Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This reminds me of the mindset of that famous Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw when he said people should be brought before a board to "...justify your existence..."
Insurance companies already do this. They price the insurance so high it's not affordable,or they won't cover pre-existing conditions. Of they just deny the claim. And if you smoke and want life insurance, it's astronomical. Why? Because actuarial tables govern the industry - and the odds are against smokers. It's all about money. And that is the bottom line - be it private insurance or anything else.
Not to worry -- maybe smokers are 'worth' something after all....
Article / study says: Of the patients, who had received a (lung) transplant between 2005 and 2011, 766 (or 13 percent) had been given lungs originally from heavy smokers. To qualify as a heavy smoker, the donor had to have smoked at least a pack of cigarettes a day for more than 20 years. (I gather non-heavy smoker was one who quit 6 months prior to 'surgery'. Ref paragraph 11 in the article)
The researchers found LITTLE difference in transplant patient outcomes -- in survival, forced expiratory volume (breathing), number of deaths due to malignancy - similar to non-smokers donor lungs.
Yet it stands to reason that if doctors in the health profession *had* to turn ill people away, some of them would be disheartened, and abandon the profession.
So now all of the sudden the conservatives who are for everyone "pulling their own weight" want to - *gasp* - make the healthy people pay for them? I didn't know conservatives were in support of socialism.
That's a very good point and you deserve rep for saying it. However, unless you've faced nicotine addiction, you really can't understand how difficult it is to quit. I smoked for 7 years which started when i was 16 or 17 and even after such a short term, I still feel the urge to smoke every now and then. It's by far one of the worst decisions I've made.
I don't think people who do not have the strength to quit should be punished. Just as alcoholics should not be.
Paul Spaniola celebrated his 100th birthday on Jan. 29. Paul is the founder of Paul's Pipe shop
in downtown Flint which has been open 84 years. He also is a 6-time world champion in pipe smoking.
And forcing those with bad habits to "get healthy" and live into their 80's instead of into their 60's is going to save society money how exactly?
I would like to point out......typically, a person's final illness is very, very, expensive.....whether that final illness occurs in their 60's or their 80's......it still has to be paid for.
For instance, dying of cancer is usually a long, expensive process, as is dying of heart disease.....whether you are in your 40's, 60's or 80's.....so what difference does it make?
So called "healthy" people, do not just live to a ripe old age and then conveniently drop dead one day....no muss, no fuss, no expense.
And let's not forget Alzheimers. The longer people live, the more people we are going to have with Alzheimers........that long, slow death that is the most expensive of them all.
I just don't see what these "health nannys" think they are going to accomplish.....other than to make things worse than they already are.
I fully agree. Stupid people should be allowed to die and not burden others with the cost of being stupid. So eat and smoke yourself to death. Just don't make me pay for it through taxes and insurance premiums.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.