Gov't Healthcare For Smokers?

For those who believe that government should provide healthcare for all it's citizens,where do you stand on people who develop health conditions related to how well they take care of themselves?

Since government provided healthcare is funded through tax dollars would you like having to foot the bill for those people who develop health problems related to their smoking,drinking and eating habits?

In countries that have government provided healthcare or universal healthcare is there a stronger attempt to cut down on the amount of smokers they have and more emphasis put on nutritional education? If not,shouldn't there be? Because I'd think too many people getting sick from these preventable causes would put a strain on their system as far as funding,management and access.

 

Sure, try to educate people and encourage them to quit smoking. However, you just answered your own question when you said 'providing medical care to all of its citizens'.

I had two close friends that died last year from diseases that were directly caused by smoking. One of them was on Medicaid because he was disabled from the diseases, and the other was getting medical care from the VA. They both died really pretty young, a lot younger than they should have died. The problem with excluding people from medical care if they cause medical problems fro themselves is that you'd end up excluding a large chunk of the people that really need care the most.

The problem with the American approach to giving people health care is this Calvinist idea that medical care is something people 'earn', rather than a right. Unfortunately, we're a long way from having universal health care here anyway. However, the countries that do have it don't exclude people from receiving benefits that have contributed to their own medical conditions by unhealthy living. Like you say, they attempt to educate people about healthy lifestyles, but they don't exclude them from medical benefits. That's the way it should be.

I tried to get my friends to quit smoking for years. I told them that if they kept up the habit they way they were, it was gonna kill them. Unfortunately, I was right. Smoking cigarettes is one of the most destructive things you can do to yourself. The sonner you quit, the better.

 

The impression I get from checking out the "conditions" of some healthcare systems is that the fewer sick people they have the better it is for the system.

Issues with waiting list seem to be a problem for many gov't provided systems. I don't have a problem treating people who may neglect to take care of themselves by not doing obvious things,but having too many sick people being caused by smoking,over-drinking and over-eating bad foods can put a strain on any healthcare system and would contribute to things like long waiting lists for medical treatment.

 

As far as Americans having a universal system. I've mentioned before that this will be unlikely in America for the simple reason we will eventually have problems funding Social Security and medicare when large numbers of our taxpaying Baby Boomers enter retirement. I've seen where some European countries are going to have to reform their systems because of similar changes in demographics.

 

Someone has to pay for universal health care. I dont. I dont want my rights trampled.

 

well look at canada. taxes are 14% (or so). 60% of their income is taxed. there are large sacrifices you have to make. and still, things like hearing aids are not covered.

 

After you deny the smokers, what then fat people and couch potatos. Smokers today subsidize themselves with higher insurance premiums. Maybe someday you can deny based on eye or hair color, or left or right handedness. Maybe meat eaters should be denied.

And don't forget a lot of the older smokers from world war II, etc. were issued cigarettes while in the service by our government.

 

I'am not talking about denying them healthcare. My question is more about the strain to a universal healthcare system that people who choose to smoke,over-consume bad diets will have or have had on governement provided healthcare systems.

Let's focus on diet some. Let's say America actually gets a universal system. I'd think many fast food restuarnts will need to do some "reforming" of their own because everybody knows that over consuming fast foods contributes to many health problems in America. Health problems related to people over consuming bad foods will have to be tackled in some way because with too many Americans getting sick related to eating alot of greasy foods will futher add to the need for healthcare,straining the system,and causing a need for even more tax funding.

Like I said before,from what I've read on some of these other universal systems it seems like the fewer sick people they have to deal with the better especially if it's largely preventable sicknesses that's a result of what people put in their bodies.

When Americans see how high the taxes will be for funding a universal system you can bet there will be a push to deal with Malbro and McDonalds.

 

Yeah, it might be better for the institution, but whose going to monitor your life style? I won't give anyone that privelege. With smoking in the heatlhcare field, if you say you have ever smoked a cigarette you are branded as a smoker, so they can get their money. I really question this reasoning. When I broke my leg the first question I was ask was did I smoke, not how the accident took place. Get real folks, cutting costs isn't always the answer. I also question their data, since their motivation seems to be to garner any money available. To deny anyone is to set up a system whereby discrimination reaps results.

 

" Tobacco is the number one risk factor for preventable death and disease in Canada. Nearly 7 million Canadians smoke, and an estimated 45,000 of them die every year of tobacco related diseases. The economic burden of tobacco use is very high; it is estimated that smoking-related diseases cost Canada $3 billion per year in direct health care expenses. This does not include the cost of lost productivity, increased insurance premiums and other indirect expenses, which increase the cost of tobacco use to society to $11 billion annually... "

LINK

 

My question would be what is the methodology, and who is performing it. Those that tend to profit by higher statistics?

I was told when I went into horticulture that smokers were less productive than non-smokers...but what is that based on? I admit I smoke but I also worked rings around others that didn't, there are other factors that also effect productivity figures.

 

Now you are proposing that you monitor our eating habits...I've seen some pressure in the US media lately to do just that, what next you want your sex life monitored so that insurance companies don't have to expend their resources?

 

Let's only hire slim, active, tall hetero folks that's great isn't it. It would keep your premiums down, but where would they want to cut next. They'll come up with a table that will include you eventually.

How about cutting Grandma and Grandpa off, because they are too old? Let's not consider that Grandma and Grandpa paid for years into the plan. They are just dragging you down now. Who cares about them they are old and used up. Fat people have no purpose. Let's just consider the bottomline, but whose bottomline is that? What about short people, let's do a study on them and deny them benefits....

 

In Canada, smokers contribute a ridiculous amount of taxes to Healthcare through morality-taxes.

 

In Canada, Grandma and Grandpa actually borrowed money from me to pay for their healthcare. Baby boomers, tsk tsk tsk.

 

Yeah I am a boomer, and I've paid in. I watched as my mom and dad were denied the best care because they were old. They were expendable. They went to war, and fought the good fight, or so they thought. They paid in for years, but insurance companies want the best return on their dollar.

We sing the praises of the GIs today, bet they meet the same fate my dad did, or worse, because the insurance companies have more power now than they ever had.

 

I was referring to previous generations funding a bloated health-care system through a state of permanent deficit. Thats what long-term debt is - borrowing from future generations.

 

In the Uk there is something like an %800 tax on cigarrettes and tobacco that is paid direct to the NHS stste healthcare system smokers pay more !

 

Is this to discourage people from smoking? If so,what's been the results?

 

Thats the idea, but really its just one more way for the government to raise funds.

Cigarettes are a highly inelastic product. Raising the price does little to curb demand. It's arguably a tax on the poor.