Fuck my country!

[Meatball]

It's tricky. I don't generally don't think prohibition is a good idea, but it's a tricky situation.

Regular smoking fucks your body up. People who don't smoke presumably pay the same tax rate as those that do not, and that's unfair to them. That said, it's hard to justify denying anyone access to healthcare.

I think a better idea is to continue to raise taxes. I know that every time you do that you're making the black market more lucrative, but it's really about finding a balance. I don't know the prices in NZ, but I imagine they're still a ways away from people buying bootleg cigs en masse. There's got to be some room for taxes.

[theVOID]

People know smoking fucks up your body, they chose to do it, nobody's damn business what they do with their own bodies.

That's a good argument for why private healthcare is better, the amount you pay is measured by the action you take. People who smoke and over eat SHOULD pay more, they put a bigger strain on the system - People who exercise regularly and eat well should pay less. There are ways to do something similar in a single-payer healthcare system, invoice people separately for the difference for healthcare problems that they have knowingly caused.

Smokes are $12-15 for 20, way too fucking high already. More taxes don't help, you just make smokers more broke. Considering that most smokers are from low/middle income families it's just another way to make life tougher for the lower class, the effect is negligible.

[Ashendant]

People know smoking fucks up your body, they chose to do it, nobody's damn business what they do with their own bodies.

That's a good argument for why private healthcare is better, the amount you pay is measured by the action you take. People who smoke and over eat SHOULD pay more, they put a bigger strain on the system - People who exercise regularly and eat well should pay less. There are ways to do something similar in a single-payer healthcare system, invoice people separately for the difference for healthcare problems that they have knowingly caused.

Smokes are $12-15 for 20, way too fucking high already. More taxes don't help, you just make smokers more broke. Considering that most smokers are from low/middle income families it's just another way to make life tougher for the lower class, the effect is negligible.

Actually making smokes expensive forces people to quit it, also you have remember that not all smokers have their health destroyed because they smoke(passive smokers)

[theVOID]

Passive smokers don't have serious health effects so they don't pay the premiums, chain smokers would have to pay more to account for the extra liabilities their habit produces.

If you raise taxes on smokes you're only going to get a tiny portion that will quit, the rest of them will cut other things long before they give up smokes, less healthy food, less luxury items, less toys for the kids etc. We've had 2 decent tax hikes on smokes in the last year and the number of people who have quit is negligible, the effect on people's finances however is not negligible, people are much worse off.

[Dotard]

Fuck the cunts, it's a crap excuse for more authoritarianism. If they're really worried about the costs they should do the damn sensible thing, make people who smoke pay for their smoking related illnesses,
[/Rant.]

Just one question. Same would go for people who skydive, eat mac donalds, ride motorsickles, excercise regularly and break an ankle or develops Runners Knee? How about someone who likes to mountain bike and falls off a mountain? Deny them medical care if they are uninsured? After all, they brought those conditions on themselves. How about the guy excercising on his bicycle who hits a pothole and smashes his nuts on the handlebars? It's a known danger and he chose to participate in bike riding so no medical care if you are uninsured. Oh, who's going to be 'God' in deciding who gets treatment or who's been a bad boy?
"Make people pay for their "----------" related illnesses and injurys." doesn't seem so sensible when there exists a myrid of activities humans engage in that directly cause injury or illness.

[corndog36]

High fat foods are bad for us too, I think they should ban fast food next, and sweets, and what about skiing? there a lot of skiing related health care cost, lets ban that too. (do I really need to add that /sarcasm, thing?)

[Dotard]

Passive smokers don't have serious health effects so they don't pay the premiums, chain smokers would have to pay more to account for the extra liabilities their habit produces.

Will we be required to wear a smoke counting ankle bracelet or something? Transmitters in cigarette packs that tell the gummit (or insurer) how much your smoking?

Cigarettes must be purchased with a reporting debit card that tattles on you! Yeah, that's the ticket!

(*The camera mounted on top of a pole swivels around peering everwhere. Zooming in and out as the inhabitants of the city move about. A crackle and short piercing screech is heard as the loudspeaker mounted just above it booms....*)

"YOU THERE! The one carrying the parachute! You've had your ONE allotted skydive this year! If you're headed for another one, that's gonna cost ya.
HEY! Gumball on the bicycle! You're only allowed to ride bikes if you get off and walk them across crosswalks! Negative 5 credits for you! Hey Fatguy entering MacDonalds! You your insurance insurance rate just went up another 42 percent. Congradulations Fatass!"

Yes I know, taken to the extreme. But it can be a logical conclusion to your logic on the matter.

[theVOID]

Just one question. Same would go for people who:

I'll break it down

skydive

Yes, Risk your ass for kicks and don't expect people who are risk averse to pick up the slack, you put your health at risk you should expect to pay more to cover the liabilities you create, the actual chances of getting injured are probably low, thus the extra premiums should be low.

eat mac donalds

Not necessarily, it depends on the totality of the diet.

ride motorsickles

I'm not sure motorcycles are that risky comparatively, it would depend entirely on the data.

excercise regularly and break an ankle or develops Runners Knee?

No, you didn't knowingly injure yourself nor is running a major risk, your healthy lifestyle would lower your premiums because you're taking action that tends to lower your need.

How about someone who likes to mountain bike and falls off a mountain?

That again is something that is a marginal risk, you might get slightly higher premiums, but the health benefits on average would likely outweigh the potential risks and make it cheaper.

Deny them medical care if they are uninsured?

No, give them care and send them a bill, if they don't pay it then crack down.

Insurance and healthcare are not the same thing either, insurance is for rare and major incidents where you wouldn't have the capital to cover it, healthcare is an ongoing and expected cost that you should account for with your income.

After all, they brought those conditions on themselves.

It is the tendency of an action to result in a need, people who take less risks pay less, people who take an active role in maintaining their health pay less, people who smoke or over eat pay more. Someone taking unnecessary risks or engaging in behavior likely to result in more needed care should not be allowed to shift the burden to people who do not, it's completely unfair.

How about the guy excercising on his bicycle who hits a pothole and smashes his nuts on the handlebars?

Low risk, generally beneficial. Someone who cycles regularly maintains their health and tends to need less care, they pay less.

It's a known danger and he chose to participate in bike riding so no medical care if you are uninsured.

Firstly, you are again confusing healthcare and health insurance.

Secondly, riding a bike tends to do more good than harm, it tends to lower your need for care. If that is the case you should pay lower premiums.

Thirdly, you wouldn't get no care, you would get an invoice that you are required to pay regardless of whether or not you have insurance. If you have insurance you pass them the bill, if you don't and you have the means to pay you either pay it yourself or get fined/convicted and if you genuinely cannot afford it you seek help from the welfare department or charity and they will pay it.

Oh, who's going to be 'God' in deciding who gets treatment or who's been a bad boy?

A computer and statistics - Some things tend to promote health, some things tend to promote need. There is absolutely no need for the melodrama you seem intent on bringing to the discussion.

"Make people pay for their "----------" related illnesses and injurys." doesn't seem so sensible when there exists a myrid of activities humans engage in that directly cause injury or illness.

It only doesn't make sense when you've either straw-manned or misunderstood the argument.

Again, some actions tend to promote health, some actions tend to thwart health, some actions contain undue risks. People who actively maintain their health and don't take risks should NOT have to shoulder the burden for people who damage their health or take unnecessary risks. It is plainly unfair for someone who jogs and eats healthy to pay the same amount as a person who smokes, drinks and does extreme sports.

Will we be required to wear a smoke counting ankle bracelet or something? Transmitters in cigarette packs that tell the gummit (or insurer) how much your smoking?

If you go to the hospital for treatment and present with the signs of smoke damage then they list you as having smoking related illness - You get treated and leave with your invoice - If your insurance company knows you smoke then there is no problem, if you've lied to them then you have broken the contract and will have to pay a higher premium to account for the difference in payments or can be refused service.

It's really rather simple, you again seem to be loving the melodrama, it's complete bullshit however. Your 1984 fears are completely off pace.

[Dotard]

[/quote]

[quote='Dotard' pid='123461' dateline='1300228118']
Just one question. Same would go for people who:

I'll break it down

skydive

Yes, Risk your ass for kicks and don't expect people who are risk averse to pick up the slack, you put your health at risk you should expect to pay more to cover the liabilities you create, the actual chances of getting injured are probably low, thus the extra premiums should be low.

Ok. We do reports on injury/illness % of "---" activity to set insurance rates. Sounds reasonable. Prob need lots of enforcers or cameras or whatever to make sure everyone is reporting every fricking activity that someone (Void maybe) deems unhealthy/dangerous/unnessesary.

eat mac donalds

Not necessarily, it depends on the totality of the diet.

Maybe Mickey D's can be required to punch a card and send the information to your government or insurer assigned dietician.

ride motorsickles

I'm not sure motorcycles are that risky comparatively, it would depend entirely on the data.

I'd venture to say it is quite higher per accident compaired to automobiles. So their health insurance rates should be whatever % higher than non motorcycle riders. Oh, and people who walk in comfortable shoes compaired to those who walk in heels and or barefooted and such. We should track that because foot/ankle injuries are higher umong non-comfortable shoe wearers. Oh wait, I'm sorry. That's your job to decide what should be counted and what should not.

excercise regularly and break an ankle or develops Runners Knee?

No, you didn't knowingly injure yourself nor is running a major risk, your healthy lifestyle would lower your premiums because you're taking action that tends to lower your need.

No. It's a known fact runners develop Runners Knee and non-runners do not. They must pay a higher premium because a direct corolation/causation can be drawn between running and Runners Knee.
Again, I forgot. You get to make these decisions. Ya fuckin' authoritarian!

How about someone who likes to mountain bike and falls off a mountain?

That again is something that is a marginal risk, you might get slightly higher premiums, but the health benefits on average would likely outweigh the potential risks and make it cheaper.

Well fuk. I wanna get that mountain bike out, but I can't afford the "slightly higher" ((Did you even stop to consider the VAST differance between what you would consider 'slightly higher' and what Joe the street sweeper would consider 'slightly higher'? I didn't think so. $20 could make the differance of a man starving for a day or eating.)) premiums so no bike riding for me. Everybody Thank Void. Thanks Void!

Deny them medical care if they are uninsured?

No, give them care and send them a bill, if they don't pay it then crack down.

LOL! Whadda ya suggesting? "Crack Down". Whut, send the goons to come beat me up? Deny me any future medical care? Break a finger or two?

Insurance and healthcare are not the same thing either, insurance is for rare and major incidents where you wouldn't have the capital to cover it, healthcare is an ongoing and expected cost that you should account for with your income.

Again, LOL! My income is what accounts what healthcare I can get. And know what? I don't carry any healthcare insurance. I've gotten sick requiring hospitalization more than a few times. Once for a major trauma which was major surgery, 30 days (yes thirty days) in ICU. ((Digression: I have no recollection of those 30 days. I lost them. Went under, woke up 30 days later. A month of my life went *poof*. ))
and another 46 days in the hospital complete with phys therapy and some good eatin'!

Never paid a penny to any of them. Should they be over here strong arming me? Court orders if I ever hold a job they get 50%? Imprison me? Black-ball me from all hospitals and clinics and let me die if anything ever happens again?
Really interested to hear what 'crack down' on them would mean.

After all, they brought those conditions on themselves.

It is the tendency of an action to result in a need, people who take less risks pay less, people who take an active role in maintaining their health pay less, people who smoke or over eat pay more. Someone taking unnecessary risks or engaging in behavior likely to result in more needed care should not be allowed to shift the burden to people who do not, it's completely unfair.

Ok. Cool. Understandable. Every insurance application should ask if you have ever used the services of a prositute., skydive, drive motorsickles, ride mountain bikes, walk barefooted in the park, eat sushi blowfish, bathe regularly, are a runner, have saggy balls (ya might sit on them), own pitbull terriers, how much fat your diet contains, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
What height/weight chart would our healthcare masters be using in determining who's a fatass and who is not? Required to have a yearly weigh in maybe? Everyone line up for your yearly insurance mandated physicals so they may dump you entirely or jack your rates way up. Ya know, Fuck all that. Just ban my fucking smokes and I'll get them from my pot dealer ok? Probably be fuckin' cheaper anyway.

How about the guy excercising on his bicycle who hits a pothole and smashes his nuts on the handlebars?

Low risk, generally beneficial. Someone who cycles regularly maintains their health and tends to need less care, they pay less.

See above. He hopes like hell he doesn't smash his nuts before physical time. He couldn't afford another 5% and would have to park the bike.

It's a known danger and he chose to participate in bike riding so no medical care if you are uninsured.

Firstly, you are again confusing healthcare and health insurance.

I really don't know whut you mean by this. Way back in the day when I did pay that stuffs I paid for health insurance thru my employers and that covered health and sickness and hospitalizations and the whole shebang. Is it different in your part of the world?

Secondly, riding a bike tends to do more good than harm, it tends to lower your need for care. If that is the case you should pay lower premiums.

Thirdly, you wouldn't get no care, you would get an invoice that you are required to pay regardless of whether or not you have insurance. If you have insurance you pass them the bill, if you don't and you have the means to pay you either pay it yourself or get fined/convicted and if you genuinely cannot afford it you seek help from the welfare department or charity and they will pay it.

Fined? HA! Then what? Put me in jail cause I won't pay that either? Take 50% of my non-existant wages? Seek welfare? Nah. When hospitals realized I was not gonna pay them anything they whip out a paper for you to sign that basicly states "I'm to poor to pay this." after some time someone will call me from some welfare or charity or whatever and ask me questions about my income and expenses and property and assets. After answering all their questions (truthfully or not is another subject) I never hear from them again and just toss all the bills I will forever receive in File 13.

I need to be put in jail or they shoulda let me rot? What?

Oh, who's going to be 'God' in deciding who gets treatment or who's been a bad boy?

A computer and statistics - Some things tend to promote health, some things tend to promote need. There is absolutely no need for the melodrama you seem intent on bringing to the discussion.

Cool, computers decide who lives and who dies. I can live with that. Will they have cameras or implants within us to monitor all that?

Calling my opinion on your elitist ideas a melodrama is a bad attempt at deflection when considering you began this thread with a "FUCK MY COUNTRY!" for poisting something you disagree with. Read your original post for some quality melodrama. My pales in compairison. But I worry not as one day the student will become the master.

"Make people pay for their "----------" related illnesses and injurys." doesn't seem so sensible when there exists a myrid of activities humans engage in that directly cause injury or illness.

It only doesn't make sense when you've either straw-manned or misunderstood the argument.

Again, some actions tend to promote health, some actions tend to thwart health, some actions contain undue risks. People who actively maintain their health and don't take risks should NOT have to shoulder the burden for people who damage their health or take unnecessary risks. It is plainly unfair for someone who jogs and eats healthy to pay the same amount as a person who smokes, drinks and does extreme sports.

Fine. Great idea. Bring in the enforcers. Say I buy a mountain bike and take off riding before informing my insurance carrier. I get in an accident, does the insurer have the right to refuse payment because I failed to inform them before buying myself a bike? Should I then be jailed for inability to pay the bill? Man dude, you better build a shiltload of new prisons.

You've already went from smoking people need to pay more for insurance to people who drink and then to participants in extreme sports, I see you didn't forget them, and who else? I bet motorcycle riders would qualify for an increase according to Big Blue. I bet ol' Blue would come up with a whole bunch of 'qualifiers' you would disagree with. But really, you can keep your private insurance with it's increasing rates based on your boring or exciting lifestyle. I'll keep using this little bit of hidden socialism found here in America.

Will we be required to wear a smoke counting ankle bracelet or something? Transmitters in cigarette packs that tell the gummit (or insurer) how much your smoking?

If you go to the hospital for treatment and present with the signs of smoke damage then they list you as having smoking related illness - You get treated and leave with your invoice - If your insurance company knows you smoke then there is no problem, if you've lied to them then you have broken the contract and will have to pay a higher premium to account for the difference in payments or can be refused service.

But really! I don't smoke! That musta been all that second hand smoke I get from my good-for-nothing spouse! Or probably from all that damned car exhaust because I ride a motorcycle in the congested city..... awww hell now I gotta pay more because statistics will show motorcycle riders inhale much more carbon monoxide commuting in congested urban areas compaired to car drivers and that is a health risk. Really, Big Blue said so.
But honestly, I don't smoke. It's second-hand. I swear to God.

Now what? Legal proceedings to prove they are a liar and then toss them in the hoosegow for inability to pay? I thought your goal was to save taxpayer money.

It's really rather simple, you again seem to be loving the melodrama, it's complete bullshit however. Your 1984 fears are completely off pace.

You are the one advocating 'cracking-down' on the un/underinsured poor man without ability to pay. That's what it boils down to Mr. Void. Under your system if I lead a nice boring life free from tobacco, marijuana, 'fun for me' activities I should be able to afford private insurance no matter my income. But if I stray from the 'safe' path laid before me by my insurers then I'm priced out of considering my activities and if I choose to do them anyway you advocate tossing me in the hoosegow should anything I do cause the need for medical care. Really, that's a little melodramatic reaction to someones idea to take away your smokes. Or right to smoke or whatever.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Australia's mandatory voting is bullshit Smile Great way to start a free system like democracy, with threats of fines!

Void old boy,you are talking ex anus.

Australia does NOT have mandatory voting:

We're obliged to register to vote at age18,and obliged to attend polling booths to have our name marked off the list. There is no obligation to actually cast a vote.

I know several people who have never bothered to register and I forgot to vote one year. Nothing happened.

PLUS studies I read at university showed [counter intuitively] mandatory voting makes no difference to the political make up of a government.