Should smokers be entitled to health care?

Smokers pay taxes just like people pay for social security.

Anti-smoking advocates always cite the need for taxes on cigarettes (which in my state are 75% of the cost of a pack) to cover for smoking related diseases the State has to pay for.

If someone smokes two packs a day at $4.50 a pack, $9 a day, $63 a week, $252 a month, $3,024 a year haven't they effectively bought themselves a health care plan?

Seems unfair a smoker has to provide himself with separate health care while paying a tax that is specfiically designed to cover the cost for smoking related illnesses of smokers.
Post edited by Gen.ArielSharon at 12/11/2007 5:30:23 PM

Interesting.

Should someone who takes care of himself and who has perfect health have to pay more for social security because he will live longer and collect more?

Not unless he pays the taxes for it, Pillbug.

Wow GAS... I thought you'd be all 'Smokers don't deserve health care' and stuff and here you are making the very same point I was gonna
Post edited by Kristine65 at 12/11/2007 5:40:05 PM

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon
Smokers pay taxes just like people pay for social security.

Anti-smoking advocates always cite the need for taxes on cigarettes (which in my state are 75% of the cost of a pack) to cover for smoking related diseases the State has to pay for.

If someone smokes two packs a day at $4.50 a pack, $9 a day, $63 a week, $252 a month, $3,024 a year haven't they effectively bought themselves a health care plan?

Seems unfair a smoker has to provide himself with separate health care while paying a tax that is specfiically designed to cover the cost for smoking related illnesses of smokers.

smokers should not even be on the list of lung transplants unless they pay for it themselves.

smokers should also pay higher premiums, random screenings done, just like drugs at work.

nazi, i am, yes-

Originally posted by: [-NM-] -SS-
......dont get all pissy cause I call you out for being a deceptive piece of shit...Too bad it is such a challenge for you to be a better person. I know I would never trust you in combat or when it counts. The bottom line is that you have no honor and you arent the "good person" you attempt to perpetrate on these forums with threads about "mom and dad" or your kids while you purposely fuck up threads about men who's lives are in the balance over accusations of murder and rape. The very men you just said you appreciate - yeah right. You're garbage aria. No class at all.

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Interesting.

Should someone who takes care of himself and who has perfect health have to pay more for social security because he will live longer and collect more?

Smoking doesn't mean you die of lung cancer it often means that you will live just as long but very uncomfortably for the duration of your life once you get sick.

What if the person who doesn't smoke is a bad driver, has a history of cancer in the family, etc. THat means he might not live longer.

What I'm saying is that smokers are already paying major taxes on the premise that smoking costs the state money in health care. I'm suggesting that perhaps health care to smokers is owed to them as the whole point of the tax is to help smokers and cover their costs no? So smokers are paying for their health care.

Originally posted by: Aria Giovanni.pZ

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon
Smokers pay taxes just like people pay for social security.

Anti-smoking advocates always cite the need for taxes on cigarettes (which in my state are 75% of the cost of a pack) to cover for smoking related diseases the State has to pay for.

If someone smokes two packs a day at $4.50 a pack, $9 a day, $63 a week, $252 a month, $3,024 a year haven't they effectively bought themselves a health care plan?

Seems unfair a smoker has to provide himself with separate health care while paying a tax that is specfiically designed to cover the cost for smoking related illnesses of smokers.

smokers should not even be on the list of lung transplants unless they pay for it themselves.

smokers should also pay higher premiums, random screenings done, just like drugs at work.

nazi, i am, yes-

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

As it should be. They should be paying higher premiums on health insurance as well.

They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon
Smokers pay taxes just like people pay for social security.

Anti-smoking advocates always cite the need for taxes on cigarettes (which in my state are 75% of the cost of a pack) to cover for smoking related diseases the State has to pay for.

If someone smokes two packs a day at $4.50 a pack, $9 a day, $63 a week, $252 a month, $3,024 a year haven't they effectively bought themselves a health care plan?

Seems unfair a smoker has to provide himself with separate health care while paying a tax that is specfiically designed to cover the cost for smoking related illnesses of smokers.

As long as they pay taxes into it, then YES, they are indeed allowed to utilize what they pay into. Otherwise you are robbing them for their money and giving them no benefit from it. Yeah, that's a great deal!

When they stop being taxed on it, then they can pay their own way and should get no benefit from taxed money.

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon
Smokers pay taxes just like people pay for social security.

Anti-smoking advocates always cite the need for taxes on cigarettes (which in my state are 75% of the cost of a pack) to cover for smoking related diseases the State has to pay for.

If someone smokes two packs a day at $4.50 a pack, $9 a day, $63 a week, $252 a month, $3,024 a year haven't they effectively bought themselves a health care plan?

Seems unfair a smoker has to provide himself with separate health care while paying a tax that is specfiically designed to cover the cost for smoking related illnesses of smokers.

]

Social security is not health insurance, it is a guaranteed minimum level of income, so as to keep old people and the disabled out of poverty.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

As it should be. They should be paying higher premiums on health insurance as well.

They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

So if a national health plan goes into effect(which I truly hope it does not), who else would you plan on excluding? People with substance abuse problems? Those who drink? How about people with diabetes, asthma, arthritis?

Edit:and they already pay higher health insurance premiums if they are not part of group plan.
Post edited by Raden1911 at 12/12/2007 12:48:05 AM

Gas prices have gotten so expensive lately that I've created a car that runs entirely on packs of cigarettes.

Carry on.

I hate smokers mainly because they get a break every hour to go outside and smoke while everyone else has to wait until they get lunch breaks. Lazy smokers.... that and they are basically killing themself with cancer sticks so I don't feel bad for them at all if they have to pay a higher premium.

I know smokers that live till they're 90 years old.

I've heard of fitness fanatics who have died of a heart attack while jogging along a beach at 36 years old.

Everytime a smoker buys their drug of choice they are paying more tax than a nonsmoker would pay on any other product.

Some of you need to google the amount of tax paid on a packet of smokes.

No smokers shouldnt pay higher premiums or have to get seperate healthcare.

I'm not a smoker. But I'll be damned if I dont cut a bitch if they try to make smokers pay more for healthcare. You know? Because once they start making smokers pay more..soon they'll make fat people pay more. Then they'll make people who drink alchohol pay more. Than, they'll make people who buy girlscout cookies pay more. And you know what..I buy girlscout cookies...damnit.
______________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: SammySoc
Men of little minds always find solace in portraying themselves as victims.

You dogooder you!

Originally posted by: Kristine65
I know smokers that live till they're 90 years old.

I've heard of fitness fanatics who have died of a heart attack while jogging along a beach at 36 years old.

Everytime a smoker buys their drug of choice they are paying more tax than a nonsmoker would pay on any other product.

Some of you need to google the amount of tax paid on a packet of smokes.

We can always raise taxes on the wealthy if tax receipts from smokers start to fall.



VOTE GREEN PARTY FOR REAL POLITICAL REPRESENTATION! http://www.gp.org

Originally posted by: cimat1984

Originally posted by: Kristine65
I know smokers that live till they're 90 years old.

I've heard of fitness fanatics who have died of a heart attack while jogging along a beach at 36 years old.

Everytime a smoker buys their drug of choice they are paying more tax than a nonsmoker would pay on any other product.

Some of you need to google the amount of tax paid on a packet of smokes.

We can always raise taxes on the wealthy if tax receipts from smokers start to fall.

See, I don't get your tax system. I think it's backwards to ours. In Aus, $1–$6,000 pay Nil, $6,001–$30,000 pay 15c for each $1 over $6,000, $30,001–$75,000 pay $3,600 plus 30c for each $1 over $30,000, $75,001–$150,000 pay $17,100 plus 40c for each $1 over $75,000, $150,001 and over pay $47,100 plus 45c for each $1 over $150,000.

Don't you pay less tax if you earn more? What's that about?
Post edited by Kristine65 at 12/12/2007 6:59:46 AM

Originally posted by: Mockery
Gas prices have gotten so expensive lately that I've created a car that runs entirely on packs of cigarettes.

Carry on.

Originally posted by: Raden1911

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

As it should be. They should be paying higher premiums on health insurance as well.

They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

So if a national health plan goes into effect(which I truly hope it does not), who else would you plan on excluding? People with substance abuse problems? Those who drink? How about people with diabetes, asthma, arthritis?

Edit:and they already pay higher health insurance premiums if they are not part of group plan.

At what point did I say anyone should be excluded?

This is a specific tax against a specific group of people FOR that specific reason. Its essentially hate legislation against smokers because we as a society only tolerate hate when it is politically correct to do so.

Admit it people, we have culturally turned smokers into light criminals in our minds. The millionaire outside the restaraunt might as well be a homeless guy as far as most people are concerned.

Originally posted by: SammySoc
No smokers shouldnt pay higher premiums or have to get seperate healthcare.

I'm not a smoker. But I'll be damned if I dont cut a bitch if they try to make smokers pay more for healthcare. You know? Because once they start making smokers pay more..soon they'll make fat people pay more. Then they'll make people who drink alchohol pay more. Than, they'll make people who buy girlscout cookies pay more. And you know what..I buy girlscout cookies...damnit.

I wouldn't mind fatties paying more. Either that or people who are fit should get a bit of a break as incentive.

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Raden1911

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

As it should be. They should be paying higher premiums on health insurance as well.

They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

So if a national health plan goes into effect(which I truly hope it does not), who else would you plan on excluding? People with substance abuse problems? Those who drink? How about people with diabetes, asthma, arthritis?

Edit:and they already pay higher health insurance premiums if they are not part of group plan.

At what point did I say anyone should be excluded?

When you said:

Originally posted by: Hotniks


They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

If it is a national entitlement program, such as the ones that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards want to put in place, who else other than smokers do you think should not be entitled to it?

Im torn on this. Scotts Lawncare is a client of ours. They test for tobacco. So if you have a cigar to celebrate you son being born you could easily get fired even when its off the job. Their view is because insurance costs are so high they are self-funded. I believe personally that is BS and could just charge someone more if they find they are a smoker. But companies are starting to go this route more and more. YOu might find your employer doing this in the near future

Originally posted by: -=NHB=- Bananahands

Originally posted by: SammySoc
No smokers shouldnt pay higher premiums or have to get seperate healthcare.

I'm not a smoker. But I'll be damned if I dont cut a bitch if they try to make smokers pay more for healthcare. You know? Because once they start making smokers pay more..soon they'll make fat people pay more. Then they'll make people who drink alchohol pay more. Than, they'll make people who buy girlscout cookies pay more. And you know what..I buy girlscout cookies...damnit.

I wouldn't mind fatties paying more. Either that or people who are fit should get a bit of a break as incentive.

Well, dont take this personally, but I think people who test near Forrest Gumps IQ should have to pay more. That, or at least people who near Hawking's IQ, like myself, should pay less.

See because..stupid people without helmets, are bound to get injured more often.

Oh look...someone hit the ridiculously flawed logic button and it spewed all over this thread. Winner!
Post edited by SammySoc at 12/12/2007 8:04:57 PM

______________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by: SammySoc
Men of little minds always find solace in portraying themselves as victims.

Originally posted by: Raden1911

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Raden1911

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

As it should be. They should be paying higher premiums on health insurance as well.

They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

So if a national health plan goes into effect(which I truly hope it does not), who else would you plan on excluding? People with substance abuse problems? Those who drink? How about people with diabetes, asthma, arthritis?

Edit:and they already pay higher health insurance premiums if they are not part of group plan.

At what point did I say anyone should be excluded?

When you said:

Originally posted by: Hotniks


They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

If it is a national entitlement program, such as the ones that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards want to put in place, who else other than smokers do you think should not be entitled to it?

you can add into the fray the Abortion/ Breast cancer connection and diss all the women who get abortions.

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Originally posted by: Pillbug
Interesting.

Should someone who takes care of himself and who has perfect health have to pay more for social security because he will live longer and collect more?

Smoking doesn't mean you die of lung cancer it often means that you will live just as long but very uncomfortably for the duration of your life once you get sick.

What if the person who doesn't smoke is a bad driver, has a history of cancer in the family, etc. THat means he might not live longer.

What I'm saying is that smokers are already paying major taxes on the premise that smoking costs the state money in health care. I'm suggesting that perhaps health care to smokers is owed to them as the whole point of the tax is to help smokers and cover their costs no? So smokers are paying for their health care.

Well lets see after 20 pack years you have a 60% chance of getting cancer. Really the odds of you making it to 80 if you are smoking a pack a day are pretty slim.

Smokers should get health care. But I don't want to have to shell out higher premiums as a result of other peoples habits.

It's like car insurance. You shouldn't have to pay higher rates because some douche bag 16 year old crashed his moms Eclipse.

As long as it doesn't affect me, I don't have a problem with it.

i am going to go smoke a cigarette an injoin my free health care

i'm being an asshole here again by not reading all the posts...sorry. i've been busy lately. but here goes my thoughts:

you can't start to parse who does and who does not deserve coverage. it defeats the entire basis that "insurance" is founded on. if you want to argue that "insurance" is entirely socialistic and therefore not conducive to our way of life...i'm with you. it would put an immediate end to all those bullshit lawsuits no one favors. however... since i seem to be alone in this boat...you can't have it both ways. either end the "insurance" scam once and for all or stfu about who it covers.

Originally posted by: Raden1911

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Raden1911

Originally posted by: Hotniks

Originally posted by: Gen.ArielSharon

Smokers pay higher premiums already on life insurance and receive smaller life insurance policies as it is.

As it should be. They should be paying higher premiums on health insurance as well.

They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

So if a national health plan goes into effect(which I truly hope it does not), who else would you plan on excluding? People with substance abuse problems? Those who drink? How about people with diabetes, asthma, arthritis?

Edit:and they already pay higher health insurance premiums if they are not part of group plan.

At what point did I say anyone should be excluded?

When you said:

Originally posted by: Hotniks


They absolutely, positively, should not be entitled to it.

If it is a national entitlement program, such as the ones that Hillary, Obama, and Edwards want to put in place, who else other than smokers do you think should not be entitled to it?

When I said that they shouldn't be entitled to it, I meant that they shouldn't be given it for free due to the tax increase they pay when they buy cigarettes, as GAS suggested in his original post.

Whatever Hillary, Obama, and Edwards suggest we do, wasn't being discussed, nor was I commenting on it.