(September 6, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not at all.  I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare, I just don't think that voluntarily self-destructive behaviour should be a drain on the system.

If you want to smoke, then smoke.  But that shouldn't give you carte blanche to take medical resources away from other people.

Boru

I meant him!

Although now I'm curious if you think those who got lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking should be liable for their treatment costs, even if other cancers may be treated at little to no cost? (Assuming a single-payer system)

Yes, I do think they should be so liable.  The great majority of cancers are not behaviour-caused, and the link between smoking and lung cancer is pretty well established.

At the very least, before you're allowed to buy known carcinogens which you have every option not to buy , you should be required to present an insurance card that proves you're covered.

Boru

(September 6, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Not at all.  I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare, I just don't think that voluntarily self-destructive behaviour should be a drain on the system.

If you want to smoke, then smoke.  But that shouldn't give you carte blanche to take medical resources away from other people.

Boru

I meant him!

Although now I'm curious if you think those who got lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking should be liable for their treatment costs, even if other cancers may be treated at little to no cost? (Assuming a single-payer system)

I have said several times that I am in favor of a public provided health care system - along with private practice - for those that can afford it.

Here in the US we are still stuck with the insurance company model ( for those lucky enough to have it).

Do you think the smoker should be liable for their health conditions as related to smoking?

---

(September 6, 2019 at 1:36 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Aegon Wrote: I meant him!

Although now I'm curious if you think those who got lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking should be liable for their treatment costs, even if other cancers may be treated at little to no cost? (Assuming a single-payer system)

Yes, I do think they should be so liable.  The great majority of cancers are not behaviour-caused, and the link between smoking and lung cancer is pretty well established.

At the very least, before you're allowed to buy known carcinogens which you have every option not to buy , you should be required to present an insurance card that proves you're covered.

Boru

Or (here's where it gets fun) lets just figure out per pack - what they should be paying. (The intent of this post)

---

Lets assume averages. A typical smoker smokes a pack a day - for say - 40 years...

Sound reasonable?

(September 6, 2019 at 1:36 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Aegon Wrote: I meant him!

Although now I'm curious if you think those who got lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking should be liable for their treatment costs, even if other cancers may be treated at little to no cost? (Assuming a single-payer system)

I have said several times that I am in favor of a public provided health care system - along with private practice - for those that can afford it.

Here in the US we are still stuck with the insurance company model ( for those lucky enough to have it).

Do you think the smoker should be liable for their health conditions as related to smoking?

---

(September 6, 2019 at 1:36 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Yes, I do think they should be so liable.  The great majority of cancers are not behaviour-caused, and the link between smoking and lung cancer is pretty well established.

At the very least, before you're allowed to buy known carcinogens which you have every option not to buy , you should be required to present an insurance card that proves you're covered.

Boru

Or (here's where it gets fun) lets just figure out per pack - what they should be paying. (The intent of this post)

---

Lets assume averages. A typical smoker smokes a pack a day - for say - 40 years...

Sound reasonable?

I don't get the question. They should pay whatever the going price is for cigarettes.

Boru

If the cost is £1,000,000 a lifetime:

1 pack per day (10-20 Cigarettes) over 50 years = £55 per pack.



Would be interesting to do the same for sugar per gram with the rise of diabetes and the massive costs that come with treating it.

(September 6, 2019 at 1:36 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:22 pm)Aegon Wrote: I meant him!

Although now I'm curious if you think those who got lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking should be liable for their treatment costs, even if other cancers may be treated at little to no cost? (Assuming a single-payer system)

I have said several times that I am in favor of a public provided health care system - along with private practice - for those that can afford it.

Here in the US we are still stuck with the insurance company model ( for those lucky enough to have it).

Do you think the smoker should be liable for their health conditions as related to smoking?

Not sure, never really thought about it. Particularly since smoking cigs just isn't that big of a deal in my generation. We're going to have to wait and see what sorts of health complications are caused by vaping over the next 40-50 years!

But on principle I don't think it's fair to make health care services an issue of morality, i.e. you don't deserve the same level of care at affordable prices because we have determined you're an idiot. That sounds messed up.

(September 6, 2019 at 2:59 pm)bemore Wrote: If the cost is £1,000,000 a lifetime:

1 pack per day (10-20 Cigarettes) over 50 years = £55 per pack.



Would be interesting to do the same for sugar per gram with the rise of diabetes and the massive costs that come with treating it.

The difference being is that there is a safe level for sugar intake.

Boru

(September 6, 2019 at 3:04 pm)Aegon Wrote: Not sure, never really thought about it. Particularly since smoking cigs just isn't that big of a deal in my generation. We're going to have to wait and see what sorts of health complications are caused by vaping over the next 40-50 years!

But on principle I don't think it's fair to make health care services an issue of morality, i.e. you don't deserve the same level of care at affordable prices because we have determined you're an idiot. That sounds messed up.

You don' t have to be an idiot to smoke.

You just have to choose to do something you know is very dangerous. You assume the liability.

Therefore - you - and you alone should pay for it.

And £55 a pack sounds reasonable.

Give the tobacco companies a pound or two - give the rest to the healthcare system.


That's fair.

Lives

To an individual, over a lifetime, the cost of smoking may amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

But on top of that, there’s the cost to society. Millions of dollars in health treatments, the effects of passive smoking on other people, being the first two that spring to mind.

(September 6, 2019 at 3:16 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 3:04 pm)Aegon Wrote: Not sure, never really thought about it. Particularly since smoking cigs just isn't that big of a deal in my generation. We're going to have to wait and see what sorts of health complications are caused by vaping over the next 40-50 years!

But on principle I don't think it's fair to make health care services an issue of morality, i.e. you don't deserve the same level of care at affordable prices because we have determined you're an idiot. That sounds messed up.

You don' t have to be an idiot to smoke.

You just have to choose to do something you know is very dangerous. You assume the liability.

Therefore - you - and you alone should pay for it.

And £55 a pack sounds reasonable.

Give the tobacco companies a pound or two - give the rest to the healthcare system.


That's fair.

I'm going to go ahead and slip down the slope and say what's to stop you from saying obese people should be liable for any care they receive from eating too much? Or, hell, anybody who does anything that is known to be harmful to you - drink alcohol, drink soda, eat white bread, listen to music too loudly too often, bike without a helmet on, not look both ways before crossing the street - should they be liable for any associated expenses? Are the only people who should be covered angels who never did a bad thing in their life? ("Bad," of course, being defined by the society-at-large)

I think I'd rather a healthcare system not discriminate, period, costs be damned. Where will it end if you allow it?