It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Smokers 'should not get NHS care'

page: 6
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Personally, I think the best thing for healthcare in this country would be steps to reduce the useage of automobiles by providing incentives to using bicycles. If you ride to work you don't have the opportunity to smoke during the ride, you experience stress relief, you can't hit a drive-through, and you exercise. Oftentimes it takes the same amount of time to drive a certain distance as it does to bike it, especially in cities. The definition of stress, which causes overeating and smoking, is sitting in a vehicle capable of going 120 miles per hour and doing 10. Also, it would cut down on the use of foreign oil, which is another problem, and auto emissions.




posted on Sep, 9 2004 @ 12:49 PM
link   
This is a crackup!


1) Every eligible citizen should get healthcare.

2) While pollutants from cars and factories etc are hazardous, this doesn't make smoke less hazardous. Can't clean the kitchen if you only wipe the counters, but it's a good start. Same with the planet.

3) I used to smoke and now I don't. I never got so offended or defensive about it when people suggested it was a less than desirable habit. Smoking is what someone does, not what they are. Whether you smoke or not, there's no way anyone can deny that it smells and is dirty. When I smoked I was constantly emptying and wiping out ashtrays, keeping windows open, using candles, etc. I was a "clean smoker", according to my friends, who also smoked. When I quit, I loved having a fresh house, fresh clothes and all those other perks. What I didn't love was coming home at the end of the day smelling like smoke. Although smoking was not allowed in our building, it was allowed in the parking garage. So I'd get up, shower, perfume, fresh clothes, go to work, walk through a huge smoke cloud and felt like it was all ruined. Now, as a former smoker, I understood that this is just the nature of the habit. But as someone who had quit and was enjoying the side perks of stopping, I was annoyed that I had to run the Marlboro gauntlet to get to my office and arrive smelling like I still smoked. It was asked that the smokers please move away from the door to the elevators to smoke and they acted like they were being asked to cut off their own arms. They acted the same way when the building management asked them to use the plentiful ashtrays distributed around the property instead of flicking their butts on the ground or in the grass. I hated when people smoking with me did that and somehow as a former smoker it made me even more annoyed. They finally made every other level of the parking garage non-smoking so that we could have someplace to park and enter the building without having to go through The Great Cloud. Then the smokers complained that the non-smokers got the GOOD parking levels. As if they had to park where they smoke. It became absurd!

Bottom line: Smoking is bad and it stinks. It's also, unfortunately, a very pleasurable and addictive activity. These smoking things are as bad as religious debates; they get personal and insulting pretty quickly. There's no reason for it. It's like a pastor I used to know would say: Hate the sin, not the sinner. Hate the smoke, not the smoker. And if you're a smoker who gets all wadded up whenever anyone talks about how bad it is, stop taking it so personally and see the other person's side. A complaint about smoking is not an attack on the smoker personally. And if it's meant to be, don't take it as such. Just because someone throws a ball it doesn't mean you have to swing at it.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 10:19 AM
link   
I quite for 3 years and during this time, my health insurance doubled.

When I moved, my car insurance trippled.

I called both insurers.

The health insurer said it was increasing rates across the board and it was decided by the Co-Op, which I assume meant a vote.

The auto insurer I asked why my rate trippled and I was told they go by zip code even though I have over 25 years without an incident.

This all started when I added a car to my policy and the agent (new and I had not met before) looked up my policy and was shocked at how low my rate was.

He actually asked how I got suck a low rate.

About a week later, I received a letter stating that the agency was no longer using this particular insurer and I needed to come in and get a new policy.

The new policy was over double, so I declined and went across town and got insurance for a bit less than double my old rate.

About a week later, I received a letter from the new insurer stating they would not insure one of my vehicles, due to my girlfriend got a ticket in it at that time, and it was a sport car. They even used the terminoligy;
"due to the inherent power and tendency of high speeds"

I had to insure that car seperately through another agency, for a higher rate of course.

4 months later is when I moved, and my auto insurance went up triple the now higher rate.

That is when I rejoined a health insurer I used for 25 years prior, only cancelling when I moved away.
Now back, I had to pay double what I paid recently, and despite the years of premiums other than the 4 years I was gone, which they had on record, but no breaks although patronizing them for so long before.

I canceled my Auto and got a new policy elsewhere for a small savings, and was so disenfranchised with the policies that all these institutions have manipulated to reap higher profites from outragious premium increases.

It all seemed to start when laws made these mandatory, and when 41 was appointed - (NOT ELECTED).

This was at the time, the straw that broke me to start smoking again.

Psychologically, I feel the insurers are to blame for my smoking habit. Now, this thread points to articles that suggest I should not qualify for coverage?

The 2nd hand smoke argument is, IMHO, valid only on fractionally, for these reasons.

Prior to bans, most resteraunts, bars, establishments open to the public, had both smoking and non-smoking sections.

Evidently, this was sufficient for 40 or 100 years? somewhere in there.

Personally, I have been more offended (even as a non-smoker) with strong cheap perfume that evidently didn't seem pugnant (sp) to the bearer, but cause me to gag, choke, cough and watering of eyes, as well as a harsh after taste I could not expel without a few strong drinks to drown the residual taste.

I feel this is a direct infringment on my rights.

I also know that many times, beyond count, I have refrained from smoking or extinguished a cigarette so as not to intrude on anothers space, to save persecution or mostly just out of respect. Something I was taught in my upbringing.

You say:
"I respect fully the right of people to smoke but when their rights start impinging on mine we have a conflict of rights and I am the victim. "

Again, I would go out of my way to avoid offending you in public.

What concerns me is, I guarantee I could test the affect of perfume where such a strong amount is applied, or it's so cheap and nasty it should be avoided to begin with, and the results would prove that my health is endangered when inhaling these strong chemical aeresol.

Therefor, should be banned.

This could be said about persons with bad hygiene, A mechanic smelling of fuel or even worse, diesel oil,
Painters who have work clothes on and smell of polyeurithane or a resin etc...

How about an alcoholic that is a bit loud and obnoxious that is disturbing my person with audible volume or slurring of speech.

All of these alternative health and peace disturbing issues and the list could be expanded greatly with little effort, force me, a simple smoker, to be forcefully vicimized in public, with in certain situations, more of a health concern.

So you see, In another 20 years, these and more may too be on the list of banned items or actions in public.

Next, a beautiful woman may find herself cuffed and on her way to booking at the local jail for breaking wind, or for stumbling into me because her high heels or wardrobe malfunctioned.

So, where does it end?
I can tell you, years ago, right when the smoking ban became law, I noticed three things that resulted immediately.
1) many small bars and restraunts soon closed due to loss of business.
2) cigarette butts were polluting the sidewalks and streets. (later they figured out how to accomodate the outdoor smoker)
3) the Indian Reservation Casinos business exploded by 200-300 percent
because many smokers started going there where smoking was still allowed.

I remember joking with a friend. The ongoing differences regarding indian rights such as gill netting the rivers, runnung casinos that were outlawed for the common State resident,etc....

We would picture the tribal chief, in full wardrobe and head dress,
arms raised looking toward the sky, thanking the State Legislature and God(s) for the State smoking ban, which opened the flood gate of smokers, now treated almost as lepers, to the tribes establishments, now enjoying a tsunami-swell of new patrons, mostly smokers.

Meanwhile, Wa. State went 7 billion in debt? or is it more by now?

But to reitterate,
I would never intentionally cause a non-smoker discomfort by lighting up,
(except for at the indian casinos),

and the insuraqnce companies and their enormous rate hikes are the cause of my smoking habit.
I am again a victim.



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
OK, three pages of reading is enough for this tripe. I should pay my own way, eh?

During the last 20 years, I have paid approximately $80,000 for health insurance on myself and my family. During that same time period, I have had claims amounting to maybe $2000. It's probably less, but let's go with the conservative figure.

At a carton of cigarettes per week (which is actually a bit below what I smoked), discounting one year during which time I rolled my own smokes, I have paid at least $10,000 in taxes on those cigarettes.

That means, thus far over the last two decades I have paid $90,000 for $2000 worth of care. Actually that $2000 is a bit misleading, because the prices are inflated to cover the costs of people who do not pay for their health care and are not insured (I would assume many of these are not smokers). Say $1000 worth of health care.

You want me out of the health care system? Great idea! Do you need an address where to send the $89,000? I accept cash, cashiers checks, and postal money orders.

Until that money arrives, GET OFF MY CASE!

TheRedneck


[edit on 1-2-2009 by TheRedneck]



posted on Feb, 1 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   
Then smokers should not pay taxes.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   
Ok, lets do a deal.

Smokers get no NHS, no money from cigarettes go to the NHS, and see how long it lasts? less than a year.

the NHS is pritty much funded by tobacco and alcohol tax, the rest is general tax, but a minority of it is general tax.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 12:59 PM
link   
yeah lets put scales @ the grocery store and denie fatties from food while we are at it!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 01:11 PM
link   
I don't eat McDonalds, so why should my taxes pay for the healthcare of people that eat terribly and get obese?

Stop demonizing smoking and open your eyes to the countless other things that are bad for your health.

By the way, the argument that NHS or other public healthcare systems should be denied to certain peoples kills the whole idea of public healthcare.

You don't like that smokers can go to the hospital? Move to somewhere that has private healthcare. Lets see you whine then.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Sara1

By the way, the argument that NHS or other public healthcare systems should be denied to certain peoples kills the whole idea of public healthcare.

No, it's all perfectly logical if you understand the language being used. Here, let me translate for you:

"I want you to pay for my healthcare, but I'm not going to pay for yours."

It's simple, really.

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Sara1


"I want you to pay for my healthcare, but I'm not going to pay for yours."

It's simple, really.

TheRedneck


Actually, that's privet health care, its different in England.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 03:34 PM
link   
What's next, people with diabetes and heart problems lose insurance too,
because it's their own fault because they ate too much? Going down this
road is very bad, and this ugly kind of barbaric thinking is exactly why the
West is turning into a cruel, hypocrite, fascist society.

You people seem to think solidarity is the work of the devil or something,
what's next, helping people becomes a communist act and punishable by
law?

[edit on (2/2/09) by Wehali]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRedneck
No, it's all perfectly logical if you understand the language being used. Here, let me translate for you:

"I want you to pay for my healthcare, but I'm not going to pay for yours."

It's simple, really.

TheRedneck


I can't tell if you're being sarcastic and agreeing with me, or being serious and disagreeing.


When taxation is the primary means of financing health care, everyone receives the same level of coverage regardless of their ability to pay, their level of taxation, or risk factors.


This is the idea of public healthcare, like the NHS. Care available to all citizens. Once you start to pick and choose who gets care, you're starting to run like an insurance company.

I figure, why stop at smoking? Lets make the NHS just like insurance companies and run up risk profiles on EVERYONE. Insurance companies work for profit. This is the opposite of public healthcare. See? It's not NHS anymore is it.

For the record in case it wasn't clear, I'm against select groups being denied health care.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Do you have any idea as to the air pollution caused by car exhaust? Do you have any idea how much carcinogen you inhale from the 40 other cars while waiting stopped at an intersection? Second-hand cigarette smoke cannot even compare. But let's blame it all on the smokers!



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Mynaeris
 


Just for the record I pay my NI and have done for 30 odd years - never have I been unemployed so therefore, if I want to smoke (even though the government made more than enough taxes out of smokers) and have NHS I paid my way!!!!

Not an ill chick and never have been - my way of life has been paid for in more than enough ways via the government.

All they do is take, take, take - And we the idiots let them! ENOUGH!


My pennies worth for the year ........



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Bombeni
 


I am confused why anybody would address me in this debate since I haven't posted on this thread in 5 years! Please smokers stop whingeing, it's okay keep smoking I don't mind you making me cough and ruining fun days at the beach, just keep quiet already.

[edit on 2-2-2009 by Mynaeris]



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mynaeris
reply to post by Bombeni
 


it's okay keep smoking

Thank you!
Geezzzzzzzzz



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:21 PM
link   
If you banned health care for smokers they would all simply just say it was second hand smoke, since we all know that second hand smoke is the real culprit in this debate and no one could tell the difference.

I cast my vote to give Myrna her own anti smoking board to be hosted at TRUTH.com.



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Sorry Myrna, didn't realize this thread was so old.

So you've been wasting your energy on this for how long?



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Sara1

Sarcastic and agreeing with you.


I'm one of those crazy old-timers who still believes in freedom to live one's life as they choose. As I understand it, that means I'll be in front of a firing squad for terrorist views real soon.

(more sarcasm)

TheRedneck



posted on Feb, 2 2009 @ 07:54 PM
link   
NHS that one could be proud of would be offering treatment to remove all the tar from smokers lungs or better still ; how about a Tissue Engineering and a brand new lung , grown out of my own stem cells and delivered via a nasal spray .

that would be the NHS I would like to see and would pay for it via taxes , happily .

do no harm , morons .

my 2 pence




[edit on 2-2-2009 by 23432]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join