Hey, you filthy smokers! Time to punish you.

[Big Don]

How much money would the states and federal governments lose if every single smoker quit today?
TONS
Smokers typically die younger? Tell that to my Great aunt Stella, died at 99, smoked a pipe...
Even if smokers do die younger, isn't that a savings on SS payments, elder care, etc?
To paraphrase Andrew Dice Clay: It is a shame having same sex relationships is treated better than smoking tobacco...

 

[Randy Strausbaugh]

Big Brother goes even further. In Columbus, Ohio they are building a casino. The casino has made it known that no employees will be allowed to use tobacco products or nicotine patches even on their own time in their own homes. Employees will be subjected to random drug screens, and if nicotine shows up, can city! I'm not a smoker myself, but this seems to be a case of an employer going too far. What an employee does (legally) on his or her own time is none of the employer's business so long as said employee shows up for work on time and does his/her job.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Big Brother goes even further. In Columbus, Ohio they are building a casino. The casino has made it known that no employees will be allowed to use tobacco products or nicotine patches even on their own time in their own homes. Employees will be subjected to random drug screens, and if nicotine shows up, can city! I'm not a smoker myself, but this seems to be a case of an employer going too far. What an employee does (legally) on his or her own time is none of the employer's business so long as said employee shows up for work on time and does his/her job.

This is common practice in Michigan and has been for a couple years now. It's been tested all the way up to the state Supreme Court and it's perfectly legal.

However, one can always quit a job. Try quitting paying taxes. And that's the problem; when the state takes it over, they set the rules, and since you can't legally quit paying taxes, you have to do what they say or...

 

[Sukerkin]

Have to agree with Don about the tax issue. Over here in Britain (sticks out tongue at BillM ), smokers pay a shed-load of tax for their habit. Trust me, I used to be a 40-60 a/day man so I know of what I speak. The tax take from tobacco is huge and more than covers any drain smokers put on the NHS (I shall have to re-check those figures as I'm working from remembered ten year old data).

As to the funding and efficiency of the service, well, as I ever said in pragmatic defence of social systems of resource management, there are some things that central authority does better than the market and the statistics seem to bear out that health care is one of them (as are transport networks, water supply and power transmission). The NHS proves a better standard of care for a lower cost than the American style system of personal insurance does - it consumes a lower proportion of our GDP for a higher per capita result (despite the manifest inefficiencies within the system). Part of this is the notion of palliative rather than emergency care - the classic prevention rather than cure paradigm.

You (the American voter) don't want socialised medicine because your indoctrination tells you that Commies are bad? Then that's up you to you. I don't think you have the sense the non-existent Creator Deity gave a mouse in that case but it's no skin off my nose if you want to pay more for less (unless, as ever in the "Land of the Free" (irony quotes required), you happen to be very rich).

 

[Big Don]

How much has petty crime increased since NYC's extreme tax hike on cigarettes?
How much has NJ's cigarette tax revenue increased? How much has NYC's declined?

 

[ballen0351]

You (the American voter) don't want socialised medicine because your indoctrination tells you that Commies are bad? Then that's up you to you. I don't think you have the sense the non-existent Creator Deity gave a mouse in that case but it's no skin off my nose if you want to pay more for less (unless, as ever in the "Land of the Free" (irony quotes required), you happen to be very rich).

Has nothing to do with being a Commie it has everything to do with our Constitution does not give that power to the Govt. If Obama and the dems want it then they need to do it right and amend the Constitution. However they know they would never get the support for that since most Americans already have health care coverage and dont want it messed with.

As for the smokers Im ok with a company making rules about its workers smoking or drinking on duty but Smoking is legal and I dont think they or the Govt has the right to say you cant do it in your own home.

 

[Sukerkin]

I get you on the Constitutional aspect, Ballen :nods:. I am actually not sure that anyone has made that point in previous visits to similar topics (I might just have missed it), so thanks for bringing that to the fore.

That helps me understand better just why there have been some very strong objections to the idea of a differently administered, decent, health service for everyone - it's not really made true sense to me before why any rational person would kick up such a loud fuss about it.

 

[Big Don]

At Qualcomm stadium, where the San Diego Chargers play, there is no smoking allowed in the stands, which are open to the sky. Smoking is allowed in the corridor, which, becomes cramped and crowded with smokers each time there is a break in play. I'm not opposed to people banning smoking in doors, banning it out of doors is a bit idiotic...

 

[ballen0351]

At Qualcomm stadium, where the San Diego Chargers play, there is no smoking allowed in the stands, which are open to the sky. Smoking is allowed in the corridor, which, becomes cramped and crowded with smokers each time there is a break in play. I'm not opposed to people banning smoking in doors, banning it out of doors is a bit idiotic...

In MD they have banned smoking at all state parks. SO outisde in the woods all alone and you still cant smoke. I am pretty sure there is no smoking at M&T Bank stadium where Ravens play anywhere in the stadium. No smoking in Bars either you have to go outside to smoke.

 

[ballen0351]

How much has petty crime increased since NYC's extreme tax hike on cigarettes?
How much has NJ's cigarette tax revenue increased? How much has NYC's declined?

A ton of former Drug smugglers have stopped running drugs and now go to SC and NC and buy 1000's of cartons of Cigarettes and bring them back to NY and they now make more money selling black market Cigarettes then they did selling drugs with none of the risk.

 

[Big Don]

A ton of former Drug smugglers have stopped running drugs and now go to SC and NC and buy 1000's of cartons of Cigarettes and bring them back to NY and they now make more money selling black market Cigarettes then they did selling drugs with none of the risk.

Wow, a policy that caused a demonstrable increase in crime. Have NY'ers quit smoking? Or do they buy black market smokes?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bottom line, my point isn't really about the goodness or badness of nationalized, socialized, or single-payer health insurance.

It's about a simple fact. Private coverage means choices; if a person wishes to be made to pay more based on their lifestyle choices, they can. If they choose not to, they can refrain. If they wish to modify their behavior, they can. If they wish not to, they can refrain. The consequences can be severe for making a poor choice in lifestyle or health care coverage; but they are one's own to make.

In a single-payer system where by necessity, everyone must take part, that choice is removed, forever and permanently.

Such systems may tread lightly on one's choices and lifestyle, or harshly. But whichever they do, the choice of it happening is no longer the individual's to make.

That's all.

 

[Tez3]

Why can't you opt out here then? If you are unemployed, you don't pay your NI, you can also pay more and have private healthcare if you wish. I think the thing to remember here is that the government doesn't have the power, the NHS belongs to us, the people, it's ours not the governments. The government is trying to 'reform' it at the moment, it won't succeed as the people don't want the changes, it may even bring the government down and we'll have an election. the thing about nationalisation is not that the government owns things it's that the people do. We chose to vote in the party that pledged to bring in the NHS, thus it was our choice to join together to have our healthcare the way it is, people don't want it any different even now. As I said if a government starts messing around with it and we don't like it the government will be defeated. Governments here don't have the powers that your President has, that your government has, we have checks and balances to stop the abuse you fear. We want our healthcare this way, we chose it, we will keep it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/nhs_at_50/special_report/123511.stm


Bill you may think I'm agreeing with you, if that's how you read it fine but trust me I'm not.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Bill you may think I'm agreeing with you, if that's how you read it fine but trust me I'm not.

Yes, you are agreeing with me. The reason I say you are agreeing with me is that you see every comment I make about your NHS as an attack, and you think I don't like it. I haven't disagreed about your statements about the NHS, and I am not attacking it.

ME: I like cheese the way it is and I don't want it to become government cheese.
YOU: The UK cheese is great.
ME: That's fine, I'm talking about the difference between private cheese and government cheese.
YOU: In the UK, the people control the cheese, not the government.
ME: If you like it, that's great. I'm just saying I like private cheese.
YOU: The UK is GREAT! I love the cheese here! I am disagreeing with you!

Like that. The reason you're not disagreeing with me is that you are disagreeing with things I haven't said.

 

[Tez3]

Yes, you are agreeing with me. The reason I say you are agreeing with me is that you see every comment I make about your NHS as an attack, and you think I don't like it. I haven't disagreed about your statements about the NHS, and I am not attacking it.

ME: I like cheese the way it is and I don't want it to become government cheese.
YOU: The UK cheese is great.
ME: That's fine, I'm talking about the difference between private cheese and government cheese.
YOU: In the UK, the people control the cheese, not the government.
ME: If you like it, that's great. I'm just saying I like private cheese.
YOU: The UK is GREAT! I love the cheese here! I am disagreeing with you!

Like that. The reason you're not disagreeing with me is that you are disagreeing with things I haven't said.

So your acid remarks about us not having any choice is my agreeing with you?

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So your acid remarks about us not having any choice is my agreeing with you?

You only appeared to disagree, you actually agreed.

ME: When the government provides health care, all taxpayers have to pay into it. Taxpayers have the right to control costs. When payment is compulsory, the individual no longer has a choice in the matter.
YOU: The NHS is the citizens. The government doesn't control it.
ME: (Unsaid, because that's just silly) The government of course *is* the people, and government agencies *are* the people, that's true. So what? You're just arguing it's not true by redefining what the government is.

In any case, every point I've brought up, you've abandoned and found a new point to argue against; hence, you agree with me. And most of your arguments...they're playing silly buggers with words, not argument.

If I say England has a government-controlled health care system, you say it's not England, it's the UK. Yeah, so what? Not really the point.
If I say England has NICE and Scotland and Wales have something else, therefore I was talking about England and not the UK, you say NICE is part of the NHS so it's still the UK. Yeah, so what? Not the point.
If I say England controls costs by limiting drugs, for example, you argue that some drugs are not safe yet. Yeah, but again, who cares? Do they or do they not limit drugs as a cost-control measure? Not answering the question is admitting I'm right. Again, being distracting is not arguing.

All of your 'points' so far have been to point out that you like the UK system of health care. Yay you. I've not said it's bad. I've said it is a government-run system that all taxpayers have to pay into; they cannot opt out of it (yes, tedious trifle pouncer, they can buy their own care, but they still can't opt-out of the national health care system). You're not arguing with me, you're niggling at side points because that's all you've got.

So yes, you agree with me. You just don't like it, so you keep trying to get to argue about tedious trifles and insist your health care system is wonderful. Fine, it's wonderful. Not. The. Point.

 

[Tez3]

You only appeared to disagree, you actually agreed.

ME: When the government provides health care, all taxpayers have to pay into it. Taxpayers have the right to control costs. When payment is compulsory, the individual no longer has a choice in the matter.
YOU: The NHS is the citizens. The government doesn't control it.
ME: (Unsaid, because that's just silly) The government of course *is* the people, and government agencies *are* the people, that's true. So what? You're just arguing it's not true by redefining what the government is.

In any case, every point I've brought up, you've abandoned and found a new point to argue against; hence, you agree with me. And most of your arguments...they're playing silly buggers with words, not argument.

If I say England has a government-controlled health care system, you say it's not England, it's the UK. Yeah, so what? Not really the point.
If I say England has NICE and Scotland and Wales have something else, therefore I was talking about England and not the UK, you say NICE is part of the NHS so it's still the UK. Yeah, so what? Not the point.
If I say England controls costs by limiting drugs, for example, you argue that some drugs are not safe yet. Yeah, but again, who cares? Do they or do they not limit drugs as a cost-control measure? Not answering the question is admitting I'm right. Again, being distracting is not arguing.

All of your 'points' so far have been to point out that you like the UK system of health care. Yay you. I've not said it's bad. I've said it is a government-run system that all taxpayers have to pay into; they cannot opt out of it (yes, tedious trifle pouncer, they can buy their own care, but they still can't opt-out of the national health care system). You're not arguing with me, you're niggling at side points because that's all you've got.

So yes, you agree with me. You just don't like it, so you keep trying to get to argue about tedious trifles and insist your health care system is wonderful. Fine, it's wonderful. Not. The. Point.

As Sukerkin said on another thread the right wing Americans are always right, they cannot be wrong and we should be grateful they even deign to acknowledge we exist. So I'll bow out, leaving you to your illusions. You miss my points totally, perhaps I didn't explain well enough or perhaps you have to actually know what it's like here and have a couple of thousands of years history binding you as a people to understand.

 

[Big Don]

Get a room

 

[Tez3]

Amusing...not. I don't particularly like being patronised and it's all 'you agree with me' not one 'I agree with you'. anyway I'm off to work. Troops are off to Afghan this year so are making the most of any off time they have which means life is hectic. Have fun guys

 

[seasoned]

He said then she said, then she said then he said................