Ooh! Teeth whitening toothpaste! Gotta have "white teeth". (Actually that might not class as "medical" fraud :/)
Why not just let smokers die?
- Thread starter rbaggio
- Start date
leo25 said:
Clearly your idea of discussion and debate is personal ridicule - the last option of the desperate. Your comments clearly indicate to those who have any detailed and in-depth knowledge of medicine exactly what you do know, nothing except a copy and paste from Google. I am more than happy to share my knowledge of medicine as I do each day with colleagues and students. Clearly you know it all so I am out of this discussion. I will leave you to your ridicule and silly comments.
SilverSanchez
Active Member
Someone may have mentioned ths before on this thread - but just in case:
Human beings are considered a commodity only in socialistic left or extreme left worldviews.
Has anyone challenged the assumption that healthcae should be paid for by a pool of communal money - Im a smoker, and I have the right to chose my own passtimes, im also overweight and its not immoral to be so.
I pay my taxes - I am just as entitled like anyone else to have access to the healthcare I have already paid for. Anyone trying to restrict my access should refund all the money i have paid into it already.
Smokers and people who are overweight still have jobs and contribute to the community and the productivity of the economy.... but more than that their worth does not come from their ability.
This is the crux of the issue - to question people's access to help (they have already paid for mind you) is to in effect dehumanize humans and reduce individuals to a liability on a balance sheet.
Why do socialists eventually come to the conclusion that all its problems can be solved by killing people or letting them die, why do they never realise that their entire system of economics is a ponzi scheme and unsustainable from the beginning.
I hate socialism, communism and all its derivatives like utillitarianism
Human beings are considered a commodity only in socialistic left or extreme left worldviews.
Has anyone challenged the assumption that healthcae should be paid for by a pool of communal money - Im a smoker, and I have the right to chose my own passtimes, im also overweight and its not immoral to be so.
I pay my taxes - I am just as entitled like anyone else to have access to the healthcare I have already paid for. Anyone trying to restrict my access should refund all the money i have paid into it already.
Smokers and people who are overweight still have jobs and contribute to the community and the productivity of the economy.... but more than that their worth does not come from their ability.
This is the crux of the issue - to question people's access to help (they have already paid for mind you) is to in effect dehumanize humans and reduce individuals to a liability on a balance sheet.
Why do socialists eventually come to the conclusion that all its problems can be solved by killing people or letting them die, why do they never realise that their entire system of economics is a ponzi scheme and unsustainable from the beginning.
I hate socialism, communism and all its derivatives like utillitarianism
SilverSanchez said:
Well said.
SilverSanchez said:
The problem really is when it comes to public healthcare, or anything public, there are no contracts. Things are being paid for but there is no contracts between those who pay the money and those providing the services.
Hence, you are always going to get this situation of people claiming they need more, or that others shouldn't receive as much or whatever. If we were arguing about mobile phone service it's simple, we would go to the contract. No contracts = chaos. No contracts equals no-one really knows where they stand. Which is exactly what is happening here. If each person had a contract saying they paid for a particular amount of healthcare for a particular amount of money, this entire question would be moot, because it would depend on what each individual's contract stated.
SilverSanchez
Active Member
I would gladly opt-out if I could. I would glady be responsible for my own healthcare, education etc etc... I dont need or want government to control my life or be my lifeguard (which ever way it is 'spun' by the pollies). I dont want 'no' governemnt, I just want a government that opperates AS a government... not as GOD
But socialisms success is dependant on sucking everyone dry and you are not permitted to opt-out or leave.
See every socialistic communistic example in the last 150 years
But socialisms success is dependant on sucking everyone dry and you are not permitted to opt-out or leave.
See every socialistic communistic example in the last 150 years
SilverSanchez
Active Member
One more thing I want to say
I dont mind if you want to take away my freedom to smoke (actually I do but the point im making is more important)...
If you want to take away my freedom, when the cultural benchmark starts to take away or unfairly punishing something you enjoy... be consitant and give your freedom away freely....
History has evidenced that freedom is voted away by the free, thinking they were freeing themselves from something undesireable.
There are a lot of parallels between the Jewish persecuations and the anti-smoking strategy of government. Before you say "WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE CRAP!"
Just stop and dig into it alittle. I am a dedicated Christian in worldview, who is a smoker by passtime, and who is a libertarian politically and a free market capitalist economically.... I am probably in the best possition to NOTICE freedom being erroded and taken away, piece by piece.
I dont mind if you want to take away my freedom to smoke (actually I do but the point im making is more important)...
If you want to take away my freedom, when the cultural benchmark starts to take away or unfairly punishing something you enjoy... be consitant and give your freedom away freely....
History has evidenced that freedom is voted away by the free, thinking they were freeing themselves from something undesireable.
There are a lot of parallels between the Jewish persecuations and the anti-smoking strategy of government. Before you say "WHAT A LOAD OF HORSE CRAP!"
Just stop and dig into it alittle. I am a dedicated Christian in worldview, who is a smoker by passtime, and who is a libertarian politically and a free market capitalist economically.... I am probably in the best possition to NOTICE freedom being erroded and taken away, piece by piece.
After wading through the thread I came to the conclusion that I would have to agree with Bordersilver and SilverSanchez on this one.
I find it a fairly pitiful society when the bulk of society is brainwashed into marginalising everything as if its their right to attack minorities for whatever reason.
OK. Lets see how far society wants to justify everything and push the pen.
1) Smoking effects peoples health and costs the healthcare system alot of money in the way of taxes.
2) Diabetes and obesity are the number one cause of heart attacks which impacts the healthcare system thereby draining more taxes from the populace.
3) As the Japanese PM put it, why not let all old people die. Yeah that will fix it. Save more taxes.
4) Oh Yes! The amount of Alcoholic related deaths. Family violence and third party trauma. Road fatalities caused by drunk drivers.
Don't forget the extra strain it puts on our healthcare system and the extra taxes we pay.
5) Hey the "Junkies" don't escape scott free. They are a burden and a menace to society and all drugs should be eradicated.
They should be left to rot rather than commit acts of violence, steal, cheat. Just think how much the taxpayer would save.
OK!! Now we are moving to the nitty gritty.
6) What person in society would live in a fireprone area where bushfires have ravaged the landscape and has the potential to occur again?
You mightn't like it, but it is costing the taxpayers money and alot of human resources. Very selfish of these people.
7) What person in society would live in a known floodprone area where flooding has occurred before?
Obviously another group of selfish people whereby taxpayers will be footing the bill for years.
I am sure I have left out a few others.
Please tell me society.
Is there anyone left after all these selfish people have been eradicated?
Because someone will have to foot the bill.
Point being.
Mind your own business and let everyone else get on with their own lives.
Life carries enough struggles without all the crapola of justification by the selfish bigots.
If people really wanted proper change they would have gotten rid of the political puppetry.
Let people do what they want and stop trying to dictate peoples lives.
Cheers markcoinoz
I find it a fairly pitiful society when the bulk of society is brainwashed into marginalising everything as if its their right to attack minorities for whatever reason.
OK. Lets see how far society wants to justify everything and push the pen.
1) Smoking effects peoples health and costs the healthcare system alot of money in the way of taxes.
2) Diabetes and obesity are the number one cause of heart attacks which impacts the healthcare system thereby draining more taxes from the populace.
3) As the Japanese PM put it, why not let all old people die. Yeah that will fix it. Save more taxes.
4) Oh Yes! The amount of Alcoholic related deaths. Family violence and third party trauma. Road fatalities caused by drunk drivers.
Don't forget the extra strain it puts on our healthcare system and the extra taxes we pay.
5) Hey the "Junkies" don't escape scott free. They are a burden and a menace to society and all drugs should be eradicated.
They should be left to rot rather than commit acts of violence, steal, cheat. Just think how much the taxpayer would save.
OK!! Now we are moving to the nitty gritty.
6) What person in society would live in a fireprone area where bushfires have ravaged the landscape and has the potential to occur again?
You mightn't like it, but it is costing the taxpayers money and alot of human resources. Very selfish of these people.
7) What person in society would live in a known floodprone area where flooding has occurred before?
Obviously another group of selfish people whereby taxpayers will be footing the bill for years.
I am sure I have left out a few others.
Please tell me society.
Is there anyone left after all these selfish people have been eradicated?
Because someone will have to foot the bill.
Point being.
Mind your own business and let everyone else get on with their own lives.
Life carries enough struggles without all the crapola of justification by the selfish bigots.
If people really wanted proper change they would have gotten rid of the political puppetry.
Let people do what they want and stop trying to dictate peoples lives.
Cheers markcoinoz
I see smokers the obese, the poisoned as victims of a rapacious economic system that is prepared to kill people for profit. The society benefits from this arrangement so it shouldn't shy away from the consequences - ie. treating the medical conditions that are caused by the consumption. A clear cut example is asbestos not so clear cut is overeating.
Smokers get lots of diseases, which are in the main from the chemicals used on the tobacco and other additives, including the ones that help along the addiction. Sun dried tobacco for instance (versus kiln force dried) has a much smaller range of diseases associated with its over consumption. (sorry no net reference but BMA circa 1960's might help searchers).
Perhaps educating people on drug use (and I include overeating poisons in takeaway food) is the better way to go, and declining profits and tax take from those industries as people become aware of the negatives, are just carried by the society as it continues to honour its obligations to all its members.
Smokers get lots of diseases, which are in the main from the chemicals used on the tobacco and other additives, including the ones that help along the addiction. Sun dried tobacco for instance (versus kiln force dried) has a much smaller range of diseases associated with its over consumption. (sorry no net reference but BMA circa 1960's might help searchers).
Perhaps educating people on drug use (and I include overeating poisons in takeaway food) is the better way to go, and declining profits and tax take from those industries as people become aware of the negatives, are just carried by the society as it continues to honour its obligations to all its members.
SilverSanchez
Active Member
Question:
In Australia the rate of infection of HIV was dropping and bottomed in 1990's. Since then it has increased substantially and males are three times more likely than females to contract the disease.
There is no cure, it is a long and costly medical treatment program.
The sufferers usually die of secondary infection.
Now - why did we stop the public health campaigne? It is just as big a problem now as it was in the 80s.
You really have to think carefully about how is your individual thinking about smoking shaped and influenced (probably without your knowledge) by the propaganda machine. And why if they are interested in the welfare of people - are they targetting only certain groups.
I sense a far bigger picture here, I personally believe 'they' are practising a strategy defined by Saul Alinsky in order to construct and reform social order.
Im not interested in arguing about smokers, cancer and the like - I am interested in discussing why it seems they are targeting this and not the things that are (in some cases) worse and more costly 'behaviours'.
In Australia the rate of infection of HIV was dropping and bottomed in 1990's. Since then it has increased substantially and males are three times more likely than females to contract the disease.
There is no cure, it is a long and costly medical treatment program.
The sufferers usually die of secondary infection.
Now - why did we stop the public health campaigne? It is just as big a problem now as it was in the 80s.
You really have to think carefully about how is your individual thinking about smoking shaped and influenced (probably without your knowledge) by the propaganda machine. And why if they are interested in the welfare of people - are they targetting only certain groups.
I sense a far bigger picture here, I personally believe 'they' are practising a strategy defined by Saul Alinsky in order to construct and reform social order.
Im not interested in arguing about smokers, cancer and the like - I am interested in discussing why it seems they are targeting this and not the things that are (in some cases) worse and more costly 'behaviours'.
AngloSaxon
Active Member
Big A.D. said:
Capital is capital, capital is not a commodity. The real object of a labour resource more complex than one person- think of it an hour's work of a machine or set of machines or computers operated by either a human or a robot mixed with an inherent or learned set of skills or intellectual property. Much more complex than making a commodity of a person.
I realise this is a little off topic however similar if we take the other extreme. Childbirth from where it all starts ?
Example, a few years back now. Two Couples - One with private Health Cover top with Hospital etc... One with Medicare.
Private Cover - $3,500 bill, including all extra costs not covered and trips to people etc... out of pocket.
Medicare - $0
So for all the extra money and supposed benefits, is this a fair deal then as well for the private patient who supposedly has done what the Govt want you to do. Forget the end game, we all start paying for somebody else from day 1 anyway. Just continues for the next "x" years
Example, a few years back now. Two Couples - One with private Health Cover top with Hospital etc... One with Medicare.
Private Cover - $3,500 bill, including all extra costs not covered and trips to people etc... out of pocket.
Medicare - $0
So for all the extra money and supposed benefits, is this a fair deal then as well for the private patient who supposedly has done what the Govt want you to do. Forget the end game, we all start paying for somebody else from day 1 anyway. Just continues for the next "x" years
Bleh: Let me as a smoker die, but give me back my 60-70 % tax of every cent of tax I have ever paid.
I might get hit by a truck or struck by lightning tomorrow.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...ue-falls-by-341m/story-fndo48ca-1226480197863
I might get hit by a truck or struck by lightning tomorrow.
Obesity is one thing, but as far as smoking goes there is criminal culpability on the part of successive governments. There is a huge elephant in the room: Despite having established all kinds of regulatory bodies to regulate public health issues, food safety standards and drug safety standards each successive administration has allowed the sale of known, highly toxic, addictive, carcinogenic tobacco products to be promoted and sold to the public, which are unique in that the poison also spreads beyond the smoker to surrounding people and to developing foetuses.
This is a criminal act on behalf of public health administrators.
Smoking should not be banned, people should have the choice. BUT the sale of tobacco products with such toxins should be criminalised immediately. If Tobacco companies want to sell the stuff it should be made as safe as any other product designed for ingestion before it can be legally sold.
THe ongoing sale of cigarettes is the most glaring case of self interest that every government exhibits and every Prime Minister of every modern government that has allowed the sale of cigarettes under their leadership should be put in front of a court to explain their failure to ban the sale of poison to those who bought the products during their term in office.
This is a criminal act on behalf of public health administrators.
Smoking should not be banned, people should have the choice. BUT the sale of tobacco products with such toxins should be criminalised immediately. If Tobacco companies want to sell the stuff it should be made as safe as any other product designed for ingestion before it can be legally sold.
THe ongoing sale of cigarettes is the most glaring case of self interest that every government exhibits and every Prime Minister of every modern government that has allowed the sale of cigarettes under their leadership should be put in front of a court to explain their failure to ban the sale of poison to those who bought the products during their term in office.