Illogical, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news110382995.html

http://www.physorg.com/news110382995.html

re: Poor Smokers Would Pay for Health Bill

Illogical facist tactics? With that approach, perhaps they ought to tax people who eat too much, drink too much, take too many risks, etc. The list goes on and on.

Well, as our old friend Spock would say...



"That is highly illogical, Captain."

Aw heck, no one ever accused feel good politics of having to be logical!

What the hell!? What kind of policy is this? I am as anti-smoking as they come, but smoking is a choice, that shouldn't be limited to people with money. Would making drugs more expensive (in a hypothetical scenario where this would be feasible) reduce the percentage of drug addicts? Smoking can be considered an addiction and increasing it's price could lead to other more serious problems. What if "poor" people have to choose between have a proper meal but not smoking vS having junk food and smoking. That sounds like a reasonable economic scenario (considering that a "proper" meal could potentially cost more than junk food). Would the first choice be more common or the latter?
I think a within-limits cigarette tax is desirable since it could potentially help people put a limit to their smoking, but overdoing it could also have contrasting effects.

All this of course is based on the articles' research, specifically on the part that mentions poor people being more frequent smokers than wealthier ones.

How stupid is this. If the tax discourages people from taking up smoking or forces them to quit how is that going to pay for the health costs? All someone has to do is mention it's for "the children" and every idiot plan gets pushed into action.

I once heard someone say smokers shouldn't be allowed health benefits if they ever get lung cancer. Yes I was shocked. Then I got to thinking, if we applied that kind of logic to healthcare, we would end up creating an endless list of reasons for denying people healthcare which undeniably is an inalienable right in my books. I say healthcare is an inalienable human right because denying such is akin to driving by a car accident without bothering to stop and see if any of the crash victims require any assistance. And it's scary to think what life could become if such simple minded approaches to solving funding problems became widespread. Can you just imagine the possible scenarios?

"Sorry sir. Your quadruple bypass heart surgery isn't covered one iota due to the fact our agents report you're in the habit of gorging yourself on meat, potatos and alcohol, followed up with cheescake for a bedtime snack, on a daily basis."

"Err, sorry kid. You were driving that bicycle a little too dangerously, plus since you weren't wearing a helmet, there's no chance in hell you deserve any sort of medical attention."

"Sorry mam. Looks like all them sodas, burgers & fries you been enjoying all these years have finally caught you a major infarction."

"Sorry dude. But professional sports are often considered a dangerous activity."

In my mind, such simple minded approaches to funding healthcare would make us all undeserving of any medical attention.



Sometimes logic really sucks!


This post has been edited by PJParent001 on Oct 1 2007, 05:22 AM

note that the tax only applies to 'cigarettes', not tobacco, if you care to roll your own, you can avoid federal & state taxes on cigarettes.

I can also imagine that kind of logic being used in a school scenario:

"Uh, sorry ma'am, but your son isn't allowed access to the nurse's office, as he eats to much.

Yes, he is fat.

No, our policies don't cover people with health problems.

Then what's the point of a nurse's office? I dunno. Nobody tells me nothing."



Another piece of poor government logic:

Pregnant women in the U.K. will now receive 50 pounds a week for healthy food.
Like they'll spend it on healthy food...

- Gehn

This post has been edited by Gehn on Oct 3 2007, 05:23 PM

Ya know, there's a pretty wide difference between playing sports where you might get hurt, and taking up an expensive, useless, addictive hobby that WILL certainly kill you if you keep it up.
If people can't honestly choose between EATING and smoking cigarettes, then I don't feel sorry for 'em in the least. Harsh, but true, it was their choice all along.

Healthcare is an "inalienable right"?! So what did humanity do BEFORE there was centralized healthcare? There is no "right" involved. People who smoke cause their own sicknesses, which boost healthcare costs WAY up (because it costs so damn much to fight cancers), which in turn raises MY healthcare insurance costs. And THEN you get the a**holes who sue the hospitals for not curing them! I haven't been to a hospital in years, but because smokers (and others) like to kill themselves, I end up getting screwed by the HMOs.

Yeah. Tell me about fair.