We're footing the bill now and don't have a say so. And, I wouldn't want to be part of a system that did anything other than encourage people to live healthfully.

So you want the government to have to pay for your healthcare but not have a say in how you take care of yourself?

Don't you think one leads to the other?

 

[Comprehend]

I think if better health care were more readily available, the abuse of such substances would be less. After all, it's not the use, it's the abuse of tobacco, alcohol, soda, McDonald's, exercise, Jenny Craig, etc. that's dangerous.

hmmm.

What constitutes *abuse* of tobacco in your opinion and what would the safe (or non-dangerous) level of consumption be?

 

[Buttercup]

So you want the government to have to pay for your healthcare but not have a say in how you take care of yourself?

We pay for half of our health care and the government throws in a matching portion each month (my hubby works for the FAA).

And yes, I don't want the government to tell me how to take care of myself. I prefer less government intervention, thank you.

I don't want socialized health care.

 

[Stellify]

That's a tough one to know where to draw the line, and I think that if the government started giving laws like that, then it might never stop and the tax-payed health care would end up becoming all but useless. Although personally, I would understand if certain things perhaps disqualified people from the health care...Such as if a drug test came up positive for some illegal, damaging substance.
But....eh...Here, we're not close to punishing people for costing our government money through their own stupidity like that. We give drug addicts social security money all the time because they "can't function normally because of their addiction" and claim it as a handicap....but don't require them to go to rehab:areyoucra

 

[Comprehend]

We pay for half of our health care and the government throws in a matching portion each month (my hubby works for the FAA).

And yes, I don't want the government to tell me how to take care of myself. I prefer less government intervention, thank you.

I don't want socialized health care.

I don't want socialized health care either and prefer less government intervention like yourself.

I am simply wondering how people think they can have one without the other...

 

[Kidblop]

I don't want socialized health care either and prefer less government intervention like yourself.

I am simply wondering how people think they can have one without the other...

i dont know, but some of us prefer less business intervention along with less government... tough choice.

 

[Papersock]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?


Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

What about fat people?

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

No, none of those things.
I don't want to be told how to take care of myself.
Even if I do have unhealthy habits, I still pay taxes just like everyone else. Even moreso if I drink and smoke and those things are taxed.
If I'm not going to be excluded from the system and not get any benefits, I won't want to put anything into it either.

 

[PureX]

No. Instead, I think the social medical system should do a LOT more in terms of preventative medicine. We don't do this now because medicine is a for-profit business. So the more sick people the better the business. But if medical care were socialized, it would make much more sense to prevent as much illness as possible. We can't do this by mandate, because this is supposed to be a free country. But we can do it by offering good preventive medical care, part of which will involve materials and methods to help people quit smoking, addiction recovery, help with diet and exercise, etc. It would also include information campaigns that discourage the use of nicotine and alcohol and poor diet.

 

[Panda]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

What about fat people?

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

In the UK the government don't tell us how to live but they actively encourage people to be healthy. At school we gets lots of education about eating healthily food and preparing healthy food( Everyone does cooking in 1st two years of high school).

Alcohol: People who drink alcohol in small quantities cause no strain on the health system(In fact small amounts of Red Wine is meant to be good for you). It is only once you abuse alcohol and end up paralytic and needing to be carried home every Friday and Saturday night that it becomes a problem. I mean I bet a lot of people here have been so drunk that can't stand at least once in their live.

Tobacco: Don't know about in US but here tobacco companies have to have huge warning labels on their products saying that it will kill you, they also aren't aloud to advertise. The Scottish executive has banned smoking in all public places and there are lots of leaflets and groups dedicated to helping people quit smoking.

The damaging effects of both alcohol and tobacco are constantly adverted in the UK. I think the idea of education to prevent this happening is the better option, otherwise everyone who is not a fit, healthy and aged 18-30 will eventually be excluded because they are a higher risk category.

 

[Melissa G]

I smoke, I like a drink and I like a party. I don't like big brother telling me what's good for me. As a matter of fact, the taxes paid by smokers in the UK, far out weigh the alleged cost of treating smokers with ill health. I might add, most illness are caused by a genetic predisposition to certain diseases. I believe that everything in moderation is the right way to go. Apart from sex, I like alot of sex which is at least not harmful. Heaven forbid that they ( gov) introduce sex taxes lol lol lol.

Melissa G

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I do not know any country that has socialised medicine that does do those things.
I do know most private insurance companies take all those things into account
when setting both premiums and benefits, and may even turn you down if the risk is too high.
Government schemes spend large ammounts on health education to try an ameliorate the problems
with out any great effect.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

One smoker I know claims that smoking saves the system money, since every smoker who dies early is one person who will not cause the health care system to incur the drawn-out and expensive cost of dealing with age-related dementia.

I haven't checked his math, but I think he has a point. In terms of total cost to the health care system, I think one of the most expensive things you can do is live to a ripe old age. If the cost for you isn't from dementia, it'll be from heart-related problems, joint replacements, other major conditions, or just minor but ongoing care for minor ailments.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

hmmm.

What constitutes *abuse* of tobacco in your opinion and what would the safe (or non-dangerous) level of consumption be?

Well, I have a friend who smokes a pipe only when he is fishing. For about half the year, he doesn't smoke, and that equates to about 30 days a year when he does. I have another friend who smokes socially at parties, which comes to about a pack of cigarettes a year.

Though I agree that many of the cigarettes on the market should be banned due to what is put into them, tobacco can be used responsibly and can be healthy in some cases.

 

[doppelganger]

Do you think that if a government were to provide socialized healthcare, that it should also have the ability to punish those who cost the system disproportionately because of their habits?

Some examples : Ban smoking and drinking outright, increase the tax rate of smokers, drinkers, drug users, exclude these people from the system alltogether?

What about fat people?

If tax payers are footing the bill, should citizens also have a say in how everyone takes care of themselves?

You're paying for it anyway. If you're in a group health plan it's affecting your premiums. For those fat drunken smokers who don't have insurance, they get emergency care after the problems are way out of control (guaranteed by EMTALA), which you already pay for when they can't pay and have to declare bankruptcy.

Dude, there's already a system in place to guarantee healthcare - the ER - only it's a horribly inefficient system because it means that the only healthcare available for a lot of people kicks in only when they are medically unstable (which significantly drives up the costs because it's easier to treat a small cut with a few stitches and a bottle of antibiotics than it is to treat necrotic fasciitis ) and is diffused through unpaid bills, the bankruptcy courts, diffusion to other customers through increased overhead, which drives up the overall costs even more with all the red tape and delay. At the same time it financially, physically and emotionally devastates uninsured families.

You're already paying for it, and you're paying too much because too many people are buying off on retarded rhetoric and are ignorant about what universal healthcare means.