Post #290,565
8/10/07 2:50:28 AM
|
How can reducing smoking be a bad thing to be vetoed?
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #290,566
8/10/07 3:03:05 AM
|
Not the point
This is not a defense of smoking. Andrew was more on point bringing in the other costs associated with smoking.
The point is basing a multibillion dollar program on a revenue stream that will go away.
If the point of the tax was just to eliminate smoking then don't earmark the funds.
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #290,567
8/10/07 7:15:59 AM
|
Reducing smoking reduces healthcare costs
If the higher tax reduces smoking, the less smoking means less healthcare costs, so the reduced tax revenue is not a problem. I thought this was already understood. Self correcting problem, people become healthier and are more productive. It's a no brainer.
If the proportion of healthcare revenue from smoking is higher than the healthcare costs from smoking, thus depending more on general funds, some additional revenue is still better than no additional revenue. And people become healthier and are more productive. The words 'no' and 'brainer' spring to mind.
If there is a healthcare spending cap and the falling smoking tax revenues means a greater drain on public funds, then this is still better than not having smoking tax revenue in the first place.
The problem with a smoking tax is that it hits the tobacco industry and the consumer might spend it on something else or save it in a time of high consumer debt. I'm sorry, did I wrote the word 'problem' there?
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #290,569
8/10/07 9:02:01 AM
|
Once again
I concede the point of other associated costs being lowered and making things better overall. I'm not convinced that is the thinking of those persuing these earmarked tax projects.
And you know, all those folks that quit smoking are going to be buying chocolate and/or McD's french fries as a replacement...so are we >really< going to save money? (or does that wait until we tax >everything< thats bad for you?)
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #290,573
8/10/07 10:31:22 AM
|
Clearly the solution is to . . .
. . tax smoking so high almost everyone quits or switches to grass (either kind). Those in withdrawal will blimp up on McD's Double Gross Macs and Choco-Bombs.
The next step is to set up a liposuction clinic at every convenient shopping mall. The byproducts from these clinics can then be refined down into biodiesel. Slap a fuel tax on biodiesel and you have your revenue stream.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #290,576
8/10/07 10:55:02 AM
|
That is a plan .
Bic Mac to Biodiesel...
"Dude, I just filled up on grandma...doesn't she look great?!"
Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry.Adrian Belew
|
Post #290,617
8/10/07 9:38:08 PM
8/12/07 2:50:20 AM
|
Why not cut to the chase?
Since it is now apparent:
(after 50+ years' writings on population growth, the differences between geometric / other growth curves)
- that No one deems it possible even to rationally discuss the idea of an ~optimum biped-load/m\ufffd.
- that, even if 'discussed' - corporate religio will never concede the necessity of changing anything about its Perfectly-Revealed laissez-faire non-plan, since 'planetary survival' is irrelevant when you have 17 virgins waiting - Real Soon.
- that: simply, the species is unlikely to attempt any solution whatsoever, shall remain preoccupied with married homos and shopping - -
Isn't it about time to follow the blueprint already drawn (and with Jenny Agutter, yet?)
[link|http://imdb.com/title/tt0074812/| Logan's Run]
No problemo with the {truly} 'palm-sized' Indicator. Ez-peasy now.
30 may be a bit short - if anyone is to be ept enough to run the machines.
OK, nuke at 40: don't need no steenkin geriatrists: you get to live fast, die young and have a good looking corpse. Oh: number heard en passant, recently --
out of 98.000 US physician grads in 1998: 384 were geriatrists.
Clearly ... this ratio demonstrates conclusively that Logan's Run is already being worked-up for Operation Terrestrial Lebensraum. Rest case.
(Perhaps commenced just after the Captains of Industry emerge from the bunker, a few years after the Great ME<>Murican War - just a minor skirmish though; no major effect on the growth curve, so OTL resumes. The Animatronic Pope Altruism the First goes along.)
There: a Solution.
opTy
Edited by Ashton
Aug. 12, 2007, 02:50:20 AM EDT
|
Post #290,577
8/10/07 11:13:06 AM
|
So what does Bush know?
Earmarked taxes are often abused. Those taxes will go to healthcare but an equal amount of general funds will be later diverted away. When smoking tax revenue drops, some general funds will be diverted back. The cash diverted out will be spent on something else as yet unspecified. So what is the President trying to block? Is he blocking a known project or is it just blocking some unknown, future spending? Or is it something else?
Of course Congress are less than honest. Shall we give Bush the benefit of the doubt and assume he's blocking some unspecified, corrupt spending, which will be worse than the smoking that can be prevented? Or shall we be more cynical and assume he's playing his normal game of silly buggers.
As for the alternate, consumer spending. Junk food is not as bad as inhaling smoke and powerful poisons on a regular basis. Still a good thing to do.
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
Post #290,578
8/10/07 11:34:15 AM
|
you will spend more in the long run
smokers die early, usual collect no retirement. You need to lower the ciggie tax and get more people smoking before the boomers hit retirement age.
thanx,
bill
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep
reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
|
Post #290,596
8/10/07 2:56:30 PM
|
Not so fast!
Faulty premise: "If the higher tax reduces smoking, the less smoking means less healthcare costs, so the reduced tax revenue is not a problem." Not in reducing health risks, but costs. These people who stop smoking also will now live longer. Nothing increases health care costs like living longer. They then will need more knees and hips replaced, scans done, prescriptions filled, etc., etc., etc. I may be missing something, but I can't see how this could possibly reduce HC costs. Guess what the number one cause of death is in the US for non-smokers... Cancer. Same costs as for the smokers for chemo, surgery, etc.
Looking for long term logic in your argument.
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #290,597
8/10/07 4:54:43 PM
|
Well, you're right
The idea that you're going to soak the smokers to pay for healthcare is just stoopid.
Instead, they should do what we USED to do here in Ontario, and set up a crown non-profit corporation to run the insurance program (as opposed to now, when we take it out of general tax revenue). We used to have an item on the payroll stub detailing how much insurance we'd paid to OHIP, and this was good because we could see what our money was paying for. This was back in the days when waiting times were not a problem etc etc because the basic deal was that anyone could open a hospital/clinic and get it accredited and then try to make profit off of the rates paid by OHIP. The rates were set in consultation with the OMA as well as various other stakeholders, keeping in mind that the goal was to get the best deal possible for the ratepayers. Better still, since people could see the chunk of paychecque paying for health insurance it gave them a good idea of who to bitch to if rates were too high. At the same time, if rates were too low and services were falling by the wayside, we knew who to bitch to then too. Now all we can do is bitch at the politicians because we can't see the numbers so easily.
It also saved the hospitals a lot of money because their billing departments were very small, saving money on administrative labour as well as making more space available for beds in the buildings. Nowadays the pay schedule is far from simple (if what I hear about it is true) making it very difficult for doctors and hospitals to keep track of their billing because of all the caveats and conditions attached to various rates for procedures etc. This requires hiring more labour and adds cost to the overall system. They really should go back to the way it was, which was simply to set up a non-profit monopoly, let loose the auditors on it from time to tome, and let the people working there get down to the business of getting the health-care providers their money so they can afford to give us the care.
|
Post #290,598
8/10/07 5:06:50 PM
|
You hold on, too!
:-) Nothing increases health care costs like living longer. They then will need more knees and hips replaced, scans done, prescriptions filled, etc., etc., etc. I may be missing something, but I can't see how this could possibly reduce HC costs. [link|http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002700.html|Healthlink]: Other recent Dartmouth studies have shown that regions with the highest health care costs actually have lower-than-average outcomes and poorer quality of care in general. With about three-quarters of total US health care costs resulting from treating the chronically ill, some may argue that we needlessly sacrifice resources on end-of-life cases that could be applied to those with the chance of brighter outcomes. Knee replacements, etc., are expensive, but they're usually one-time things. O2 for [link|http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/emphysema.html|emphysema], etc., etc., and other chronic treatments apparently eat the bulk of the costs. Many of these illnesses and conditions are associated with smoking. Having healthier people means they have fewer chronic illnesses that need treatment, and (probably more importantly) means that they can contribute to the economy and society longer. Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #290,818
8/13/07 11:51:49 PM
|
Re: You hold on, too!
I think perhaps you missed my premise. I'll give you emphysema (not contagious) but cancer and heart disease is just as drawn out and chronic (and expensive) for the non-smokers - after the hip and knee replacements, Lipitor, etc. A simple premise that I am working from is that, to my knowledge, no one has cured death or any of the nasty diseases that cause it. Smoking is politically charged and (like abortion), not a topic that is easily rationally debated. Let's more to a less politically charged topic.
Carrying extra weight (in some circles, the second leading preventable cause of death), if we tax the crap out of all foods/diets that cause obesity, do you think it will lower health care costs over a lifetime? There are way too many variables (with genetics being a major wildcard) to make any conclusive statements/correlations regarding actuarial certainty that costs will decrease.
To my knowledge, we don't have any truly longitudinal studies that show how many smokers who died were also overweight, heavy drinkers, highly stressed, etc. Until we can better isolate all of these variables, we may be barking up the wrong tree. To my knowledge, the only "proven" way to significantly increase lifespan (in female rodents) is a near starvation diet that slows cell division.
All in all tough to make a solid "economic" argument on fuzzy facts. Just my $.02
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #290,599
8/10/07 5:13:10 PM
|
Maybe
People who live into old age do cost a lot. However, being poisoned isn't cheap either, even discounting lung cancer. I'm not a physician but I know they tell people to stay away from smoking. Nicotine, amongst others, is not a nice substance. Poisoned people aren't as productive and this is bad for taxes in general.
It could be the maths favours people smoking and slowly dying before their time, though I doubt it. Is it likely that President Bush commissioned a team of physicians and economists to consider this smoking tax? And the high cost of people smoking less, living to old age and being a healthcare burden is his reason for the threatened veto?
Matthew Greet
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.
|
