Discussions
Who should pay for smokers vaccines?
Posted by goshopper1 • 10/28/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: pneumonia, smoking, vaccines
A Medical panel in the United States has agreed that smokers should be vaccinated against an organism causing pneumococcal pneumonia. The risk of this infection is greater among smokers; they believe it will make sense.
Who do you think should would pay for the costs involved?
User Comments
-
from medicinenet.com: "Pneumococcal pneumonia mainly causes illness in children younger than 2 years old and adults 65 years of age or older. The elderly are especially at risk of getting seriously ill and dying from this disease. In addition, people with certain medical conditions such as chronic heart, lung, or liver diseases or sickle cell anemia are also at increased risk for getting pneumococcal pneumonia."
I don't see anything about smokers. ..where did you get your info?-
Good catch.
-
I first heard about this vaccine on ABC news a few evenings ago. However, it is on todays 'Preventative Medicine News' at: www.superhealthe.com/read.html.
I believe the report to be true.
-
-
Everyone comes down on the smokers. Everyone forgets that a good portion of your civil services(police, fire, schools, etc...) funding comes from cigarette tax.
In Massachusetts the tax on a $7 pack of cigs is nearly $5 a pack.
The next time you see a smoker shake his hand, he/she is putting your kids through school.-
Smokes are $7 in Massachusettes? Holy expensive cigarettes Batman!
-
That's OK, I bought a pack here at one place and it was $13!!!
Talk about sticker shock! -
This year WHO called for a ban on tobacco advertisement for public awareness of the health risks. They believe it will deter youths from smoking. It will also see lost revenue from the tobacco industry. Another possible payer for these vaccines could be the tobacco industry.
-
-
Regardless if they're smokers or not and regardless of which vaccines you're talking about, the individual should pay for his own.
Are you a communist or something?-
Have you ever opened your mouth to spout an original idea? "What are you a communist?" Is one of the stupidest comebacks on this board. A government service does not equate to communism, either the imagined of Karl Marx or the working model as employed around the world. Furthermore just because communists do it, doesn't make it automatically a bad idea. Communist countries all build roads, have free public schools, run public transit systems, have police to maintain order, etc, etc. should we stop doing that because they do it?
How stupid are you? -
The question was "who should pay for it?" NOT, who should administer the shot! The government can do the poking as long as they are reimbursed the cost by the person receiving.
As far as building roads and having policemen, everyone needs a job, even commies. Your argument is ridiculous. Please stop making a fool of yourself.
Are you a communist? -
Thanks for my first laugh of the day. You guys seem to have nightmares about communists. Are they still hiding under your bed? Listen, the tax smokers pay, as someone else here has pointed out, pays for a lot of things that are free to the user. Of course smokers should get free vaccine if it helps them. You don't have to be a communist to work out the sums. What all you anti smokers must realise about so called 'elective disease' caused by smoking tobacco is that a) most became addicted as kids or teens, when no one has any sense, experience or the ability to see into the future, b) smokers already paid many times over for any health treatment they might need, c) many smokers don't get sick, they smoke all their lives and die of old age. Go figure.
I gave it up without any problem, and I think much of the 'addiction' is a mental attitude which makes people convinced they will fail, because everyone says it's really hard. It isn't. You just have to decide you will do it, and then not wallow in self pity because you feel like a smoke but can't let yourself. It's easy, you just stop lighting up! There are addictive personalities, but that's not their fault, they were born that way. But I guess that's just communist-speak!
Are you a fascist? -
Regardless if they're smokers or not and regardless of which vaccines you're talking about, the individual should pay for his own.
Yep, I agree. There are too many liberties which would be compromised when you bring mandatory vaccinations into the picture. Make the recommendation, let a person decide for himself and pay for the vaccination.
Of course nothing prevents you from sponsoring vaccinations, but it is not the proper function of a government to go about dishing medicine out to people for their own good.
-
-
Who should pay for any medication? the person that needs it of course. -
It is a spreadable infectious disease (that is especially dangerous to the very young and those over 65) so vaccinating people is a good idea if they are prone to it for a variety of reasons. From my understanding quite a few health insurance companies make smokers pay more for their policy. Right now most people pay for flu shots, vaccinations, so I don't see why anyone should be excluded paying for it.-
Yes, you're exactly right. Smokers do pay higher premiums, and higher co-pays.
So if they have insurance, they pay for it, one way or another.
-
-
By the way, I didn't see anywhere that stated the government should pick up the tab?
www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=a0o.jJyblwXg&refer=science
In this article they state: "The committee also recommended smokers who receive pneumococcal vaccine also undergo stop smoking counseling,"
and again nothing about the government picking up the tab.
www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=590feea5-e663-4e7f-b600-9... -
All vaccines should be covered at government expense for everyone as part of a proper preventive care program. It isn't only smokers getting sick with this or any other easily spread illness. It only takes one person smoker or not getting sick in an area to screw everything up for a whole lot of people. In my opinion we should be enforcing vaccinations in the name of public safety and positive economics. I have seen studies that show in the US for every dollar spent on flu vaccines the economy gains $25 in productivity.
-
We pay for vaccinations and flu shots, why would this one be different?
-
Not everyone gets one. The politicos really need to quit pandering to people's delicate sensibilities in order to win votes and make this one a not only a freely provided but mandatory vaccination the way small pox was. it should be done as a free public service in the name of public safety.
-
Smokers who are making themselves vulnerable to an infectious disease need to pay for it not only to protect themselves but for the good of public safety. I don't why smokers would resent paying for health care that helps them AND the public good.
-
Public health measures should be undertaken and funded by the government. Stopping the spread of infectious diseases is a mandate of the public health service. -
we have a lot of infectious/communicable diseases though sweetViolet and we pay for vaccines/immunizations to protect ourselves. Unless this is one of those that will cause an epidemic like the spanish flu of 1918(is it?) If it is then I might agree about mass immunizations at taxpayers expense, but as it is I don't see why patients can't pay for it just like the many vaccinations/immunizations we pay for.
From what i have read it is recommended, not mandated. -
Because at public clinics those who do not have health insurance...or who have health insurance that doesn't cover things like vaccines...can be protected as well. Being safe from communicable diseases should not be the exclusive province of the well-heeled.
-
As it stands now it is a recommendation, not a requirement and something that each patient has a choice about. Our health insurance doesn't pay for flu shots,so we pay out of pocket.
I have no issue with public clinics and those without health insurance getting some kind of help in this regard, but I was really addressing those who have health insurance. -
Of course the other way to look at it is if someone can afford to buy a pack of ciggies, they surely can afford to pay for a vaccine to protect themselves from a desease their smoking has made them vulnerable to.
-
One would expect those with health insurance to use it. But those who are without it are, from the look of the economy, only going to increase in number. Vaccines against communicable diseases should be available for free to those who want them, whether they are smokers or not.
-
You are preaching to the choir sweetviolet, I have no issue with those without health coverage getting treatments that protect themselves and society.
-
-
I think this should come out of the pocket of the smokers. I've always been against "elective diseases" being treated in ways that hit the pockets of the average healthcare recipient. Like gastric bypass and certain preventable contagious diseases... If you do the crime, you pay the time. I don't see why others should suffer.-
unfortunately people do suffer if they are exposed to a smoker with an infectious disease, so I do think they should be vaccinated. I don't see why they shouldn't pay just like all of us do for vaccinations and flu shots to help protect ourselves and the public good.
-
-
If you believe that health care is a right, then all tax payers should pay for smoker's vaccines.
-
Tobocco companies should pay.-
Tobacco companies do warn you that smoking is dangerous. Tobacco companies sell a legal product. Tobacco companies did not cause this disease and are not responsible for something a smoker puts into his body voluntarily. In fact, smokers buy their own cigarettes. I fail to see how this is the responsibility of tobacco companies.
-
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
