Another one o' them smoking ban threads....

[Sean]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

I think where it can be differentiated from the examples Sean gives is that, without a doubt, passive smoking can have a palpable effect on the health of people who do not, themselves, smoke but who are around cigarette smoke all the time.

The case we always think about in the UK is that of an entertainer called Roy Castle who spent a good deal of his younger life doing the jazz club circuit, and who died of lung cancer even though he was a non-smoker himself.


With most other habits or lifestyle choices, the direct effect on health is only self-inflicted. (Unless you count the people who get the shit kicked out of them on a Saturday night by a drunken yob, of course. )

I still think it is wrong to try and force people to stop smoking, if that is their choice. But I think it is right to ban it in enclosed public places, such as pubs, bars, restaurants, clubs etc. I have found it much easier to stick to my non-smoking nicotine habit since smoking has been banned in pubs here. Whereas before, after a few drinks with friends, I would be happily stealing their cigs from them, nowadays I am happy to stay in the pub while the smokers go outside in the cold and rain and feed their habit, while I continue to feed mine with the Niquitins

Yes.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by BeautifulBurnout

Niquitins

whassat?

[BeautifulBurnout]

Originally Posted by cacophony

whassat?

Drugs that don't kill me

[cacophony]

ahhhh the spouse used something similar when he first decided to quit (5 quits later it finally stuck. until next time...)

it gave him terrible heartburn.

[IsiliRunite]

Originally Posted by Rog

OK so what about drinkers? what about sportsmen? what about drivers?, cyclists?, skiers?, people with hi-fat diets?, people who have a genetic propensity to certain diseases, etc- all these things have a higher risk of being a burden to healthcare.......

I don't want to pay for medical problems people bring on themselves.

Just like I believe there should be no healthcare coverage for a victim who wasn't wearing his seatbelt; he should have to pay the bill. If you smoke, drink heavily, or do other dumb shit that you choose to hurt yourself with, it should not hurt everyone else's wallets.

Drinking heavily, like eating a "high-fat diet", is not something you measure truly objectively so I believe their should be no universal healthcare. Just like censorship, it is a slippery slope in which it is nearly impossible to fairly draw the line. People should be held accountable for the circumstances they create. Part of being "free" is benefiting or faulting on your own actions...not anybody else's.

[cacophony]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I don't want to pay for medical problems people bring on themselves.

Just like I believe there should be no healthcare coverage for a victim who wasn't wearing his seatbelt; he should have to pay the bill. If you smoke, drink heavily, or do other dumb shit that you choose to hurt yourself with, it should not hurt everyone else's wallets.

about a month ago i went to the ER after stupidly sticking my finger into an immersion blender. i use the immersion blender all the time and i'm always careful. this one time, this one single split second moment, i had a brain-fart and stuck my finger in there. at that moment the blender rolled in my hand, my palm came up against the power button, and the high-speed blade chopped my finger to the bone.

it was a stupid, stupid injury. i'm still reaping the rewards of it, with weekly physical therapy sessions, covered my my insurance. should i instead be sent to the poorhouse or left to suffer with my mangled digit because i did something stupid? have you ever made a stupid decision or are you above such imperfections?

and take the seatbelt example. do you think it's impossible that someone who usually wears their seatbelt might one day make the stupid decision to go without because they're just popping up the street to the corner store? is that person's life worth less than yours?

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

Drinking heavily, like eating a "high-fat diet", is not something you measure truly objectively so I believe their should be no universal healthcare. Just like censorship, it is a slippery slope in which it is nearly impossible to fairly draw the line. People should be held accountable for the circumstances they create. Part of being "free" is benefiting or faulting on your own actions...not anybody else's.

and how about the non-drinker on his 21st birthday whose friends say, "aww come on, you have to celebrate" and he binges himself into alcohol poisoning. stupid stupid mistake. should be be left to rot because you're so much smarter than that?

and "high fat diet?" heh. how often do you eat out? how often do we all eat out? how many of us have REALLY looked at the nutritional information for most of the popular mid-priced restaurants? big shocker, most of us are too stupid to realize that a simple dinner out at the local chili's restaurant packs more calories and fat than your typical thanksgiving dinner. you might be shocked to realize how many "fat" slender people are out there.

when you give yourself the right to be judge, jury and executioner on "lifestyle choices" and deem some decisions "smart" and others "stupid" and impose limitations on healthcare based on those judgments, you enter very dangerous territory where suddenly statistics will be more important than the worth of a man's life.

obama is a smoker. still trying to kick the habit, as a matter of fact. if he quit today, his lungs would still not be considered "normal" for the next 15 years. and even after that he'll spend the rest of his life at a higher risk for lung cancer than us non-smokers. now, the man could become president. he could bring peace between warring nations, he could resolve the crisis in north korea, he could turn the country around, yadda yadda yadda.

the question is, if lung cancer is in the man's cards, is his life worth less because he made the "stupid" decision to smoke? should he be rejected from healthcare coverage and forced to cope with the ramifications of his stupid decisions because you want to stick it to him for failing to pass your "smart decision" test?

you're treading dangerous waters, my friend, when you endeavor to establish limitations on who "deserves" a fighting chance at life.

[IsiliRunite]

I know it is dangerous waters (I mentioned that if you read my post carefully), and that is why I don't believe it is fair to have universal healthcare. It is wrong to say who deserves something and who doesn't, and it is wrong to charge person x for person y's foolishness. Not having universal healthcare avoids both of those flaws...

[cacophony]

if you have health insurance, you're already in that situation. your premiums are applied across the whole customer base to cover all of the insurance company's expenditures. so you're already paying for stupid people who pay for services with your insurance company.

what universal healthcare does is ensure that a CEO's child and a gas station attendant's child both have the same chance of fighting childhood leukemia, for example. are you saying the gas station attendant's child deserves to die because his father may not be able to afford treatment? that's precisely what denying universal healthcare says.

[Rog]

Originally Posted by IsiliRunite

I don't want to pay for medical problems people bring on themselves.

Just like I believe there should be no healthcare coverage for a victim who wasn't wearing his seatbelt; he should have to pay the bill. If you smoke, drink heavily, or do other dumb shit that you choose to hurt yourself with, it should not hurt everyone else's wallets.

Drinking heavily, like eating a "high-fat diet", is not something you measure truly objectively so I believe their should be no universal healthcare. Just like censorship, it is a slippery slope in which it is nearly impossible to fairly draw the line. People should be held accountable for the circumstances they create. Part of being "free" is benefiting or faulting on your own actions...not anybody else's.

So what happens if you break your leg playing football? should you have to pay then?

[IsiliRunite]

Given the free market economy nature of current health insurance, it is not conceivable to have a private company that has higher standards for customers than the government would legally be allowed to. There is choice, now, but people do not exercise their own power as consumers any longer and want the government to set up the impossible system where one is not paying for retards but everyone is covered.

Don't get me wrong, I would love for everyone to get the help for all of their problems, but you can't really help someone until they are willing to help themselves i.e. smokers, non-seatbelters

You should have to pay if you play sports and hurt yoself!