Fuck my country!

[Skipper]

All packaging for smokes in the U.K are being made to be plain and all packets sold are to be out of sight. Not as bad as banning them, but still none of their fucking business.

On the point of people paying more/less for healthcare insurance depending on their life style choices, I'm VERY against that idea. People who drink/smoke/eat to much already pay more in taxes to fund their particular habit. Smokers pay £7bn in tax in the u.k. and smoking costs the NHS £5bn a year. With another £1.5bn going on the effects of passive smoking. Binge Drinking costs the NHS £2.7bn whilst the governemnt takes over £14bn in taxes for alcohol a year. So smokers and drinkers actually make money for the U.K in taxes. So they should also pay more for healthcare? Also, while people who do live unhealthy life styles may cost more in short term healthcare, they do on average die younger so cost a hell of a lot less in the long run, as paying to look after the old and dying costs much, much more than looking after a smoker/drinker while they die younger.

[Edwardo Piet]

It would be best if tobacco never existed in the first place. Smoking does no one any good.

Since it does exist though, anyone should be free to slowly kill themselves if that's their choice. So long as they keep their fumes away from everyone else.

[tackattack]

And people should be able to enjoy a smoke free environment, so long as it doesn't rip away the personal freedoms of both business owners and smokers. Besides, the Idiots here in VA actually worsened their case of second hand smoke by banning smoking indoors.

[HeyItsZeus]

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

That's a good argument for why private healthcare is better, (oh boy...)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 (OK... they get their healthcare through the government and then they have to pay more; special add on price treatment for smokers)- 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. (OK sounds good.

Smokes are $12-15 for 20, way too fucking high already (I loled at this...as a libertarian you have no right to ask for price regulation/ irony.). More taxes don't help, you just make smokers more broke (then people will stop being shit-heads and perhaps not start smoking... it makes an impression when when someone sees your broke ass on the street begging for smokes ). 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 (sooooo why do you have to smoke again???? oh wait.........................you don't).

You should be allowed to smoke but if there is a way for life to get harder for you because you smoke I will support it. I know it sounds sinister but it actually isn't. I care too much about humanity to be basically handing out cigarettes to people. Libertarianism, once again, in my opinion fails.

---

And people should be able to enjoy a smoke free enviornemt, so long as it doesn't reip away the personal freedoms of both buisness owners and smokers. Besides, the Idiots here in VA actually worsened their case of second hand smoke by banning smoking indoors.

I hate when smokers smoke around me... it makes me want to throw my stomach out... and smokers smell worse then donkey ass!

---

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?)

Same thing goes for junk food. You want it, you can have it but don't ask me to take a hit because you choose to be a dumb ass. If food prices are the issue then blame the corrupt system you don't have enough (this can be fixed).

[Autumnlicious]

Oh for fucks sake Zeus!

The quotation box is for quotes, minced or otherwise. Not for responses or sarcasm on a frequent basis.

Bad! Bad poster!

[theVOID]

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.

Okay, you're fined if you don't go down to the booth on polling day, sorry for the huge mistake I made there... /sarcasm.

[HeyItsZeus]

Oh for fucks sake Zeus!

The quotation box is for quotes, minced or otherwise. Not for responses or sarcasm on a frequent basis.

Bad! Bad poster!

[theVOID]

Dotard, I had started going through the truncated posts but it became rather obvious early on that you've got it ass backwards as far as the method is concerned, It will be easier to clearly lay out how it would work and then you can raise criticisms.

---

Start with a base rate based on the average health liabilities of the population, give it the value 1.

Each person prior to getting health insurance gets a physical, depending on your long term outlook you are scored + or - some value relative to the base rate.

Taking positive overall actions towards health will result in a good score and lower rates.

Taking negative overall actions towards health will result in a poor score and higher rates.

For example, someone with who looks like they are going to be healthier than the average person gets a score of 0.7 and pays 70% of the base rate. Someone who smokes and drinks heavily scores a 1.3 and pays 130% of the base rate.

Every few years (or when you request it if you have solved the problems) you have a new physical and your rate is adjusted. People now have a financial motivation to remain healthy and people who do are not forced to shoulder the burden for people who do not.

As for risks:

Risks work like no-claims with vehicles, people who have a lot of accidents from situations that they put themselves in end up paying either a higher rate or their premiums go up. Someone who partakes in extremely risky activities is more likely to get injured and then need to make claims, someone who does not will not get as many injuries and will not pay higher premiums.

The state could subsidies the difference for people who get + scores as a result of an accident of birth, this means that people don't have to face extra costs for something they have zero control of and the insurance companies don't have to sign up people knowing they will make a loss on them.

As you can see, there is no need for reporting or spying or government watch or any of those other numerous straw men you raised earlier. You are judged on your performance relative to the average person and given rates relative to the base rate.

[Minimalist]

It would be best if tobacco never existed in the first place. Smoking does no one any good.

Since it does exist though, anyone should be free to slowly kill themselves if that's their choice. So long as they keep their fumes away from everyone else.

Well, what would really be nice here in the good ole US of A is if the government wasn't taxing people on one hand and pissing money away with tobacco subsidies on the other.


http://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips=...de=tobacco


Of course, when you want to talk about fucked up countries THIS is where you should start.

[theVOID]

Yay government!