A tax on the careful?

AgentOrange Feb 21, 2002 13:04:36

This is a puzzling debate that I cannot thrash out within my own mind. Essentially I think I am a socialist, I beleive that everyone should have equal access to healthcare and that this should be paid for by wealth-related tax.

As I am now a taxpayer and someone fairly mindful of my own health, I begin to wonder about the fairness of subsidising other's carelessness. When my asthma became very bad over 10 years ago, I stopped smoking and over the last few years I have made huge efforts in taking up sport to increase my fitness so that now my need for medication has been minimised. Now I am able to get on with my life, I am rarely ill. earn a good wage and am happy to pay tax on that.

A small niggly part of me tends to feel a little resentment when I sit on trains next to people damaging their hearing (and my nerves) with personal sterios, will my taxes support their treatment? When I hear of people using their cars to drive a 5 minute walk, or know that many people pay no attention to their diet I wonder if I will be paying for their pacemakers in the future?

I know this is a really complex issue. I don't believe that people who do dangerous sports should have to buy health insurance because I think the health benefits to the individual must outweigh the risk of injury. This argument could be extended to smoking - perhaps the individual suffers less from stress because they are able to relax more?

Has the welfare state made us more complacent? Should I feel resentment? Whats your opinion?

FourWinds Feb 21, 2002 13:39:56

Replying to AgentOrange

WOW! A burning question indeed.

My personal slant is that I am very fortunate to have the job I do and the salary that goes with it. Not too long ago I was in a very different situation indeed. I still remember those times and would hate to think of what life would have been like without the welfare state. My wife was on over £300 worth of drugs a week in the six months before she died. If through my good fortune I can help save somebody through my taxes then I'm happy with that.

There are much more worrying things that your taxes pay for !!

In Ireland everything healthwise is private. It costs £20 (sterling) just to see the doctor! The health system here has always been good, but even now there are complaints about it slipping to "British levels" by adopting British methods. UK health care is famously shitty. I used to resent paying for something that didn't serve and innevitably let me and my family down when we needed it most.

The taxes that pay for rockets and bombs are the bits you should be worrying about. You may be in a good job now, but who can guarentee that that will be the case in two years time? What if you need health care then .... who will be paying for that?

Think of it as an insurance policy for yourself. Think of it as giving to people who are (possibly through no fault of their own) in a worse financial position than youself.

Rant at the pharmacutical companies for hiking drug prices. Rant at the stupid ability to patent a life saving drug and with hold it from someone who is dying and has no money.

I agree about people doing harm to themselves, but I smoke and so fall into that catagory. Perhaps personal stereos should come with a health warning.

I can not condone a system that starts to list ailments that are excluded from the state healthcare system. Who drws up the list? What are the criteria?

Can you blame an illiterate man because he can read the health warning on a packet of cigarettes?

Be at peace with yourself and hope you never need to cash in on the insurance policy you are made to pay into (either the health care or the guns).

Ride On!!

grufty jim Feb 21, 2002 15:03:54

Replying to AgentOrange

First point: taxation on cigarettes and alcohol exceeds the amount of money spent on treating smoking and drinking related illnesses. So drinkers and smokers are technically subsidising the rest (let's get that one in perspective). That the cash may not all be going to the NHS ain't the fault of those that pay it.

But ignore that completely, as actually it's irrelevant - there's plenty of dangerous things - that don't pay for their own treatment through taxation - that people do voluntarily. Should people be treated for injuries received whilst doing dangerous sports? i choose not to go snowboarding - should my taxes have to pay for someone who broke their leg doing it? And there's obviously plenty more examples - from extreme sports to suicide-attempts...

Or we could go the way of America and many other places and make it so that only the rich can afford to hurt themselves. i guess i just believe that a society that can afford trident submarines can damn well afford to provide basic health care for anyone who needs it - regardless of how they found themselves with such need.

When the question becomes "do we treat smokers for cancer or pay for education?" then we have a dilemma, and we can have this debate again... as long as the question is "do we treat smokers for cancer or fund our nuclear arsenal / bomb afghanistan / keep john prescott in new jaguars / build more unecessary bypasses / etc / etc?"... well, i'm always gonna come down on the side of the sick people there (and i pay plenty of taxes, hardly ever drink and don't do tobacco).