Do smokers deserve healthcare from the province?

[BornAlbertan]

Just because there was a question on the overwieght aspect and I never saw one regarding smokers...

[guyser]

Just because there was a question on the overwieght aspect and I never saw one regarding smokers...

Sure, considering IIRC they provide more money to the system than non.

[Mad_Michael]

Just because there was a question on the overwieght aspect and I never saw one regarding smokers...

Do fat people? Thrillseekers? Alcoholics? Stuntmen? Car Drivers? Pedestrians? Cyclists? Skateboarders? Those who eat salt/sugar? etc.

Fact is, a majority of people engage in behaviour that is technically or potentially harmful to themselves.

[jbg]

I believe that smokers should be entitled to healthcare, but should pay somewhat higher charges, for, say, OHIP membership.

[B. Max]

I believe that smokers should be entitled to healthcare, but should pay somewhat higher charges, for, say, OHIP membership.

Then take the taxes off smokes.

[jbg]

I believe that smokers should be entitled to healthcare, but should pay somewhat higher charges, for, say, OHIP membership.

Then take the taxes off smokes.

Not quite. I'm against smoking, but don't want to reduce smokers to pariah status.

[Topaz]

As someone whose Hubby had lung cancer, I feel that I know alot about cancer and the treatment and where the expenses are. We lived 2 hrs away from the hospital that he would be treated at. The Chemo was 3 x week and the expenses for us was gas, which was .71 back then and parking would be any way from $4-10 daily. Radiation was everyday for 30 days by the end of the session, he was cancer free and still is today. One thing that open my eyes was people who were being treated, were outside with their IV's smoking!!! Nurses who treated them were also outside smoking!! My hubby was able to quit smoking by way of the patch and Zyban in 4 months. He also lost 25 lbs but the Zyban changes habits and it has been used to weight reduction BUT its habit forming so he got off of it. This does prove that smoking is so hard to quit for some people, even if they have a disease that will kill them. The more times these people have to take treatment the less chance that they will survive the chemo. Also, some people who were on fixed income couldn't buy the new drugs that made treatment alittle easier. One new drug is 1200.00 for 7 treatments. So I feel if you are a smoker and want to quit, then the tobacco companies should pay all the expense, if you can't. Feds, also, since they get the taxes from this poison, which should be allowed to be sold.

[BornAlbertan]

I believe that smokers should be entitled to healthcare, but should pay somewhat higher charges, for, say, OHIP membership.

Then take the taxes off smokes.

Not quite. I'm against smoking, but don't want to reduce smokers to pariah status.

This is exactly the point I was trying to see would come up.

Over half of the price on smokes is taxes. Taxes that non-smokers do NOT pay. Taxes that go into general revenues which then directly affects health budgets.

SO...jbg...don't smokers already pay more for their health care than non-smokers? I just feel governments are complete hypocrites on this issue. If a medication comes out with adverse side effects, they yank it immediately! But here there are taxes to be made and what do they do? They keep on talk out one side of their mouth while grinning and holding out their hands on the other side.

Also, when does the discrimination stop then? Should a construction worker pay more than a secretary? Or a cop more than than a janitor? I mean, higher risk occupations also end up with more injuries.

[gc1765]

I agree with jbg. Smokers should still get healthcare, but should have to pay more.

As for taxes on cigarettes, I'd agree that we could get rid of them...but only if we completely ban smoking except on private property. I don't care what you do in your own homes, but when you put other people's health at risk, you should have to pay for it.

[BornAlbertan]

I agree with jbg. Smokers should still get healthcare, but should have to pay more.

As for taxes on cigarettes, I'd agree that we could get rid of them...but only if we completely ban smoking except on private property. I don't care what you do in your own homes, but when you put other people's health at risk, you should have to pay for it.

Perhaps anyone with a car should pay higher health car than those without? I mean, think of the health risks of inhaling particulate from combusted hydrocarbons!

[gc1765]

Perhaps anyone with a car should pay higher health car than those without? I mean, think of the health risks of inhaling particulate from combusted hydrocarbons!

Good idea! I think I've argued several times on this forum for a carbon/environmental tax.

[BornAlbertan]

Perhaps anyone with a car should pay higher health car than those without? I mean, think of the health risks of inhaling particulate from combusted hydrocarbons!

Good idea! I think I've argued several times on this forum for a carbon/environmental tax.

BUT everyody in the free world benefits from vehicles that burn hydrocarbons so again...where do you stop descriminating? And besides...a tax like this would do nothing but drive up inflation.

Companies will get hit the hardest because of volume.

Costs get get passed to consumer via higher inflation.

Then you get the socialists crying that people can't make a go at life...so increases in wages must ensue for staff retention.

Viscious cycle. Jack Layton said on June 13th that the federal Conservatives are making Canadians choose sides in the "phoney war" between environment and the economy. But then he went on to say Canada's economic future is intrinsically linked with the future of the planet and that the Canadian government should ensure that the economic frameworks are in place to capitalize on this.

So it is a "phoney war" but they are instrinsically linked...well...he got one right. They are instrinsically linked and the mesasure in which people like Layton propose place them directly at war with each other. You increase taxes too much in the name of the environment and the economy will go haywire.

I think Obi Wan said it best: "You and the Naboo form a symbiotic circle. What happens to one of you will affect the other. You must understand this."

Sooooo....taxing in the name of "health" is a complete complete farce IMO. It essentially gives you the opportunity to buy CONSTITUTIONAL assured freedoms. Just like Kyoto is a farce because all it does is shift the onus of environmental responsibilty across the globe for a price via carbon credits. Solves nothing.

[gc1765]

BUT everyody in the free world benefits from vehicles that burn hydrocarbons so again...where do you stop descriminating? And besides...a tax like this would do nothing but drive up inflation.

Take the bus or ride a bike, walk, run etc. Use this health/environment tax to reduce income taxes, so there is no net increase in taxes.

[jester]

How about gun owners. Not only for the injuries but for the other crimes commited with guns. You either treat everyone the same or you charge everyone different, but you still charge everyone. As the saying goes -let him without sin recieve free health care, everyone else pays.......,:)

[capricorn]

I know a lot of smokers who buy cigarettes on the black market. They say why pay $70. a carton when I can get it for $12.? The problem is those contraband cigarettes contain so many toxins, it will kill them twice as fast. So high taxes on cigarettes are turning smokers to contraband cigarettes. In turn they get sick more often than those smoking regulated smokes and put a strain the health care system. If the government would reduce taxes on cigarettes, sales would increase (so would taxes collected) and the black market would lose customers.

[geoffrey]

Remove the taxes on smokes, and privatise health care.

That way the insurance companies will set a market rate on the risk of smoking (and all those other activities).

In fact, they already do. Secondary health insurance is much more expensive for a smoker. I can't even imagine the cost of full insurance to someone that is essientially more likely than not going to die of doing something.

The only way anyone is paying for their burdens on the system is if people pay market prices for unhealthy behaviors.

[BornAlbertan]

Remove the taxes on smokes, and privatise health care.

That way the insurance companies will set a market rate on the risk of smoking (and all those other activities).

In fact, they already do. Secondary health insurance is much more expensive for a smoker. I can't even imagine the cost of full insurance to someone that is essientially more likely than not going to die of doing something.

The only way anyone is paying for their burdens on the system is if people pay market prices for unhealthy behaviors.

So what if someone lives near an industrial area? Should they pay more for health insurance than someone who lives in a rural area with nice fresh clean air?

No matter what, you must discriminate...and in todays politically correct world, that's a bad thing

[geoffrey]

So what if someone lives near an industrial area? Should they pay more for health insurance than someone who lives in a rural area with nice fresh clean air?

Yes.

No matter what, you must discriminate...and in todays politically correct world, that's a bad thing

They do it on auto insurance and get off just dandy.

[Knoss]

I thought this is why we have tobacco tax. introduce two tier healthcare first.

[cybercoma]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare by being taxed more for cigarettes than you are for a carton of milk.

Drinkers also pay more and so do drivers.

[Bonam]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare

Not by enough.

[BornAlbertan]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare

Not by enough.

And what about obese non-smokers?

[guyser]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare

Not by enough.

Since they pay more than they take you want more?

[Knoss]

Smokers already pay more for healthcare by being taxed more for cigarettes than you are for a carton of milk.

Drinkers also pay more and so do drivers.

Alcohol tax should be removed as evidence has shown health benefits to consuming one or two drinks daily: responsible drinking should be encouraged.

[gc1765]

The only way anyone is paying for their burdens on the system is if people pay market prices for unhealthy behaviors.

But how would you ensure that people pay for behaviours that are unhealthy for OTHER people? How much second hand smoke have you inhaled? How much exhaust have you inhaled? Are you ok with people freely endangering other peoples' health?