Hi Kay -

Thanks for this. Not only do the people with high IQs and scores not necessarily have high problem solving skills, they tend to have snon-existent people skills. The people I knew who did go on to Med school (with one notable exception) did so because they got the scores, and have gone on to become supercillious, aloof, unsympathetic and generally bored specialists who would have been better suited to some sort of research.

I think of the neurologist who saw my grandmother, who was having a series of prolongued iscemic episodes, one of which we were told would probably turn into a stroke and carry her off. He abused her for calling an ambulance, telling her she just needed to sit down for the requisite 2 hours while the veins of her brain unclogged. A delightful chap, well worth the commonwealth investment.

If many of us looked after the maintainance of our homes, cars and work places as well as we look after our bodies, then our homes etc would be uninsurable. Many, if not most, of our health problems are allegedly related to lifestyle choices. With an aging population, this is not going to get any better, without some form of management.

For example, according to some figures released some time ago by the AMA, smokers do not "pay our taxes for us", but instead are subsidised by the taxes of non-smokers. If this can be substantiated, then tobacco taxes should be increased with the additional funds directed into health rather than into general revenue.

There are a number of other "lifestyle choices" which relate to general health and those choices which need to be bought should be taxed to cover the short term or ultimate costs to the community. If this meant that I would pay a little extra for my wine and for my occasional fish and chips, pizza or chicken and chips, then so be it.

When I was working full time I had term life insurance. [Insurance for death during the term of the policy, no payout when the policy expired without me dying first.] Because I am a non-smoker, I got a 40% discount on the premium. Presumably the underwriters had done their homework and knew about the relevant risks. Because I have a good driving record, I get a discount on my car insurance. Because my home is deadlocked and has an alarm system, I get a discount on my home and contents insurance. But no non-smoker discount on health insurance, because [I'm told] that the government won't allow it.

[Continued]

I can walk around the supermarket and buy various foods which aren't particularly good for me and not pay GST. But if I buy multivitamins or anti-oxidants, then I DO pay GST. It makes no sense.

Currently, we have a health system which is paid for by all tax payers, but allegedly provides better service to those who take out additional insurance. [Although we sometimes hear about situations where this does not appear to apply.] But this concept is outrageous. A supposedly civilised country can't run a health service based on the "user pays" principle, but I believe that it could and should be run on the principle of "the abuser pays".

Rex,

with all due respect I feel your comments should also factor in this.

Yes, lets suppose we up the anti on smokers with extra taxes, and turn many of the low income and unemployed into destitutes, who turn around and rob good citizens like yourself.

You must realise you are not living in the 1960's anymore, our society has created the fast food/sinful pleasures lifestyle due to the rise of consumerism. Dont blame individuals for choices, when it is the whole society that is doing it and is to blame. Just because you dont like people living a certain manner, dont ostracise people for not adhering to your personal standards.

You cant make people turn radio's off, turn off the computer or TV, they are basic communication mediums.

It upsets me that people in your generation dont attribute the social changes taking place in the world to yourselves, rather you blame us for eating the junk food that you are a shareholder in, you blame us for watching the TV you put in the lounge, and it is just not practical to brand someone a junk food abuser etc, where and how is that policed.

I hope your grand 'abuser pays' theory is implemented, then your generation will foot most of the bill, as older people make up the majority of health costs. I applaud you for not smoking, but does that mean all smokers will surely die a painful death using lots of taxpayers money? no, your assumptions of abuser pays are rediculous, you as a good citizen will end up footing your own bills anyway, or feeling the rough end of the stick.

User pays, whats wrong with that, you get what you pay for. Just remember that more tax on an inelastic good just hurts the people, and i put forward that junk food in my generation is an inelastic good as it is ingrained in our society, and in our NLP since childhood

Good on you Rex. It is about time that health insurance premiums reflected the risk associated with choice and the modern lifestyle and rewarded those with low risk of lifestyle diseases with appropriate low premiums.

Time to move on from the nanny state and start taking responsility for our choices in life.

Reportedly obesity and sloth are becoming bigger health risks factors than smoking. Look at the revolution that has taken place with that insidious past time. Let's recognise these emerging trends of poor diet and exercise and treat them with similar determination.

hardnose