Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Actually you need to do a breakout of people who had "healthy" vs. "unhealthy" lives. I'd bet good money the essential costs are the same. The last year or so of care is intensely expensive, and barring accident, we're all going to have that last year or two of expense. In the end you will die of something and it won't be cheap.

Another note on 'healthy' lives:

Regular exercise is an important part of remaining in good health. It also increases your risk of serious injury by a large amount. These injuries are incredibly expensive to treat. I tore my ACL when I was a Freshman in high school, it cost something on the order of 100k to have it reconstructed. This was in 2000. Even the many ankle sprains I've had cost nearly 1k each after diagnosis, treatment, and anti-inflammatory meds.

Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.

How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet. It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.

My dad was healthy as an ox. No smoking, drinking, lots of exercise, ate well, took his meds. The bills in the last year I'd put at over a 100K as well, and thats only with a final stint of a week, and nothing dragging out.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.

How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet.

Really? So you're saying that because the study is Dutch it couldn't possibly have any relevance. Because the Netherlands are a wonderful place where the actuarial tables are upside down.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/337/15/1052

How about a US study then? Ready to concede the point?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Except that's just stuff you're making up to fit your ideology, and unfortunately the world doesn't bend the will of what best fits Shuma's ideology.

How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet. It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.

Modquisition on:
Gentlemen, this thread has been reported. Dakka Rule #1 remains required here. Let us remember to be polite, no matter our opinion or view of other posters.
Modquisition off.

ShumaGorath wrote:
How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet.

I didn't realize that the Dutch were not biologically, or fiscally, comparable to Americans. Though I suppose Amsterdam could be the next step in evolution.

ShumaGorath wrote:
It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.

Right, people don't have the right to die until they generate enough wealth to compensate society for their demise.

In a less ridiculous sense, its really difficult to measure the entropic effects of any given vice. Excessive smoking causes lung cancer. Excessive drinking causes cirrhosis. Excessive cheese causes heart attacks. And excessive intake of processed foods causes a deficiency in trace minerals, which leads to things like osteoporosis. Shall we tax them all to regulate consumption in order to maximize the time we can force people to function as productive societal cogs? And what would that magic, regulated number be?

Even taking those out, its all a fallacy. You are going to die from something. In modern western medicine that means the medical establishment is going to fight it or at least prolong your life. Thats usually very very expensive. Unless we all play Logan's Run it doesn't matter.

ShumaGorath wrote:How does a dutch healthcare study have anything to do with what I just said? Or support your opinion? Last I checked Obama wasn't the president of earth yet. It's also cute how the study states that its cheaper to pay for smokers in the long run because they die so much sooner. Gee, Thats quite the revelation, too bad it doesn't cover the gross worth of the persons productivity in their life, nor the tax payout they give in their years. It also does nothing to track the actual expenditure per unit of time in ones life. It's a hell of a lot cheaper to die in a car accident too, lets take out seatbelts.

Didn't see the stuff you added in your edit...

Obviously there's a value to human life, but that's really up to the individual smoker to decide. If he doesn't want to give up smoking to live a little longer, that's up to him. That's fine says government, they don't outlaw smoking or restrict its use, they just tax it, and they justify this because on the grounds that smokers put such a strain on the healthcare system. Except they don't, a smoker is cheaper than a non-smoker.

So follow the argument and cut the false morality, please.

Frazzled wrote:Even taking those out, its all a fallacy. You are going to die from something. In modern western medicine that means the medical establishment is going to fight it or at least prolong your life. Thats usually very very expensive. Unless we all play Logan's Run it doesn't matter.

Yes, but if put your hands up in the air and say that despite all the studies its just too expensive to know whether smoking costs the health system more than it saves... then you're left with no fiscal reason to justify an excise on cigarettes.

I didn't realize that the Dutch were not biologically comparable to Americans. Though I suppose Amsterdam could be the next step in evolution.

My point was that they have a different health care system then we do. Which should have been painfully obvious since we were talking about a U.S. tax effecting the U.S. healthcare system.

Right, people don't have the right to die until they generate enough wealth to compensate society for their demise.

Yeah, that makes about as much sense as concluding that smoking is better for national healthcare because its kills people earlier (in which case "national healthcare" becomes kind of an odd name). Productivity and tax payout are just as important as costs. If the overall net effect is increased national healcare costs, but increased revenue by taxes and GDP growth by capable individuals living longer then the net effect is still positive. Not only that but its positive and people are living longer and in better health, which is a goal of any good society.

How about a US study then? Ready to concede the point?

Why don't you post a study that does more than just note that someone living half as long doesn't see the doctor as much as someone living twice as long. Thats obvious and also inconclusive because it doesn't take into account other necessary factors in the equation.

Post better studies.

Polonius wrote:In other words:

"Campaign promises aren't always what they sound like"

"Cash strapped governments will try to raise taxes"

"Nobody cares about the working poor and middle class"

These and other hot breaking stories next!

QFT!!

sebster wrote:
Thing is, I'm not a smoker, but a tax should be there for a reason. If it's just to raise revenue, then that is best levied through income tax and broad based sales tax. Picking special products because they're politically vulnerable is bad policy.

This is my main problem, and you put it perfectly. Politicians talk all they want about saving money by reducing smokers- via raising taxes to make them less affordable. But in the long run it is simply an attempt to raise immediate revenue so that our government can cover it's ass. While I think it appropriate to use a tobacco tax to fund health care, unfortunately, here in California we all too often see that tax money being raided to cover for a bloated beurocracy, and budget shortfalls. By the time the money makes it's way down the ladder of director's payrolls and million dollar commitees, all that's left is a fraction of what was raised to actully fund nessecary projects such as health care and prevention. With the latest round of gimmick budgetry here in CA, we saw our elcted officials play hot potato with our tax money, borrowing from education to pay for roads, borrowing from the lottery revenue to pay for children's health, employee furloughs to reduce expenses. It has become a sad case of robbing Peter, to pay Paul. We approve taxes to pay for a particular problem, but the money ends up going somewhere else because these a-holes spend money like it grows from the ground.
And this is what it comes down to: Most of us don't have a problem with taxes, they are like death, unavoidable. But it is infuriating that when our hard earned money is being bitten of peice by piece, and then wasted.

Polonius wrote:I oppose a tobbaco excise tax for three reasons:
1) I smoke cigars, and they are now more expensive, and smoking two stogies a week is in no way unhealthy.
2) I'm not happy with the way smokers are being targetted by taxes and laws.
3) I think that this excise tax, like all excise taxes, is inherently regressive and most affects the working poor, whose children are the ones being helped by SCHIP. I think taxes should go up, but there should be a broad increase in the federal income tax (at nearly all levels, but including a solid progressive element), not an excise that mostly hurts the working classes.

there's also my inner hippy bleeding heart reaction, which is essentially asking "isn't taxing cigarettes in many ways taxing a disease?" I mean, people are addicted, right? Which is why they smoke.

1) Yes one still is unhealthy. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117323
2) I agree here. But smoking is a choice. You decided whether the cost is something you want to endure.
3) I am considered middle class/working class. How does this affect me, a non-smoker.?

If you are comparing cigarette addiction to a real disease... obviously any more logic on my part would not help

ShumaGorath wrote:
My point was that they have a different health care system then we do. Which should have been painfully obvious since we were talking about a U.S. tax effecting the U.S. healthcare system.

Yeah, where the intermediary is the average US citizen. The biological realities of humanity are largely invariable, and so even if specific costs might change from system to system the proportionality between the cost of caring for smokers and non-smokers should remain largely the same. Especially in a place where smoking is arguably far more significant as a cultural artifact.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Yeah, that makes about as much sense as concluding that smoking is better for national healthcare because its kills people earlier (in which case "national healthcare" becomes kind of an odd name). Productivity and tax payout are just as important as costs.

Yes, they are. But explicitly stating that productivity is implicit in the right of a person to choose his vices is just legislating morality. It will not work. People have, and will, kill themselves over it. Even if the act of expediting that death is something as mundane as a cigarette.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If the overall net effect is increased national healcare costs, but increased revenue by taxes and GDP growth by capable individuals living longer then the net effect is still positive. Not only that but its positive and people are living longer and in better health, which is a goal of any good society.

The goal of any good society is the perpetuation of happiness. Whether or not that also means long life or good health is besides the point.

That aside, longer life does not necessarily mean enhanced productivity. As ever the law of diminishing returns remains in effect. Having more productive people only makes a difference if you have things worth producing. For example, China and India have been the most populous nations on Earth for the vast majority of their history, yet they are only now becoming real economic powers. A surplus of labor allows those nations to attract industry due to low production costs. As people earn more they demand more goods. Price increases with demand, and the entire system creeps away the entry level positions which first generated growth as successive generations compete for jobs in non-labor intensive markets. Standard of living goes up, but productivity falls. Which is more valuable?

frgsinwntr wrote:3) I am considered middle class/working class. How does this affect me, a non-smoker.?

So you don't think being robbed is bad as long as it doesn't happen to you? How about a tornado tearing through a town? Is that your criteria: only if it affects your personal space? If you can't understand why that might be nearsighted, obviously any more logic on my part would not help.

frgsinwntr wrote:
If you are comparing cigarette addiction to a real disease... obviously any more logic on my part would not help

I suppose you think alcoholism is also a choice? Regardless of its nature as a psychological condition the primary reason for characterizing any condition as a disease is to encourage the sufferer to seek help.

Actually, studies have shown it is harder to quit smoking then quit heroin. Yergh!

ShumaGorath wrote:Any tax that discourages an unhealthy practice and feeds directly into health care reform seems well designed in my eyes.

Who are you to decide what is healthy and unhealthy/ok and not ok? Who are you to decide what people should do? I dont mind a tax on cigs, the only thing that I really despise is people who support a tax on cigs to get people to stop smoking. Thats no ones fething business but my own (I dont smoke btw), it's just another liberal grab at power disguised as "helping the little guy."

ShumaGorath wrote:

As for not taxing the poor, maybe the poor shouldn't waste their fething money on cigarettes.

I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever, so as an aside how the feth anyone can be all for handouts is beyond me. Either a bleeding heart with misplaced sympathy or a poor person! Hey why work when you can get it for free, that's a great plan for a society. Didn't work in the colonies, doesn't work now. But now I'm off on a tangent...

frgsinwntr wrote:[
1) Yes one still is unhealthy. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117323
2) I agree here. But smoking is a choice. You decided whether the cost is something you want to endure.
3) I am considered middle class/working class. How does this affect me, a non-smoker.?

If you are comparing cigarette addiction to a real disease... obviously any more logic on my part would not help

That study shows what each cigarette does to a person that is smoking regularly, not having one or two a week, but I will amend and say that having a few cigars a week is not a notably unhealthy behavior. You can tell because insurance companies don't care about it when selling medical or life insurance.

Well, if anybody that you do business with is a smoker, you can expect them to charge a little more for stuff. Just because it doesn't impact every middle class person doesn't mean it's not a disproportionate tax.

Well, my comment at the end was made with the qualifier that it was my hippie, bleeding heart side which most people that know me isn't a very large or active part of my persona. Addiction is treated like a disease, diagnosed like a disease, and there is genetic predisposition to it. I'm not sure I'd go to the mat to prove that it is a disease, but dismissing it completely as a disease is a bit short sighted, I think.

PanamaG wrote:

I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever, so as an aside how the feth anyone can be all for handouts is beyond me. Either a bleeding heart with misplaced sympathy or a poor person! Hey why work when you can get it for free, that's a great plan for a society. Didn't work in the colonies, doesn't work now. But now I'm off on a tangent...

Don't feed the troll!

frgsinwntr wrote:[

1) Yes one still is unhealthy. http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1117323

What? That isn't literal you know.

Someone who smokes a cig beneath the bleachers in high school isnt going to lie in his death bed thinking "oh man, if I didnt have that cig Id have 11 more minuted with my familiy!

One cig wont hurt you. 11 minutes is an average taken from a huge study of average ages and yadda yadda yadda. Its not cut and dry......

Polonius wrote:

PanamaG wrote:

I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever, so as an aside how the feth anyone can be all for handouts is beyond me. Either a bleeding heart with misplaced sympathy or a poor person! Hey why work when you can get it for free, that's a great plan for a society. Didn't work in the colonies, doesn't work now. But now I'm off on a tangent...

Don't feed the troll!

Oops! Forgot that wasn't obvious to everyone.

"I will agree with you here though. Most poor people are poor for a reason, whether its wasting money, being lazy, or whatever."

You can sit here and tell me you think people are poor because they are lazy? what about the millions that have lost work here in the usa. the millions more around the world who lose everything in war and conflict. What about people who are born in 3rd world places, or in remote areas of the kentucky mountains where they can barely scrape out enough to eat, but can't afford to leave. And regardless of how you feel about this tax, Ciggs are un-healthy. All in all I'd rather have Uncle Sam tax what I do rather than what I make.

Edit: Damn I fed it... NOOOOO

I have a problem considering cigarette smoking a disease. The entire habit is controlled by you, You decide to start, you decide to continue, you decide to stop. I understand it's no easy feat to do, but it can be done. Until things like cancer and diabetes can be stopped and started at will by people suffering from them, I don't believe cigarette addiction should be labeled as a disease. It seems to me that it's people trying to give themselves more reasons to try not to quit by trying to take the power out of their hands (i.e. I can't help it - it's a disease. I can't stop it myself.)

SH - Of course, that's why I said most. But then again they put themselves in the position to be fired. You cant be fired if you are at the top of the ladder, and most of the jobs lost recently have been lower rung type jobs. Again, please dont skip the "most"....

Just saying, its all choice.

Also, I am just talking in terms of the US, where this whole thing is an argument. Of course poor people in africa dont count, because they dont have the choice and freedom we have here in America. If people are poor here it is because they didnt make the most of their resources. In 3rd world countries they simply have no resources so they cant really be blamed..

Where is this troll you are speaking of?

I think it may qualify as a Mental disease, some sexual disorders and should be treated as such. I've seen to many people ruin jobs and families. Any addiction is a harsh mistress. All you have to do is look at all the money poured into quitting programs and the prices people are willing to pay for a pack to see that it is some kind of disease, even though it's a self inflicted one.

Double post :(

I fail to see how something is a disease due to being destructive and difficult to solve.

You could classify pollution, or war, or tons of other things as diseases by that system.

I think it's very dakkadakka how flamey this is. Cigarette prices have gone up, don't they always? They do kill people, and lead to long drawn out hospital stays, that even in America tax payers will have to pay for some times. How is that a sign that Obama is an obastard? (He might or might not be, it's too early to tell)

If it was up to me though, I'd help the economy by reducing the price of cigarettes, and coke/ any other stimulants. Whatever means to get people working more. Then allow management to use whips to motivate workers. And allow workers to break into rich peoples houses and steal stuff. The workers will enjoy the toys, and the rich will re-buy them.

Also no more massive payouts to wives of rich people, they aren't working so adding nothing to the economy, and the rich schmuck who got fleeced will get all depressed and his company will fail.

Note I'm not being totally serious.

That aside, longer life does not necessarily mean enhanced productivity. As ever the law of diminishing returns remains in effect. Having more productive people only makes a difference if you have things worth producing. For example, China and India have been the most populous nations on Earth for the vast majority of their history, yet they are only now becoming real economic powers. A surplus of labor allows those nations to attract industry due to low production costs. As people earn more they demand more goods. Price increases with demand, and the entire system creeps away the entry level positions which first generated growth as successive generations compete for jobs in non-labor intensive markets. Standard of living goes up, but pre-capita productivity falls. Which is more valuable?

Someone should do a study on it! In general I agree, I don't know the exact falloff of productivity in our society, and I don't know if keeping smokers alive longer does help in the long run. I believe it does, and I believe that smoking is a false happiness (as is any addiction). Though more than alcohol or even most narcotics smoking does little to bring happiness to the smoker. Its an addiction that is made possible by societies fixation on it as a token of high status (though not so much these days). It does very little to support its own dissemination because it brings so little to the smoker except stress and a thin wallet.

Who are you to decide what is healthy and unhealthy/ok and not ok? Who are you to decide what people should do? I dont mind a tax on cigs, the only thing that I really despise is people who support a tax on cigs to get people to stop smoking. Thats no ones fething business but my own (I dont smoke btw), it's just another liberal grab at power disguised as "helping the little guy."

I get in other peoples business. I'm not some woodsie libertarian or some sign waving hippie. Nor am I a bible thumping censor mom. I am me. I think humans are inevitably going to make stupid decisions and that collectively we are a lot smarter then we are alone. Smoking is an idiotic habit that diverts funds away from methods of self improvement, and harms health. It brings very little happiness to those that do it and it is an addictive substance that once started is very difficult to stop. If we can shorten our deficit a little bit by getting people to stop breathing in addictive cancerous fumes then I'm all for it.

Don't feed the troll!

You're every bit the troll I am polonius.



As for smoking being a disease, it's not a disease. It's an addiction. An addiction isn't something to look down on people for, its something you help them come out of then look down at them for it. Being a dick to a person addicted to something that they attempt to find some measure of happiness in isn't going to help them. They'll just use it all that much more.

namegoeshere wrote:I think it's very dakkadakka how flamey this is.

Hey guys, I just destroyed a Land Raider with a deffrolla, but my friend says it doesn't work with ramming. Who's right?