It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Should Smokers Pay Extra Taxes For Universal Healthcare?

page: 7
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Superhans

Thats not the point is it.

The original statement i was trying to make was that second hand smoke causes damage in young children whilst still in the developing stage.

Why are you still arguing? Why are some members so stubborn over an internet forum?

Are you trying to protect your ego by any chance?

I'll give up here because I know nothing will be gained by furthering this argument.

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

Good day sir.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Kluute
reply to post by Superhans

Thats not the point is it.

No, the point is "Should Smokers Pay Extra Taxes For Universal Healthcare?" and I have given my opinion on that.

The original statement i was trying to make was that second hand smoke causes damage in young children whilst still in the developing stage.

And I was saying PROVE IT actual case studies that show without a doubt the damage it causes. If that were true then we would have entire generations born between the 20s-60s where everyone had asthma and every other type of illness.

Why are you still arguing? Why are some members so stubborn over an internet forum?

You are the one PMing me trying to cary this on because your comments are not fit for the forum, don't try to deny that.

I'll give up here because I know nothing will be gained by furthering this argument.

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

Good day sir.

So you can't prove it, right? That is what I thought, back to with you

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:06 AM
Hell No! Damnit, I'm sick of being taxed more on the one thing I like because of some political BS. We're being taxed enough! Stop giving money to other countries to rebuild their mosques and there's the money you're looking for. Oh, but wait, he's not muslim......

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:09 AM
No, they shouldn't. There should be, and there is, an extra tax on tobacco and booze, etc. to cover this. Some think there should be a sin tax on junk food as well. Just because the money doesn't go towards funding health care isn't the fault of the people.

Taxing someone who is born with an incurable illness is ridiculously wrong. Whoever suggested it should be ashamed of themselves. And I hope that no one in their family is ever born with a crippling disease.

edit on 19-9-2012 by TheComte because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:14 AM
Only since like the last 10 years or so there is this anti smoking behaviour.
Like 15 years ago, you would see people smoking on the same workfloor, and basicly nobody was complaining.
When I was a kid and my parents had a party at their home, they placed all different brands of cigarettes on the table.

The media is strong it seems and likewise thinking. Of course it's better that you don't smoke on the workfloor but people just go overboard on this anti smoke crusade in my opinion.

Or like example if there would come this consisious, a new ''normal' where people just despise fat people and say it in their face whenever they can, like; don't you know you will die young? and that when we see you so fat, it makes me sick, that I even almost have to throw up??

I mean just look at people saying; how they hate the smoke from sigarettes, even when outside they just say how they dislike smoking.

Think for yourself.
edit on 19-9-2012 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:42 AM
reply to post by Kluute


You are providing links to propaganda

The only evidence that smoking causes any diseases is provided by epididimology - the soft science of observation. Comparing one group of people with a control group.

Before the results of any epidimiology study are taken seriously - the relative risks are supposed to be above 200 % and preferably 300 to 400 %.

And then the results of the study are only used to direct hard scientific research.

Propaganda is taking an increase in relative risk of less than 200 % and publishing a media headline that smoking CAUSES some disease (is there any disease left that smoking doesn't CAUSE), while never doing any hard scientific research.

The only disease that epidimiology has linked with smoking in any meaningful way is cancers of the mouth, throat and lung. These are the only diseases where the relative risk met the criteria for directing hard research.

At this point in time, scientists doing hard research have discovered that HPV causes most mouth and throat cancers - not smoking! The link is actually between the personality of smokers (being generally more social) and having more partners to kiss and have sex with.

Scientists have also confirmed that HPV causes between 20 to 80 % of lung cancers - with more strains of HPV being discovered along the way?

So what will the ignorant believe who fell hook, line and sinker for the idea that second hand smoke CAUSES lung cancer in never smokers do when the pharmaceutical companies develop a vaccine for lung cancer?

Will you finally apologise to smokers for the all the hate, discrimination? Will you financially recompence smokers for the taxes we have been charged? Will you feel bad for having taken away our constitutional rights to peaceful assembly?

Check it out - google the phrase "Never smokers lung cancer rates on the rise" This is occurring because you would have been smokers in the 60's and 70's never started smoking because of the health warnings. They thought that they would be safe from lung cancer. Now those never smokers are finding out that they get lung cancer just like the smokers do. You see, the game was in the definition of smoker. If you ever smoked 100 cigarettes in a lifetime - you are classed as a smoker and your lung cancer was CAUSED by those 100 cigarettes. So if you smoked behind the wood shed in your teens, decided it wasn't for you and never smoked again, but 50 years later, you got lung cancer, your lung cancer was classed as a lung cancer CAUSED by smoking.

ONly about 20 % of the population never smoked more than 100 cigarettes in their lifetime - so the puritans and anti-smokers could safely say that smoking CAUSED 80 % of lung cancers. The fact that 80 % of the population could be classed as smokers and got 80 % of the lung cancers never bothered them in the least, during their hate driven campaign for force their will on others.

Except now, horror of horrors, along comes real scientists with real scientific proof, that cancers of the mouth, throat, lungs and cervix (all body cavities opening to the environment and covered by mucous membranes) are caused by HPV - the human pampaloma virus - a sexually transmitted organism.

What are you people going to do when smokers start demanding their money back!
Tired of Control Freaks

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 06:46 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I'm against a healthcare system that works in the favor of the insurance companies. It looks like we won't agree on that part.

But, as much as I complain about smokers, I think that if you raise taxes on smokers, you'll have to do it for drinkers, drug users and obese people as well.

And that wouldn't work either. So, I'm opposed to people paying more based on substance use.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:00 AM
Speaking as a Brit who has the benefit of a state health care system I don't think they should. The taxes on tobacco products more than cover for the fact that we smokers MIGHT (very important word there) need a bit more care than other people.
However, I said MIGHT. A smoker is no more or less likely to be entirely dependant on health care later in in life than anyone else. I know a smoker who's 70 and is only being treated for arthritis. Similarly I know a non-smoker who spent three years fighting lung cancer, and all the while being supported by the NHS.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:03 AM
YES. Especially since Second hand Smoke affects others as well.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:04 AM
There should be no socialist medical care in the USA. Question is thus moot.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 07:55 AM
reply to post by ModernAcademia

I'd like to know exactly how "universal health care" is immoral? Your elected representatives have it. All of the nations ahead of you in quality of life, healthcare access, and all of those meaningless statistics, have it.

But I can see why someone completely uneducated as to what universal healthcare is (hint, it ain't Obamacare) could argue against it from various angels.

But a moral one? I'm sorry, you are just repeating what you've heard, that's the only plausible explanation for that statement.

But, as someone who does have universal health care, I can only hope no one you care about is stricken with an expensive disease. I hope any and all treatments are covered under your healthcare plan. I really do.

As for the OP about smoking? No, simply put no. Smokers already pay more taxes than non smokers, I think it's up to the state as to where that money goes, but here in socialist Canada it goes right into social programs and healthcare.

But you can't start singling people out like that, as someone already posted, it starts you on a slippery slope.

I don't engage in promiscuous sex or unprotected sex, so no STD related illnesses should be covered, or you should pay more. I don't drive a car, so any injuries related to auto accidents should cost YOU the driver more, not me the pedestrian.

I try to eat a health balanced diet, so you, the sugar sucking, mcfatty eating couch potato should pay more.


It's amazing that, while arguing against a chance at equal medical coverage based on your right to choose and pay, you argue against someone elses rights.

edit on 19-9-2012 by phishyblankwaters because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:07 AM
So what about families like mine? we all smoke but there is no history of lung cancer. Sure, there have been a few heart attacks in the family but they have been due to a genetic condition rather than smoking. Most of my kin kick the bucket due to stomach or pancreatic cancer, brain tumors or kidney cancer, etc.

Since the cancer rate is so high in my family should all the area refineries have to subsidize the costs of our insurance since working in them is more than likely what caused all the cancer in the first place? If smokers should pay more for causing their own illnesses I think the petrochemical industry should have to subsidize insurance costs for everyone who works in or lives near their cancer causing refineries.

How about people who drink city water? Every year they mail their customers a report with your odds of getting various cancers from the city water supply. Shouldn't the city have to subsidize insurance premiums for everyone drinking and bathing in city water- since they are giving people cancer?

Instead of one group having to pay higher insurance premiums, I propose that all of the companies that are making people sick should have to pay for it for us. Every company that pollutes our air and water, that puts dangerous chemicals in our food and drink, that poisons our medicines and immunizations, that makes junk food cheaper than healthy food, that puts dangerous elements in our children's toys and clothes.... you get the picture,

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:11 AM
I understand why people smoke, it is not really an addiction as most state, it is a complex issue which causes a person to self medicate. The issues can be addressed a different way, none of them which involve pharmaceuticals. As just one example, the benzene in smoke can kill the microbes in the airway and this keeps them from overpopulating and excreting their chemicals when they get scared. These chemicals cause a closing of the airways. This is one reason it is hard to quit, the bacteria quickly repopulate the airways. Smoking is the wrong answer though, the body can create benzene from benzoates when needed. They put these things in food, too much can hurt us also. Benzene compounds are found in cranberries, they say cranberries are good for you, but not if you smoke. Vanilla, chocolate, cinnamon, and other foods and spices contain forms of benzoates. If you quit smoking, a person will crave foods containing these things. Most of which are fattening or processed. Propylene compounds come into play here, this article is relevant. . I can't totally understand it yet but there is a reason propylene glycol is used in the smokeless cigarettes. They never tell us everything, they sell us products instead at elevated costs.

Problem is, those bacteria shouldn't be in our airways to trigger asthma symptoms when something toxic is smelled. My wife was investigating the antimicrobial properties of frankincense, that might be a clue to keeping those microbes from the airways. Incense has been used for thousands of years by humans. These smoke compounds are necessary to our survival if used in moderation. I like the smell of a little woodsmoke, I think there is a reason. Tobacco isn't really needed for this reason, there are other ways. Tobacco does help symptoms of ADHD and Schizophrenia better than meds do in many cases, self medicating for this is happening also. Something is going to kill us sooner or later. People quit smoking and now they are getting obese, is that any better? The effects of not smoking are causing more medical costs than smoking did overall, smokers just get sick in the end and die younger, keeping overall medical costs down.

What fools people be to trust those who profit off of their sickness. Get socialized medicine where the medical community makes a good wage whether you are healthy or sick. Give bonuses for getting us healthy faster, bring back factories to this country, factory work is respectable work.
edit on 19-9-2012 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:14 AM
Not just no, "hell no". It's a choice, we allready pay enough. Tax the bottled water drinkers, their numbers are growing with each passing day. Tax alcohol more. It;s far more dangerous than smoking.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 09:00 AM
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?

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:47 AM

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?

When you hear the word "Chinese" you think of skinny people right?

Did you know China now has a Obesity and Diabetes epidemic. Do you know why?
Dioxins....its a poison that once it enters your body your body puts it away in fat cells to keep it away from organs so it can't damage them. China's got a fatty problem now from industrial pollution that's destroying their DNA....

Same thing that happened to Americans. The Chinese ain't gettin fat from eating Ho-Ho's or Micky D's.....the pollution (Dioxins) did it. Which is why the world moved manufacturing over kill them off with pollution and destroy their DNA.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:47 AM
Maybe those who carry firearms and take self defense classes should get a cut on whatever portion goes towards police and defense.

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:47 AM
We were just talking about this last night at dinner.

A motorcyclists must wear a helmet and eye protection at all times, yet a yahoo on a ladder has no such safety requirements.

And smokers paying higher rates while fat blobs who eat bacon 3 times a day get a break for being smoke free.

Why don't I get a break for being thin? My BMI is 22, yet someone with a BMI of 45 gets a cheaper rate?

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
Now with that said, if such a system is forced down my throat should Smokers Pay more taxes for healthcare?

NO ONE should be paying 'taxes' for Obamacare.

If there is going to be an Obamacare then it should charge smokers more but it won't. Know why? Because not only does Obama 'spread the wealth' but he 'spreads the charge' as well. Everyone is evened out .. no matter how little or how much you are an income maker and no little or how big your drain on society is. Everyone is evened out. There is no black and no white .. only gray.

It isn't fair that a healthy and active 20 year old should pay for the health care of a 55 year old fat smoker. But with Obamacare ... that's how it'll work out. Watch ...

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 10:59 AM
reply to post by DarthMuerte

No, its perfectly reasonable to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for medical treatment.
Thats democracy.

How about we cut medical costs by about 1/5, because otherwise, socialism is looking very, very nice.
Middle class CANNOT pay these medical bills. My old man just got a $450,000 dollar medical bill from a colon surgery.
How the hell does someone making minimum wage $8/hour pay for that?

$450,000 divided by $8 = 56250. Thats 2,343 days of work ASSUMING you work 24/hours a day every day with no sleep, or, 7031 work days. So that would be 168744 hours of work just to pay that bill.

Oh wait, but you need insurance!
Tell me, whats the difference between paying money every month to an insurance company vs the Government?
I'll tell you, the insurance covers 75% whereas socialism would cover 100%. And of course insurance is BULL-POOP. Medical, for example---lets pretend we have medicare with an $1,000 co-pay. We go to the hospital and get a $4500 bill. Medicare should cover all but $1000, but they don't. Why?
Office visit---$900

And now, since no single medical cost is above $1000, medicare covers NOTHING. These corporations are scam artists and greedy gluttons, and I would MUCH rather pay into a universal health-care than private insurance.

Your choice is this--pay to line the pockets of a CEO so he can cover 75% of your medical costs, OR, pay into a universal health-care that covers all costs for you and your fellow Americans.

Yeah, socialism looks pretty nice, What's an extra $50 a month in taxes when it covers medical bills as outrageously overpriced as here in the US?

Lets not even get started on colleges and their money-grubbing ways.

Look, I'm all for democracy, but we are in a corporate republic. And by Jeeves, Socialism is better than corporatism.

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in