The government takes too much responsibility for people's actions.

'Are you saying you would deny someone medical treatment because they have less money than you? ' I would like to point out that I also come from a lower middle class family and I respect the fact that you don't have the security net of a NHS in your country. Some may say we're very lucky - perspective. However, when I addressed healthcare as an example, I did not intend to say that those in dire need should be denied medical treatment; I should point out that those who smoke, knowing the dangers of smoking but continuing to do so cripple the NHS in terms of resources and money. People who don't smoke, drink, over-eat, often have to wait long periods of time for extensive, possibly life-saving medical treatment - because ignorant, selfish people (even if they don't realise it) are causing problems by inflicting themselves upon the system. I would like to say that I smoke myself infrequently (and in knowledge of the risks) and would be incredibly ashamed if I was hospitalised due to a smoking related ailment. People who have worked hard, paid their taxes, are paying for me - I would never want that. It is these aforementioned people I spoke of when I said they should be made to pay for their treatment. People who have gotten illnesses through no fault of their own should be entitled to free medical treatment. Why not? ------- 'because they have less money than you? ' Smoking is a risk. Risks have consequences. Somebody who can't afford the medical treatment, but continues to smoke in awareness of the danger is taking a big risk, and if the risk fails, they should have to suffer the consequence. For example, if somebody murdered somebody else to rob them and they get caught by authorities, shouldn't they suffer the consequence by going to prison? ------ 'Allowing everyone not just those with money to feel better is more progressive. And as for helping people sick because of whatever stupid things they did is a good thing as well. ' As I tried to hint in the previous paragraph my intention was not that only people with money should get treatment, that is basic prejudice. As for progress - I do not believe that a junkie overdosing, being hospitalised for free, given a slap on the wrists, then kicked back on the streets to offend again gets society anywhere at all, the fact is we need to eliminate the source of why these people do this, to do that we need to educate, culture and guide. Not mollycoddle. Now that, I'm sure you would agree, is better help. Prevention rather than the cure. Another point - if poor people are getting help with payment for smoking healthcare where as a rich person pays fully for their smoking healthcare, is that not going against equality? Sure, poor people suffer much because they lack money which is extremely unfortunate, but often they get themselves into poverty, others are born into it - it's the luck of the draw and we all know life isn't always fair. -------- 'First you must consider the backlash from the masses when they hear that you have denied even the most basic help. ' They (the people) are being warned of the risk, as I have said risks have consequences. If you take the risk, the risk fails, don't come crying to a government that gave you fair warning. If somebody tells you not to touch the plate for it is hot, and then you touch it, you can't blame the person for warning you, it's pointless and foolish. Plus, 'the masses' aren't being denied treatment just those who I keep mentioning. 'That is the equivalent of murder if someone is about to die even if it's their own stupid fault we help that's being human. ' So tell me, who committed the murder? The government? I'm a Christian and know to 'treat others as you want to be treated yourself'. If you knew your neighbour couldn't afford healthcare wouldn't you help them? If we are so human, why don't we help each other directly? Then we ourselves can choose personally to decide whether someone deserves to be helped or not, we don't need a system re-routing our money to places where we don't want it to go. If someone is about to die because of their self-inflicted illness how can it be anyone else's fault? Because they chose not to? Sure that's not very nice at all but the point is that we have choice as a God-given gift. The people themselves can choose where the money goes, not the government system. ------ 'And further more the government does have a responsibility to take care of it's people that's one of the reasons they were even made a government' More importantly don't we have a responsibility to take care of one another. Yes, the government gives money to sick people through healthcare but it doesn't matter if that person gets better or not, they just become part of a statistic. When we give taxes to the government I'm fairly certain few people think about how the money is going to help, they won't even know the person it's going to help. But if we helped each other in a more direct way, in a community, the choice is made and its effect is clearly seen, furthermore the person doesn't become a statistic. People love other people, not statistics, I think putting people into statistics veils the reality of the situation. ------ 'a democracy or a monarchy is there to protect, serve and govern its people so that the country runs smoothly and you can't do that with a bunch of sick people running around. ' Yes, systems of rule were made for that purpose but they often fail (as seen from history) and those that work may appear to do so very well, but there is always a minority of people unhappy. The minority would probably be much happier if we had communities and more direct choice, those people who are unhealthy would be helped by others who know them and genuinely want to help. My fingers tire now. Thank you.