Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

The First Nonsmoking Nation

Good for them. I still believe that anyone who is sick due to smoking should not be entitled to free care on the NHS, they brought it on themselves.
 
edesignuk said:
Good for them. I still believe that anyone who is sick due to smoking should not be entitled to free care on the NHS, they brought it on themselves.
Click to expand...
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.

While I am happy for Bhutan, I am wary of curbing the right to do something, however unhealthy...
 
blackfox said:
where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily?
Click to expand...
Yep. I agree with edesignuk. This is a good move, and I'm kind of annoyed that I pay high insurance premiums because of other people's lack of discipline. (Smoking, being obese, etc.) And don't play the hereditary card. ;) People don't get fat from fasting.
 
blackfox said:
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.

While I am happy for Bhutan, I am wary of curbing the right to do something, however unhealthy...
Click to expand...
I know, I know, It'll never happen and that's because of these other possibilties you stated. But, I still hate to see my hard earned tax money go to idiots who still continue to smoke/start to smoke when the dangers are well known.

Just to add to that, anyone who get's ill from smoking has no sympothy from me! :eek:
 
blackfox said:
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.
Click to expand...

Well oxygen has long been known to be cause of massive cellular damage so anyone who uses oxygen shouldn't be allowed nationalized health care.

As for smoking. I think it stinks but if people want to do it, fine by me as long as they keep the stink away from me.
 
edesignuk said:
I know, I know, It'll never happen and that's because of these other possibilties you stated. But, I still hate to see my hard earned tax money go to idiots who still continue to smoke/start to smoke when the dangers are well known.

Just to add to that, anyone who get's ill from smoking has no sympothy from me! :eek:
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that countries with socialized medicine went out of their way to tax tobacco products commensurate with the health costs associated with their use. I know Canada has very high taxes on tabacco just for this reason. It makes sense to me, although I don't know how much of the tax actually ends up in the NHS (or equivalent) coffers, thus offsetting general tax revenue that supports the system.
 
MongoTheGeek said:
Well oxygen has long been known to be cause of massive cellular damage so anyone who uses oxygen shouldn't be allowed nationalized health care.

As for smoking. I think it stinks but if people want to do it, fine by me as long as they keep the stink away from me.
Click to expand...

Well I guarantee that if everyone stopped using oxygen for a day that health care costs would become zero... because everyone would be dead. That's not even remotely similar to the smoking issue.
 
daveL said:
I was under the impression that countries with socialized medicine went out of their way to tax tobacco products commensurate with the health costs associated with their use. I know Canada has very high taxes on tabacco just for this reason. It makes sense to me, although I don't know how much of the tax actually ends up in the NHS (or equivalent) coffers, thus offsetting general tax revenue that supports the system.
Click to expand...
Tobacco is taxed. But the burden on the NHS from somking related illness is massive.
 
A government shouldn't have the power to pass laws restricting freedom. If your activity isn't hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be told no. It's definitely a problem when it comes to causing increased health care. They should be charged a fee commensurate to the risk, especially when it comes to smoking. It's an activity under ones complete control. Food however is critical to life.
 
I have major problems with laws that prevent people from doing things that do not harm others. Casual, unprotected sex can be a lot deadlier than smoking, do we ban that? Should we restrict people from forcing others to breathe in their second-hand smoke? Sure. Just so long as we take other deadly pollutants with equal seriousness. The banning of smoking in public places in NYC and LA is a joke - the air is toxic as it is.
 
edesignuk said:
Tobacco is taxed. But the burden on the NHS from somking related illness is massive.
Click to expand...

Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £1.5 Billion per year. Tobacco tax revenues raise £9 Billion per year.

In all probability, a complete ban on tobacco products would necessitate a tax increase if the NHS were to be maintained.
 
Brize said:
Smoking related illnesses cost the NHS £1.5 Billion per year. Tobacco tax revenues raise £9 Billion per year.

In all probability, a complete ban on tobacco products would necessitate a tax increase if the NHS were to be maintained.
Click to expand...
That's splendid. Do I care? No. If you smoke when you know it is killing you then you don't deserve NHS care IMO. Course that's just my own opinion.
 
edesignuk said:
That's splendid. Do I care? No. If you smoke when you know it is killing you then you don't deserve NHS care IMO. Course that's just my own opinion.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that smokers are probably maintaining the NHS through tobacco revenues.

Without smokers, the NHS probably wouldn't exist for non-smokers to receive treatment for non-smoking related illnesses, let alone for smokers to receive treatment for smoking related illnesses.
 
wdlove said:
A government shouldn't have the power to pass laws restricting freedom. If your activity isn't hurting anyone, then you shouldn't be told no. It's definitely a problem when it comes to causing increased health care. They should be charged a fee commensurate to the risk, especially when it comes to smoking. It's an activity under ones complete control. Food however is critical to life.
Click to expand...

I agree, they should be charged a fee. In Ontario here people freely use our health system for trivial things, like getting a band-aid from emergency because it's free.

I don't know about the rest of Canada but I have noticed in here Ontario there is a ridiculous amount of smokers, especially teenagers. In Colorado there were very few. I don't want to pay for the inevitable increase in cancer rates. Getting smoking banned however is very hard to do in any democracy. A NHS with co-pays and added fees for self-inflicted problems would sure help.
 
Come on now, baby steps........today Bhutan tomorrow NewYork city....hold on make that tomorrow city near Bhutan. :)


While I do agree that health care for smokers in relation to smoking should receive some health care, it should come at a premium.


We cannot argue the issues with fat and health since some people have genes that lead them on the overweight side and some people may look health while in actuality they are not. Smoking is not a genetic issues its a choice and comes down to free will, and bad choices.
 
maya said:
We cannot argue the issues with fat and health since some people have genes that lead them on the overweight side and some people may look health while in actuality they are not. Smoking is not a genetic issues its a choice and comes down to free will, and bad choices.
Click to expand...

Poor diet and a lack of exercise are the biggest contributory factors to health problems. Most of us have the opportunity to eat healthily and do some light exercise on a regular basis, but many make a choice to eat a disproportionate amount of junk food, drink too much alcohol, and lead a sedentary life.

Are we to charge these people a premium as well, or would it simply be easier to offer tax breaks to those who lead a perfectly healthy lifestyle?
 
blackfox said:
while I understand your sentiment, where does it end? would that extend to those who eat fatty foods/unhealthily? to those who drink? To those who choose to live in a polluted Urban center? etc. etc.

While I am happy for Bhutan, I am wary of curbing the right to do something, however unhealthy...
Click to expand...

I don't think it has gone that far yet. I get your point though. Maybe a compromise would be to remove smokers from government provided healthcare if they choose to smoke. They have the freedom to smoke and everyone else is free not to pay for them?
 
Non-smokers listen up!

"Any non-smokers here? Good because I have something important to tell you! Ready? Okay here it goes: non-smokers die every day. :eek:

Sleep tight! :D "

- Bill Hicks
 
wdlove said:
Bhutan is the first nation to ban smoking. The ban began on December the fine is equivalent to $232. Only 1 - 3% are smokers. They don't produce any tobacco. Bhutan wants to set an example for the rest of the world.

http://www.slate.com/Default.aspx?id=2112449&
Click to expand...

Okay, now Bhutan is on my black-list of countries I will not visit. Just because you do not smoke, drink, consume fatty foods, do drugs, etc. does not mean you will live forever - get real people! :rolleyes:
 
edesignuk said:
Good for them. I still believe that anyone who is sick due to smoking should not be entitled to free care on the NHS, they brought it on themselves.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%

Once had a MASSIVE (i.e almost fisticuffs) argument with a friend when we were 18 when i accused him of being a sheep because he started smoking when we went college.

Any action that relegates smokers to feel like 2nd class citizens gets my vote.
 
Brize said:
Are we to charge these people a premium as well, or would it simply be easier to offer tax breaks to those who lead a perfectly healthy lifestyle?
Click to expand...


That sounds like a very good idea, give a tax break to people who are healthy. You can already see this with some companies that promote people who are healthy and have a positive attitude towards they work and coworkers. :)

Charge a premium for an unhealthy lifestyle would help alleviate the burden on the healthcare system and channel the money acquired via premiums to research for more important illnesses.

Since we have paid sick days, people who do not take they sick days can bank them and accumulate them for a time when it is really needed without drawbacks. <-- I am one of those few. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back