It does indeed justify further taxation on the premise of order - order is a moving target that has different requirements from one decade to the next. When it is found that old people are no longer being taken care of by the community or by family for a host of cultural and scientific reasons, then order comprises social security and medicare. When it is found that people are getting into accidents because they are talking on their cellphones while driving then order involves new laws that folks in the past wouldn't be able to comprehend.
If everyone starting running around ape shit, on drugs for the next decade, just because they knew they would be taken care of when they bankrupt themselves, and then proceeded to land themselves in a hospital from health complications... a tax on everyone including those who didn't run around ape shit on drugs for that same time frame, to cover such a situation, would not be justified on the basis of keeping such situation "orderly". Of course this is an extreme comparison but the fundamental ethics behind such a tax in this situation, illustrates why such a tax is not "justified" on the premise of order.
Now we cannot penalize lack of personal responsibility in this country in many respects. Simply stating "you should have" is not a way to preserve order. Telling a man who has lung cancer "you shouldn't have smoked" makes no real difference to the burden that man now places upon society. If we want to adapt to that evenuality then we will have to ban tobacco - this is said by many to be curtailing the rights of the individuals. there is a balance here between a person's right to do as he pleases and the burden he places on society by actually doing as he pleases. The end result is that we all pay the real costs of those liberties - in taxes.
That is the problem, we should penalize lack of personal responsibility. The problem in not penalizing lack of personal responsibility, and instead penalizing everyone, or just those who are responsible, is that it's absolutely bat-shit insane.
That man with lung cancer places a burden on society, because many people in society think it's barbaric and unethical to tell that guy to "fuck off and handle his problem". While it's may be unethical in one sense to tell this, to a man with lung cancer, it's more unethical to financially burden everyone, in order to cover this man's health issue, due to lack of personal irresponsibility. Not only did he spend his money on what caused him cancer, but may not have money to cover the financial burden in such a situation, which completely justifies a penalization regarding that person's lack of responsibility. It's surely not everyone else's obligation to save that person either financially or physically.
And you're correct, you do not ban tobacco. That is surely curtailing personal freedom. Do you want to know what else is a curtail on personal freedom though? When people are forced to pay more money, on order to fund the idiot's hospital bill, who blew their medical expense money on tobacco, and thus can't take responsibility for their own situation.
What you do do, is make people who smoke tobacco take care of their own set of personal responsibilities regarding such a prerogative. That's how you solve that simple little problem.
But we can cut to the core of this with a simple question. There is a law, I don't know the details actually but will look for it, that says that no hospital may turn a needy patient away simply on account of that person's inability to pay. Do you support that ruling/law?
No I do not support such asinine logic. Beyond such logic being just bat-shit insane, it's also incredibly unethical for such an enforcement to exist.
Medical service is just that, a service. The same way a mechanic repairs your car, a doctor repairs your body. There is really no difference from a business standpoint.
The doctor has student loans to pay, his home, his vehicle, and possibly children, all in which require money in order to maintain. As soon as you force someone, especially someone with the financial obligations of a doctor, to take a monetary loss, on the premise than an individual "needs" medical attention, you've stepped over the line of absolute-hypocrisy.
It's nothing more than a flawed logic to think that an individual is obligated in taking a monetary loss, for the sake of another's physical continuity or profit.
