|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On July 01 2012 05:36 Teradur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:21 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 05:16 Teradur wrote:On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly? "shouldn't be able to get" and "should pay higher rates" are two completely different things. stop twisting the arguments of others. I quoted the wrong respone, what I actually wanted to quote was this: "Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy." However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale? Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable.
I live in the UK, so don't pay heath insurance. I pay a small tax direct to the government that individually isn't a drop in the pond to what I would get back from it if i were to fall seriously ill. I am a smoker, always have been since age 11 and probably always will be.
If I were to contract cancer and the doctors could prove that it was directly caused by my smoking (which is fairly plausible, but not a formality) then I would be more than happy to be put to the back of the line for treatment in favour of non smokers who contracted it by bad luck or other environmental factors. I did it to myself knowingly and would have to pay the price, they didn't. This scenario will never likely happen in the UK because the mantra is that we all pay in and should be seen and treated in a reasonable time.
Doctors take an oath to not do harm. That means ethically, if they can heal you, they have to, whether you can afford it or not. When did that stop being the case? When did people start becoming a Doctor to make a shit ton of money and not because they had a burning desire to do good for the world and their fellow humans? I work as a children entertainer atm and every time I ask one "What do u want to do when you grow up?" and they reply "be a doctor" I say "well thats a good job for very good money" and virtually every single one says "don't want the money, I just want to help people". I'd love to know at what age that part of their thinking changes
|
On July 01 2012 10:42 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:36 Teradur wrote:On July 01 2012 05:21 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 05:16 Teradur wrote:On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly? "shouldn't be able to get" and "should pay higher rates" are two completely different things. stop twisting the arguments of others. I quoted the wrong respone, what I actually wanted to quote was this: "Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy." However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale? Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable. I live in the UK, so don't pay heath insurance. I pay a small tax direct to the government that individually isn't a drop in the pond to what I would get back from it if i were to fall seriously ill. I am a smoker, always have been since age 11 and probably always will be. If I were to contract cancer and the doctors could prove that it was directly caused by my smoking (which is fairly plausible, but not a formality) then I would be more than happy to be put to the back of the line for treatment in favour of non smokers who contracted it by bad luck or other environmental factors. I did it to myself knowingly and would have to pay the price, they didn't. This scenario will never likely happen in the UK because the mantra is that we all pay in and should be seen and treated in a reasonable time. Doctors take an oath to not do harm. That means ethically, if they can heal you, they have to, whether you can afford it or not. When did that stop being the case? When did people start becoming a Doctor to make a shit ton of money and not because they had a burning desire to do good for the world and their fellow humans? I work as a children entertainer atm and every time I ask one "What do u want to do when you grow up?" and they reply "be a doctor" I say "well thats a good job for very good money" and virtually every single one says "don't want the money, I just want to help people". I'd love to know at what age that part of their thinking changes
My guess would be when they start paying bills, including medical tuition and professional liability insurance. They probably also don't realize that doctors are away from their families and frequently "on-call". It's a harsh life for your family. So, don't expect people to take on that life without very high compensation monetarily.
|
On July 01 2012 05:36 Teradur wrote:
"Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy."
However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale?
Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable.
It doesn't matter how much smokers pay. They should register in order to buy cigarettes, so they are identified as not being covered under the insurance that everybody else pays for. If they want to be covered against cancer, I have no problem with it, but they enter into a risk pool with only smokers. With that setup, nobody will care how many cigarettes they smoke, if the insurance company wants to charge based on how much they smoke, it's up to them. As long as non-smokers aren't bearing the burden. Obesity, other things aren't the same because smoking is the one thing we've known for a long time now that causes cancer. There are plenty of fat old people. People can gain or lose weight throughout their lives. Not to mention, how can you track that ? Not nearly as easily as licensing smokers.
And while we're at it, anyone convicted / tested to have certain illicit drugs in their system automatically lose out on health insurance as well. Setup a separate pool for them, if they want to pay more. I don't see why society should foot the bill to keep them alive if they are intentionally taking drugs that hurt them.
|
On July 01 2012 10:42 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:36 Teradur wrote:On July 01 2012 05:21 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 05:16 Teradur wrote:On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly? "shouldn't be able to get" and "should pay higher rates" are two completely different things. stop twisting the arguments of others. I quoted the wrong respone, what I actually wanted to quote was this: "Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy." However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale? Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable. I live in the UK, so don't pay heath insurance. I pay a small tax direct to the government that individually isn't a drop in the pond to what I would get back from it if i were to fall seriously ill. I am a smoker, always have been since age 11 and probably always will be. If I were to contract cancer and the doctors could prove that it was directly caused by my smoking (which is fairly plausible, but not a formality) then I would be more than happy to be put to the back of the line for treatment in favour of non smokers who contracted it by bad luck or other environmental factors. I did it to myself knowingly and would have to pay the price, they didn't. This scenario will never likely happen in the UK because the mantra is that we all pay in and should be seen and treated in a reasonable time. Doctors take an oath to not do harm. That means ethically, if they can heal you, they have to, whether you can afford it or not. When did that stop being the case? When did people start becoming a Doctor to make a shit ton of money and not because they had a burning desire to do good for the world and their fellow humans? I work as a children entertainer atm and every time I ask one "What do u want to do when you grow up?" and they reply "be a doctor" I say "well thats a good job for very good money" and virtually every single one says "don't want the money, I just want to help people". I'd love to know at what age that part of their thinking changes
Maybe when the profession went to shit and they started getting the shit sued out of them by all the retards who think doctors can just waive a magic wand and make all the bad things go away. I wanted to be a doctor and would have gone down that path (and succeeded) until I read about the horrible hours, about donating the best 6-8 (not counting undergrad) years of your life to memorizing hundreds of slides and getting paid shit and racking up massive loans. Oh and their salaries are decreasing unless your a specialist. But personally I don't understand why all the doctors don't just work for free, I mean after all "helping people" feels so good right? It totally compensates for all the shit listed above right?
|
On July 01 2012 10:42 emythrel wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:36 Teradur wrote:On July 01 2012 05:21 BluePanther wrote:On July 01 2012 05:16 Teradur wrote:On June 30 2012 14:17 Pillage wrote:On June 30 2012 14:12 kwizach wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Following this brilliant line of reasoning, any driver injured in a car accident should be held responsible and should have to pay alone for his needed care. Apples and Oranges. There's a far cry between making a mistake on the road during one day of your life and poisoning yourself daily for years on end. Great, so where do you draw the line? People who drink alcohol shouldn't be able to get insurance? People who are obeased? People who have a dangerous hobby? People who dont exercise regularly? People without a driving license should get cheaper insurance than people who drive regularly? "shouldn't be able to get" and "should pay higher rates" are two completely different things. stop twisting the arguments of others. I quoted the wrong respone, what I actually wanted to quote was this: "Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy." However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale? Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable. Doctors take an oath to not do harm. That means ethically, if they can heal you, they have to, whether you can afford it or not. When did that stop being the case? When did people start becoming a Doctor to make a shit ton of money and not because they had a burning desire to do good for the world and their fellow humans? I work as a children entertainer atm and every time I ask one "What do u want to do when you grow up?" and they reply "be a doctor" I say "well thats a good job for very good money" and virtually every single one says "don't want the money, I just want to help people". I'd love to know at what age that part of their thinking changes
Good jobs doesn't come for free, as others have mentioned, it requires hardwork and dedications before they can achieve a comfortable life. They sacrificed more and work harder early on their career, and they are compensate for it.
|
Did you know?
That the new ObamaCare package will force business to provide healthcare, of a specific kind, for their employees? Despite the business not necessarily being able to afford it. What America will see happen is the reduction of jobs, simply because it will now be too expensive to hire a new employee (because of the added medical cost), or in some cases complete business closure because those business that are already struggling will be forced to face a new cost. ObamaCare will also prevent those entrepreneurs who were about to open up a business from opening a business due to the increased cost to start up. The other downside is that costs may increase for consumers.
"Andrew Puzder is the CEO of CKE Restaurants, a company that employs about 21,000 people in Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants. In an Op-Ed for Bloomberg he noted his company’s healthcare consultant estimated that when the law is fully implemented it will cost his company an additional $18 million a year and that could translate into job losses."
“For us, there is still tremendous uncertainty,” said Jamie Richardson, vice president of government and shareholder relations for White Castle. “It will be a cost burden for employers and negatively impact job creation.”
"The effect the Medical Device Tax would have on innovators in the medical field is that medical device manufacturers may end up paying taxes on "devices sold at a loss." For example, Analogic, which specializes in innovative medical technology production, earned $3.7 million in net income last year. Under Obama's Medical Device Tax, Analogic would have paid roughly $7.5 million in taxes last year, amounting to a $3.8 million loss. The effect of this tax is unsustainable, killing innovation and jobs."
These are just the first few that I've found but there will be countless more. There were also more severe legal implications that some of the justices have blogged about. Such as creating legal precedent to employ taxes for basically any kind of inactivity; not changing your oil regularly, not getting a health check bi-yearly, not changing your air filter every 3 months etc...
|
First hand account of Socialized medicine from a doctors perspective.
http://bit.ly/N2v0Wh
"I've actually had a lot of experience working in all different types of environments," he began. "I've worked in a government-run socialized medical care system, and I saw the waste and inefficiency.
The longer people worked in that system, the less work they wanted to do, because the more you wanted to do, the more they dumped on you. So after a while you stop doing it, because they're not paying you to do more. Why should you do a difficult case, a difficult surgery that will take you hours and hours to do?"
|
On July 01 2012 14:18 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 05:36 Teradur wrote:
"Here's how I think we should handle the 'smoker' situation. Require a permit to purchase tobacco products. In order to obtain a permit, someone is automatically registered as being no longer covered for cancer-related illnesses at any point in their life. Nobody can claim they didn't know it was harmful. Everybody knows they won't get treatment for cancer. The amount of smokers drops like a rock. Society doesn't have to fund smoker's bad habit. Everybody's happy."
However, "charging higher rates" follows the same idea. Where do you draw the line? Would you charge higher rates to people who are obeased? Do they have to report their weight redularly to their insurance company? Would you charge higher rates to people who don't exercise regularly? Do you charge higher rates to people who get drunk regularly? Do you have to take a daily alcohol-test and send it to your insurance company? Furthermore, similar to drinking, smoking does not equal smoking. Will people who smoke 3 cigarettes a day have to pay less than those who smoke 2 packs a day? What about people who don't inhale?
Sounds totally reasonable and easily administrable.
It doesn't matter how much smokers pay. They should register in order to buy cigarettes, so they are identified as not being covered under the insurance that everybody else pays for. If they want to be covered against cancer, I have no problem with it, but they enter into a risk pool with only smokers. With that setup, nobody will care how many cigarettes they smoke, if the insurance company wants to charge based on how much they smoke, it's up to them. As long as non-smokers aren't bearing the burden. Obesity, other things aren't the same because smoking is the one thing we've known for a long time now that causes cancer. There are plenty of fat old people. People can gain or lose weight throughout their lives. Not to mention, how can you track that ? Not nearly as easily as licensing smokers. And while we're at it, anyone convicted / tested to have certain illicit drugs in their system automatically lose out on health insurance as well. Setup a separate pool for them, if they want to pay more. I don't see why society should foot the bill to keep them alive if they are intentionally taking drugs that hurt them.
This may end up with drug users paying lower premiums. See my previous post. How do you think that will play out?
|
On July 01 2012 17:18 Epocalypse wrote:First hand account of Socialized medicine from a doctors perspective. http://bit.ly/N2v0Wh"I've actually had a lot of experience working in all different types of environments," he began. "I've worked in a government-run socialized medical care system, and I saw the waste and inefficiency. The longer people worked in that system, the less work they wanted to do, because the more you wanted to do, the more they dumped on you. So after a while you stop doing it, because they're not paying you to do more. Why should you do a difficult case, a difficult surgery that will take you hours and hours to do?"
While that anecdote is interesting the fact remains that socialised healthcare works. We can see it working in every developed economy in the world except the U.S.
We all agree that the current U.S. system is terrible. Your choices are: 1. Do the thing that we know works. 2. Do something experimental based on free market theories.
|
On July 01 2012 01:52 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2012 20:42 Kukaracha wrote:On June 30 2012 12:17 BluePanther wrote:On June 30 2012 11:26 DoubleReed wrote:
I really think the smoker situation is a bizarre turn of events. You don't deserve to get cancer if you smoke. What kind of weird system of ideas are we talking about?
Besides, nobody says "Yes, being unhealthy is totally fine because I have insurance." This is ridiculous. Being unhealthy is already its own consequence. People don't want to live in hospital or undergo whatever treatments.
Can't we just forget about this weird system of blaming the victim for illnesses and just take care of people? I mean seriously, I've never understood this point of view where "we can't pay for smokers getting lung cancer!" What a bizarre idea. They're sick and dying, and you're answer is "Well fuck, I'm not paying for that!" <-- THIS IS STRANGE! THIS IS NOT NORMAL! I don't think smokers deserve to get cancer. But at the same time, I don't feel bad for a smoker with lung cancer. On the other hand, I would feel bad for someone who got, say, breast cancer. A smoker made a decision which is known to create a HUGE increase in medical risk. I think they should live with it. Well, how do you feel about that cancer you're going to get because of decades surrounded by unchecked wireless technologies? Or the one you will get because of GMOs (right, we're not sure about those, but Monsanto already killed a goddamn city, it wouldn't suprise me to see this come true). Your kids will call you stupid for behaving that way, you know? Monsanto killed a city?
They didn't exactly kill them, but,
In 2002, The Washington Post carried a front page report on Monsanto's legacy of environmental damage in Anniston, Alabama related to its legal production of polychlorinated biphenyls(PCBs)[...]Plaintiffs in a pending lawsuit provided documentation showing that the local Monsanto factory knowingly discharged both mercury and PCB-laden waste into local creeks for over 40 years.In a story on January 27, The New York Times reported that during 1969 alone Monsanto had dumped 45 tons of PCBs into Snow Creek, a feeder for Choccolocco Creek which supplies much of the area's drinking water. The company also buried millions of pounds of PCB in open-pit landfills located on hillsides above the plant and surrounding neighborhoods.In August 2003, Solutia and Monsanto agreed to pay plaintiffs $700 million to settle claims by over 20,000 Anniston residents related to PCB contamination.
Not only that, but all habitants left the western side of town, and nearly a fifth of the population developped cancer as a direct consquence.
|
In the UK, part of the extra health costs (on the state, for smokers), is covered by the very high tax charged on tobacco products. It is not enough to cover the entire cost, but it helps.
|
". People can gain or lose weight throughout their lives. Not to mention, how can you track that ? Not nearly as easily as licensing smokers."
Tracking someones weight is easier then tracking if someone is smoking, duh.
If want to punish lifestyles wich have an increased risk for certain diseases i realy dont see anny reason to stop with smoking.
Even people who do sports (and specially dangerous sports) could come into a seperate risk group,
Doing sports besides increasing your overall health,also increases your changes of injurys.
To be realy consequent, people who smoke should then have to pay less retirement fees because their life expectancy is considerably lower.
|
On July 01 2012 21:02 hzflank wrote:
In the UK, part of the extra health costs (on the state, for smokers), is covered by the very high tax charged on tobacco products. It is not enough to cover the entire cost, but it helps.
Again, once more and again.
It's entirely possible that smokers cost the health service less not more. Although I'd be very interested in any research that shows the opposite. You must have access to some great data to say that
a. Smokers cost the health service more than non smokers.
b. The amount extra that they cost is more than the revenue generated by taxes on cigarettes.
please share.
|
Quickly I had a look myself:
World Health Organisation on the cost to the NHS (That's the National Health Service) of diseases directly attributable to smoking: £5bn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8086142.stm
According to data from HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) and the Tobacco Manufacturer Association in the year that report was published (2009) Tax on Tobacco generated £10bn
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tma-publications-research/facts-figures/tax-revenue-from-tobacco/
I'd really like to see your data, then it might be worthwhile for me to start digging deeper into these sources.
Probably also good to point out that the WHO study only measured the costs of smokers vs. non smokers not the benefits. It can still be true that smoking related diseases cost £5bn but more -or at least some- was saved from their shorter life spans, their study didn't seem to take this into consideration.
|
On July 01 2012 16:03 Epocalypse wrote:
Did you know?
That the new ObamaCare package will force business to provide healthcare, of a specific kind, for their employees? Despite the business not necessarily being able to afford it. What America will see happen is the reduction of jobs, simply because it will now be too expensive to hire a new employee (because of the added medical cost), or in some cases complete business closure because those business that are already struggling will be forced to face a new cost. ObamaCare will also prevent those entrepreneurs who were about to open up a business from opening a business due to the increased cost to start up. The other downside is that costs may increase for consumers.
"Andrew Puzder is the CEO of CKE Restaurants, a company that employs about 21,000 people in Carl’s Jr. and Hardee’s restaurants. In an Op-Ed for Bloomberg he noted his company’s healthcare consultant estimated that when the law is fully implemented it will cost his company an additional $18 million a year and that could translate into job losses."
“For us, there is still tremendous uncertainty,” said Jamie Richardson, vice president of government and shareholder relations for White Castle. “It will be a cost burden for employers and negatively impact job creation.”
"The effect the Medical Device Tax would have on innovators in the medical field is that medical device manufacturers may end up paying taxes on "devices sold at a loss." For example, Analogic, which specializes in innovative medical technology production, earned $3.7 million in net income last year. Under Obama's Medical Device Tax, Analogic would have paid roughly $7.5 million in taxes last year, amounting to a $3.8 million loss. The effect of this tax is unsustainable, killing innovation and jobs."
These are just the first few that I've found but there will be countless more. There were also more severe legal implications that some of the justices have blogged about. Such as creating legal precedent to employ taxes for basically any kind of inactivity; not changing your oil regularly, not getting a health check bi-yearly, not changing your air filter every 3 months etc...
Why hello Miss Information, how are you today?
Tax Provisions in ACA, more specifically the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit.
|
Here is an interesting tidbit -- because Obamacare is now considered tax legislation, its repeal cannot be filibustered. This means that republicans only need 51 votes in the senate to get rid of it through budget reconciliation.
|
On July 01 2012 21:48 Dapper_Cad wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 21:02 hzflank wrote:
In the UK, part of the extra health costs (on the state, for smokers), is covered by the very high tax charged on tobacco products. It is not enough to cover the entire cost, but it helps. Again, once more and again. It's entirely possible that smokers cost the health service less not more. Although I'd be very interested in any research that shows the opposite. You must have access to some great data to say that a. Smokers cost the health service more than non smokers. b. The amount extra that they cost is more than the revenue generated by taxes on cigarettes. please share.
This is a little old (2010), but then your £5 billion figure was from 2009.
http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/publications/category/item/cough-up-balancing-tobacco-income-and-costs-in-society?category_id=24
Some of their figures I may not agree with. Particularly the loss of productivity due to smoking. I am a smoker and I do not take a lunch break at all in order to make up for my fag breaks.
|
On July 01 2012 10:26 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2012 09:40 carloselcoco wrote:On July 01 2012 02:06 Nick_54 wrote:On July 01 2012 00:05 white_horse wrote:On June 30 2012 16:29 Catatonic wrote:
Taxes are gonna be going straight through the roof now because of this. By the year 2016 (4 short years away) a making an income of only 30k a year can expect to pay out 2.2k more in taxes then they currently do. The nations collective tax increase is well over 600billion dollars more then it's current state. We as a nation do not need this especially not now since we're so far in debt and unemployment is through the roof. We need to cut taxes and massively cut spending. You can not spend yourself out of debt it's physically impossible to do it though for some reason the American government (my own government) seems to believe the more you spend the further out of debt you'll become they've even stated this (referencing vice president Joe Biden). I'm truly hoping that come November Obama doesn't get voted into a second term though the alternatives aren't much better cause Romeny is just plain atrocious being the Republican version of Obama.... we're f'd for a real long time America just sit back an go for the ride cause you insist on rather then looking at peoples records you believe their spoken word then complain "oh they lied".... no shit Sherlocks but oh well maybe we'll eventually learn but till then we're fucked. If romney becomes president, the federal debt level is going to get even higher assuming he follows through in his promises to cut taxes and keep the bush cuts permanent. Republicans are apparently desperate to fix the deficit but they're supporting someone whose going to make it worse? Hmm. And the utter rejection of any kind of tax increases? That isn't fiscal common sense, that's just bully-like absolutism. Also, bush, a republican (surprise!), is responsible for a large portion of the current federal deficit. How the right-wing screams at obama for all our country's deficit troubles like it is entirely his fault is really pathetic. They didn't squeak once when bush started throwing money left and right. Neither the republicans or democrats are in any shape to talk about fixing the deficit. Also, people are required to buy auto insurance and are fined if they don't. How is the mandate in healthcare act any different? You don't have to buy a car and auto insurance, but you do have to buy health insurance. That is not correct. If you do not posses car insurance, you could go to jail if an officer asks for your insurance and you are unable to provide it. you can choose to not drive. and therefore you wouldn't have to buy it.
Yeah thats what I wad getting at
|
On July 02 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:
Here is an interesting tidbit -- because Obamacare is now considered tax legislation, its repeal cannot be filibustered. This means that republicans only need 51 votes in the senate to get rid of it through budget reconciliation.
This is assuming a triple victory, of course.
|
On July 02 2012 00:41 xDaunt wrote:
Here is an interesting tidbit -- because Obamacare is now considered tax legislation, its repeal cannot be filibustered. This means that republicans only need 51 votes in the senate to get rid of it through budget reconciliation.
Yeah, I mentioned that a few pages back, but with a different aspect, increases in the tax amount can't be filibustered, or pretty much anything that sticks it to people even more than the current state.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
