RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill

RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 12:48:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Since we're taxing people based on their popularity, Has nothing to do with popularity, Sanity. It has to do with the fact that smokers tend to cost a lot more money to keep alive at the end of their lives because of all the smoking related illness. It has to do with taxing the people who will end up using more health services (that the taxes pay for) than other people. Since they use a larger percentage of the money that is paid for in taxes, seems reasonable to expect they end up paying for more of it. They dont like the tax, they can stop smoking. I find it odd that you would be using logic that is almost communistic in nature, from everybody according to their earning potential, to the minority according to their addictions. Sinergy Since cigarettes are already taxed, a government should ban their sale if it feels they are an unnecessary burden on the health system rather than profiteer out of a commodity that is sold legally. If one should take this route of taxation, a government should tax other commodites that cause an unnessary burden on the health system such as cars, traffic causing more respiratory illnesses than smoking, apart from deaths and injuries caused through reckless driving. Obesity as mentioned, which is the number one killer and cause of people requiring health care so a government should tax junk food and other foods that contribute to obesity.. You are just showing your prejudice of a single habit rather than approaching this sort of health taxation rationally. The great thing about being a liberal is that they think that choosing something they don't like like and demonizing it is freedom while being rational and treating everything comparable the same is considered fascistic.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 1:20:35 AM)
The longer people live the more the cost of their medical treatment will rise ,therefore smokers, who tend to die younger,< so we are told, I wonder > do not impose extra costs, on average, on a health service. All sales taxes hit the poor disproportionately, but since the tax on cigarettes lights the fire of do gooders it is not likely to be reduced. We had riots in the UK over the Poll Tax, A property tax set at one level for all houses regardless of value. Come to think of it we had civil disobedience when a large tax increase on petrol was introduced. I remember Blair coming on TV and making all the right noises about the responsability of governments to govern etc. he caved in when the disobedience became nationwide.lol Think yourselves lucky you dont have to finance the BBC. Pay a tax just to listen to their left wing bias. 132 quid a year when I can get the same for nothing just reading NG's posts he he he he he he he

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 1:40:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The longer people live the more the cost of their medical treatment will rise ,therefore smokers, who tend to die younger,< so we are told, I wonder > do not impose extra costs, on average, on a health service. All sales taxes hit the poor disproportionately, but since the tax on cigarettes lights the fire of do gooders it is not likely to be reduced. The sales tax on cigarettes in most European states pays for all the healthcare smokers need and more so smokers are subsidizing the health problems of people with other habits, particularly the healthcare of obese people. Obesity is Britain's (and the USA's) number one health problem. If governments were so concerned about health, rather than using smoking as something to show their liberal caring credentials (which is totally disingenuous) they would be taxing unhealthy foods and taxing food corporations that profiteer out of people's addiction to junk food and unhealthy eating habits. You are more likely to die young of eating rubbish than you are of smoking a moderate amount. You will consume more healthcare by having a bad diet than you are of being a moderate smoker. The targeting of smokers is irrational when compared to the lack of targeting of more unhealthy habits. Let's not forget that far more respiratory illness is caused through traffic and industrial pollution than smoking (which really only effects the smoker themselves nowadays). Scapegoats springs to mind but what the hell, it makes lierals feel better about themselves I guess. It's a little like Blair's attack on fox hunters, it makes liberals feel radical without being radical. If they want to fool themselves let them but they should stop attacking other people just because it makes them feel good about themselves.

Sanity -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 5:07:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Since we're taxing people based on their popularity, Has nothing to do with popularity, Sanity. It has to do with the fact that smokers tend to cost a lot more money to keep alive at the end of their lives because of all the smoking related illness. It has to do with taxing the people who will end up using more health services (that the taxes pay for) than other people. Since they use a larger percentage of the money that is paid for in taxes, seems reasonable to expect they end up paying for more of it. They dont like the tax, they can stop smoking. I find it odd that you would be using logic that is almost communistic in nature, from everybody according to their earning potential, to the minority according to their addictions. Sinergy No Sinergy, wrong again. Smokers tend to die off and then cost the system practically nothing when compared to those who linger on until they are 115 requiring everything from new hips and corneas to alzheimers care and Depends (R) diapers. And in all honesty I think that it's ridiculous that so many are willing to try to decide which group gets sacrificed to the tax god first because that bastard will never get his (or her) fill. If smokers are the first to be fed to the volcano then it will be the obese second, and third will probably be mountain climbers. Eventually, if we work at it hard enough, the government will keep us from enjoying any freedom at all by saving us from ourselves, just like a good Liberal government should.

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 5:20:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity quote: ORIGINAL: Sinergy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Since we're taxing people based on their popularity, Has nothing to do with popularity, Sanity. It has to do with the fact that smokers tend to cost a lot more money to keep alive at the end of their lives because of all the smoking related illness. It has to do with taxing the people who will end up using more health services (that the taxes pay for) than other people. Since they use a larger percentage of the money that is paid for in taxes, seems reasonable to expect they end up paying for more of it. They dont like the tax, they can stop smoking. I find it odd that you would be using logic that is almost communistic in nature, from everybody according to their earning potential, to the minority according to their addictions. Sinergy No Sinergy, wrong again. Smokers tend to die off and then cost the system practically nothing when compared to those who linger on until they are 115 requiring everything from new hips and corneas to alzheimers care and Depends (R) diapers. I can't speak for the US health care system but 90% of all hospital healthcare in the UK (according to BBC Newsnight. It seems an awful lot ot me.) is spent on the last six months of someone's life. Health issues cost the economy in general rather than healthcare in particular. One needs to look at what costs the economy money and cigarettes are only a minute contributing factor but not as much as unhealthy eating, pollution, cars, excessive energy use etc. etc. Picking on smoking makes none smokers feel good about themselves while it is not an issue of any substance for anyone else but the smoker.

camille65 -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 5:49:16 AM)
What happens if all the smokers quit smoking because it has gotten too expensive?

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 5:58:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 What happens if all the smokers quit smoking because it has gotten too expensive? The government will have to find exrtra taxes from elsewhere. Dare I say from that over subsidized group, car users.

pahunkboy -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 7:46:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cautiousiasub quote: ORIGINAL: EPGAH For REAL irony, check right outside of hospitals! No smoking allowed IN the hospital, of course, but right outside, smokers set up a gauntlet of toxic clouds, part of which follows them in--and yes, this includes hospital workers (They tried barring smokers from working at the hospital, but this was sued against, claiming "discriminatory"...Whatever happened to "sterile, smoke-free environment"? Or the ironic signs "Thank you for not smoking", with the international symbol for no smoking on them...) Hospitals are very quickly becoming completely smoke-free. Most around here already are, and the ones who still allow smoking will be smoke-free soon as well. The laws vary from state to state, but many are adopting a law that requires healthcare facilities to become tobacco-free if they want to keep Medicare funding. I am sure it will be nationwide before long. This includes Missouri...might want to check to make sure you're up to date before you post on here, I am guessing it's been a while since you've had to visit a hospital. It's listed right on the Missouri Hospital Association website under Law/Regulations. As far as being sued for discrimination, that no longer applies. Rules and laws have changed. . i know a few that smoke but not in their own house. this was unheard of 20 years ago. how would one tax obesity-when the are more obese then not? [or overweight] this is more of the same political mudslinging- so the democrats can say those mean republicans!! nah nah nah!

philosophy -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:19:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Smokers tend to die off and then cost the system practically nothing .....hahahaha........i mean you have to be joking surely. Treating lung cancer is soooooo cheap..........

thompsonx -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:22:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The longer people live the more the cost of their medical treatment will rise ,therefore smokers, who tend to die younger,< so we are told, I wonder > do not impose extra costs, on average, on a health service. For a man who normally can do arithmetic you seem to have failed your sums on this one. All sales taxes hit the poor disproportionately, but since the tax on cigarettes lights the fire of do gooders it is not likely to be reduced. We had riots in the UK over the Poll Tax, A property tax set at one level for all houses regardless of value. Come to think of it we had civil disobedience when a large tax increase on petrol was introduced. I remember Blair coming on TV and making all the right noises about the responsability of governments to govern etc. he caved in when the disobedience became nationwide.lol You also had large scale civil disobedience a few hundred years ago when those American ingrates told your king to go fuck himself.[;)] Think yourselves lucky you dont have to finance the BBC. Pay a tax just to listen to their left wing bias. 132 quid a year when I can get the same for nothing just reading NG's posts he he he he he he he We here in the "occupied colonies" are also required to subsidize the media.[;)] It is rather generous of him (NG) to do so don't you think? Most would charge for educating one so firmly entrenched in their bigotry.[:D] He must either be a public spirited sort or maybe he has just taken pity on a confused superannuated gentleman and is trying to be kind.

pahunkboy -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:24:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: camille65 What happens if all the smokers quit smoking because it has gotten too expensive? ? we call it terrorism and send troops ?

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:24:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy how would one tax obesity-when the are more obese then not? [or overweight] this is more of the same political mudslinging- so the democrats can say those mean republicans!! nah nah nah! One doesn't tax anyone directly, one puts a high tax on unhealthy foods and lower taxes on healthy foods (I know not all countries tax food) so making healthy options relatively cheaper. As with smokers, the choice is still there but your higher taxes can be used to pay for healthcare. Though in reality high taxes usually go to subsidize private transport such as cars because such use of money is politically popular.

pahunkboy -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:29:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy how would one tax obesity-when the are more obese then not? [or overweight] this is more of the same political mudslinging- so the democrats can say those mean republicans!! nah nah nah! One doesn't tax anyone directly, one puts a high tax on unhealthy foods and lower taxes on healthy foods (I know not all countries tax food) so making healthy options relatively cheaper. As with smokers, the choice is still there but your higher taxes can be used to pay for healthcare. Though in reality high taxes usually go to subsidize private transport such as cars because such use of money is politically popular. thew food pharma industry makes more money of people are on meds -sick. PA does not tax food or clothing. tho soda pop is taxed 6% or 7% in Pitt/Philly. it gets confusing when products have some juice but not enuff- so when in doubt the merchant cahrges. the lawyers already decided we cant sue burger joints..... an army of lawyers that cosntantly change the rules--- so the peon is FUCKED. [sorry]

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:29:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Smokers tend to die off and then cost the system practically nothing .....hahahaha........i mean you have to be joking surely. Treating lung cancer is soooooo cheap.......... It is relatively cheap compared to other cancers as the main lung cancer type is pretty certain to kill you and it is more about managing pain. Of course there is cardio-vascular desease and this is not just down to smoking but also down to unhealthy diet and a sedentary life style so junk food and cars should also be taxed to pay for the extra health costs in this case.

Owner59 -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:53:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The longer people live the more the cost of their medical treatment will rise ,therefore smokers, who tend to die younger,< so we are told, I wonder > do not impose extra costs, on average, on a health service. All sales taxes hit the poor disproportionately, but since the tax on cigarettes lights the fire of do gooders it is not likely to be reduced. We had riots in the UK over the Poll Tax, A property tax set at one level for all houses regardless of value. Come to think of it we had civil disobedience when a large tax increase on petrol was introduced. I remember Blair coming on TV and making all the right noises about the responsability of governments to govern etc. he caved in when the disobedience became nationwide.lol Think yourselves lucky you dont have to finance the BBC. Pay a tax just to listen to their left wing bias. 132 quid a year when I can get the same for nothing just reading NG's posts he he he he he he he Not true. The cost of treating lung cancer would bankrupt most people,so then those costs are shifted to us. The cost of treating lung cancer, can be 7 to 10 thousand dollars a day.That`s just for one person. Seems to me,like that would be quite a bit more then that extra costs associated with one person, living a few years longer.

meatcleaver -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 8:58:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Owner59 Not true. The cost of treating lung cancer would bankrupt most people,so then those costs are shifted to us. The cost of treating lung cancer, can be 7 to 10 thousand dollars a day.That`s just for one person. Seems to me,like that would be quite a bit more then that extra costs associated with one person, living a few years longer. I think you have got your figures wrong. Granted the site linked is a little out of date but it gives an indication of costs. http://progressreport.cancer.gov/doc_detail.asp?pid=1&did=2005&chid=25&coid=226&mid= These are American costs which are bloated by an over burdened adminatration costs of private insurance. The cost of treatment in Europe is roughly half. The cost of lung cancer treatment in Europe at this time is approx. $24,000 per annum, should the patient live that long (this is an average and could vary a great sdeal between one patient and another). At $10,000 a day, private health insurance would be bankrupt and universal healthcare too for that matter.

popeye1250 -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 9:02:25 AM)
Talk about "addiction", it seems that all the States are "addicted" to the ciggarrette taxes! In New Hampshire where I lived they didn't have "Kindergarten" so they raised ciggy taxes to pay for it! "Kindergarten" isn't neccessary anyway and the yuppies just use it as "daycare." They don't call it "The FIRST GRADE" for nothing. If everyone in that state quit smoking there'd be no more "Kindergarten" unless they could find another way to fund it. Funny, States keep raising taxes on ciggys saying they're "bad" for people. If that's so then just outlaw selling them in the state! But no, they just keep going to the "well" again. Pretty hypocritical to keep taxing something but telling you it's "bad" for you.

Owner59 -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 9:12:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: philosophy quote: ORIGINAL: Sanity Smokers tend to die off and then cost the system practically nothing .....hahahaha........i mean you have to be joking surely. Treating lung cancer is soooooo cheap.......... It is relatively cheap compared to other cancers as the main lung cancer type is pretty certain to kill you and it is more about managing pain. Of course there is cardio-vascular desease and this is not just down to smoking but also down to unhealthy diet and a sedentary life style so junk food and cars should also be taxed to pay for the extra health costs in this case. There are many,many diseases that you could suffer from,if you use tobacco. Cancers in the mouth/throat,stroke,diabetes, cardiovascular issues,heart attack,loss of elasticity of the lung tissue and blood vessels,Emphysema. You can lose a foot to gangrene. I have a friend who cut off a finger,on table saw.They reatached it,but because he was a smoker,his body wouldn`t heal as well,and the finger never reattached. Many people,live for many years,in a debilitated state,tethered to an oxygen tank,or one those portable(kinda) breathing units. I have a neighbor who lives this way.He can barely walk to the mail box. If you breath through a straw(one single straw),you can get an idea of what having diminished lung capacity is like.

Owner59 -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 9:29:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Talk about "addiction", it seems that all the States are "addicted" to the ciggarrette taxes! In New Hampshire where I lived they didn't have "Kindergarten" so they raised ciggy taxes to pay for it! "Kindergarten" isn't neccessary anyway and the yuppies just use it as "daycare." They don't call it "The FIRST GRADE" for nothing. If everyone in that state quit smoking there'd be no more "Kindergarten" unless they could find another way to fund it. Funny, States keep raising taxes on ciggys saying they're "bad" for people. If that's so then just outlaw selling them in the state! But no, they just keep going to the "well" again. Pretty hypocritical to keep taxing something but telling you it's "bad" for you. Not true. Subsidizing tobacco growers(w/ federal tax payer money),now that ,...is hypocritical. There was a time,when states absorbed the higher costs ,associated with smoking. Back then,cigs were cheap ,w/ just a sales tax.(just 35-40 years ago) Eventually,someone smart,connected the dots, put 2 and 2 together,and realized just how many millions of dollars extra,smokers were costing the system. Should we let smokers drain money out of the system.? Hell no. Should we attempt to recoup those losses,by taxing tobacco? Hell yes. Now that we are finally laying some of that cost on smokers,of course someone is going to belly-ache about how unfair, and supposedly hypocritical it all seems. But that`s life.

thompsonx -> RE: Poor smokers would pay for health bill (10/1/2007 10:06:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 "Kindergarten" isn't neccessary anyway and the yuppies just use it as "daycare." They don't call it "The FIRST GRADE" for nothing. popeye: It would appear that you are the classic counter example to your above statement. Is there any other aspect of education that you feel is not necessary? thompson

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125