"Big Tobacco"

[Canadian Speed]

Well, it could be... If you smoke... done, you're paying for medical care. You don't get put on a list for lung and heart transplants. There are many things that could void the warrenty, but as you may have noticed, this is the "Big Tobacco" thread, so I made my point accordingly. We could nit pick little details or strange situations that could even stump Dr. House, but in the end, it's a lot more simple then all of you make it out to be. We could argue the fact the the tobacco didn't cause a lot of the problems, or we can say for sure is that it didn't help things out. What I meant was, if the guy comes in with a broken arm/leg, stabbed, shot, burnt, poisoned, and various other problems one might find in an emergency ward, he's covered. Other then that, being a smoker voids the warrenty and you have to pay if it's found that it could be something smoke related... I don't care if he has a third nipple, and it's really deep, so it tickles the left atrium of his heart which give him angina and he smokes. It wasn't the smoke, it was the third nipple, but he's a smoker. Case closed. He shouldn't be smoking and since he made his bed, he must sleep in it. If it a well known fact that this kind of thing would happen and people still choose to smoke they're taking a very big risk both financialy and healthwise... People just don't get it, so they have to be smacked in the face with the cold hard fact that it's bad for you, it kills you, and society simply won't put up with taking care of your sorry ass at 45 cause they were stupid enough to start, or too stupid and stubourn to quit.

 

[dbartucci]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's only been recently when smoking was widely known to cause health problems, yet the many of the people who are costing the system money began smoking before they knew it was bad for them, and now the damage is done. How would you deal with those people.

Secondly, I said several posts ago that many smokers die before they become a burden on the system. That is, they die before they take more money out of the system than they put in (through taxes and/or co-payments and/or insurance premiums).

As for a "fat tax", this idea is popular among academics and some political parties, and I even knew a guy who was going to write his Master's thesis as HEC on it; in practice the fast-food stores, etc. lobbied so hard against it before legislation was even debated that the Grits shelved the idea.

I have heard it's illegal for children under the age of 13 to enter a donut shop unsupervised in Winnipeg, the reason is to combat childhood obesity.

quick google search after I wrote my post gives this story: http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/04/20/fattax_040420.html

 

[Canadian Speed]

Well for the smokers... They know it's bad now... Are they still smoking? I bet they are... If they quit, we could consider letting them back into the fold... And as for only recently that we knew smoking was bad, it's been over 30 some odd years, only people didn't want to listen... They chose the sweet sweet candy instead. Secondly, most smokers last long enough to undergo various treatments and so on... Age is not really the issue here.

As for the other stuff... Neat reading...

 

[FoolKiller]

Well for the smokers... They know it's bad now... Are they still smoking? I bet they are... If they quit, we could consider letting them back into the fold...

Back into the fold? What is this a secret society?

Seriously, this is a disturbing concept that you would think this way. How do you determine if the person smokes? If this were how thinsg worked peopel would lie as they came into the hospital. Are you going to do a lung scan first? What if they are a mine worker and have blackened lungs from that? What if they, like me, lived with two parenst that smoke (one that actually made cigarettes for Phillip Morris), and are now married to a wife that smokes, or even have friends that smoke. Since secondhand smoke is supposedly worse than smoking (because smokers' lungs add toxins to the smoke?) or at least as bad how can you tell the difference? How do you pick a smoker, who doesn't have cigarettes on their person at the time, out from a group of non-smokers?


Then if you implement this kind of policy in order to punish bad judgement with death (sounds fair) how far do you take that?

If they eat fattening foods all the time and have a heart attack do you let them die?

If they wreck on their motorcycle driving at 100 mph do you let them die?

If they didn't wear a seatbelt and have a car crash (doesn't matter if it is their fault, they didn't wear a seatbelt) do you let them die?

If they do extreme sports and take a bad spill do you let them die?

Too much caffeine every day and develeop an irregular heartbeat, do you let the bloodclot form and give them a stroke and eventually die?

In fact, let's go through every possible bad habit that can knowingly kill you over time and apply this concept: We can cut healthcare in half or better. I think you just solved our healthcare cost problems in the entire world.

How far are you willing to take this concept to punish people for bad behavior with death? You do it for smoking and you set yourself on a very slippery slope.

You would be better off becoming a nanny state and making any health threatening activity/products illegal because at least then you aren't telling people you think they are so stupid they deserve to die.


Out of curiosity, why do you hate smokers so much? Well, maybe hate isn't the word, but you get my point. Why do you have such disregard for their equality to you as a human being?

 

[Canadian Speed]

You can do the same thing as they do on insurance forms. If you lie, you're busted with fraud. If you're an unknown a simple test can be done to see if there is nicotine in the blood stream, or a coating in the lungs. It’s not hard to determine if the person is a smoker. The insurance companies have shown us this.

As for the other things you've mentioned. The main difference is that they affect those doing the activity the most, save some motorbike guy who may crash into another car, or something of that nature. Smoking can affect everybody around the person engaging in the act. Again, I never touched on the other ones, as this is a tobacco thread... I feel the same for drugs and many of the other things you've mentioned, but keeping on subject... I chose smoking.

The reason I dislike smoking so much is that it's been proven that it's bad... Not just a little bad, but really bad. I don't want to have to pay for other people's stupidity. It's not fair to those of us that don't partake in the action. I've watched people die from lung cancer, people close to me, some not so close, and it was never a nice experience. I've sat down in places to have a meal, only to get half way through it and have someone sit right next to me and light up. I've seen people who can't pay the rent and pay for their kids get carton after carton of cigarettes. I've seen people who were able to quit on their own. I've seen people who were able to quit cold turkey once they found out they had cancer. I've seen people who still didn't quit once they had a hole in their necks while at the hospital. I've seen people take hits of a puffer (that I helped pay for) in between drags of their cigarettes. I've seen adults give kids cigarettes. I've seen kids steal them from their parents. There is not one single positive thing that I can say I have ever seen surrounding smoking. As such it is a stupid and dangerous pastime that I think people should be made to pay and pay dearly for if they choose to partake in it. Even on the subject of drugs... At least you get a high out of it... I can see how some people would get into it... I can at least understand the escape those substances can provide... What does smoking give you? Nothing really, a head rush when you start, then you need them to feel normal. People say they can calm you down… Mostly smokers referring to the feeling of normalcy they get when they light up in a stressful situation.

All of these things could easily be solved… This is not the answer I’m looking for as an end all be all. I’d much rather simply have the government make them illegal… But since they get money for it, fat chance…

 

[Swift]

Is there a time limit or cigarette amount that voids the "warranty"?

 

[Danoff]

I don't want to have to pay for other people's stupidity.

That's the downfall of universal healthcare right there. That perfectly normal, prefectly human response is what will lead us to one of two ends:

No universal healthcare.

or

No freedom of personal health.

 

[FoolKiller]

You can do the same thing as they do on insurance forms. If you lie, you're busted with fraud. If you're an unknown a simple test can be done to see if there is nicotine in the blood stream, or a coating in the lungs. It’s not hard to determine if the person is a smoker. The insurance companies have shown us this.

How do you tell if they are a smoker or someone who has been overly exposed to secondhand smoke? If it is that obvious of a difference then the whole argument about smoking hurting those around you gets damaged.

As for the other things you've mentioned. The main difference is that they affect those doing the activity the most, save some motorbike guy who may crash into another car, or something of that nature.

But you are letting the smoker die from what they have done to themselves based on the fact that they did it to themselves. You never said anything about damage to others. What if it is a smoker who politely goes away from non-smokers because they don't want to harm them? How do you tell which one is which?

Smoking can affect everybody around the person engaging in the act. Again, I never touched on the other ones, as this is a tobacco thread... I feel the same for drugs and many of the other things you've mentioned, but keeping on subject... I chose smoking.

I am staying relevant in that your rationale for treating smokers as second-class citizens that aren't worthy of your healthcare can't be applied just to smoking based on the fact that it adds costs to the healthcare system because there are tons of other activities that do the same. Heart disease is a bigger issue than cancer, so why not punish the unhealthy eaters who lead themselves down that road?

I'm not trying to debate you about these other people or habits, I am trying to debate you on the relavance of your argument because the reasoning you use to apply it to smoking means that other unhealthy lifestyles also have to be included.

The reason I dislike smoking so much is that it's been proven that it's bad... Not just a little bad, but really bad. I don't want to have to pay for other people's stupidity. It's not fair to those of us that don't partake in the action.

Neither are a ton of other activities.

I've watched people die from lung cancer, people close to me, some not so close, and it was never a nice experience. I've sat down in places to have a meal, only to get half way through it and have someone sit right next to me and light up. I've seen people who can't pay the rent and pay for their kids get carton after carton of cigarettes. I've seen people who were able to quit on their own. I've seen people who were able to quit cold turkey once they found out they had cancer. I've seen people who still didn't quit once they had a hole in their necks while at the hospital. I've seen people take hits of a puffer (that I helped pay for) in between drags of their cigarettes. I've seen adults give kids cigarettes. I've seen kids steal them from their parents. There is not one single positive thing that I can say I have ever seen surrounding smoking.

This can also apply to tons of other activities. I can replace smoking and the medical conditions with a dozen other words and this would all still be valid.

As such it is a stupid and dangerous pastime that I think people should be made to pay and pay dearly for if they choose to partake in it.

A death sentence? I understand they choose that by smoking but everyone makes life-threatening mistakes, but we don't just let them die.

But since they get money for it, fat chance…

Wait a tick. Is the government getting enough money to come out with a surplus after the healthcare is paid for? If so, then letting them die suddenly becomes pointless, other than to just be cruel and punishing. If the healthcare costs were more than the taxes garnered then it would be a drain on the system but if the taxes are making enough to give the government a large enough surplus to make them never outlaw smoking then they are apparently paying for their own healthcare and then some, right?

So, in other words you aren't paying for their healthcare, in fact, they are paying for some of yours. Maybe you should go hug a smoker and thank them.

 

[Danoff]

oooh oooh new jargon!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

 

[FoolKiller]

oooh oooh new jargon!

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/06/27/involuntary.smoking.ap/index.html

Yeah, I read this earlier.

My favorite part:

The report won't surprise doctors. It isn't a new study but a compilation of the best research on secondhand smoke, the most comprehensive federal probe since the last surgeon general's report on the topic in 1986, which declared secondhand smoke a cause of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Translation: This is the same old stuff and not new research. Every thing you could argue before can still be argued.