THW not provide healthcare to smokers

This round, I'll post my constructive case and rebut Pro's single contention. == NEG CASE ==C1) Goal of Public Healthcare Pro states that the goal of a public healthcare system is to "establish a harmonious, just and healthy society". If this is the case, then providing healthcare to smokers should be a *top priority* of a public healthcare system. Consider that in the United States (which does not have a public healthcare system), more than 16 million people are suffering from a smoking-related health ailment at any given time, more than 480,000 people die of such ailments every year, and society loses more than $156 billion dollars in lost productivity from the premature deaths of smokers [1]. Clearly, smoking-related conditions severely hinder a 'harmonious' & 'healthy' society, and therefore public healthcare *must* cover for smokers. C2) Preserving Equality"The 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection of the law to all people. This guarantee is replicated in Article 14 of the European Convention and in the constitutions and declarations of many other countries. We treat people with equal respect because of their status as human beings, without regard to their looks, gender, race, creed, or any other incidental trait. This commitment to human equality is grounded on the belief that all human beings innately have dignity and are worthy of respect" [2]. Thus we conclude that just governments have an obligation to preserve equality. However, it is a clear violation of that obligation to grant a universal public service to everyone in society except smokers; making such an exclusion essentially reduces smokers to the status of sub-humans. There is no tenable argument that maintaining an unhealthy habit somehow strips someone of their personhood and innate value as a human being. Because smokers are people too, the government is obligated to extend public healthcare to them just like they would to anyone else. C3) Counter-PlanI propose that rather than unjustly exclude smokers from public coverage, governments should ban smoking and utilize the public healthcare system to provide former smokers with addiction recovery therapy, thereby virtually eliminating both supply and demand for cigars. Thus, my CP would effectively mitigate the enormous harms of smoking listed in C1; meanwhile, Pro's plan would just exacerbate those harms by reducing smokers' access to medical care. There's no contest to be had here -- my plan is obviously preferable. == AFF CASE ==Pro's argument seems to be that society has no obligation to subsidize the healthcare of those who have inflicted their health conditions upon themselves. I have three responses:(1) How exactly smokers' health conditions came about is wholly irrelevant; all the death, suffering, and opportunity cost which comes from smoking still negatively impacts societal welfare, and according to Pro's given purpose of public healthcare, that is sufficient reason for healthcare benefits to be extended to smokers. (2) The social stigma against smoking, along with the widespread movement to caution children against it, actually came about relatively recently, and even still it hasn't fully permeated to some economically disadvantaged areas with poor education systems; thus, many smokers were actually *not* really educated on the extent of harm that smoking can do (before they became physically addicted), and therefore they cannot be held solely accountable for their ailments. (3) The majority of health conditions are at least partially self-inflicted. For example, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, stroke, and related ailments are often rooted in poor long-term eating habits and a sedentary lifestyle, both of which can quite easily be improved upon. Thus, the fact that smokers are also partially to blame for their own problems isn't really adequate reason to specially exclude them from receiving the benefits of public healthcare. The resolution is negated. [1] . http://www.cdc.gov...[2] . http://www.debate.org...