Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Except there are people that do not contribute according to most tax codes.
Yes, some cheat the system, others are in need of help.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Except there are people that do not contribute according to most tax codes.
Yes, some cheat the system, others are in need of help.
Sure. I am willing to help those that need it hence why I do support state covering those expenses.
I believe in a very robust social safety net. I have issues with how it is often administered.
I would like some limits on the system regarding who pays when it comes to health issues caused by the individual. Smokers for example can dump a lot of money into a habit which destroys their health.Smokers in the end should be paying something into the system as they caused the problem the system is now addressing.
By administered do you mean the government?
Health costs for smokers have been shown to be no greater than non smokers because they don't live as long and long life costs a lot in healthcare.
Sorta. I mean that the programs run by the government are poorly implemented and full of waste. People who really need support can't get it and people who don't need it game the system.
Smoking causes health issues which are avoidable by..... not smoking. So they burden the system more than non-smokers while using a lot of money to support their habit.
Is this comment about a specific government like the US or a nation with NHS like Canada or UK? I ask as the waste in the US is caused due to different reasons than say in Canada.
I can only address the U.S. system, as I am largely unfamiliar with other systems.
you obviously don't comprehend my statement which is based on the actual research, smoking is a net break even in healthcare costs because many smokers live shorter lives, living to 100 costs a lot to the government in healthcare.
you obviously don't comprehend my statement which is based on the actual research, smoking is a net break even in healthcare costs because many smokers live shorter lives, living to 100 costs a lot to the government in healthcare.
Irrelevant as I was talking about who pays and why. More so you point is morbid
Yah the US government has done a lot of damage to both the private and public sectors with regulations.
That’s a very interesting take on things, Lyndon. I haven’t heard that before. Is there a specific study you can reference? I’ll Google around in the meantime, thanks.
I don’t know which specific regulations and/or damage you are referring to here. Can you clarify with some examples?
I do not think a completely unregulated system is the answer. A properly regulated and properly run system is best.
I read this many years ago, probably they're trying to squash it now, because their whole premise is on smokers being a huge burden to society which just plain isn't true.
You can not buy insurance across state lines and the government do not pay it's full bill.
Some of the regulation hamper the free market such as state lines above