[lordofduct]

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 04:50 PM, said:

Nobody's talking about enforcing responsibility through government. I'm talking about ensuring that government is not paying the bill for irresponsible behavior. You can buy all the cigarettes you like as long as you can pay their true cost.

Whose bill?

The government hasn't paid my medical bills ever in my life.

When I almost drown as a baby, my father paid that.

When I had pneumonia as a kid, my dad paid that.

Again as an adult, I paid that.

When I broke my arm, ribs, legs, and shoulders working (working hard so I can pay my bills), I paid that.

I smoked from age 13 to age 27, I've paid my medical all that time, and will continue to pay my medical.



You're assuming that the government pays everyones medical. That we have a socialized medical coverage of some sort. We don't... we pay our own medical, may it be through insurance, our pocket, and only in the case of special groups who are elligeable for medicaid and medicare and that ilk are being paid for by the state.

If tomorrow I found out I had cancer, and the government was standing there with a lung for me... I could maybe understand your debate... only slightly. But they're not.

You know what will happen? I'll lose my house, I'll lose my car, I'll lose all my stuff... and then I'll die. And what ever bills are left over... what ever family I have left will have to pay them. Though there's not much family left either... they all died. Some of whom because they couldn't get medical.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 22 June 2011 - 10:04 AM

[CTphpnwb]

lordofduct, on 22 June 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

You're assuming that the government pays everyones medical. That we have a socialized medical coverage of some sort. We don't... we pay our own medical, may it be through insurance, our pocket, and only in the case of special groups who are elligeable for medicaid and medicare and that ilk are being paid for by the state.

Most hospitals in this country would go out of business tomorrow if you eliminated Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. The thing about private health insurance is that it works well until you get sick enough to lose your job. Then you lose coverage and end up in bankruptcy. The hospital then gets paid by the government. Essentially, the "insurance" you think you have is really an illusion that is more of an administrative service that takes a huge cut (about 25-30%) before paying for medical services.

[lordofduct]

awww... this debate.

That has nothing to do with cigarettes, and has to do with the state of health care in general.

To stack that on the back of a sin tax is ludicrous.

Instead reform the medical system.



There's a lot that can be said about those issues. A real lot, but that's not what you or any of us have been talking about.




Also back on what we were talking about, and using the only bit of info from it actually in line. Yes, the government subsidizes loss in a hospital for unpaid bills. And that is an issue. But if I lose insurance half way through cancer recovery from smoking... and I go bankrupt... the hospital may get some of the money they lost getting me to that point. But service for the most part stops for me... I go home, and I wait, I wait painfully to die.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 22 June 2011 - 10:15 AM

[xclite]

Are you willing to provide sources that 100%, or even a majority of Diabetes sufferers get sick enough to lose their job and cost the government money?

If not, then get off it. People with Diabetes DO pay for it, because insurance in no way covers even close to 100% of the cost of treatment.

[modi123_1]

Just tossing this out there.

Quote

However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social Security, private pensions and other programs.

Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

"It looks unpleasant or ghoulish to look at the cost savings as well as the cost increases and it's not a good thing that smoking kills people," Viscusi said in an interview. "But if you're going to follow this health-cost train all the way, you have to take into account all the effects, not just the ones you like in terms of getting your bill passed."

WERNER April 7, 2009

Quote

Willard Manning, a professor of health economics and policy at the University of Chicago's Harris School of Public Policy Studies, was lead author on a paper published two decades ago in the Journal of the American Medical Association that found that, taking into account tobacco taxes in effect at the time, smokers were not a financial burden to society.

"We were actually quite surprised by the finding because we were pretty sure that smokers were getting cross-subsidized by everybody else," said Manning, who suspects the findings would be similar today. "But it was only when we put all the pieces together that we found it was pretty much a wash."

WERNER April 7, 2009

This post has been edited by modi123_1: 22 June 2011 - 10:15 AM

[no2pencil]

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 01:10 PM, said:

The thing about private health insurance is that it works well until you get sick enough to lose your job.

& that's when mother nature kicks in with the old adage 'survival of the fittest'.

[CTphpnwb]

The state of health care is that the insurance companies take the profit and the taxpayers take the hit. I'm against the latter part.

You don't need anywhere near 100% of diabetes patients or smokers losing their jobs to cost the government/taxpayers a lot of money, because these are very expensive diseases.

As for smokers dying early, that would fall under lost productivity and lost tax revenue. That they die in such a costly way doesn't help either.

[lordofduct]

Rawr, I ignore your facts put in front of me.

I know what I believe, and I believe what I know.

I'm smart!

[xclite]

But you do need 100% to punish the group and try to force lifestyle changes. Which a conservative wouldn't do anyway. Costly diseases are just a infinitesimal part of the health care issue.

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 01:22 PM, said:

because these are very expensive diseases.

AND EVEN IF THEY HAVE INSURANCE THEY PAY OUT THE ASS FOR HAVING THESE CONDITIONS.

You can't pick and choose parts of an argument and ignore the parts that address what you're bitching about.

[CTphpnwb]

Nobody's punishing them! Nor is anyone trying to force a lifestyle change! Only that you pay the full price for your choices.

I don't care how much they pay for their choices! I just don't want to be forced to pay for their choices.

[xclite]

Since this discussion wasn't originally about diabetes but cigarettes I won't reiterate at length that diabetes is hardly a choice for a lot of people.

If you want people to pay full price for their choices, you're going to have to get rid of health insurance in general. Chose to do something stupid and broke your leg? Full price.

What does health insurance cover at that point? Only things that can 100%, without a doubt be proven to not be a choice made by the victim? Just what we need, more overhead! Somebody else broke your leg? Too bad, you chose to be outside at night and subsequently were mugged.

Must be nice having never gone to the hospital or doctor on health insurance. I guarantee somebody has paid for your choices.

This post has been edited by xclite: 22 June 2011 - 10:35 AM

[no2pencil]

Americans... own up to their own decisions? NEVER!

It wasn't my fault, there was a vendetta against my leg!

[CTphpnwb]

xclite, on 22 June 2011 - 01:34 PM, said:

Since this discussion wasn't originally about diabetes but cigarettes I won't reiterate at length that diabetes is hardly a choice for a lot of people.

If you want people to pay full price for their choices, you're going to have to get rid of health insurance in general. Chose to do something stupid and broke your leg? Full price.

What does health insurance cover at that point? Only things that can 100%, without a doubt be proven to not be a choice made by the victim? Just what we need, more overhead! Somebody else broke your leg? Too bad, you chose to be outside at night and subsequently were mugged.

Must be nice having never gone to the hospital or doctor on health insurance. I guarantee somebody has paid for your choices.

Wrong. Both are choices. There's a reason doctors are always harping about diet and exercise, and that is because they matter. Choose not to follow their instructions and you will get sick. I'm just saying that you should pay the consequences too.

Wrong. Private insurance will cover what ever the market requires, and I have no problem with that. It's when you want a bailout from taxpayers for your bad choices that I object.

And wrong. I've been on my own private insurance and at my own expense.

[lordofduct]

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

And wrong. I've been on my own private insurance and at my own expense.

Yep, you're the only one

::snark snark snark::



I love your argument about 'you have a choice' and 'if you choose wrong you should pay'.

It reminds me of this skit about taxes where the joke is that, "you aren't being forced to pay taxes, you choose to pay taxes. If you choose not to, we just put you in jail." There's a word for that, that use of the word 'choose' when really you don't mean 'choose'. It's called pettifogging.

This post has been edited by lordofduct: 22 June 2011 - 10:50 AM

[CTphpnwb]

lordofduct, on 22 June 2011 - 01:46 PM, said:

CTphpnwb, on 22 June 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

And wrong. I've been on my own private insurance and at my own expense.

Yep, you're the only one

::snark snark snark::



I love your argument about 'you have a choice' and 'if you choose wrong you should pay'.

It reminds me of this skit about taxes where the joke is that, "you aren't being forced to pay taxes, you choose to pay taxes. If you choose not to, we just put you in jail." There's a word for that, that use of the word 'choose' when really you don't mean 'choose'. It's called pettifogging.

Please, don't feel bad. When you've posted real facts instead of anecdotes I'll be sure to respond.