Good On You Aust/NZ..

[Dr Grump]

$17 a packet: Parliament socks smokers - National - NZ Herald News

Cigarettes up, and plain packaging compulsory

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is that good?

 

[Dr Grump]

Why is that good?

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why is that good?

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why is that good?

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Both NZ and Australia have public AND private health insurance. If my tax dollars are funding the public health system, then smokers can help fund that system via a tax on their disgusting habit.

People are free to choose to smoke. Are they free to expect my tax dollars to pay for their hospital visits that are due to the direct result of their disgusting habit?

 

[froggy]

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Both NZ and Australia have public AND private health insurance. If my tax dollars are funding the public health system, then smokers can help fund that system via a tax on their disgusting habit.

People are free to choose to smoke. Are they free to expect my tax dollars to pay for their hospital visits that are due to the direct result of their disgusting habit?

The Gov't has been wasting your little bit of tax dollar for a long time so quit whinning and get over it.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Both NZ and Australia have public AND private health insurance. If my tax dollars are funding the public health system, then smokers can help fund that system via a tax on their disgusting habit.

People are free to choose to smoke. Are they free to expect my tax dollars to pay for their hospital visits that are due to the direct result of their disgusting habit?

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because those governments have taken it upon themselves to force taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care doesn't somehow make forcing smokers to pay a ridiculous amount for their cigarettes right.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why is that good?

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Nobody's spreading morality. If a person chooses to smoke and put a burden on the healtcare system, then that person should pay for it through higher taxation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Nobody's spreading morality. If a person chooses to smoke and put a burden on the healtcare system, then that person should pay for it through higher taxation.

See my post above.

 

[Dr Grump]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because those governments have taken it upon themselves to force taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care doesn't somehow make forcing smokers to pay a ridiculous amount for their cigarettes right.

Your 'two wrongs' analogy doesn't fit down here because we live in a society that doesn't mind having a public health system, nor paying the tax dollars to fund it. What we do mind is people having particular habits that cause them to get sick, and expecting others to pay for it; and we also mind how the govt allocates the money, but that is a different story.

Of course it makes it right. We also have some car insurance companies down here who will charge more to people who have more car accidents. Do you think if somebody has five car accidents in five years and I have none, that our premiums should be the same? No way....doesn't work like that...down here anyway...

 

[jillian]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because those governments have taken it upon themselves to force taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care doesn't somehow make forcing smokers to pay a ridiculous amount for their cigarettes right.

the governments haven't 'taken it upon themselves to force the taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care'. in every civilized country in the world, except for here, it is expected that no one be left without health care. as he pointed out, people can choose private medical care, too.

on the other hand, neither australia nor new zealand engaged in a 200 billion dollar war of choice.

 

[Dr Grump]

The Gov't has been wasting your little bit of tax dollar for a long time so quit whinning and get over it.

STFU before I bitch-slap you back to your pond you retard. Adults are talking here....

 

[froggy]

The Gov't has been wasting your little bit of tax dollar for a long time so quit whinning and get over it.

STFU before I bitch-slap you back to your pond you retard. Adults are talking here....

Can't stand hearing the truth, old woman.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because those governments have taken it upon themselves to force taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care doesn't somehow make forcing smokers to pay a ridiculous amount for their cigarettes right.

Your 'two wrongs' analogy doesn't fit down here because we live in a society that doesn't mind having a public health system, nor paying the tax dollars to fund it. What we do mind is people having particular habits that cause them to get sick, and expecting others to pay for it; and we also mind how the govt allocates the money, but that is a different story.

Of course it makes it right. We also have some car insurance companies down here who will charge more to people who have more car accidents. Do you think if somebody has five car accidents in five years and I have none, that our premiums should be the same? No way....doesn't work like that...down here anyway...

It fits everywhere. Just because you want to pay for your health care collectively doesn't mean you get a collective ownership over everybody's body. It's one of the problems of a socialized health care system, and why a market based system is preferable. People are accountable only to themselves.

As for car insurance, that's a market based premium based on risk. It isn't the government forcing the insurance providers to raise their prices.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because those governments have taken it upon themselves to force taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care doesn't somehow make forcing smokers to pay a ridiculous amount for their cigarettes right.

the governments haven't 'taken it upon themselves to force the taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care'. in every civilized country in the world, except for here, it is expected that no one be left without health care. as he pointed out, people can choose private medical care, too.

on the other hand, neither australia nor new zealand engaged in a 200 billion dollar war of choice.

Well since people can opt out of the public option there then will this hike in cigarette prices apply only to those on the public option? Of course not. It's one of the perverse situations created by socialized health care.

I'm not sure what the wars have to do with this issue.

 

[jillian]

Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because those governments have taken it upon themselves to force taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care doesn't somehow make forcing smokers to pay a ridiculous amount for their cigarettes right.

the governments haven't 'taken it upon themselves to force the taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care'. in every civilized country in the world, except for here, it is expected that no one be left without health care. as he pointed out, people can choose private medical care, too.

on the other hand, neither australia nor new zealand engaged in a 200 billion dollar war of choice.

Well since people can opt out of the public option there then will this hike in cigarette prices apply only to those on the public option? Of course not. It's one of the perverse situations created by socialized health care.

I'm not sure what the wars have to do with this issue.

because they could afford to provide health care because they weren't wasting their money on a war of choice.

i think that's a better priority

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

the governments haven't 'taken it upon themselves to force the taxpayers to subsidize everybody's health care'. in every civilized country in the world, except for here, it is expected that no one be left without health care. as he pointed out, people can choose private medical care, too.

on the other hand, neither australia nor new zealand engaged in a 200 billion dollar war of choice.

Well since people can opt out of the public option there then will this hike in cigarette prices apply only to those on the public option? Of course not. It's one of the perverse situations created by socialized health care.

I'm not sure what the wars have to do with this issue.

because they could afford to provide health care because they weren't wasting their money on a war of choice.

i think that's a better priority

Well I'd certainly agree that providing health care is a more admirable goal than killing people, but the laws of economics don't change regardless. How about we cut the wars and the income tax, and then more people could afford their own health care?

 

[jillian]

Well I'd certainly agree that providing health care is a more admirable goal than killing people, but the laws of economics don't change regardless. How about we cut the wars and the income tax, and then more people could afford their own health care?

that isn't what most societies either want or expect. and it apparently works very well since we don't exactly have the best numbers in terms of health care.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Well I'd certainly agree that providing health care is a more admirable goal than killing people, but the laws of economics don't change regardless. How about we cut the wars and the income tax, and then more people could afford their own health care?

that isn't what most societies either want or expect. and it apparently works very well since we don't exactly have the best numbers in terms of health care.

Yeah spending money you don't have works for a while, but eventually the bills come due. Of course we don't have the best numbers in terms of health care, our practically socialized system has to compete with our other profligate spending in terms of war and military occupation as you already brought up.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Why isn't it? Any type of policy that encourages people to give up smoking is good IMO....

Is it the government's job to encourage people to give up smoking? Or should the people be free to choose whether they want to smoke or not? I'm of the opinion that if you have to use force to spread morality then it becomes inherently immoral.

Both NZ and Australia have public AND private health insurance. If my tax dollars are funding the public health system, then smokers can help fund that system via a tax on their disgusting habit.

People are free to choose to smoke. Are they free to expect my tax dollars to pay for their hospital visits that are due to the direct result of their disgusting habit?

Aren't the smoker's tax dollars also funding the public health system? And now they pay even more with the smokes tax? Don't smokers die sooner than non-smokers? Seems that would save the system some bucks.