should our government discriminate fat/obese people and smokers alike considering health care cost?
813310
NO. \n\n1. Secondhand smoke is DANGEROUS and the SMOKE does not know to stay out of the "non-smoking" section.\n\n2. An addictive narcotic is not added to fast food.\n\n3. Smoking does more damage than poor eating habits.\n\n4. The fast food makers did not LIE about what is in their products.
439248
In India u get a deduction from your total income if you pay for treatment of any specified diseases// considering the fact u r fat/ obese u may end up with coronary attacks..so u will..\n\nall the best with that! LOL
191473
I feel Americans should be upset about any and all discrimination.  Obesity is a proven disease.  Sometimes it is best to look the other way when offended.  Obese people should feel free to enjoy life just as much as anyone.  No, I am not obese and I think it would be a very sad for anyone suffering this disease.
454564
Good and bad...big people need all kinds of fat people stuff...like specially made things that can withstand the weight. So this could be good economically because they would buy more stuff. It is bad for what it does to them, and also the health care costs of caring for obesity are enormous. It is bad for us because of all the things that come with it. It seems pretty rare that an obsese person only has the health issue of being fat. They bring diabetes, hygiene issues, cholesterol, and blood pressure problems to name just a few. So, in the end, the costs will far outweigh (no pun intended) the benefits of obesity. It is a serious detriment that our nation needs to acknowledge and stop the problems before they become a huge epidemic.
923899
All these answers are biased to the US approach to health care. If you really want to argue the two sides of this question, you are going to have to do so on the merits of whether the government should provide health care as a "social good" that all citizens deserve, or whether the individual is solely responsible for health care, and "deserves" not to get it if they can't afford it.\n\nPersonally, I would argue that the Government should provide some level of health insurance as a basic "common good". Otherwise, there is a significant bias against the poor, who are often also the ones who cannot afford / do not have employers who provide health care insurance. Also, a group payer (like the government) can have much more influence on how health care is delivered and what the costs will be. Individual payers (like HMOs, for instance) can influence only within a small subsection of the overall country -- and, as has been attested to by many, often influence negatively in terms of treatment options and so on. A broader based payer can also influence a broader base, and can bring some fairness to how treatment options are applied. \n\nHowever, the government is not responsible for every whim of the individual. I don't think the government should pay for all kinds of care, nor do I think that the government has to treat individuals as unable to manage their own health decisions, by regulating alternative health care and the like. So, I think that it should be a combination of individual responsibility with government responsibility, with as much individual choice and as little regulation as possible.
127193
This is a question I love to answer....\nNo, but I do think they should have thier own area to smoke.\n\nYou have the right to not go into a restraunt that allows smoking too, sooooo.. DON'T...\n\nNow, why I love this question.  Those darn liberal's keep coming back up.  They can not draw a line on what is freedom of a person's body and what is not.\nAbortion to me should be illegal except in extreme cases. (They say that it is a right for a woman to chose what happens to her body)\nSmoking is already legal. (They don't think you should smoke, because it creates cancer and they have to pay for it) (They do not think you should have a choice about smoking)\nThey think that the country is taking away too many of it's freedoms with spying and Patriot act, yet, they do not want you to have the choice to smoke.  ILLOGICAL!\n\nBasically, I think everyone has the right to do what they want and enjoy as long as it does not encrouch the rights of others.  Smokers in a smoking area with a smoke eater system allows just that.\n\nOh, and for the Singapore comment..  If you love it so much, MOVE there!  It is communistic already!
210440
I'll say it seems like a good idea, but one just need look at countries where this is done to see the draw backs.  Some countries have waiting lists to perform heart surgeries, muchless elective surgeries.  Next look at how most these countries can't provide enough doctors, muchless nurses, and the waiting times to get in just for a common cold visit.  I think the government should help out those that can't afford it, but there's no reason the government should pay for everybody.  Heck if the government paid for the poors health cost, health insurance would be more affordable, and those without it might be able to pay the bill.  Unpaid health costs from the poor/uninsured are the reason hospitals have to charge $5 for a tylenol to those that can pay. (If you have insurance this doesn't mean they pay that, most have a set amount per day regardless of what is charged)
1107181
No, I think it needs to be spent on health care for smokers since that's the reason they cited that they needed the money in the first place.
791607
Unless youre in the less than one percent of people with actual medical conditions, it's personal choice to be that size by not eating right and not exercising.\n\nAs for medical care.  I would venture to bet at least 95% of people that require medical attention do something to make them unhealthy.  They some, drink, eat fatty food, etc.  It would be really difficult, if not impossible to cut people off from government aided health care because they make poor health choices.  While I think people that knowingly make bad health choices should bear their own burden, it's not an easy thing to do.  Also, the argument comes up that people at low economic levels can only afford McD's and not fresh fruits and veggies, so it becomes poor v. rich.
668832
I don't live in Texas,but I don't think it's fair to keep taxing cigarettes,they are high enough.Especially some of the programs they are supposedly trying to fund using cigarette tax money.If they are gonna tax something and make it equal taxation,then they should forget about just taxing cigarettes and tax bathroom tissue instead,that would be equal and fair because everyone wipes their butts.That way all citizens can pay some extra taxes and not just a few selected catagories.Seeing that some of the programs they will be using the money for has nothing to do with cigarette smoking.
952919
No! Countries which have national health have oppressive tax bases and the systems are highly ineffective and unresponsive. I believe that we should look into to insurance and medical reform. Pricing structures should be examined. For example why should insurance companies be allowed to pay one price to doctors while people off the street must pay more. \nInsurance coverage should be made affordable for all wishing it, perhaps in the form of a government group plan which leverages large scale buying power much the same way as corporations do. \nWe should also review medical savings accounts. Contribution should be allowed to carry over from year to year allowing people to build medical nest eggs. Currently the plan allows tax free contributions, but they are lost if not used in a particular calendar year.\n\nThere are many things we can do to help make Health Care more affordable and available to all in this country, but creating what would be the largest entitlement in American history is not the answer.
1158554
This is a good question and I recommend that you see the movie "Supersize Me", written, directed, and staring Morgan Spurlock.  The facts are very very disturbing.  While smoking USED to be the number one cause of preventable death in the US, it is now obesity!  This movie goes over and beyond in explaining the paradox behind the McDonald's company.  I repeat watch "SUPERSIZE ME"!\n\nBy the way that guy is totally WRONG...Morgan goes to actual doctors and health clinics...its not just a movie its a documentary you idiot!!!!!!
1051702
that is sad !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but is reality -----now this is only my opinion towards obesity----you know how our healt insurance premiums have gone so high!!!! well that is because in part  there are so many people over weigth ...( and there are other factors but this is one each individual can control if you want)...    and wether we want or not when they get sick we  all pay the price ,how you may ask?.... well our premiums keep going up!!!--  i don't have the facts but last time i checked   about 65% of our population in the U S  was overweight .....with this in mind --you know  were are going to have more  heart problems , diabetes,cancer just to nave a few -----how has it affected me ?my health premium is $220 a month just for my self and my two children, that is outragest to me.... but if i want to be insure i have to pay the price----now.... i know some people can't help it and i am aware that it is not their fault ...it is genetic, but  come on give me a braek not 65% of our populations decends from obese people--some people are over eating and that is how they gain all that extra weight----soooo health insurance should be like car insurance the  safer you drive the cheaper your premiums are, like wise the more in shape and healtier you are the lower your premiums should be --but unfortunateli when it comes to healt insurance we all pay the same amoun that is not fair for some of us that do take care of our selves and don't over do the eating part----that is just my  opinion--
363120
yes i think it would be a great idea for the goverment to provide us all with health coverage, it would set in place a standard rate of cost for proceedures of all kinds and employ more doctors and more staff at offices and hospitals, medical standards would be set and therefore medical mal-practice would be more governed by the actual courts and dis-allow for frivolous lawsuits. it would also thereby de-organize the pharmacuetical compnanies and how they practice. medicines would be more available at cheaper rates due to more people using the drugs provided by pharmacies.so "yes"
1123485
Ald. Ed should restrict the fat from his own head first!\nEd is a fat head! If he had ba---manhood he would make tobacco illegal. Yeah! That would float with the farmers in the state, not to mention the taxes the states collects before even the first puff. He is anti-business, anti-individual, a two faced lying whore for what ever group he speaks before. As for the obesity problem in Chi-town... Loose A Hundred pounds Cut Off The Fat Head of Ed Burke! But! Do that at the polls! Please!
879592
Wow! I'm amazed by the bias and misunderstanding evidenced in the answers so far. . . I have lived in a country with "socialized medicine" (Denmark) so I know something about it.  To answer the question, I believe that the U.S. may now be the only western country without a national socialized health-care system.  \n\nAs some mentioned here, in socialized medicine, taxes or other federal and state revenues would pay for our individual medical costs.  But to assume that this would automatically be a big hardship for the taxpayer shows a misunderstanding of the way such a system works and the options in the set-up that we would need to consider.  \n\nThere are many ways to pay for socialized health care, and they don't always involve raised taxes.  For one example, consider this: right now, our tax dollars are wasted to an enormous degree on the pet projects of various legislators - projects that most of us do not know about and wouldn't care to be paying for!  I would like to see some of this "pork-barrel" spending done away with (and I believe that we are moving in that direction as people educate themselves about it and demand change) - that would go a long way toward funding things like a national health-care system.  Other forms of government waste exist also, where funds would be better spent on insuring all our citizens.\n\nThe biggest thing that would worry me personally about such a system, and that may be much of the reason why we don't yet have it in the U.S., is that its establishment would necessarily require some level of federal-level regulation.  Americans (myself included) have a traditional distaste for too much government control on the federal level.  \n\nBut in this case, federal regulation and the meddling that would come with it,  may be a necessary evil that we need to consider - because the alternative is to keep going along the path we are on, in which with every year we see fewer employers able to insure employees, the costs of individually-purchased policies grow more outlandish, and the numbers of uninsured citizens increase by thousands.\n\nI think that it is telling that we are the last free-world, western, civilized nation to NOT be insuring ALL its citizens.  In America, we believe that citizens have a birth right to some things - like education and social security.  I believe we need to start believing as a nation that everyone has a right to be treated when they are ill without it bankrupting them.  It's really a right to LIVE.  It seems elementary that we would want to keep all our citizens healthy, not just the wealthy and lucky.  Something is going to have to give, and soon. \n\nMac at ASKEW\nhttp://askew.blogharbor.com
776265
If they should, then so should those who drink alcohol, eat too much fat, have high cholesterol, work high stress jobs, work in factories where smoke and smog are present, etc, etc, etc. The insurance companies make multi millions a year, if not more, and percentage wise, pay very little back in return. So, what do you think.? Should people on the internet all the time pay more for insurance because of eye strain, and possible exposure to electromagnetic frequencies from their monitors and computers, and lack of exercise? Should the Government control your life, so that you exercise daily, eat right, don't smoke or drink, don't get stressed out, don't watch the news where you can become agitated, ad nauseum?