highwaystar101 said:
Because this way provides a standard level of healthcare for the smoker and the entire population. I see healthcare as a right and not a commodity and socialised healthcare provides it as a right, and to provide it as a right it requires funding from somewhere. For example; 70% of two parent families on income support in the UK spend >15% of their household budget on cigarettes. These people have no way of paying for treatment when they contract lung cancer in a true private healthcare system as they have no real money*. But with the money they have contributed via tobacco taxes, in a public healthcare system they will be guarenteed a certain level of treatment. *Additionally, in a private system they wont pay much tax on cigarettes so they can afford to smoke more, meaning that the eventual treatmnent they require will often be expensive and severe. |
First off, did you ever consider that these people would make more money if they weren't given income support from the government? Its easy to become complaisant in a job, or to pay people 'Crap', if the government is willing to ensure that they have a living wage.
Beyond that, why isn't it an individuals responsibility to provide their own healthcare by making choices about what is important to them? If you look at your example and assume that these couples are smoking (roughly) a pack a day each, by simply quiting smoking or the government eliminating the tax on smoking, 70% of two income families on income support in the UK would have a massive portion of the money they needed to pay for healthcare; and they would have the choice to spend it on healthcare or to (potentially) put it towards something which might be worth more in the long run (like education to get better paying jobs).
Finally, obesity has been estimated to cost in the range of $1,500 per person in additional healthcare costs, do you believe that it is reasonable for the government to start charging households $1,500 tax for every member of the house who is obese?
