I notice that you're again dishonest about this. It isn't a lifestyle choice I approve of or disapprove of I couldn't care less if you smoke or not. It is a known fact that smoking increases health risks in a number of categories and increases occurrence of diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema. Smoking is a voluntary activity. No one puts a gun to your haead and says SMOKE! So logically A major premise you know smoking increses your risk of disease, and minor premise B smoking is voluntary conclusion C. You are voluntarily putting yourself at risk assuming a greater chance of disease.
Now as to giving your money back. The government has already spent it. However, I think that smokers should be opted out of the system on a going forward basis. Not pay any more in and not get any government funds when and if they come down with lung cancer.
I also notice neithe you nor the other socialist who wants other people to pay for voluntary risk related health issues has answered my question as to whether or not you think AIDS treatments should be government funded.
I want the entire stupid system destroyed and replaced with a free market.
“opted out on a going forward basis”. But it’ll be fine to keep the money that was already taken from them at gunpoint. How very reasonable of you.
Eating unhealthy foods (as determined by yourself (you being the government at this point)) is voluntary. Under your system, those who eat unhealthy foods are now to be refused health care. Check.
Why would my examples be any less valid than yours?
I’ll answer..yes, in a collectivist system such as Obamacare, social security, medicare, etc., I think AIDS patients should be taken care of, else you turn it into a system wherein some bureaucrat can deny health coverage based not on whether a patient needs it, but on whether the bureaucrat wants to give it to him.
That is the start of a really bad tyrannical system that will start to kill people that are unneeded by the state.
Deny treatment to someone based on a value judgement and you’ll pretty soon stop covering people who eat red meat, or drive more than 10 miles a day, or drink beer, or surf, scuba dive or go on back-country hikes. Then drop treatment to anyone who has anger issues, then drop treatment to anyone who has stress, anxiety or isn’t in a happy family environment.
No, treatment should be based on whether a person needs it, not on whether they deserve it or not, else you’ll have some bean-counting thug denying treatment to some people and not to others and that’s gonna quickly turn into death panels and “it’s your duty to die.”
Note that I do not believe that surgical mutilation for mental illness fits into “needed treatment.”
Ed