Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by 46ACE

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
As long as the following groups also pay more:

The Elderly.
The Obese.
The Perpetually Sick ( as in, disease you can't get rid of)

SEe what a slippery slope that one is?

~Tenth

Absolutely not
Smokers chose to smoke
the elderly do not chose to be elderly
Not every obese choses to be obese
And same thing can sometimes go for the 3rd

The whole point of the thread was people who CHOSE to smoke

Choice is the main topic of the thread

Sandra Fluke chooses to have sex after her $160,000year job and wants us to pay for her contraception also.

Thats okay. We pay for her gentleman friend's Viagra.

Why?

Should we pay for wine,flowers and chocolates too? German sedans?
"other recreational equipment"? Insanity.What of those without the necessary social( dance?)skills?
Govt subsidized prostitutes?(Turkey does it) or just cheap chinese blow up dolls?

How absurd should I stretch this metaphor to make a point?

Originally posted by MDDoxs
In Canada I feel that it's in the populations genuine interest to help those who are sick or becoming sick regardless of the means by which they got there.

Do you think perhaps that if people had to pay for their own healtcare they would be making more healthy lifestyle choices?

Which would mean you are helping the sick to not be sick in the first place
Prevention is the best form of medicine

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Ok, firstly I am against universal healthcare first and foremost
I think it's wrong and absurdly inneficient and immoral.

Now with that said, if such a system is forced down my throat should Smokers Pay more taxes for healthcare?

The Amount of money being poured on smokers is ridiculous
And it seems wrong to me that smokers pay equal amount of taxes but as a group take up so much in healthcare costs under a univseral system

Thoughts?

Universal Health Care WORKS, in every single nation that has it.. it works very well indeed, in that each person has access to full health care as needed without the ridiculous costs involved as seen in the American Health System... people actually get help and are not diverted away because they cannot afford to pay.

So what is immoral about that ?

Figures from Australia show that smoking related cancers, for example, make up ONLY about 30% of all cancers seen in our hospitals. Which means that the BS of smokers taxing the health care system is simply BS.. propaganda.

Smokers already pay extra TAX when purchasing their cigarettes/tobacco. In Australia this heavy Tax is supposed to offset the apparent drain on the health system by smokers, of course all that extra money goes into the coffers for use elsewhere.

I would suggest Modern Academia that you sit down and watch Moore's documentary "Sicko" to get a good understanding of what Universal Health Care really is and how it works in various countries.. including Cuba, and why the American system of health care is FAILING the population of your country.. and who made the decisions to place PROFITS above People.... hint.. think Nixon.

Originally posted by jiggerj
Can you show any statistics that smokers are a drain on any type of insurance? I come from a family of smokers. My mother died within a day of being taken to the hospital. My brother died of cancer in a V.A. hospital. A friend died just last Friday. No long term treatments, he died within two weeks of being diagnosed with cancer. All of my uncles died rather suddenly of cancer. One Uncle did manage to live for a year or two, and his expense on insurance was oxygen.

I will most likely die of heart disease. I'm not going to get a new heart. I won't even have surgery.

So, where is the drain on health insurance?

Your exact analogies are the biggest drain
Because you have a few examples of people you know but they do not at all represent the majority

Cancer patients affect healthcare costs the most in the window of time where your analogies take place
Sometime near end of life where life sustaining equipment is being used

Originally posted by Tayesin
Universal Health Care WORKS, in every single nation that has it.. it works very well indeed, in that each person has access to full health care as needed without the ridiculous costs involved as seen in the American Health System... people actually get help and are not diverted away because they cannot afford to pay.

So what is immoral about that ?

1) Univ. Healthcare is immoral because you are forcing others to pay for other people's well being despite their lifestyle choices

2) Univ. Healthcare mostly works in small countries, where the system is managable but not in big countries.

3) the U.S. for example is infested with special interest groups, it is by far the biggest example on this planet of a country that cannot sustain univ. healthcare.

Ridiculous costs in America?
Americans go to India for healtcare where those hospitals USE THE SAME EQUIPMENT used in the U.S.

Costs are just a fraction of what it is in the U.S.
Guess what? No univ. healtchare in india but costs are still down.

Costs in U.S. are up because you have the private sector competiting against the public sector.
And the costs of the equipment a sky high because it can cost anything and the public sector will still buy it so eqiupment is also too expensive for the private sector.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia

1) Univ. Healthcare is immoral because you are forcing others to pay for other people's well being despite their lifestyle choices

A modern society is supposed to care for the least able in their population. Paying Tax is a given, how that is used is not up to the person paying tax on their income. People need to learn that it is not Their Tax Money.. it is a joint fund and all people pay Tax whether through taxable income or through purchasing any goods.

The healthy get cancer just as much as anyone else, and I suggest it is so becuase of our modern lifestyles.. so do you suggest not to assist anyone because we all choose to live within massive EM fields from our appliances too ?.. or breath fouled air causing cancerous symptoms ?

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
2) Univ. Healthcare mostly works in small countries, where the system is managable but not in big countries.

BS mate. Universal Health Care works in every country because it does not have Profits as the prime motivator... as opposed to your American system of health where profit making is the only motivation in the current system... not providing efficient health care for all the population.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
3) the U.S. for example is infested with special interest groups, it is by far the biggest example on this planet of a country that cannot sustain univ. healthcare.

Vested interest groups... are all about insuring Profits continue to increase for the AMA, Private Sector Health providers and Pharmaceutical companies.. hence the problems seen.

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Ridiculous costs in America?
Americans go to India for healtcare where those hospitals USE THE SAME EQUIPMENT used in the U.S.

Yes, ridiculous costs in America. That same equipment and even medicines are cheaper to purchase in countries with Universal Health Care.. no massive profits being made as there are in America.

Please do watch Moore's documentary called "Sicko" for gaining a clearer perspective on the problems and the causes... and how things do work in countries providing universal health care.

hell yeah

$10 a pack

bu then we have to charge for suger and fat,so , lets leave it alone !

I believe smokers are the next minority that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against.
It appears that it acceptable, to have them follow local laws
such as, Smokers Only areas, Smokers are less intelligent then us,
Smokers need to pay more, etc.

It is like the old days,
when was the last time you got to watch a smoker,
entertain a politically correct crowd?

I think I will drive around this town I see the sign,
No Smokers Allowed After Dark!

Originally posted by Rudy2shoes
I believe smokers are the next minority that it is socially acceptable to discriminate against.
It appears that it acceptable, to have them follow local laws
such as, Smokers Only areas, Smokers are less intelligent then us,
Smokers need to pay more, etc.

It is like the old days,
when was the last time you got to watch a smoker,
entertain a politically correct crowd?

I think I will drive around this town I see the sign,
No Smokers Allowed After Dark!

And they want to legalize weed..

Wonder how that will work out?

Tax the weed and tax them more for smoking it.

edit on 18-9-2012 by Rudy2shoes because: (no reason given)

I don't know, there was a lot less cancer in the sixties and early seventies than there is now. There were a lot of people smoking back then. A quarter of the people I know now have cancer, they quit smoking long ago or never smoked at all. I've done a lot of studying on tobacco and Not one bit of it is conclusive that it alone increases any disease. Medical science does not say it directly causes cancer, why not? Because it causes a chemistry that allows cancer to grow. I think I am understanding what they see. I need to track down many more articles written by the researchers themselves before I will comment on it. I'm sick of peoples bias interpretations of evidence.

Well, 2 flags tell me 98% of these people thought this was ridiculous too.

I'm responsible for me....and you better believe I'll take care of myself only and whomever I CHOOSE to help along the way.

Originally posted by Kituwa
How about the elderly (the old, who have already paid into the system). Should they be required to pay more?

I already answered this along with the super long list of other inapplicable analogies
The elderly do not chose to age, everyone gets old

Does anyone have any legitimate and valid analogies?

Originally posted by Domo1
I think we should. Insurance companies shouldn't havemto cover a car that you track unless you pay more for the risky behavior. Same with smoking and the obese.

What do you find immoral about universal health care?

Thats rediculous reasoning.....Domo, what if we charged more for those who eat too much sugary stuff thus endangering themselves for diabetes?
Or perhaps we could make the ederly pay more because they use the system more, and you arent that old yet.....
And then we can charge the retarded and the downs kids more as well as the autistic ones too.....
Then theres the alchoholics and the drug addicts and the homos who seem to have the highest aids proclivity etc etc etc etc etc.
Healthcare is either universal or it is exclusive which do you support|?
Skiers break bones....charge them more too.....ad infinitum.....

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Ok, firstly I am against universal healthcare first and foremost
I think it's wrong and absurdly inneficient and immoral.

Now with that said, if such a system is forced down my throat should Smokers Pay more taxes for healthcare?

The Amount of money being poured on smokers is ridiculous
And it seems wrong to me that smokers pay equal amount of taxes but as a group take up so much in healthcare costs under a univseral system

Thoughts?

NO. If anyone has to pay under universal health care, The Tobacco Companies should.

The end users of the products, did not create the product or the problem. Smokers in the USA at least already pay higher taxes for the purposes of countering the effect of higher health care costs. To add additional tax to these products, is simple a money making scam for someones agenda. There is no evidence that the millions of extra taxes collected now is actually going to health care to benefit smokers or non smokers.

I propose another solution. All smokers should switch to a tobacco form that does not cause health problems and is not subject to undue taxes such as those supposedly for health care. They should use Electronic Cigarettes for example.

Electronic Cigarettes simply work. They look like smoking, feel like smoking, deliver nicotine that is desired by the user, are not cancer causing or cause heart or lung problems. In fact, switching to an Electronic Cigarette may help the user's lungs heal faster from any damage because the chief components propylene glycol and vegetable glycerin are both antibacterial and antifungal agents.

I smoked for 22 years and could not quit by any means until I made the very easy switch to an electronic cigarette. That was 2 years ago and I have been smoke free since. My body is at least healing at the rate of a non smoker. I can breath like normal now, have way more stamina and energy and I still get to smoke ( we call it vape) my electronic cigarette and get my nicotine ( also not a cancer causing agent) I have studied the pros and cons of e-cigs as we call them for over 2 years starting 4 months before I even tried one.

There are other alternatives like Swedish Snus but it does not satisfy the habit of inhaling and exhaling.