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

[Sgt Doom]

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?

I nominate this person Lord of Rationality.

 

[Kermi]

Taxes on cigarettes fund the health care system. The end.

 

[Broken Boy]

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?

I nominate this person Lord of Rationality.

Xactly my point tyvm ; )

 

[crudus]

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.

So what you are saying is that not every gamer is going to cost medicare thousands to treat their heart diseases in the same way that not every smoker is going to cost thousands to treat their lung diseases? Oh man that totally destroys the point I was getting at with my satire. You are clearly the more educated one.

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.

Yeah, it will get to the point where you will only get free health care if you sleep exactly 8 hours a night at the same time every night, eat only exactly 2000 Calories a day, don't drink anything but purified water(and drink 1-2 gallons a day), don't smoke, eat only organic food that had been extensively washed and boiled(organic food is 1% of the food but 12% of the e.coli!), and do two hours of cardio a day. Not sure if I am exaggerating or not.

 

[ARatherHandsomeGent]

No, of course they should be provided with whatever right any other group of people has, for the simple fact that they're people, and should be treated as such, not filthy lepers and be allowed to die.

 

[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.

Yeah, it will get to the point where you will only get free health care if you sleep exactly 8 hours a night at the same time every night, eat only exactly 2000 Calories a day, don't drink anything but purified water(and drink 1-2 gallons a day), don't smoke, eat only organic food that had been extensively washed and boiled(organic food is 1% of the food but 12% of the e.coli!), and do two hours of cardio a day. Not sure if I am exaggerating or not.[/quote]


i dont think u are and damn the way u put it makes life seem rather dull to be healthy and not worth living at least to me ; )

 

[famousninja]

Alrighty. One line here to anyone here saying smokers should be denied due to 'self harm'

If someone deliberately cuts themselves, or attempts to take their life, should you deny them health care because they harmed themselves? No! you'd treat the poor sods.

Smoking is no different, and to treat smokers any different from anyone else due to a lifestyle choice is a phenomenally bad idea.

 

[radred]

Absolutely not. Health care is free in the developed world because it is considered a human right; refusing it to smokers therefore necessitates either retracting that statement or labeling smokers as subhuman, both of which are absurd.

Encourage people to stop smoking, yes. Tax the hell out of it to subsidize the extra health care that these people will need. But that's all that's necessary.

no it isn't
in many countries there is practically no healthcare if you (or your insurance) can't afford it
the americans have been handed free(ish) healthcare on a platter and have all but rioted over the idea

 

[BlackStar42]

Hmm... I'd think it would be fair to say from such and such a date (preferably pretty far away, like 5-10 years) smokers will have certain bits of Medicare taken away from them, the things which relate to smoking like lung cancer. That way they have a fair amount of time to stop smoking, if they could prove though that they have gained the disease after quitting they should be given treatment. It would free up alot of medical funds for people who don't willingly expose themselves to the cause.

I was going to say that they should pay extra for treating smoking-related diseases, but this is better.

 

[Ickorus]

I think they should be denied but only for things proven to be related to their habit, same goes for alcoholics, drug addicts and the overweight.

All access should be restored if the people decide to quit their habit and for anyone quitting they should be offered councilling to help the through it.

I know it sounds harsh, it does to me too since most of my family smoke but I know it'd save the government tons of money and lead people to live healthier lifestyles even if it is a bit forceful on that matter.

 

[Capt.DeSoto]

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.

And those recreational sportsmen. They put a strain on the system too.

At least a smoker goes to work on monday!

 

[Zhukov]

Gah! I hate it when you people phrase the question one way in the thread title and another way in the poll question. In completely invalidates the results of the poll because I don't know which question people answered. So stop it!

...

Oh right, the actual topic.

As much as I dislike smokers, I still think they should be given access to medicare like the rest of us.

Firstly, because denying them healthcare would just be a nasty thing to do.

Secondly, because of the precedent that would set. After all, if the justification is that they are intentionally and knowingly causing their own health problems then wouldn't that also apply to people who drive cars? Y'know, those people who are putting such a terrible strain on the system by drastically increasing their chances of having a car accident. What about fat people? What about athletes?

You get the idea.

 

[Keava]

Im not sure how it is in Australia, but here we pay our tax for smoking. Its included in every cigarette pack cost, and many of us, smokers, never even use the social health-care so we kind of pay for all of you no smokers as well.

I don't see any reason why smokers should be denied the right for medicare, we pay our dues to it, and the more we smoke the more we pay for it.
And i don't like such ideas in general. It starts with smokers, and then what? People who casually drink alcohol? It can lead to health issues as well after all. Then we will move step forward and refuse to treat everyone who has some predispositions to get ill?

 

[tehroc]

They should pay more if the healthcare isn't free.

Outright denying it is going too far.

We already do pay more, it's called cigarette tax, and boy do we pay a lot of it. It can't cost more then 10c to manufacture a pack of cigarettes and then were charged some $6+ at the store.

 

[Georgie_Leech]

They shouldn't be denied it entirely, but in the aspects that it doesn't affect, certainly. It seems reasonable to not reimburse them for their own stupid mistakes if they develop, say, emphysema, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't get things like broken bones treated.

 

[Jet_02]

no. For a couple of reasons (from a standpoint of the NHS in England). Smokers pay taxes and thus pay for the right to have services like the police and health care provided for them. If you deny one group healthcare, where dose it stop? Overweight people can't get treatment? Builders can't get treatment? People involved in car accidents can't get treatment? Think about it all these could be scene to be self inflected, so why would they be viewed any different to smoking. And finally, the argument that smokers are all costing us to much money on the NHS is void, I hope people know just how much the government makes of taxing tobacco, it more then covers the cost to the health service. In a sense people who smoke have more of a right to get treatment because of the astronomical amounts they pay into the government for there habit.

 

[Snipermanic]

isn't most of the cost cigarettes tax? (It is in England anyway) So surely that tax goes towards the health service anyway?