LATimes: California Budget Balancer

[Throckmorton]

I win! http://lat.ms/fvwZc7

 

[sactoking]

Bad idea. We should be encouraging smoking and drinking as amortized over a lifetime it's the health nuts you gotta worry about sitting on SS and medicare for 40 years vs dying before they can collect. I am serious peer reviewed studies have shown this.

Peer reviewed studies have also shown that the additional medical resources consumed by smokers while alive cost considerably more than is saved by them dying early. Additionally, some smokers don't die early and they continue to consume resources at an accelerated rate making the problem worse.

 

[Jaskalas]

Bad idea. We should be encouraging smoking and drinking as amortized over a lifetime it's the health nuts you gotta worry about sitting on SS and medicare for 40 years vs dying before they can collect. I am serious peer reviewed studies have shown this.

When you've placed people's health / lives on the government budget, it's best to kill 'em young, am I right?

 

[Matthiasa]

They should have called this false choice test. A whole host of potential revenue generators and spending cuts are not even presented.

Pretty much this.

 

[First]

When you've placed people's health / lives on the government budget, it's best to kill 'em young, am I right?

Same with private care budgets.

 

[Zebo]

Peer reviewed studies have also shown that the additional medical resources consumed by smokers while alive cost considerably more than is saved by them dying early. Additionally, some smokers don't die early and they continue to consume resources at an accelerated rate making the problem worse.

You are wrong. We all get heart disease, cancer and whatnot the only difference is smokers and drinkers don't collect SS or need a bunch of other stuff like hip replacements for an extra 30 years.

Smokers drinkers and obese save us money

There are thousands of peer reviewed studies from medical and economic journals saying you are wrong. Do some research.

 

[ShawnD1]

You are wrong. We all get heart disease, cancer and whatnot the only difference is smokers and drinkers don't collect SS or need a bunch of other stuff like hip replacements for an extra 30 years.

Smokers drinkers and obese save us money

Yep. The only difference in long term care between smokers and nonsmokers is that smokers are receiving this care either while they still work or shortly after they retire. Retire at 65, die at 70 sort of thing. The people who don't smoke retire at the same 65 but they take many many many years to die. Both of my parents are retired, neither of them smoke, and they're nowhere near dead. They'll probably collect pension for the next 15-20 years, long enough to see my kids grow up

My parents should not smoke. Everyone else should smoke 30 packs per day. Cigarettes in Edmonton are $10-12 per pack.

 

[Zebo]

Yep. The only difference in long term care between smokers and nonsmokers is that smokers are receiving this care either while they still work or shortly after they retire. Retire at 65, die at 70 sort of thing. The people who don't smoke retire at the same 65 but they take many many many years to die. Both of my parents are retired, neither of them smoke, and they're nowhere near dead. They'll probably collect pension for the next 15-20 years, long enough to see my kids grow up

My parents should not smoke. Everyone else should smoke 30 packs per day. Cigarettes in Edmonton are $10-12 per pack.

You guys are gonna become bankrupt with all those health nuts. Ideal would be workers pay in and drop dead when it's time to collect old age benefits. We should not curtail that eventuality by taxing the shit out of things that bring it about. Not to mention personal liberty aspects.