Introduction

It is a topic often debated, whether smokers should or should not receive healthcare subsidies. While it is true that many other individuals with similar lifestyle choices receive some form of subsidy, the argument against subsidizing the healthcare of smokers is often based on prejudiced views. This article aims to challenge these assumptions and provide a more nuanced view on the matter.

The Broader Context of Healthcare Subsidies

Almost everyone in the United States has some form of healthcare subsidy. People who don’t exercise, make poor diet choices, drive in cars, don’t marry, or get intoxicated with alcohol or drugs are all included. This broad and inclusive policy is often justified on the grounds of non-discrimination, equity, and cost-effectiveness. Here’s a detailed look at these three underlying reasons.

Non-Discrimination

The first and most important reason is the principle of non-discrimination. Subsidizing the healthcare for various at-risk lifestyles ensures that no group is unfairly penalized for their choices. If we were to single out smokers, it would set a precedent that could lead to other groups being singled out in the future, potentially pushing them further into disadvantage.

Equity with Other Lifestyle Risks

Another reason is equity. People who engage in risky behaviors, such as eating fast food, being overweight, or drinking alcohol, are also provided with healthcare subsidies. The rationale being that such behaviors, while individually risky, are part of a broader spectrum of lifestyle choices that contribute to overall healthcare costs. Smokers’ healthcare costs are significantly higher, but lone in this they are not unique.

The Economic Argument

A third argument is the economic one. Smokers often live shorter lives and consequently develop fewer expensive chronic illnesses in old age. This reduces the overall burden on the healthcare system in the long run. Furthermore, they may draw their pensions for a shorter period on average, saving the social security system money.

The Myth of Individual Choice

Despite the above arguments, some critics argue that smokers should not receive healthcare subsidies because their addiction is their personal choice. However, the idea that individual choice is the only determinant of behavior is a myth. Social determinants, such as socioeconomic status, access to healthcare, and social support, play a significant role in shaping people’s behavior. We have learned, through studies on smoking, that these factors are far more influential than individual willpower alone.

Real-World Examples

For instance, consider the case of former Major League Baseball player Ted Williams, who received an organ transplant due to his smoking. If the transplant surgeon had known about the cancer in the organ, he would have refused to perform the transplant. This example highlights how even the most accomplished individuals can fall victim to lifestyle choices that are not wholly the result of personal choice.

The Validity of Addiction

Addiction, whether to alcohol or cigarettes, is a valid medical condition that should not be seen through a moral lens. Just as we do not penalize diabetics for their condition, we should not penalize smokers for theirs. The medical and social costs of these addictions are significant and should be addressed by the healthcare system, not by excluding these individuals.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the argument against subsidizing the healthcare for smokers relies on outdated and biased assumptions. Smokers should not be made healthcare pariahs and effectively shut out of care. Instead, a more inclusive and equitable approach is needed, one that recognizes the social and economic factors that contribute to smoking and other harmful behaviors. We should strive for a system that treats all at-risk lifestyles fairly and promotes a healthier society for everyone.