PSA for the moral puritans of OT

[mchammer]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenixIts their life and their money, and they have the right to do what they please with both. If you don't agree with it, go fvck yourself.

A ha, but it's my money too unless we're going to remove all smoking dirtbags from Medicare/Medicaid.

When some 75 y/o chain smoker needs chemo + radiation because he's smoked himself to death, who do you think foots the bill?

TLP said this earlier:

Insurance companies make smokers pay higher premiums as it is. and some company insurance plans given out to employees often require that they make a policy of not hiring smokers, in order to give lower rates to everyone else. In other words, your point is
moot.

if what he said is true, then they really arent causing as big of a monetary issue as it may seem. if they pay more insurance their whole life but die from another cause, it was just more money paid to the insurance company. i do not know statistics, so this isnt really worth arguing, but i would imagine it has all been worked out through the insurance companies to make sure they arent paying out of pocket and, if they were thinking of the customers, it is semi-fair.

How many companies do you know that don't hire smokers? For this to work there would need to be either a very small amout of smokers in the world or alot of unemployed smokers, also it doesn't address the medicare situation.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: Bigsm00th

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenixIts their life and their money, and they have the right to do what they please with both. If you don't agree with it, go fvck yourself.

A ha, but it's my money too unless we're going to remove all smoking dirtbags from Medicare/Medicaid.

When some 75 y/o chain smoker needs chemo + radiation because he's smoked himself to death, who do you think foots the bill?

TLP said this earlier:

Insurance companies make smokers pay higher premiums as it is. and some company insurance plans given out to employees often require that they make a policy of not hiring smokers, in order to give lower rates to everyone else. In other words, your point is
moot.

if what he said is true, then they really arent causing as big of a monetary issue as it may seem. if they pay more insurance their whole life but die from another cause, it was just more money paid to the insurance company. i do not know statistics, so this isnt really worth arguing, but i would imagine it has all been worked out through the insurance companies to make sure they arent paying out of pocket and, if they were thinking of the customers, it is semi-fair.

I don't buy that for a second, there are not that many seniors with their own independent health insurance and the number is dwindling. If a large precentage of seniors did have independent health insurance, AARP wouldn't lobby so hard to keep Medicare/Medicaid up.

Even if it was just one senior, and they only needed one $2000 operation (hella cheap), it'd still be a waste of $2000 since it's a situation that the senior created all by himself. That $2000 could have been put to much better use.

Before we get too far into this, I don't necessairly advocate lowering taxes; I feel that our taxes are at a maintainable level. I just want them to be more efficiently utilized. I do not look at smoking any differently than drinking, overeating, or drug abuse.

In the end, I feel that health care especially government-sponsored health care should work like the Magnum-Moss act does for cars. Change a part, and the manufacturer can prove that the part caused the failure, and your warranty is void.

Smoke and get lung cancer? Too bad, like you couldn't see that one coming.

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: TerryMathews

I don't buy that for a second, there are not that many seniors with their own independent health insurance and the number is dwindling. If a large precentage of seniors did have independent health insurance, AARP wouldn't lobby so hard to keep Medicare/Medicaid up.

Even if it was just one senior, and they only needed one $2000 operation (hella cheap), it'd still be a waste of $2000 since it's a situation that the senior created all by himself. That $2000 could have been put to much better use.

Before we get too far into this, I don't necessairly advocate lowering taxes; I feel that our taxes are at a maintainable level. I just want them to be more efficiently utilized. I do not look at smoking any differently than drinking, overeating, or drug abuse.

In the end, I feel that health care especially government-sponsored health care should work like the Magnum-Moss act does for cars. Change a part, and the manufacturer can prove that the part caused the failure, and your warranty is void.

Smoke and get lung cancer? Too bad, like you couldn't see that one coming.

i wasnt saying i agree with it. dont get me wrong, i wish smoking induced illnesses were not coming from anyones pocket but that person, but we dont really have any control over it at this point.

mchammer, i know it doesnt address the medicare situation, but i dont know enough about that to comment.

 

[RbSX]

Originally posted by: mchammer

Originally posted by: TheLonelyPhoenix

Originally posted by: mchammer
Show me the flaw in reasoning.

Do you exercise daily? Do you eat fast food? Do you do anything known to be detrimental to your health? If you're implying that smokers have less of a right to get sick than anyone else, you're full of sh!t.

Insurance companies make smokers pay higher premiums as it is. and some company insurance plans given out to employees often require that they make a policy of not hiring smokers, in order to give lower rates to everyone else. In other words, your point is moot.

Perhaps you missed this above "smoking leads down one path and only one path, illness. several things we do everyday CAN hurt us, but dont always end up that way. smoking hurts the vast majority of the people that do it and it is avoidable, completely and 100%. edit: talking about people that do it a LOT and for a long time."

Also you wrote:

"Insurance companies make smokers pay higher premiums as it is. and some company insurance plans given out to employees often require that they make a policy of not hiring smokers, in order to give lower rates to everyone else. In other words, your point is moot."

The higher premiums are for life insurance or for non-group health insurance ony. A policy of hiring non-smokers only I have never heard of, are you sure that would be legal? Also Medicare does not have seperate rates for smokers or non. It is true that one limitation of collective programs is that they can limit individual freedom (smoking) although currently they do not and that is why I'm complaining.

Yes it is known, about 4 months ago a company was given major publicity after it fired 3 workers for smoking and/or refusing to take a smoking test.

 

[ArmchairAthlete]

I could care less until you light one up near me.

 

[Baked]

You better hope your love ones don't die from lung cancer 'cause of your selfish dumbass, asshole. Now, go DIAF.

 

[Kadarin]

If it were just a moral issue, I wouldn't have a problem with it (and on purely moral grounds, I could care less if you smoke). However, I DO care (a lot) if you smoke near me, because it directly affects me. I don't want to smell it, I don't want that smell getting into my clothes or hair, and I would like to breathe fresh air, thank you.

 

[datalink7]

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
I could care less until you light one up near me.

You could? Why don't you then?

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: datalink7

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete
I could care less until you light one up near me.

You could? Why don't you then?

:laugh:

yeah it is really annoying when people mess that up. there are like 10 examples in this thread alone.

 

[Ornery]

• You don't have to be a "puritan" to KNOW how stupid smoking is. Any ex-smoker will tell you that!
• I'm not too keen on the number of work breaks smokers require. Is that "judgmental"?
• It's VERY hard to understand why somebody would take up the habit these days. That's not being judgmental, just baffled!

 

[SWScorch]

I'm not a moral puritan, but as an athlete, it pisses me off when people smoke around me. I don't give a crap if you smoke in your own home, but when you smoke out in public, it affects me too. I once ran a cross country race where a woman was smoking a cigarette right at the top of a huge hill, and the smoke was blowing right into the runners' faces. I wanted to smack her. Kill yourself if you want to, but don't get me involved.

 

[StageLeft]

And if you don't want to be judged, don't judge others.

Why would I not want to be judged? I look down on smokers, so I don't presume that they shouldn't similarly judge me for something.

Further, I don't think the wise and strong among us should let the weak continue to embrace their own weaknesses and bad habits, so it's our solumn duty to remind them of a better way, when we can.

 

[her209]

I can't stand smoker's breath. It makes me sick.