• @Nudding
    link
    67 months ago

    Right, so when they develop health complications due to smoking, they get lowest priority care after everyone else has been treated, right?

    • Ashy
      link
      fedilink
      -11
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      By that logic you should also get a lower priroty if you injure yourself during any risky recrational activity.

      Like, if you’re injury yourself doing something stupid for “fun” … like, I don’t know, playing rugby?

      Apprently in your world healthcare is only for people that get sick by totally random chance.

      • @Nudding
        link
        07 months ago

        Actually its the world you suggested, I’m just taking the logical next steps.

        • Ashy
          link
          fedilink
          -8
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          No, it was very much you that suggested that healthcare priority should be based on the evaluation of someone’s lifestyle choices.

          • @Nudding
            link
            07 months ago

            Good. It’s not the governments place to ban people from making unhealty decisions when they don’t affect others.

            If they weren’t put last in priority, then their lifestyle choice wouldn’t only be affecting them, would it?

            • Ashy
              link
              fedilink
              -5
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Logically obsese people need also go to the back of the line then. Very unhealthy lifestyle, very expensive for the healthcare system. In fact, everyone that perticipates in any non-government sactioned activity, to the back of the line. We need that healthcare for our superior people!

              Ok Adolf.

              • @Nudding
                link
                -37 months ago

                So then the choice affects more then themselves, right?