Should Smokers Pay Extra Taxes For Universal Healthcare?, page 12

Pages: << 9 10 11 12 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times

reply posted on 20-9-2012 @ 12:44 PM by CoherentlyConfused

reply to post by jeantherapy

You originally brought up nicotine being a poison in one of your rants about smoking, so I assumed we were still talking about the topic of the OP. Since nicotine being used as a pesticide has nothing to do with whether or not smokers should pay extra taxes for health care, I was wondering what your point was.

Nicotine is not the only poison in cigarettes. Actually, out of every poisonous chemical found in the ingredients of the tobacco or in cigarette smoke, nicotine is probably the least deadly one.

Again, the dose makes the poison otherwise we'd have to change the conversation to apples and apple juice, as the seeds of an apple contain arsenic. Should apple eaters be taxed higher for universal health care, too? Yes. Yes, they should.

edit on 20-9-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 20-9-2012 @ 12:53 PM by sealing

Originally posted by smyleegrl

Originally posted by Domo1
I think we should. Insurance companies shouldn't havemto cover a car that you track unless you pay more for the risky behavior. Same with smoking and the obese.

What do you find immoral about universal health care?

What about people who have medically induced obesity? In other words, the side effect of certain medications and/or mental issues.

And what about the mentally impaired?

Maybe a better solution would be to sterilize all non-productive, genetically inferior people. And while we're waiting for them to die off, maybe we can use them as cheap labor in some camps....

....that slippery slope slids straight to hell, my friend.

It is a slippery slope.
It's also the platform of Paul Ryan's Ayn Rand
inspired survival of the fittest (or inherited ) world.

reply posted on 20-9-2012 @ 03:30 PM by BigBrotherDarkness

reply to post by jeantherapy

Seeing how this forum is a field of open and honest debate on a subject, we both have agreed to participate in. My opinion and yours are required to meet some kind of mutual understanding if at all possible.

I did not approach you in a public place face to face and inform you of my opinion when it was not wanted, as you say you have done to others. I quote: " I've been threatened with physical harm for expressing my opinion to those people, which displays their truly disgusting nature and lack of respect." I said, quote: "You mention lack of respect; yet don't seem to respect other peoples rights to privacy and personal space when you feel the need to express your unwanted opinion."

My point still stands...I see an irrational paradox in your argument; concerning respect.

On another note: Bees pollinate tobacco, if it were a poison to bee's they wouldn't carry it back to their hives and make honey to feed their whole colony with it.

edit on 20-9-2012 by BigBrotherDarkness because: sp

reply posted on 20-9-2012 @ 06:25 PM by Firewater

Originally posted by SGTSECRET

Originally posted by Rubicant13

Should people who willingly put toxins in their body have to pay more to make up for health issues that will arise later? Yes, it just makes sense. Why should someone who poisons their body pay the same amount as someone who lives a completely healthy life? Yes, it is all about CHOICE, which has been pointed out many times here in this thread. This includes the CHOICE you make when you smoke, drink, etc. If making those choices mean you have to pay more and you are upset about that, than you can CHOOSE to live a more healthy life AND have more money in the bank. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.

I'd be willing to bet that 99% of the population willingly eat foods containing Phosphoric acid, Acesulfame-K, Bisphenol-A, Sodium Nitrite, Polybrominated Diphenylether, Methylnaphthalene, Aspartame, partially hydrogenated oils, food coloring (Red 40, Yellow 6, Blue 1 & 2), high-fructose corn syrup, etc. etc. etc.

Or willingly use illegal drugs, misuse legal drugs, drink alcohol, have unprotected sex or even drink tap water (fluoride, chlorine etc.).

My point is that we ALL willingly consume, inhale and expose ourselves to unhealthy and dangerous substances on a daily basis.

Because the affects of cigarette smoke is the most easily tested in a lab, with the (alleged) results strewn across the land, cigarettes and those who use them have been made into the whipping-boys of our overall extremely unhealthy society.

reply posted on 20-9-2012 @ 07:08 PM by Firewater

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by Superhans

Bottom line: Second hand smoke does cause damage in young children

Correct. But so does the Arsenic, Cadmium, Lead and Uranium found in baby food. Or the Dioxane and Formaldehyde used in baby bath products. And i'm sure that, with a little more research, we would find that we expose our children to many unnecessary toxins commonly found in the products we buy.

Maybe some of that anger should be aimed towards the FDA and the manufacturers of those products.

reply posted on 21-9-2012 @ 07:27 AM by Xaberz

My immediate response was yes. I hate cigarettes. I think they're nasty. I hate when people smoke right next to their kids (hello! Do you want your kids to get asthma?). Or smoke in the house around their pets. Or smoke after exercising. Or smoke in public spaces when I am forced to be around it. Or take breaks from work all the time because they have to smoke every 15 minutes. So sure, let them pay more.

But after reading the comments, and hearing smokers perspectives. It would be really unfair to have them pay more for Healthcare. And besides, what's to stop them from lying to their healthcare company and saying they don't smoke anyway? I still haven't even seen my Healthcare doctor, so I imagine it would be pretty easy to not have to tell anyone. Unless people would have to register as a smoker, but that would be so crazy 1984 I hope that would never happen...

edit on 9/21/2012 by Xaberz because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-9-2012 @ 11:03 AM by lme7898354

Should people who smoke have to pay more for insurance? Absolutely!! I have congestive heart failure do to no fault of my own. I never smoked, drank or ate my way into obesity. When I was in the hospital the cardiologists told me that I should really consider filing for disability. So we started investigating the possibilities of doing that. I was told by several people in the system that it is easier for people who abuse cigarettes, booze and get fat to get disability than a person like me. So I ended up finding a job that I could handle.

I really think that people have to take care of their own situation. The system shouldn't be there as a parachute for those who have no common sense. If you want to smoke yourself to death that's your problem.

The other issue is people who smoke get offended because they can't smoke in public places. If you smoke anyone within the same space as you are also inhaling the fumes from your cigarette. It's not just the fact that you have chosen to smoke but that you have no respect for the people around you. If I chew gum it only affects me. If you smoke it affects anyone around you.

reply posted on 21-9-2012 @ 11:34 AM by TiredofControlFreaks

reply to post by lme7898354

And here come more volunteers from the anti-smoking brigade to berate and shame smokers!

Have you looked at a sidewalk lately and seen all those black patches of sticky goo? That is from gum chewers! Why should those of us who don't chew gum have to walk through all of your germ laden mess? City workers can't even clean it up because it sticks to pavement and melts in the sun!

So you do affect others with your inconsiderate personal behavior!

Do you drive a car? Why should I have to breathe in your exhaust!

As for your anecdote about people who smoke, drink and eat to excess have an easier time of getting diability....what a crock! No one has a easy time getting disability and it is the job of people like the one who told you that to discourage, discourage, discourage, you - no matter how they have to lie.

Worked didn't it? Here you are with a job and no disability?

Still at the end of the day - it is easy to tar the image of others by saying "somebody told me..." isn't it?

As for smokers affecting people in a public place - oh please! Even the most rabid of anti-smokers have a hard time justifying smoking bans in the open air. And as for smoking in private hospitality venues - well, no one said you had to go in, did they?

As for causing asthma - even the rabid anti-smokers had to give that one up. Right after the rate of childhood asthma increased by 800 % while children were exposed to less and less smoke. There is no way of knowing what causes an asthma attack. It could be smoke or it could be pollen or it could be dust or it could be soot, or it could be cockroach poop. The point is that smoke is only 1 contaminant out of list of hundreds.

As for people who claim to be "allergic" to cigarette smoke. Go ahead and google it. Smoke contains no protein to trigger an allergic reaction. These people are either lying or having a psychosomatic episode.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply posted on 21-9-2012 @ 11:49 AM by TiredofControlFreaks

On the question of smoking and athma - please follow the links in the post quoted below:

Not only have studies shown that children exposed to second hand smoke get less asthma, and if they do get asthma get less severe attacks and have less atopy (allergies).. First this was proved through epidimiology but the evidence doesn't stop there, scientists do real research in a real laboratory proved that nicotene has an anti-inflammatory effect which explains the biological pathways by which exposure to smoke is protective of getting asthma and atopies.

This is a post that will get some debate. One of the biggest cards that the anti tobacco crowd play is the “but I have asthma” gambit. I have done some research and it may literally be all in the mind. Please feel free to disagree with me, but please provide some papers that back up your hypothesis. Firstly nicotine suppresses asthma, see study on Norwegian rats. Secondly there are numerous studies that show that smokers and children of smokers have substantially less asthma, please see Swedish study. Thirdly there is a condition called psychosomaticism. It is where the mind believes something is going to happen and the body mimics the physical effects even though there is no exposure. Scientists believe that asthma itself has a psychosomatic facet in its adoption. They found that many asthmatics had and overbearing and controlling parent. See link. Fourthly the amount breathed in by non smokers is minimal, 0.1%-1% at the very most. So in conclusion it is quite possible that asthma attacks brought on by smoking are literally in the mind of the athmatic. “To ascertain the effects of nicotine on allergy/asthma, Brown Norway rats were treated with nicotine and sensitized and challenged with allergens. The results unequivocally show that, even after multiple allergen sensitizations, nicotine dramatically suppresses inflammatory/allergic parameters in the lung including the following: eosinophilic/lymphocytic emigration; mRNA and/or protein expression of the Th2 cytokines/chemokines IL-4, IL-5, IL-13, IL-25, and eotaxin; leukotriene C4; and total as well as allergen-specific IgE.” www.jimmunol.org... “Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7) CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...…pubmed/ 11422156 “The most common psychosomatic respiratory illness is asthma. Marked by recurrent bronchial constriction, edema, and excessive secretion, the clinical picture is manifested by recurrent attacks of dyspnea and prolonged expirations with wheezing and coughing. During the attack, the patient usually is tense, anxious, and frightened in the face of experiencing a lack of availability of vital air.” www.triroc.com... “The most highly exposed workers, both living and working with smokers, would potentially inhale over 20 cigarette equivalents (CE) per annum as based on the upper decile levels. Housewives living with smokers could inhale up to 11 CE per annum as based on the upper decile levels. Locations outside the workplace, including the home, contribute most to overall RSP and ETS particle exposure. Consideration should be given to extending the personal monitoring period in cities where levels appear to be quite low.” daveatherton.wordpress.com...

Tired of Control Freaks

reply posted on 21-9-2012 @ 03:54 PM by lambros56

Originally posted by jeantherapy
reply to post by lambros56

I've made no remarks about impact on health or lungs or cancer or anything of that nature. What I've said numerous times, and once more here for your benefit is this: I (me, not you, not anybody else, ME) believe that smokers should keep it to themselves because many non smokers are offended by the very noxious odor, first off, and second that your cigarette litter should not be strewn over the streets. I haven't lectured anybody on their health. I also haven't mentioned the c word once previous to this post, and don't plan to, either. But I will say this, since I know it will inflame you overly sensitive frazzle nerved cigarette smokers - anybody that can't make it a half hour without suppressing the urge to have a fag is no different or better than a crackhead. At least nobody can legally force you to breathe crack smoke, or reasonably expect you to want to.
edit on 20-9-2012 by jeantherapy because: (no reason given)

Dear me.
You're not a very happy bunny are you ?

reply posted on 22-9-2012 @ 09:29 AM by TiredofControlFreaks

reply to post by lambros56

Lambros56

So you are offended by the smell of tobacco smoke. Now explain to me......so damn what?

What gives you the right to support policies and laws to dehumanize, harass, finanacially rape and deny the right to peacefully assemble in public to a sizable minority of the public - so as to accomplish what? not have your delicate sensibilities insulted?

And why would I be happy about it? What has anti-smoking accomplished exactly.

1. The first claim is that the rate of smoking in the population is going down.

Well lets look at the numbers shall we? When smoking was at its peak in the 1960s - about 65 percent of the population smoked. Now about 20 to 25 % of the population smokes. Real decrease - well not really - the population of both United States and Canada increased during the same time period. In fact, there is very little change in the number of smokers.

2. Save lives? Who exactly was saved? Every smoking-related disease is also a non-smoking related disease. There is no way of identifying what caused a particular case of lung cancer or a particular case of heart disease (other than identifying HPV-related cancers). There is absolutely no way of knowing if a particular person would have died of that disease whether he smoked or not.

There is now an undisputed rise in lung cancer among woman and never-smokers. These are people who, in the past would have smoked and whose cancer would have been blamed on smoking.

3. Save health care costs. Smoking bans have been in place since the early 2000s. Health cares costs in both the United States and Canada have increased at a rate, greater than the rate of inflation in that period of time. Its not smokers or drinkers or eaters or people who fail to exercise who cost the health cares system - its the profit margins of pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers and a whole schlock of hangers on who are increasing health care cost exponentially.

4. People like you are the worst of the anti-smokers. Your motivations revolves solely around you and your preferences and you believe that you are the most important person in society. You feel as though you have the right to impose your will on other people. And you get this little frisson of delight up and down your spine, whenever a new law is imposed to dehumanize smokers. It is such a thrill to see your will made manifest by law isn't it.

We are now at the point where anti-smoker laws are being passed for the sole purpose that the very sight of a smoker offends somebody.

To all of you - I say "up yours'

Tired of Control Freaks

reply posted on 22-9-2012 @ 04:35 PM by lambros56

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by lambros56

Lambros56

So you are offended by the smell of tobacco smoke. Now explain to me......so damn what?

What gives you the right to support policies and laws to dehumanize, harass, finanacially rape and deny the right to peacefully assemble in public to a sizable minority of the public - so as to accomplish what? not have your delicate sensibilities insulted?

And why would I be happy about it? What has anti-smoking accomplished exactly.

1. The first claim is that the rate of smoking in the population is going down.

Well lets look at the numbers shall we? When smoking was at its peak in the 1960s - about 65 percent of the population smoked. Now about 20 to 25 % of the population smokes. Real decrease - well not really - the population of both United States and Canada increased during the same time period. In fact, there is very little change in the number of smokers.

2. Save lives? Who exactly was saved? Every smoking-related disease is also a non-smoking related disease. There is no way of identifying what caused a particular case of lung cancer or a particular case of heart disease (other than identifying HPV-related cancers). There is absolutely no way of knowing if a particular person would have died of that disease whether he smoked or not.

There is now an undisputed rise in lung cancer among woman and never-smokers. These are people who, in the past would have smoked and whose cancer would have been blamed on smoking.

3. Save health care costs. Smoking bans have been in place since the early 2000s. Health cares costs in both the United States and Canada have increased at a rate, greater than the rate of inflation in that period of time. Its not smokers or drinkers or eaters or people who fail to exercise who cost the health cares system - its the profit margins of pharmaceuticals, health insurance providers and a whole schlock of hangers on who are increasing health care cost exponentially.

4. People like you are the worst of the anti-smokers. Your motivations revolves solely around you and your preferences and you believe that you are the most important person in society. You feel as though you have the right to impose your will on other people. And you get this little frisson of delight up and down your spine, whenever a new law is imposed to dehumanize smokers. It is such a thrill to see your will made manifest by law isn't it.

We are now at the point where anti-smoker laws are being passed for the sole purpose that the very sight of a smoker offends somebody.

To all of you - I say "up yours'

Tired of Control Freaks

To be honest with you........
I agree with everything you say.
You seem to have got it mixed up.

I'm against what's in the OP.

Can you point out where I've said what you seem to think I've said ?
Thanks.

Lambros56.

reply posted on 22-9-2012 @ 04:52 PM by Six6Six

Pay more? I don't think that would be fair to them.

I think the fact that they STINK, have gross breath, will more than likely get a horrible disease (that someone like me will laugh at right in their face while insulting them) and that they are obviously very stupid people is probeably enough.

It goes without saying that ALL smokers are incredibly dumb and overall just dirty and kind of non-human. They languish around the same level as diarrhea in buckets, and they deserve less respect than they get.

I think charging these idiots more would not be beneficial because as someone else pointed out car owners too (like me) would then be made to pay more than we do for our pollution (which I do not care about because the environment issues are not of any concern to me). However, smokers who are literally killing themselves on purpose should be denied ALL medical services related to smoking but instead form a big brother type house where we the public can log on and watch these morons die slowly and painfully on respirators and other equipment needed to assist them in their crap lives.

reply posted on 22-9-2012 @ 05:01 PM by lambros56

reply to post by Six6Six

You haven't got a clue.
Sound like a kid to me who's obviously never smoked.

I'll say it again.
I've smoked for nearly forty years and have never had ANY related illness to smoking.

Don't believe the hype !

reply posted on 22-9-2012 @ 05:18 PM by lambros56

reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

By the way.
I've just had to star your post.

I don't think I could have put it better.
I think you put it all in a nutshell.

Pity it was wrongly aimed at me.

reply posted on 22-9-2012 @ 08:25 PM by TiredofControlFreaks

reply to post by lambros56

My apologies Lambros56. I misread the post. You were actually quoting JeanTherapy. The one who thinks he has the right to tell others how to raise their children and live their own lives.

Tired of Control Freaks

reply posted on 23-9-2012 @ 01:12 AM by derfreebie

reply to post by ModernAcademia

Good thread, F&S. For the verbosity to follow, my apologies beforehand.
"Where time allows, anything goes." I got that tidbit from a very busy man.
He made more contributions, to outright graft and corruption against his better
judgement, his whole life-- in order for the parasites to leave him alone. He also
had a team of lawyers on perpetual retainer to make SURE he was left alone.
In a nutshell he didn't allow interruptions... and modified the lawless' comfort level.
It's been said all too often, but what are we all paying with? Our time, and the
part of our lives that we toil. How much of our lives is being spent on paying
to be left alone for the sliver of what's left? Can you quantify it, or even want to?
Starting to have a hard time with some purported authority figure telling me
what to do, and how much to pay, because he's got a gun trained on me...
because it's boiling down to just that. It's already constitutionally repugnant
enough to require me to buy 'protection' with my time here.What's enough?
If you made it this far, thanks for being along for the only real change.. ours.

reply posted on 23-9-2012 @ 02:42 AM by derfreebie

Originally posted by camaro68ss
since Im forced into healthcare now, yes! Smokers should pay more, Fat people should pay more, Sick people should pay more and old people should pay more. Why should i cover for those that dont take care of themselfs?

I run 2 miles a day and lift weights every other day to stay healthy. Why sould i pay more for a fatty that sits on there butt all day eatting twinkys when i do the hard work to keep myself out of the hospital?