|
| quote: | Originally posted by narcism
There is no way the tax meets the health care expenditure. If you just take cancer for example from diagnosis options are: surgery (costly & most often a lengthy stay), chemotherapy (insanely expensive) & radiotherapy (expensive). Added to that CT scans, PET scans, x-rays. Long hospital admissions, IV antibiotic's, medications ect ect which come's all out of the government's pocket. |
| quote: | Originally posted by narcism
Those reports are US based, in Australia the government pays for everything in terms of health care. |
Yeah, I mean that its hard to say that the government pays for people's smoking. How much illness is SOLELY caused by smoking? It might be a lot, I'm not sure (so do correct me!), but I generally took it that smoking is more of a makes-everything-worse type thing than a cause-all-these-illnesses type thing.
Not to say its in any way good, but it seems to me like those arguments are saying that if nobody smoked all those illnesses would suddenly dissapear, and everybody would be healthy-- Smoking certainly helps out heaps of illness, but its pretty hard to say its the direct cause of many (excepting things like throat cancer, lung cancer, emphasyma (HOW2SPELL??) etc which is really rare to get if you're NOT a smoker)...
But yeah, if you smoke enough to get an illness caused by smoking it seems like you'd have payed for a lot of your treatment through tax by the time you get sick 
___________________
-Everything I Say is a Lie-
|