Should Smokers Pay Extra Taxes For Universal Healthcare?, page 7


Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 10 times


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 05:55 AM by Kluute
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.


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 06:03 AM by Superhans
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 thetruth.com with you


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 06:42 AM by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Kluute


KLute

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


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 06:46 AM by VaterOrlaag
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.


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 07:55 AM by phishyblankwaters
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.


See?

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.

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



reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 08:07 AM by littled16
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,


reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 08:11 AM by rickymouse
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. en.wikipedia.org... . 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)



reply posted on 19-9-2012 @ 10:59 AM by Schnib
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?
THEY SPLIT UP THE BILLS
Labratory--$900
Doctors---$900
Medication---$900
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.
Pages: <<  4    5    6    7    8    9    10  >>    ^^TOP^^