THE public are to be told not to smoke in their own homes as part of plans to protect public sector workers from the effect of passive smoking.
The move is the latest part of the Scottish Executive's ban on smoking in public places, which will come into force on 26 March next year.
Ministers have told councils, health boards and social work departments that they should compile a "smokers' map" of Scotland, focusing on those who regularly receive visits from officials and carers. This would identify individual households where a smoker is resident.
The smokers would then be sent letters asking them not to smoke for one hour before a council worker or health worker called round. Public bodies have also been advised to use the smokers' map to ensure that any workers who suffer from breathing problems are kept away from the homes of smokers.
I don't know about the rest of you, but in the smoker homes I've been in stopping the smoking for an hour isn't going to make much of a difference.
Anyway, this is what happens when you put the government in charge of paying for health care, they begin to see your health (rather than simply your medical care) as their problem. Which, in turn, leads to them dictating behavior to you. Like when you can and cannot smoke in your own home. It starts with little things like this example above. It ends with the government pre-approving your diet plan.
Think I'm being a bit extreme? Think again.
Already health insurance groups are complaining about the impact insuring unhealthy people (fatties, smokers) has on the cost of medical coverage. Once the government is in charge how long do you think it will take before the government starts engaging in behavior modification for the sake of the "greater good." Oh sure, it might take a couple of decades, but we'll get there.
Like eating pizza a couple of times a week? Not so fast. Your local health department official might not approve.
That's not a world I want to live in. If I want to live on a twinkies and Coke diet, that's my problem. That my life choices might impact the price of your health insurance is an indication that our health care system is broken. But, clearly, socialized medicine is not the solution to that problem. It would simply be a shifting of the same problem to a new system.
What always amazes me though is that the political left, who is famous for standing on privacy issues when it comes to sexuality (stay out of my bedroom!) and abortion (stay out of my womb!) is consistently in favor of putting the government in charge of our health care.
You can read more from Rob Port at SayAnythingBlog.com
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 6
Here's why: when you get sick because of the choices you made, everyone pays. Everyone pays in terms of higher healthcare premiums and in terms of higher healthcare costs in general. Your employer pays because one of his employees can't work because of a preventable illness. So to pretend your bad habits only incur damage to yourself is extremely misleading.
i say this because everyone is, by law, entitled to care in emergency rooms, and it's up to all of us to pay for that through higher hospital charges and other assessments.
too bad if you're in an employer-sponsored health insurance group when someone you work with is diabetic, or just had a high-risk pregnancy. on the other hand, if you're an auto worker, your greed for those low copays and out-of-pockets is keeping your industry from being truly competitive.
implementing the "single payer" concept would correct those inequities (plus the truly sad states of unhealthy people who are self-employed and cannot get covered at any reasonable price). but it's the insurance industry putting up the roadblocks to a truly fair system, by telling scary stories to voters and lawmakers in hopes of keeping its profit margin high.
i know, because i deal with insurance companies on a daily basis. and i'm their worst nightmare: a liberal on the "inside"!
I think we can chalk this up to the government attempting to be politically correct, and try and prevent non-smoking peoples from being harmed by second hand smoke. This is about the government going way over the top to protect people -- it's NOT about them trying to make health decisions for people.
Then again, is it SO bad for the government to fight for a better, safer, healthier environment for people. Shouldn't this be one of their goals?
Canada has had Public health care for decades, and I have yet to see ANY attempt by the government to tell me how to manage my health. I am still the owner of my body and have the right to accept or deny any suggestion as to how I treat it.
As a professional, I get to give people recommendations, and suggestions regarding health care every day. However, I'm not in the business of forcing people to do anything.
What I AM seeing is private insurance companies in the US refusing service to old people, smokers, obese people, or people with health problems. Or, at the very least, they charge more.
Is it SO bad when health is treated as something all people should be provided equally, rather than a commodity to buy and sell.
I doubt you could find any study that shows a direct correlation between public health care, and government managing the health decisions of it's people.