HardcoreRobot
Lifer
- Nov 7, 2000
- 16,403
- 3
- 81
Regardless of whether OVERALL health care costs fall or not is besides the point since the money is going towards uninsured CHILDREN. This will not decrease their health care costs. Health care will never get cheaper, even if people get healthier. In that same vein I have read quite a few articles that suggest 'healthy' people actually incur more costs over their lifetime than unhealthy, solely due to living longer - especially once you consider that costs continually rise. If smoking takes 10 years off your life, that ailment that kills a smoker may be costly to treat, but they are DONE. A healthy person is gonna live 10 years longer, and then STILL get hit with some sort of cancer or chronic disease that means pharmaceutical costs, doctor and hospital care etc. The cost argument just doesn't add up for me. Although, aside from all that, I still have never seen any valid justification for taking PUBLIC money to fund an individuals health care.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Just so long as it punishes a group of people whose habit you disagree with I'm sure you find it irrelevant.Originally posted by: Harvey
Irrelevant. Other available solutions may help, but that's not a reason to negate this action which is available, effective and politically possible.
You dodged my point, again. I didn't claim smokers must stop smoking. Nor is this specifically about smoking. I'm asking a larger question here. Is it the government's responsibility to mandate personal choice through taxation, even if that choice may be harmful?
I think a few of the people that have died during marathon WOW sessions or have contracted RSI would disagree.
But you bring up another point. If a majority suddenly agrees that the internet should be taxed, you'd readily go along with their assessment?
I already addressed why you won't find any "proof" of that, other than anecdotal. Did you not comprehend that the first time around?Same answer as the last time you posted that unsupported speculation...
I doubt that. Got proof?
:roll:
You should stop making assumptions about others, Harvey. Really. You end up looking like a fool when you do that.
I've met plenty of doctors. I know plenty of doctors. Much of the technical documentation I've written is for medical industry equipment ranging from LASIK/PRK machines, to heart monitors, to Cath Lab equipment. I've spent an inordinate amount of time in labs and hosptial on data gathering missions. I'm willing to bet I've easily met far more doctors than you over the years. Besides that, you are confusing smoking very minimally with just plain smoking. Not only that, but your own personal anti-smoking stance is well known in here and I have little doubt that heavily influences your personal opinion on the subject. I've asked a number of doctors the question about minimal smoking and nearly every one of them has admitted that one or two a day does no harm because your body can tolerate the effects. You probably get more junk in your lungs driving down the road with your car window open than by smoking a couple of cigs in a day. But you don't have to believe that and I doubt you would if every doctor you knew told you that.
btw, I've been telling you that this really isn't about the evils of smoking but you keep trying to drag this back into that anti-smoking piccadillo of yours. Do you care to discuss the bigger issue here (taxation) or not? If not, stop wasting my time doting on your little pet peeve.
Originally posted by: Skoorb
There you go. $500 would effectively outlaw them
Society has a lot of bad influences, fomented by people weak of will and poor guidance. I would like to protect her as much as possible from it.
I also think, though, from a selfless perspective that whatever society can do to prevent people from using cancer sticks, it ought to do. Only the most insane few will not later thank it for its actions. Smoking is continued through continual weakness, and most smokers realize they lack the strength to stop, so if society can come in and do it for them, what the heck, they should be glad for it.
Why don't you just do your job and parent your children instead of having the government do it for you?
Originally posted by: cobalt
Originally posted by: Skoorb
There you go. $500 would effectively outlaw them
Society has a lot of bad influences, fomented by people weak of will and poor guidance. I would like to protect her as much as possible from it.
I also think, though, from a selfless perspective that whatever society can do to prevent people from using cancer sticks, it ought to do. Only the most insane few will not later thank it for its actions. Smoking is continued through continual weakness, and most smokers realize they lack the strength to stop, so if society can come in and do it for them, what the heck, they should be glad for it.
Why don't you just do your job and parent your children instead of having the government do it for you?
Being a good parent will stop all children from becoming criminals, doing drugs, etc? Seriously?
I couldn't care less about this, either way. It does raise healthcare for everyone though, which is not cool.
And no, this isn't related to Obama's no tax increase campaigning.. that was specifically about income taxes.
CrackRabbit
Lifer
- Mar 30, 2001
- 16,642
- 62
- 91
The point is about 500 ft above your head right now.
How is children not having health insurance caused by people smoking?
HardcoreRobot is right on target, when all the smokers quit (or enough of them that the program is underfunded) where will the money come from then? There will still be uninsured children even if everyone in the world quit smoking tomorrow and every tobacco company went bankrupt.
I don't like smoking, I was very happy when my father quit. But putting something totally un-related on their shoulders isn't right.
Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Originally posted by: chess9
If I were able to raise taxes, I'd raise the taxes on these items:
1. Sodas-$5.00 a can;
2. McDonald's, et al-$10 a burger;
3. Cigarettes-$1,000 per cigarette;
4. Cigars-$2,000 per cigar;
5. Fried foods-$10 an order;
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.
My modest proposals.
-Robert
Let's push congress to impose these taxes so society is better off!
I'm more interested in not having to pay your medical bills after you've led a dissolute life. If you want to smoke and drink excessively, move to Russia. Their socialized medicine will kill you if you don't kill yourself.
Just in case you haven't been following what's happening in England, they are starting to pull medical care from smokers and ex-smokers, the obese, and alcoholics. That will happen here soon, and the insurance companies will start doing it if the FEDS don't.
I can't believe anyone would encourage people to smoke, drink, or eat junk food. LOL! ARE YOU FUCKING BRAIN DEAD?
-Robert
Well, the costs don't add up because you haven't bothered to do the adding. If you get lung cancer, and have treatment, the total cost could be anywhere from about $200K to $2,000,000. My sister in law died of lung cancer after a very long and tough battle. They had BLUE CROSS but the uncovered portion was almost $90,000 for her husband. By the time the young smokers get to 40 or 50 the costs will be triple to 10 times what they are now. Anyway, the NHS in England has figured up the costs, so they are now holding back care of smokers, the obese, and alkies.
-Robert
bamacre
Lifer
- Jul 1, 2004
- 21,029
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: chess9
If I were able to raise taxes, I'd raise the taxes on these items:
1. Sodas-$5.00 a can;
2. McDonald's, et al-$10 a burger;
3. Cigarettes-$1,000 per cigarette;
4. Cigars-$2,000 per cigar;
5. Fried foods-$10 an order;
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.
My modest proposals.
-Robert
There ya go. Now we're are thinking. I got some ideas too...
1. $500 tax hike on Killer NIC's (these are horrible)
2. $1000 tax hike on Dell and HP computers (people should learn to build their own)
3. $1000 tax hike on Intel Extreme Edition processors (never a good value, never)
4. $50,000 tax a year if you are a Christian
5. $250,000 tax for every vote for a Republican candidate (Bush was a disaster)
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Harvey
Irrelevant. Other available solutions may help, but that's not a reason to negate this action which is available, effective and politically possible.
Just so long as it punishes a group of people whose habit you disagree with I'm sure you find it irrelevant.
Bullshit! I gave very specific, easily confirmed reasons why this is reasonable. Those paying the tax are the DIRECT cause of the damage they do, and the revenues are assigned to reducing those problems. Furthermore, I specifically did NOT rule out other, equally reasonable revenue sources.
More bullshit! I answered your so-called "point" directly. This has nothing to do with any governmental assumption of responsiblity "to mandate personal choice through taxation" (your exact words). Government, and the services it provides, are not free, but under our system of government they are mandated by the consent of the governed. This tax raises revenue from those causing a specific identified problem in direct proportion to the amount of the problem they cause.
If you don't want to pay the tax, you can always stop smoking. :light:
I live in a democracy. What choice would I have? It may suprise you that I pay my phone, gas, electric and cable bills, too. :Q
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Harvey
Same answer as the last time you posted that unsupported speculation...
I doubt that. Got proof?
I already addressed why you won't find any "proof" of that, other than anecdotal. Did you not comprehend that the first time around?
Yet more bullshit! You didn't address anything. You posted a bunch of meaningless words, unsubstantiated claims out of your own tobacco-addicted imagination.
Yes, I'm assuming you're a smoker. Correct me if I'm wrong.
It's you who should stop making assumptions. You said:
Your statement that "just about any doctor in private" would agree that even light smoking isn't far more hazardous to both smokers and anyone around them is both presumptuous and absurd. It assumes far more than you can prove in any reality other than your own smoke clouded mind.
You continue to prove how really full of shit you are. I don't deny that I have my own intense hatred of the tobacco industry. They've killed far too many of my friends. Watching them die is not my idea of a good time.
And in case you think you can raise the point about warnings and what is known about the dangers of tobacco, I'll once again remind you that I'm old enough that most of those friends and I were raised before there were warnings on the packs, let alone public outcries for change.
That said, I have directly addressed the issue of taxation, and your denials of that are even more bullshit. If you want to stop wasting your time... and everyone else's, you can always stop posting. If you keep smoking, you'll be doing that on your own much sooner, and though I wish you no personal harm, I won't be the least bit disappointed if it's sooner, rather than later for whatever reason.
Originally posted by: bamacre
Originally posted by: chess9
If I were able to raise taxes, I'd raise the taxes on these items:
1. Sodas-$5.00 a can;
2. McDonald's, et al-$10 a burger;
3. Cigarettes-$1,000 per cigarette;
4. Cigars-$2,000 per cigar;
5. Fried foods-$10 an order;
6. Alcohol-$50 a can or bottle, except low alcohol wine.
My modest proposals.
-Robert
There ya go. Now we're are thinking. I got some ideas too...
1. $500 tax hike on Killer NIC's (these are horrible)
2. $1000 tax hike on Dell and HP computers (people should learn to build their own)
3. $1000 tax hike on Intel Extreme Edition processors (never a good value, never)
4. $50,000 tax a year if you are a Christian
5. $250,000 tax for every vote for a Republican candidate (Bush was a disaster)
Well, 2 out of 5 look pretty good to me!
-Robert
You guys are focused, as usual, on the wrong problem. The tax will actually do you younger guys a big favor BECAUSE YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY OR YOUR STATE GOVERNMENT OR THE FEDS ARE GOING TO STOP PAYING FOR YOUR HEALTHCARE IF YOU DON'T TAKE CARE OF THE ONLY BODY YOU RIGHT WING CHRISTIANS THINK GOD GAVE YOU. Furthermore, if you do get offered insurance, it will be at a rate you couldn't afford unless you are a hedge fund manager, uhm, or were.
-Robert
-Robert
Speaking of points going over your head... :roll:
There is no dispute that tobacco causes health problems and increased health costs for everyone, starting with smokers, themselves, and expanding to those around them with second hand smoke. Some of those others are children.
Taxing tobacco derives revenue directly from those causing those problems in direct proportion to their tobacco use, and it assigns the funds to helping at least some of those non-smoking victims, including children. It isn't retroactive so it doesn't punish smokers for their past behavior. Instead, it exacts a price for their future tobacco use and assigns it to paying for the damage they do going forward.
I'll have to admit some of the points going over my head.
Taxing one group of people for their use of tobacco to help pay the the increased cost of everyone involved is a point i get.
Taxing one group of people for their use of tobacco to pay for insurance for specific group of people (children) is a point i miss.
How is the use use of tobacco responsible for anyone not having insurance? Unless your going to insure just the children of people who smoke? Or use it to pay the medical cost for the treatment of children with second hand smoking diseases?
...
I'm pretty pissed off about the tax increase.
I started smoking in '62. Seemed everybody smoked then, and certainly anybody cool did (actors, actresses, soldiers, my parents). No warning labels on packs, hospitals had ashtrays, big companies gave away ashtrays and lighters with their logos on them, TV ads, magazine ads, billboards. Smoking seemed quite ordinary.
And so, I became addicted, and stay addicted beyond several tries to quit for various reasons (like "When smokes hit a dollar a pack, I'm going to quit.").
I was also really pissed when I found out that the first big government study on second-hand smoke was just a bogus attempt at social engineering.
And yes, smoking has severely affected my lung capacity. But I spend no money on healthcare for it, I just live with it.
By now, I doubt that I would derive much benefit from quitting.
The tax is only possible because smokers are a relatively silent minority with little political support. Try putting a $30 tax on any whiskey that retails for $25 0r more, and even the politicians would scream bloody murder.
I started smoking in '62. Seemed everybody smoked then, and certainly anybody cool did (actors, actresses, soldiers, my parents). No warning labels on packs, hospitals had ashtrays, big companies gave away ashtrays and lighters with their logos on them, TV ads, magazine ads, billboards. Smoking seemed quite ordinary.
And so, I became addicted, and stay addicted beyond several tries to quit for various reasons (like "When smokes hit a dollar a pack, I'm going to quit.").
I was also really pissed when I found out that the first big government study on second-hand smoke was just a bogus attempt at social engineering.
And yes, smoking has severely affected my lung capacity. But I spend no money on healthcare for it, I just live with it.
By now, I doubt that I would derive much benefit from quitting.
The tax is only possible because smokers are a relatively silent minority with little political support. Try putting a $30 tax on any whiskey that retails for $25 0r more, and even the politicians would scream bloody murder.
JACK: QUIT smoking. It's only too late when you are staring at your coffin lid! One of my English friends is a mensa member and very very talented. She smoked until the SECOND TIME she almost died from lung failure and emphysema. For the past 5 years I've been helping her with her training and she's doing fairly well, though she only has 22% of her lung capacity. She is very upset with herself for not having succeeded in quitting the 50 times she tried. She had to actually be told she was dieing by an NHS doctor before she quit. The first time they released her from the hospital after being a whisker from death, she lit a cigarette in her wheelchair in the parking lot!!!
Have you had a PFT? Talk to a pulmonologist. You may never get emphysema, but heart disease, diabetes, thyroid problems are all a possibility.
I wish every smoker could have seen my sister in law's last hour of life.
She died of lung cancer and she was the most wonderful human being I've ever known.-Robert
While I am not crazy about the tax. I am bothered more about the no more tax lie and what it is being used for. If we had socialized medical care and the money was going for that. I would have a less of a problem with it. Or using it for medicare / medicaid. I just don't think it should be used for a specific group of people who by law can't use tobacco.
As to the alcohol I make my own so.. A lot of people grow their own tobacco maybe I'll look into it.
...
Actually he isn't taxing anyone. He taxed a product. Nobody is forcing people to smoke. So his "under 250k" promise still holds because he did not raise taxes on people.
If the revenues are specified to apply to health insurance for children, how is that not applying the money to a part of the problem?
Tobacco causes health problems. Any effective use of the tax funds to help provide health care for any part of the population that would otherwise not get it contributes to resolving the problem of the general weakness in our health care system.
I found plenty of other sources that confirm that tobacco use costs EVERYONE more money. For example, the American Cancer Society reports:
If that's not enough, Google is your friend. Do some searching on your own, and either you'll find more that confirms what I posted, or you can come back with evidence to refute it.
Originally posted by: chess9
JACK: QUIT smoking. It's only too late when you are staring at your coffin lid! One of my English friends is a mensa member and very very talented. She smoked until the SECOND TIME she almost died from lung failure and emphysema. For the past 5 years I've been helping her with her training and she's doing fairly well, though she only has 22% of her lung capacity. She is very upset with herself for not having succeeded in quitting the 50 times she tried. She had to actually be told she was dieing by an NHS doctor before she quit. The first time they released her from the hospital after being a whisker from death, she lit a cigarette in her wheelchair in the parking lot!!!
Have you had a PFT? Talk to a pulmonologist. You may never get emphysema, but heart disease, diabetes, thyroid problems are all a possibility.
I wish every smoker could have seen my sister in law's last hour of life.
-Robert
Yea, I agree. Jack quit smoking you fool. Right now, my aunt is hurting so bad. My mom cries everyday because she has never seen her sister feel so much pain. Lung cancer is not something you should just dismiss. If you don't care about yourself, think about how it will affect those around you.
Originally posted by: Harvey
If the revenuse are specified to apply to health insurance for children, how is that not applying the money to a part of the problem?
Tobacco causes health problems. Any effective use of the tax funds to help provide health care for any part of the population that would otherwise not get it contributes to resolving the problem of the general weakness in our health care system.
If the problem we are referring to is lack of socialized insurance OK. If the problem is the added cost of smoking disease. I don't see it.
...
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
That reasoning can apply to many more items than tobacco products.
Again, the point I am making is whether over-indulging should be a personal decision or a government mandate.
I doubt that. Got proof?
Beyond that, tobacco is highly addictive, and very few smokers stop at "a cig or two a day."
The internet can be detrimentally addictive too. Shouldn't the government begin heavily taxing internet use beyond whatever they deem reasonable? After all, it's for everyone's own good. You know, the good of the collective.
btw, you won't find any public studies where doctors pronounce that smoking a cig or two a day is not harmful because that's not the PC thing to say. Too many of the rabid, anti-smoking types would get their fur all ruffled over something like that. But ask just about any doctor in private. I've never met a doctor who claimed that one or two smokes a day will do you in.
No one is physically addicted to the internet... you aren't even trying to be reasonable.. just nonsense as usual.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter