Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!paperboy!snorkelwacker!apple!oliveb!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
From: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org (Pat Goltz)
Newsgroups: misc.handicap
Subject: Re:smoking As Disability
Message-ID: <9630@bunker.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 90 02:24:00 GMT
Sender: wtm@bunker.UUCP
Reply-To: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org
Distribution: misc
Organization: FidoNet node 1:300/3 - UA Today, Tucson AZ
Lines: 24
Approved: wtm@bunker.UUCP

Index Number: 6284

The only thing that makes sense to me is that eligibility should not 
extend to those who persist in deliberate behavior that causes or 
aggravates their disability, or who became disabled because of persistent 
dangerous behavior. The problem now becomes how to distinguish from a 
person who merely engages in risky behavior because the odds of injury 
are somewhat higher than average (stock car racing, for example) and 
persons who engage in behavior known to cause the disability eventually 
in almost every case (smoking, for example). The problem is, if people 
are gonna be forced to pay for someone else's care through taxation, they 
DO have the right to order such folks NOT to make their condition worse, 
or to cause it in the first place. It becomes a matter of whether or not 
we realistically have the resources to help out! If I act responsibly at 
all times, why must I have the bulk of my income taken for those who 
refuse to act responsibly?
  It's a real problem. I don't like the idea of depriving people of help 
they really need, but on the other hand, my family and I are being 
deprived of help WE really need.
  Pat

--
Uucp: ..!{decvax,oliveb}!bunker!hcap!hnews!300!3!Pat.Goltz
Internet: Pat.Goltz@f3.n300.z1.fidonet.org