DEATH PANEL: Let fat smokers die

[green73]

http://i.imgur.com/N89XbQ4.png


NEW YORK (AP) -- Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates.

cont
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTH_COSTS_REALITY_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-26-10-03-12

[Danan]

So they are saying that somkers shouldn't be covered by public healthcare? So they obviously don't have to pay for it either. If that is indeed their plan, I guess everybody will start smoking to get out of Obamacare and pay for their own health care.

[tod evans]

At least let "fat smokers" have access to inexpensive pain pills...

[torchbearer]

that is a huge part of the democrat demographic.

[acptulsa]

So they are saying that somkers shouldn't be covered by public healthcare? So they obviously don't have to pay for it either.

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they have to pay. Don't you realize that death and taxes are the only certainties in life?

So, would it be taxation without representation? Damned straight.

But the unrest taxation without representation causes would only be one positive aspect of this. The other would be the way people wake up when they discover fat smokers are outliving them, because tobacco may be bad but Big Pharma is worse.

[sailingaway]

actually, the one study on obesity showed that over a lifetime they cost less because the last two years of life tend to drain about 50% of the health spending, or something like that. The obese simply die when these systems start to break down, each according to their genetics and circumstances, and miss those last two expensive years.

the EU did this study to justify rationing over there. I laughed that the results turned out the opposite of what they wanted. But there is NO other study over lifetime finding the opposite.

Regardless, we knew this was coming. The left pretended we were being scare mongers. The media are liars. Every time something like this happens, the cracks in the facade get bigger imho.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

[torchbearer]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

that is a consquence of government subsidized insurance.
you want a king, get ready to have no rights.

[acptulsa]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

But the question is, should fat smokers pay for everyone else's idiocy even as they're being excluded? Because if they're to be exempted from health care taxes, along with the coverage, then smoking is about to gain in popularity.

[oyarde]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

How about the govt.'s give up the 60 % of a cost of a pack of cigarettes they collect in taxes ???

[Danan]

Don't be ridiculous. Of course they have to pay. Don't you realize that death and taxes are the only certainties in life?

Yeah I know. But I find it kind of ironic how some interest groups look at behaviour that may increase costs for "society" but only because policies they advocate force people into a terrible public healthcare system. And it's especially ironic since those smokers would probably love the opportunity to get out of that system, in which case their habit wouldn't cause any damage on the rest at all, while they would still profit. But those facts don't change the worldview of the left at all. It's really amazing...

Their argument is basically, "Your behaviour is bad for society since it's very costly to keep you alive, so we will punish you by not treating you. However, we still need your money to keep the system running, so you are not allowed to leave it and take care of yourself!" How that doesn't cause cognitive dissonance is beyond me.

[pcosmar]

Take your pick, smokers.

How about the Government just fuck off.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

How about the Government just fuck off.

That is what I prefer.

[oyarde]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

I will glaldy opt out of any govt programs, or paying for them as well .....

[SpreadOfLiberty]

I have known so many people that have smoked that have died a good 10 years prematurely. It is said and also makes our healthcare costs worse as well.

[acptulsa]

How about the govt.'s give up the 60 % of a cost of a pack of cigarettes they collect in taxes ???

Nah. But something tells me you live as close to a reservation as I do.

The really sad part is there are non-smokers who think that just because they don't smoke, the government can't do some similar squeeze action on them. And all the while, Mayor Bloomburg is trying to arrest people for possession of Big Gulps.

[pcosmar]

I have known so many people that have smoked that have died a good 10 years prematurely.

How do you know? What makes you think it was premature?

My little brother died at 10 years old,, Heart attack.
Does that mean if he had smoked he would have never been born?

I have been smoking since I was 12,, and have already outlived my Father and Grandfather.

I doubt I will die from cigarettes.

[ZENemy]

True story, when I used to smoke cigarettes I had a 350 pound lady that was drinking a bucket of milkshake tell me that smoking is bad for my health.

[Danan]

I have known so many people that have smoked that have died a good 10 years prematurely. It is said and also makes our healthcare costs worse as well.

As sailingaway mentioned, fat smokers cost the system less than healthy thin non-smokers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

[torchbearer]

True story, when I used to smoke cigarettes I had a 350 pound lady that was drinking a bucket of milkshake told me that smoking is bad for my health.

what was your response at the time?

[dillo]

Why the fuck would anyone stop smoking? We already eat GMO's, drink flouridated water out of decomposing plastic bottles, ingest processed foods with HFCS that is govt subsidized. Smoking is just the easiest scapegoat of all time.

[SpreadOfLiberty]

How do you know? What makes you think it was premature?

My little brother died at 10 years old,, Heart attack.
Does that mean if he had smoked he would have never been born?

I have been smoking since I was 12,, and have already outlived my Father and Grandfather.

I doubt I will die from cigarettes.

Because their heart and lungs were screwed up and they died younger than expected.

Cigarettes don't kill you, they just make you die sooner. There are exceptions. But unhealthy habits are never a benefit.

[oyarde]

what was your response at the time?

I would have asked for a little of that milkshake to go with my bourbon and cigarette....

[SpreadOfLiberty]

As sailingaway mentioned, fat smokers cost the system less than healthy thin non-smokers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/health/05iht-obese.1.9748884.html?_r=0

Well, on the other hand they die sooner so I can see why that would be the case. You don't have to take care of them as long.

[Brian4Liberty]

Smokers will die. Obese people will die. Skinny people will die. Non-smokers will die. Vegetarians will die.

No matter how much money the nanny-staters spend, everyone will die. Denial and wailing will not prevent that. It's amazing how much time, money and effort our society will spend in a futile cause.

Have a nice day! ;)

[pcosmar]

Smokers will die. Obese people will die. Skinny people will die. Non-smokers will die. Vegetarians will die.

No matter how much money the nanny-staters spend, everyone will die. Denial and wailing will not prevent that. It's amazing how much time, money and effort our society will spend in a futile cause.

Have a nice day! ;)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slOY4cSVfy8

;)

[mad cow]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

I'm a smoker.I choose keep smoking and stop paying for the government's idiocy.

I agree with you,I have no place in Obamacare.
So where do I sign to get out of both being in it and paying for it.

[pcosmar]

Old Smokers.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm

Mme Jeanne Calment, who was listed as the world's oldest human whose birth date could be certified, died at 122. She had begun smoking as a young woman. At 117 she quit smoking (by that age she was just smoking two or three cigarettes per day because she was blind and was too proud to ask often for someone to light her cigarettes for her). But she resumed smoking when she was 118 because, as she said, not smoking made her miserable and she was too old to be made miserable. She also said to her doctor: "Once you've lived as long as me, only then can you tell me not to smoke." Good point! [USA Today, "Way to go, champ," 10/18/95].


The Scottish Daily Record (12/15/97) reported on Ivy Leighton, 100, who smoked 20 cigarettes a day for 84 years, but cut down somewhat after her 100th birthday. April claimed smoking was the key to her long life.

The world's oldest man is (unless he has died since the last report I have, which is l997) Christian Mortensen, ll4 in l997,who has been a cigar smoker for most of his life--and still smokes them. [San Francisco Chronicle, "114 and Still Smoking," Peter Fimrite, 8/5/97, p.A13].

[thoughtomator]

The most costly demographics in health care are politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.

[acptulsa]

The most costly demographics in health care are politicians, lobbyists, and bureaucrats.

You missed 'underwriters'. Of course, the underwriters' lobbyists have now completely bought the politicians, or we wouldn't have new laws demanding we buy the underwriters' products. So I guess it has all become the same.

[DamianTV]

This is about control and profit, not about health.

What they want is to have their cake and eat it too. Did you know that death is the number one cause of not being alive any more? At some point, we all die. What they want is for a person to be perfectly healthy (IE cost their system as little as possible) until such time they become unhealthy, whether due to old age or illness, then they want to kick that person off of their benefit system that they expect that all healthy people would pay into. When the individual becomes a burden, they want two things, to increase that persons cost, and to have that person die as quickly as possible. As a result, treatments provided are ineffective. The high cost of expenses provides profit to the medical industry, not the insurance. The two factions will constantly be at war with each other for which one of the two can reap the biggest profit, but both do so at your expense.

Smokers will probably die sooner than non smokers, which is profitable insurance providers. I am half ass suprised that the insurance providers arent out there trying to get more people to smoke. But they have to maintain the illusion that they care about your health. They only want healthy people to be enrolled into the system so they can pay and increase profit margins, but they also want unhealthy people to get out of the system out of the system. They claim that smokers cost more (whcih they dont because they dont live quite as long), but try to use that as an excuse to increase their profits even further so they advocate charging smokers more.

Again, it isnt about health. It has nothing to do with health. It has everything to do with making sure that as many people as possible are completely and blindly obedient to their every whim.

Here is the trick. There is not one single person on this planet that has any sort of Right to expect me to be healthy. To do so would be to say that I do not have inherit Rights that no one else is allowed to infringe upon in any way shape or form. No one has the Right to expect me to further my education to be a "more productive member" of society. No one has a Right to expect me to work for them. To do so would mean that I do not have any Rights to the fruits of my labors. As such, no one has a Right to expect me to be a "high quality product", where the term "high quality" is a subjective term and open to interpretation. High Quality for one means that I'll remain "very healthy" and "productive" (to someone elses profit) until such time as I am no longer considered "High Quality". At that time, I am expected to be disposed of. In conclusion, no one has any Right to expect me to not smoke. No one has a Right to complain that I cost the "system" more, because I dont, and to say that I do is to repeat a misconstrued fabrication of the truth. And even if I did, it still does not give one single person the Right to tell me to not smoke, because I am not their Property.

It also depends on who you are as to whether or not I can be considered a "High Quality" financial product to be bought and sold, or not. To the Health Care Providers, "High Quality" means that I am as sick as possible, so that they can provide the most ineffective forms of treatment at highest cost because to the Health Care Providers, that is their definition of "High Quality", IE sick. To the Insurance Providers, "High Quality" means "very healthy", and they expect me to remain that way, and should I become sick, they do everything in their power to deny benefits so that I die off as quickly as possible.

The opposing interpretation of "High Quality" between the two is a giant crack that most people are falling through. People are not provided any form of effective Health Care by the Health Care Industry, while being denied the expense of Health Care by the Insurance Industry. We fal through the cracks and are #50 in terms of Longevity. WHen you get old or sick, just "hurry up and die" is all that is expected of us. And unfortunately, that is usually what happens. We are treated as chattle, as property, and when we are no longer profitable to keep, we are disposed of.

[oyarde]

Damian is correct , nothing to do with health.

[oyarde]

Anytime the Fed Govt wanders outside of Article One Section Eight it is always about control and theft .Nothing more nothing less .

[Philhelm]

So, what kills the people who don't smoke or are not obese?

[oyarde]

Liberals kill people , mostly skinny , stealing vegetarians with brain damage, lol.

[sailingaway]

So, what kills the people who don't smoke or are not obese?

this terrorist:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YC7zCGZBq3E/TIuNTiZp-TI/AAAAAAAAC6E/yXs8GXwF7pA/s1600/GrimReaper.jpg

[Philhelm]

this terrorist:

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YC7zCGZBq3E/TIuNTiZp-TI/AAAAAAAAC6E/yXs8GXwF7pA/s1600/GrimReaper.jpg

Hmmm...looks like an Iranian to me.

[mad cow]

So, what kills the people who don't smoke or are not obese?

Second hand smoke and starvation.

[DamianTV]

Second hand smoke and starvation.

Is that a serious comment? How about natural causes? How about Government? How about fucking EVERYTHING?

[oyarde]

Is that a serious comment? How about natural causes? How about Government? How about fucking EVERYTHING?

I do not think it was serious.

[cheapseats]

...No matter how much money the nanny-staters spend, everyone will die...


This really cannot be overemphasized. "At the end of the day", no one gets out alive.

Things look different for Gen X and younger but, for Baby Boomers, QUALITY OF LIFE has not been sorted out for Octogenarians and beyond. For MOST, it is a hamster wheel of doctor appointments and medical procedures. No thanks.

I wonder whether (know-it-all) "Authorities" would cut a wide berth to, or lower the boom on, an intentional community of middle-aged Smokers and Free Radicals who resolve to EXIT "EARLY" VIA NATURAL CAUSES, without the (profitable and unending) ministrations of Big Doctoring and Big Pill Dispensing.

DEAL-MAKING is all the rage, yes? YES. I will trade some Longevity for more Liberty.

[Philhelm]

Smoking cuts out the ten worst years of life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHIT2or-F9o

[tod evans]

I could see this going over well as long as copious pain pills were available but these idiots in Washington are trying to curtail the drugs even more than they are now..



This really cannot be overemphasized. "At the end of the day", no one gets out alive.

Things look different for Gen X and younger but, for Baby Boomers, QUALITY OF LIFE has not been sorted out for Octogenarians and beyond. For MOST, it is a hamster wheel of doctor appointments and medical procedures. No thanks.

I wonder whether (know-it-all) "Authorities" would cut a wide berth to, or lower the boom on, an intentional community of middle-aged Smokers and Free Radicals who resolve to EXIT "EARLY" VIA NATURAL CAUSES, without the (profitable and unending) ministrations of Big Doctoring and Big Pill Dispensing.

DEAL-MAKING is all the rage, yes? YES. I will trade some Longevity for more Liberty.

[KrokHead]

Let Fat Smokers Die
Finally, a policy everyone here can agree on.

[cheapseats]

I could see this going over well as long as copious pain pills were available but these idiots in Washington are trying to curtail the drugs even more than they are now..


If they will deny pain pills to dying people, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE GAZILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT SUCH AN ENCLAVE WILL SAVE THEM/TAXPAYERS, then pain pills can be obtained on the Black Market...BUSINESS AS USUAL.

If outlawed drugs could no longer be found/bought/had, the War on Drugs wouldn't still be pissing away good money after bad.

Americans are astonishingly self-absorbed and callous, but I think they would take a very dim view of well-paid, well-protected Government Officials (who have incredible healthcare) withholding pain pills from disgraced Smokers who crawl off to die in their own time, way and company. I suspect self-righteous Non Smokers would say something along the lines of GO AHEAD & DOPE THE DYING DOPES.

[Smart3]

If you choose to smoke, you deserve to die early. No health provider should take you, as you're killing yourself and clearly don't care about your health.

as for overweight people, that would all depend on whether or not they're morbidly obese or just obese. I freely admit I'm overweight, and I don't expect to be treated the same way by health providers.

[cheapseats]

If you choose to smoke, you deserve to die early. No health provider should take you, as you're killing yourself and clearly don't care about your health.

People who jaywalk on busy boulevards deserve to die if they get hit, right? They clearly don't prioritize HEALTH.

Extreme Sports folk deserve to die, right? LET 'EM LIE WHERE THEY CRASH.

Plenty o' animal lovers abhor the choice to HUNT. In the event of hunting accidents, do Hunters deserve to BLEED OUT?

What about people who VOLUNTEER/CHOOSE to be Soldiers? Do they DESERVE whatever they get?

On the flip side, do people who make all the "right" choices deserve heroic the-sky-is-the-limit medical measures for as long as they can possibly be kept breathing?

[Danan]

If you choose to smoke, you deserve to die early. No health provider should take you, as you're killing yourself and clearly don't care about your health.

as for overweight people, that would all depend on whether or not they're morbidly obese or just obese. I freely admit I'm overweight, and I don't expect to be treated the same way by health providers.

What a bunch of nonsense. Sorry, but why shouldn't a company be able to provide health care services to you, if you smoke? Don't you think people at insurance companies could figure out the right premium for every risk group? If they couldn't, they would be terrible at their jobs.

Also, as has been pointed out in this thread, smokers do not necessarily cost the health care system more than non-smokers. Especially heavily overweight smokers, cost the system less than fit non-smokers over the course of their lifetime.

That's exactly why the nanny state is so horrible. Suddenly everybody feels responsible for everybody else and feels the need to boss others around. "After all, I pay for you, don't I? So I have a right to tell you what to do with your life!" That's a horrible notion.

[pcosmar]

If you choose to smoke, you deserve to die early. .

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/114-and-Still-Smoking-San-Rafael-man-likely-to-3305117.php
114 and Still Smoking


Christian Mortensen, believed to be the oldest living human, was having trouble lighting his cigar yesterday, but he didn't reach the ripe old age of 114 by giving up.

Mortensen, who lives at the Aldersley Retirement Community in San Rafael, tried a cigar holder and numerous matches, but the damned thing wouldn't fire up. Then he tried something that had worked for him his entire life -- song.

"Yippy yi yo yo, yippy yi aye, yippy yi yippy yi yippy yi aye," he sang, and moments later he was blowing smoke.

The death of Jeanne Louise Calment at the age of 122 yesterday in France means Mortensen is the oldest documented person on earth,

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/114-and-Still-Smoking-San-Rafael-man-likely-to-3305117.php#ixzz2J8avKQB8

I'm not sure I want to hang around that long,,

[Smart3]

Jaywalkers deserve to die, also, right? SPEED UP when you see them...they clearly don't care about their health.

Extreme Sportspeople deserve to die, right? LET 'EM LIE WHERE THEY CRASH.

Plenty o' animal lovers abhor the choice to HUNT. In the event of hunting accidents, do Hunters deserve to BLEED OUT?

What about people who VOLUNTEER/CHOOSE to be Soldiers? Do they DESERVE whatever they get?

On the flip side, do people who make all the "right" choices deserve heroic the-sky-is-the-limit medical measures for as long as they can possibly be kept breathing?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

[cheapseats]

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

I am "of course" not surprised by your first four YES's but, if you are among those playing the electoral politics "game", you'll wanna keep your heartlessness to yourself. Recall that Ron Paul was submarined with a question about whether he would let whichever Needy simply die.

I AM surprised by the fifth YES, i.e. that people who make all the "right" choices deserve heroic the-sky-is-the-limit medical measures for as long as they can possibly be kept breathing. Are you prepared to kick in for those costs, 'cuz keeping the "right" Oldsters alive for as long as possible is a HUGE component of Medicare.

[Smart3]

I am "of course" not surprised by your first four YES's but, if you are among those playing the electoral politics "game", you'll wanna keep your heartlessness to yourself. Recall that Ron Paul was submarined with a question about whether he would let whichever Needy simply die.

But I AM surprised by the fifth YES, i.e. that people who make all the "right" choices deserve heroic the-sky-is-the-limit medical measures for as long as they can possibly be kept breathing. Are you prepared to kick in for those costs, 'cuz keeping the "right" Oldsters alive for as long as possible is a HUGE component of Medicare.

I am a registered Libertarian. I do not give a damn what people think of me or my political views.

The fifth yes was in reference to health providers prioritizing those who contribute (or have contributed) the most to society, as opposed to those who contribute little or none.

I oppose the existence of Medicare. I do not have insurance because no one will have me, as I'm high-risk (ie, sick very often). Ordinarily, that would turn someone into a liberal on this issue, but it hasn't in my case. I do wish I could get insurance though as it's a burden on my mother to foot the bill every time. Worse yet, I can't even enter a hospital or see a doctor without paying too much.

@pcosmar
While there are exceptions to the rule, generally smokers die much younger. My grandmother was (and still sort of is) a smoker, who now has to pay the price, similarly I expect my aunt to suffer the same fate. I find it disgusting, but it's their life and their mistakes, not mine.

My low tolerance for smoking is partially due to having seen my step-grandfather have his leg chopped off thanks to gangrene. It was terrifying to be at his deathbed, while comatose and reading him something from the Bible.

[Feeding the Abscess]

If the choice is between letting fat smokers die and the government paying to keep them alive and functioning, well... I'm taking option 1.

Although, to be honest, I can't see a truly free society catering to people who intentionally make bad health choices with low cost healthcare. There wouldn't be government tobacco and food lobbies/industries either, so the amount of fat smokers would be significantly lower in number. That, and the chemical additives in tobacco would likely be less bountiful, so the adverse effects would be lessened.

[cheapseats]

The fifth yes was in reference to health providers prioritizing those who contribute (or have contributed) the most to society, as opposed to those who contribute little or none.

I oppose the existence of Medicare. I do not have insurance because no one will have me, as I'm high-risk (ie, sick very often). Ordinarily, that would turn someone into a liberal on this issue, but it hasn't in my case.


But Medicare DOES exist. And most people who pay in DON'T pay in enough to cover "heroic" medicine well into their 80's & 90's.



I am a registered Libertarian. I do not give a damn what people think of me or my political views.

It's not about what people think of YOU, it's what they think of whomever you pimp for office...IF you are doing the electoral politics thing.



I do wish I could get insurance though as it's a burden on my mother to foot the bill every time. Worse yet, I can't even enter a hospital or see a doctor without paying too much.

Obama's not-at-all Affordable Healthcare Act supposedly remedies the uninsurability of Preexisting Conditions. Don't answer if you don't want to...like I have to say that to a Libertarian, right?...but I am curious whether you will try to get/get insurance.

[Smart3]

But Medicare DOES exist. And most people who pay in DON'T pay in enough to cover "heroic" medicine well into their 80's & 90's.
I would not oppose replacing medicare with a progressive (single-payer) model. The fact of the matter is that we live in a country populated by people who believe that is the proper role of government. We should thus create a more effective system, so we can at least benefit somewhat from the wasted tax monies.

I'm not sure what you mean by heroic. I don't think someone who takes a bullet for someone should have to foot the bill, The hospital can afford to cover these rare instances.

[cheapseats]

I'm not sure what you mean by heroic. I don't think someone who takes a bullet for someone should have to foot the bill, The hospital can afford to cover these rare instances.


By "heroic medicine", I refer to keeping people "alive" at any cost...irrespective of how OLD they are or whether there is any QUALITY to the "life" artificially sustained.

[FrancisMarion]

Anybody want to wager on how much this goes up in price in the next two years? Over / Under at 100%

http://cdn.dealbreaker.com/uploads/2012/09/bacon.jpg

:(

[Philhelm]

If you choose to smoke, you deserve to die early. No health provider should take you, as you're killing yourself and clearly don't care about your health.

as for overweight people, that would all depend on whether or not they're morbidly obese or just obese. I freely admit I'm overweight, and I don't expect to be treated the same way by health providers.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5VkNBcOIGMk

[Philhelm]

The fifth yes was in reference to health providers prioritizing those who contribute (or have contributed) the most to society, as opposed to those who contribute little or none.

How should it be determined who was the most contributive to society? Perhaps the government could devise a points system in which each individual is given a number designating their worth to the group. Why is there any duty to contribute to society to begin with? Is there something inherently wrong with leading an insular lifestyle, harming no one? This sentiment comes across as somewhat Orwellian to me.

[Anti Federalist]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

LOL - They will be coming for your "idiocy" next pal.

Medical fascism.

[Anti Federalist]

So, what kills the people who don't smoke or are not obese?

Cops...?

[Anti Federalist]

Fuck this...enough talk and fuck all you short sighted people right here, who should damn well know better how this is going to turn out, getting on your high horse about somebody else's choices that they make.

Maybe we all ought to sit around and start poo-pooing (pun most certainly intended) the negative health costs of male homosexuality.

Ya'll can kiss my fat ass, while I fire up a cigar and pour myself a drink.

Fuck me...fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

[Anti Federalist]

That's exactly why the nanny state is so horrible. Suddenly everybody feels responsible for everybody else and feels the need to boss others around. "After all, I pay for you, don't I? So I have a right to tell you what to do with your life!" That's a horrible notion.

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis

[LibForestPaul]

Bacon tax.

Aids research stopped.

Fat people rationed.

Old people healthcare cap.

HAHAHAHAHAHA. fuckers wanted this, good!

[pcosmar]

My life and health is in Gods hands. And he cares for me well.
I don't need a "Health Care Provider".
I will live till I die in his hands.

Most damage repairs I do myself. If I can not fix it, I will find a Veterinarian that can.

Screw Socialized "Health Care".

[BAllen]

WTF are they doing with all that tobacco tax money? Wasn't that supposed to cover it? I mean, that's gotta be billions right there.

[pcosmar]

WTF are they doing with all that tobacco tax money?

Same thing they did with Social Security Money. They spent it on Bombs.

[heavenlyboy34]

that is a consquence of government subsidized insurance.
you want a king, get ready to have no rights.
Monarchs typically respect rights better than democratically elected representatives. Exceptions are pretty rare.

[heavenlyboy34]

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive.

It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
This^^ Timeless classic. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

Cops...?
Robot cars...?

[A Son of Liberty]

Monarchs typically respect rights better than democratically elected representatives. Exceptions are pretty rare.

Stands to reason. A monarch is but one man. Disrespect the rights of those around you to too great an extent, and it's easy enough to be killed. Democracies (which to a great extent the US is), on the other hand, are at least 50% +1... disrespect the rights of those around you to too great an extent and... well, you got the numbers, at least.

[A Son of Liberty]

Bacon tax.

Line. In. The. Sand.

[Anti Federalist]

I am a registered Libertarian. I do not give a damn what people think of me or my political views.

The fifth yes was in reference to health providers prioritizing those who contribute (or have contributed) the most to society, as opposed to those who contribute little or none.

Determined by whom?

You, Josef?

LOL - Explains why I am not.

[Anti Federalist]

Monarchs typically respect rights better than democratically elected representatives. Exceptions are pretty rare.

In the course of a family outing today down in Boston, attended a very well staged and accurate re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party.

King George was guilty of benign neglect and perhaps a little short temper.

We suffer daily under tyrannies that are manifestly far greater than anything King George could have or would have ever considered.

[Philhelm]

In the course of a family outing today down in Boston, attended a very well staged and accurate re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party.

King George was guilty of benign neglect and perhaps a little short temper.

We suffer daily under tyrannies that are manifestly far greater than anything King George could have or would have ever considered.

Strangely enough, +1776...

[tod evans]

Crying to government for healthcare, crying to government about smokers, crying to government about guns....


Crying!


Government isn't your parent, and you're not it's child.

[acptulsa]

How should it be determined who was the most contributive to society? Perhaps the government could devise a points system in which each individual is given a number designating their worth to the group. Why is there any duty to contribute to society to begin with? Is there something inherently wrong with leading an insular lifestyle, harming no one? This sentiment comes across as somewhat Orwellian to me.

As well it should. Maybe we should define a new category just for Smart3--Libertorwellian.

[pacodever]

I don't think I would want to live a government endorsed life. That would be my own version of hell.

The solution is easy. Society doesn't pay for your healthcare, society doesn't tell you how to live your life.

If the government were allowed to dictate health choices, you would have to completely change the way you live every couple of years, with each fad diet or junk science study, not to mention there would be billions riding on each government decision for corporations.


"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny."

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-d7gY7bTGog4/Tdo1-4ol8hI/AAAAAAAAAKA/cJNh9PhP410/s400/doctors-smoke-camel.jpg

[Henry Rogue]

As well it should. Maybe we should define a new category just for Smart3--Libertorwellian.

New Libertarian> Neolib

[PaulConventionWV]

So they are saying that somkers shouldn't be covered by public healthcare? So they obviously don't have to pay for it either. If that is indeed their plan, I guess everybody will start smoking to get out of Obamacare and pay for their own health care.

It's not like smoking is something you just pick up on a whim to get out of Obamacare. I would never smoke because it decreases your quality of life and makes you die younger.

[Henry Rogue]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.
First government steals your money. Then it makes health care unaffordable through manipulation. Then government gives you a choice, change or die. Nothing like the freedom of choice. Democracy: How the the majority of sheep sh!t on the individual.

[PaulConventionWV]

But the question is, should fat smokers pay for everyone else's idiocy even as they're being excluded? Because if they're to be exempted from health care taxes, along with the coverage, then smoking is about to gain in popularity.

That's a moot question. Everyone pays. It doesn't matter what you do. Quit smoking because it's bad for you. Don't just continue to make yourself fat and sick by smoking just because it gives you access to gov't healthcare. That's stupid. If I have a drinking problem, I should quit because it's eventually going to ruin me in one way or another.

It surprises me how even people on this board seem obsessed with the idea of equality at all costs, even if it goes against common sense. It doesn't matter if there's unequal healthcare. That's just the nature of a government system. What matters is YOU and YOUR life choices, not whether you can be rescued by gov't healthcare when you do something stupid. Everyone pays because it's the gov't. Don't put yourself in danger just to take advantage of this stuff. If you want to quit, then do it and stop worrying about what you're paying for. At this point, it's just a fact of life that nothing's fair.

[tangent4ronpaul]

I am half ass suprised that the insurance providers arent out there trying to get more people to smoke.


the chemical additives in tobacco would likely be less bountiful, so the adverse effects would be lessened.

DAMN! - it took this thread a long time to bring this up!

Yeah, the chemicals. We have gvmt mandated ones to make cigs burn faster, and recently gvmt mandated "speed bumps" (thanks to insurance lobbyists) to make them burn slower. You know the ones based on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

I'm betting there was a lot less cancer among smokers prior to all these chemicals being added.


WTF are they doing with all that tobacco tax money? Wasn't that supposed to cover it? I mean, that's gotta be billions right there.

http://www.transformtobacco.com/Pages/TaxHistory.aspx

Tax Facts – History

Cigarettes are among of the most heavily taxed consumer products in the United States.

Federal, state and local governments collect more money from the sale of cigarettes than retailers, wholesalers, farmers and manufacturers do combined.

In FY2009 alone, between federal, state and local taxes and tobacco settlement payments, the government raked in more than $38 billion:

$8.5 billion in federal excise taxes
$20.3 billion in state excise taxes
$8.8 billion in state settlement payments

Since FY1997, the weighted state average tax has gone up 197.5 percent – from 32.1¢ to 95.3¢ as of January 2008.

From 1997 to 2010, there have been 121 state excise tax increases, including in the District of Columbia.

Total state excise tax revenues have risen 115 percent, from $7.3 billion in FY1997 to $15.7 billion in FY2009.
Cigarette Retail and Taxes

As of March 2010, the average retail price of a package of 20 cigarettes (full-priced brands) was $5.27, up from $4.53 in 2007, including federal, state and municipal excise taxes.
Payments to the government, on average, for 55 percent of the retail price of cigarettes.
Around 64 percent of all tobacco sales occur in the nation’s 145,119 convenience stores, according to a National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) study.
The average convenience store sells about $438,000 worth of cigarette each year. In addition, cigarette sales are the number one in-store item for these stores, comprising about 36 percent of merchandise sales.

http://www.transformtobacco.com/Pages/TaxMoney.aspx

Where Does the Money Go?

Cigarette taxes and settlement agreement funds are supposed to fund youth smoking prevention programs and other tobacco-related public health programs, but that’s not always where the money really goes. Instead, more and more of your taxes are used to fund causes and projects unrelated to tobacco control. Here are just a few of the projects funded by your MSA dollars:
New York
Dump trucks, golf carts and a course irrigation system, and a new county jail
Virginia
Broadband cable networks
New Jersey
Psychiatric care for prisoners
Alabama
Boot camps for juvenile delinquents; alternative schools
Nevada
Upgrading public television stations with DVD technology
Alaska
Harbor renovation and museum expansion
South Carolina
Water and sewer improvements
Michigan
Pasture and weather monitoring for a thoroughbred association in Kentucky
Kentucky
College scholarships
California
City parks and the purchase of undeveloped land
Illinois
A senior citizen prescription-drug program and property-tax rebates
Maine
Medicaid dental services
North Dakota
Water Resources Trust Fund and flood-control projects

====

I'm about to become really unpopular around here, but let me throw out a radical idea. STIMULUS!

Right now, pharmaceutical companies are like drug dealers. The money is in maintenance drugs so they get an "addict" for life. There is no money in curing someone. $38 BILLION is a good chunk of change. I bet that would fund one hell of a Manhattan project to find a few cures. There are a few diseases that really drive healthcare costs up, lets cure them. We could do it with minor grants and a award for any found cures. That and tell the FDA to be completely HANDS OFF!

As to obesity, we've identified the gene that causes that, though there is also lifestyle and diet. Like all the kids in the Fukishimo area have become fat because they have been kept inside due to the radiation. It's feasible to target that gene. Look at Eskimo's - really fatty diet and generally obese. Yet they are healthier than your average American. What we are talking about is diseases of the developed world. People in third world countries generally have more basic diets and are healthier (if they are not starving). Some Japanese pay their workers to exercise every shift.

COPD is because the defensive mechanisms in your lungs are trying to keep out particulate matter and have been trained to kick in sooner with repeated exposure. I bet they could be trained not to do that. Maybe a smokeless cigarette sith some aderol(sp?) in it? Personally, I use reading glasses. The more I use them, the more magnification I need. The less I use them, the less magnification - and quite frankly, sometimes I don't need them at all. Letters are a bit fuzzy, but I can make them out if I haven't used my glasses in a while. The less I use them, the more crisp the letters. If you can train eyes to go the opposite direction, you should be able to train lungs.

There are some fairly major advances in targeting cancers. The cost benefit curve would pay off sooner for a cure sooner, than putting the same money into research over 10-20 years and still having to pay the expensive health care over that period on top of it. Like I said we need a Manhattan project.

Really, the worst cause of the diseases of the developing world are GMO's and all the chemicals in food and their containers. Ban Monsanto and the general health in this country would increase greatly!

*DUCKS!*

-t

[PaulConventionWV]

Old Smokers.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm

What is the point of this information? Are you trying to say that smoking is healthy? Are you trying to say it's "not that bad"? Because cigarettes still have a bunch of known toxins in them and virtually nothing that's good for health. If there's one piece of common knowledge that people on here like to refute simply because it's common knowledge, it's that you shouldn't smoke. Don't encourage people.

[pcosmar]

What is the point of this information?
Not that it's "healthy", but that the negatives are grossly overstated.
To point out that obvious bullshit is Bullshit.


Don't encourage people.
And every time is here this Crap it makes me want to light a cigarette.

[BAllen]

DAMN! - it took this thread a long time to bring this up!

Yeah, the chemicals. We have gvmt mandated ones to make cigs burn faster, and recently gvmt mandated "speed bumps" (thanks to insurance lobbyists) to make them burn slower. You know the ones based on formaldehyde, a known carcinogen.

I'm betting there was a lot less cancer among smokers prior to all these chemicals being added.



http://www.transformtobacco.com/Pages/TaxHistory.aspx

Tax Facts – History

Cigarettes are among of the most heavily taxed consumer products in the United States.

Federal, state and local governments collect more money from the sale of cigarettes than retailers, wholesalers, farmers and manufacturers do combined.

In FY2009 alone, between federal, state and local taxes and tobacco settlement payments, the government raked in more than $38 billion:

$8.5 billion in federal excise taxes
$20.3 billion in state excise taxes
$8.8 billion in state settlement payments

Since FY1997, the weighted state average tax has gone up 197.5 percent – from 32.1¢ to 95.3¢ as of January 2008.

From 1997 to 2010, there have been 121 state excise tax increases, including in the District of Columbia.

Total state excise tax revenues have risen 115 percent, from $7.3 billion in FY1997 to $15.7 billion in FY2009.
Cigarette Retail and Taxes

As of March 2010, the average retail price of a package of 20 cigarettes (full-priced brands) was $5.27, up from $4.53 in 2007, including federal, state and municipal excise taxes.
Payments to the government, on average, for 55 percent of the retail price of cigarettes.
Around 64 percent of all tobacco sales occur in the nation’s 145,119 convenience stores, according to a National Association of Convenience Stores (NACS) study.
The average convenience store sells about $438,000 worth of cigarette each year. In addition, cigarette sales are the number one in-store item for these stores, comprising about 36 percent of merchandise sales.

http://www.transformtobacco.com/Pages/TaxMoney.aspx

Where Does the Money Go?

Cigarette taxes and settlement agreement funds are supposed to fund youth smoking prevention programs and other tobacco-related public health programs, but that’s not always where the money really goes. Instead, more and more of your taxes are used to fund causes and projects unrelated to tobacco control. Here are just a few of the projects funded by your MSA dollars:
New York
Dump trucks, golf carts and a course irrigation system, and a new county jail
Virginia
Broadband cable networks
New Jersey
Psychiatric care for prisoners
Alabama
Boot camps for juvenile delinquents; alternative schools
Nevada
Upgrading public television stations with DVD technology
Alaska
Harbor renovation and museum expansion
South Carolina
Water and sewer improvements
Michigan
Pasture and weather monitoring for a thoroughbred association in Kentucky
Kentucky
College scholarships
California
City parks and the purchase of undeveloped land
Illinois
A senior citizen prescription-drug program and property-tax rebates
Maine
Medicaid dental services
North Dakota
Water Resources Trust Fund and flood-control projects

====

I'm about to become really unpopular around here, but let me throw out a radical idea. STIMULUS!

Right now, pharmaceutical companies are like drug dealers. The money is in maintenance drugs so they get an "addict" for life. There is no money in curing someone. $38 BILLION is a good chunk of change. I bet that would fund one hell of a Manhattan project to find a few cures. There are a few diseases that really drive healthcare costs up, lets cure them. We could do it with minor grants and a award for any found cures. That and tell the FDA to be completely HANDS OFF!

As to obesity, we've identified the gene that causes that, though there is also lifestyle and diet. Like all the kids in the Fukishimo area have become fat because they have been kept inside due to the radiation. It's feasible to target that gene. Look at Eskimo's - really fatty diet and generally obese. Yet they are healthier than your average American. What we are talking about is diseases of the developed world. People in third world countries generally have more basic diets and are healthier (if they are not starving). Some Japanese pay their workers to exercise every shift.

COPD is because the defensive mechanisms in your lungs are trying to keep out particulate matter and have been trained to kick in sooner with repeated exposure. I bet they could be trained not to do that. Maybe a smokeless cigarette sith some aderol(sp?) in it? Personally, I use reading glasses. The more I use them, the more magnification I need. The less I use them, the less magnification - and quite frankly, sometimes I don't need them at all. Letters are a bit fuzzy, but I can make them out if I haven't used my glasses in a while. The less I use them, the more crisp the letters. If you can train eyes to go the opposite direction, you should be able to train lungs.

There are some fairly major advances in targeting cancers. The cost benefit curve would pay off sooner for a cure sooner, than putting the same money into research over 10-20 years and still having to pay the expensive health care over that period on top of it. Like I said we need a Manhattan project.

Really, the worst cause of the diseases of the developing world are GMO's and all the chemicals in food and their containers. Ban Monsanto and the general health in this country would increase greatly!

*DUCKS!*

-t

Just as I thought.......they waste it! As you can see, there is plenty of money to cover smokers without raising insurance rates on them. I don't smoke, but the facts are there. As usual, they use smoking as an excuse to raise taxes, and spend it elsewhere, then go back to the smokers for higher ins. premiums. Where will they get the lost revenue from smokers? Do they even think that far ahead? Probably not. Just like they never thought ahead when they allowed all our factory jobs to be shipped overseas, or our current tech workers to be outsourced to Indians for cheaper pay. Lost revenue? They can't see it, or don't care. The real estate companies can't understand why they don't have anybody to sell their over-inflated houses to, so they force bad loans. Looks like they'd have had lobbyists in favor of tarriffs, to keep their pool of potential buyers. But, they probably don't think that far ahead, either.

[Origanalist]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4576043730404218&pid=15.1

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4958647984850628&pid=15.1

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4928471515268121&pid=15.1

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4584762513294020&pid=15.1

Ah yes, the evil weed.

http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4596079720465520&pid=15.1

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4531440498639986&pid=15.1

It's time to outlaw tobacco!

[MelissaWV]

What is the point of this information? Are you trying to say that smoking is healthy? Are you trying to say it's "not that bad"? Because cigarettes still have a bunch of known toxins in them and virtually nothing that's good for health. If there's one piece of common knowledge that people on here like to refute simply because it's common knowledge, it's that you shouldn't smoke. Don't encourage people.

You are confusing smoking with smoking commercially produced cigarettes. This is not shocking, as earlier you were talking about people getting fat and smoking just to get Government healthcare. No. The point was that if I am supposed to pay in a whole lot of taxes to a "universal" system, then that system decides I do not get any benefit at all and, in fact, am treated as subhuman... then it's even worse than the taxation we already face.

The point of the information provided was that the anti-smoking people act like even getting a whiff of smoke will kill you dead before your poor children have a chance to graduate HS. It's simply not true. How often you smoke, what you smoke, where you smoke, and your own genetic makeup, have a whole lot to do with how it will impact you.

[Origanalist]

That's a moot question. Everyone pays. It doesn't matter what you do. Quit smoking because it's bad for you. Don't just continue to make yourself fat and sick by smoking just because it gives you access to gov't healthcare. That's stupid. If I have a drinking problem, I should quit because it's eventually going to ruin me in one way or another.

It surprises me how even people on this board seem obsessed with the idea of equality at all costs, even if it goes against common sense. It doesn't matter if there's unequal healthcare. That's just the nature of a government system. What matters is YOU and YOUR life choices, not whether you can be rescued by gov't healthcare when you do something stupid. Everyone pays because it's the gov't. Don't put yourself in danger just to take advantage of this stuff. If you want to quit, then do it and stop worrying about what you're paying for. At this point, it's just a fact of life that nothing's fair.

So smoking makes you fat?

[acptulsa]

That's a moot question. Everyone pays. It doesn't matter what you do. Quit smoking because it's bad for you. Don't just continue to make yourself fat and sick by smoking just because it gives you access to gov't healthcare. That's stupid. If I have a drinking problem, I should quit because it's eventually going to ruin me in one way or another.

It surprises me how even people on this board seem obsessed with the idea of equality at all costs, even if it goes against common sense. It doesn't matter if there's unequal healthcare. That's just the nature of a government system. What matters is YOU and YOUR life choices, not whether you can be rescued by gov't healthcare when you do something stupid. Everyone pays because it's the gov't. Don't put yourself in danger just to take advantage of this stuff. If you want to quit, then do it and stop worrying about what you're paying for. At this point, it's just a fact of life that nothing's fair.

It surprises me how many people there are on this board who don't agree with the idea of equality in all things governmental, or if there is not equality, that there is not equal taxation to support it. Anything else is taxation without representation.

The entire history of this nation is one of a struggle toward the fine ideals written by Thomas Jefferson and his friends into the Declaration. And the first place we go to find equality is the government, because if we can't get equal treatment from the government this is no republic. This is common sense. If government cannot do a thing without discriminating (on any basis, not just race or sex), then government has no business taking it over. This has been at the core to the libertarian/paleo objections to nationalized health care since back when it was Medicare, and only those over 65 had to worry about it.

Common sense says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, don't expect government to fix it. Giving the mercurial, ever-changing nature of current medical thought, and the 'fads' that have come and gone since back in the days that the most important nutrient on the chart was protein from red meat, giving this ever-changing 'consensus' of medical academia the power of law, and making every doctor an agent of the state, is a brand of creeping tyranny that goes way beyond, 'Common sense and the propaganda against tobacco have won and we should just do what they say is good for us.'

You're not only barely scratching the surface of this subject, you seem quite content to be incrementalized into Soviet Life. Excuse us if we disagree. It never cost money to live and breathe in this nation before. You might have had to pay tax for your shelter or your food. But a line is being crossed. This health care insurance mandate is tantamount to taxing the very oxygen in the air.

[ItsTime]

They know it is the poor people who smoke so and they want them dead.

[acptulsa]

They know it is the poor people who smoke so and they want them dead.

Not until they retire. What they want is their impossible system of universal health care to run in black ink. But no matter how many people they're able to single out and screw over, it won't run in the black. They'll get their kickbacks. The private entities that play will make a killing. But the system will never run in the black.

[tod evans]

It's not like smoking is something you just pick up on a whim to get out of Obamacare. I would never smoke because it decreases your quality of life and makes you die younger.

You may believe smoking would decrease the quality of your life and that's cool, but my life is enhanced with a fresh bowl of fine tobacco in my briar.

[Anti Federalist]

It's not like smoking is something you just pick up on a whim to get out of Obamacare. I would never smoke because it decreases your quality of life and makes you die younger.

If by "dying younger" you mean dying before my brains and asshole give out and I don't spend the last few years of my life drooling and shitting myself as I slowly die in a hospital bed while the medical fascists suck up whatever pennies I have left to my name, leaving my family and friends with nothing but that image of me and broke to boot, then light me up pal.

I gave up cigarettes years ago, and I might have just convinced myself to start again.

[A Son of Liberty]

If by "dying younger" you mean dying before my brains and asshole give out and I don't spend the last few years of my life drooling and shitting myself as I slowly die in a hospital bed while the medical fascists suck up whatever pennies I have left to my name, leaving my family and friends with nothing but that image of me and broke to boot, then light me up pal.

I gave up cigarettes years ago, and I might have just convinced myself to start again.

Generally speaking, though, all smoking does is move those last 10 years of your life up 10 years.

My stepdad is slowly dying from his years of smoking. He's physically aged well beyond his 58 years. He should still be relatively young and healthy, and able to get around without weasing, and play with his grandson without taking to a coughing fit.

Don't do it.

[tod evans]

Deviating from the ever popular bash smokers campaign into an area of cause and effect that won't be so popular.

In line with elevated healthcare costs related to smoking I'd like to raise the very real issue of silicosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis), following the train of thought exhibited by the anti-smoking crowd every person who lives in an arid/desert environment must be taxed at a higher rate, those who's residences are on dirt roads too, near a quarry etc.

And this is only one other well substantiated cause of lung cancer...........Why do so many of you fall in line parroting media hype about tobacco when there are far more definitive causes of cancer out there that big government chooses to overlook or under-report?

[Anti Federalist]

You may believe smoking would decrease the quality of your life and that's cool, but my life is enhanced with a fresh bowl of fine tobacco in my briar.

My god, this!

We are all wound up, because of our collective hysterical fear of death caused by the incessant Safety Uber Alles propaganda pounded into our heads, that people have forgotten the purpose of a long life is to live.

Bunch of modern day Puritans we've all turned into: "Firsteth Toil, Then, The Grayve."

You are 100% correct, on a cold winter night, this enhanced my life.

http://i.imgur.com/z9VUoIS.jpg

[MelissaWV]

Deviating from the ever popular bash smokers campaign into an area of cause and effect that won't be so popular.

In line with elevated healthcare costs related to smoking I'd like to raise the very real issue of silicosis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis), following the train of thought exhibited by the anti-smoking crowd every person who lives in an arid/desert environment must be taxed at a higher rate, those who's residences are on dirt roads too, near a quarry etc.

And this is only one other well substantiated cause of lung cancer...........Why do so many of you fall in line parroting media hype about tobacco when there are far more definitive causes of cancer out there that big government chooses to overlook or under-report?

Don't forget Type I Diabetes, which carries with it the associated costs of a lifetime of medication. There are also parents who have genes that make them more likely to give birth to a child with a birth defect or two. Oh and twins. Twins run in families and often lead to a stay in the NICU for the newborns. Rather expensive. Drinkers? Not only more likely to get a lot of random injuries (think fights in bars, bumps and bruises from staggering home, injuries from the car accidents they inevitably get into, damage from domestic disputes, and whatever cliche and ridiculous stuff I can think of that the media told me), but also liver and kidney damage galore.. The list could seriously go on and on.

[MelissaWV]

So, in conclusion, since we're going to change what you pay in based on your risky genes and lifestyle choices... hey! I have this crazy idea! What if we start companies that will assign risk based on their own research and factors, and compete for your business?

[acptulsa]

My god, this!

We are all wound up, because of our collective hysterical fear of death caused by the incessant Safety Uber Alles propaganda pounded into our heads, that people have forgotten the purpose of a long life is to live.

Bunch of modern day Puritans we've all turned into: "Firsteth Toil, Then, The Grayve."

Here we are. And what is the one thing that can least enhance the quality of our lives? How about a bunch of little totalitarian bureaucrats running around telling us what to do, what not to do, what habits to have, what habits not to have, and (at great length), why?

One might admire Carrie Nation. But very few would wish to hang out with her.


...and whatever cliche and ridiculous stuff I can think of that the media told me), but also liver and kidney damage galore.. The list could seriously go on and on.

Not 'could'. Will. This is a money-munching monster, and finding people to overcharge, or charge but exclude, will become a national mania. Count on it. No habit will be immune in the end. When there is no precedent, they will go for those who have been propagandized against, like smokers. Once they set some precedent, you could be banned from health care for life for getting caught chewing your dirty fingernails.

[Anti Federalist]

Generally speaking, though, all smoking does is move those last 10 years of your life up 10 years.

My stepdad is slowly dying from his years of smoking. He's physically aged well beyond his 58 years. He should still be relatively young and healthy, and able to get around without weasing, and play with his grandson without taking to a coughing fit.

Don't do it.

Yeah, it can cut all different ways, both my in-laws are in misery right now, one smoked one didn't.

And my grandfather was alert and healthy, died at 96 and smoked to the end.

Always one thing to suggest to people better ways to stay healthy or what have you.

Quite another thing to sic the medical fascists on them and tell them them to fuck off and die and giving government the power to determine who lives and dies, who gets medical care and who doesn't, based some bureaucrat's assessment of how much they have "contributed" to society.

[pcosmar]

What causes cancer in fish?

Clue:
They don't smoke.

[oyarde]

Anybody want to wager on how much this goes up in price in the next two years? Over / Under at 100%

http://cdn.dealbreaker.com/uploads/2012/09/bacon.jpg

:(

My prediction in mid 2012 was100 % , based only on drought , feed prices etc.

[tod evans]

Of course the "list" could...........and will.............go on, and on!

Look for gas chromatography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography) to be used by government funded health-care providers so that they may protect their investment in you.

Too much tylenol.....no coverage.........Consumed bootleg pain meds.......no coverage...

Then since government is already testing you for what you've consumed, look for criminal charges based on these mandated tests...(It's happening now)



Don't forget Type I Diabetes, which carries with it the associated costs of a lifetime of medication. There are also parents who have genes that make them more likely to give birth to a child with a birth defect or two. Oh and twins. Twins run in families and often lead to a stay in the NICU for the newborns. Rather expensive. Drinkers? Not only more likely to get a lot of random injuries (think fights in bars, bumps and bruises from staggering home, injuries from the car accidents they inevitably get into, damage from domestic disputes, and whatever cliche and ridiculous stuff I can think of that the media told me), but also liver and kidney damage galore.. The list could seriously go on and on.

[torchbearer]

So, in conclusion, since we're going to change what you pay in based on your risky genes and lifestyle choices... hey! I have this crazy idea! What if we start companies that will assign risk based on their own research and factors, and compete for your business?

:D

[A Son of Liberty]

Yeah, it can cut all different ways, both my in-laws are in misery right now, one smoked one didn't.

And my grandfather was alert and healthy, died at 96 and smoked to the end.

Always one thing to suggest to people better ways to stay healthy or what have you.

Quite another thing to sic the medical fascists on them and tell them them to fuck off and die and giving government the power to determine who lives and dies, who gets medical care and who doesn't, based some bureaucrat's assessment of how much they have "contributed" to society.

Agreed 100%. I'd never dream of dictating to you.

I hate to see what has become of my stepdad. That's all.

[otherone]

Smoking, drinking, and fattening aren't the problem. People should take responsibility for the consequences of their own behaviors. No one here yet has questioned that basic healthcare is out of the financial reach of anyone save the wealthy without joining a collective. Insurance interests are in collusion with government (there's a shocker). Without insurance, you risk losing your life's savings just to have a broken ankle set. Americans are forced to plug into the matrix to avoid ruin, and with obamacare even more so. Another benefit of our Corporate Plutocracy.

[phill4paul]

The list could seriously go on and on.

And it will. As sure as the sun rises. Electronic medical records, GPS location, political views and on and on. Everything will be taken into account.

[Anti Federalist]

Of course the "list" could...........and will.............go on, and on!

Look for gas chromatography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_chromatography) to be used by government funded health-care providers so that they may protect their investment in you.

Too much tylenol.....no coverage.........Consumed bootleg pain meds.......no coverage...

Then since government is already testing you for what you've consumed, look for criminal charges based on these mandated tests...(It's happening now)

I thought I was losing my mind...that somehow I was the only one who could see this, how the corporate/medical/government world of medical fascism will combine together to mandate and regulate everything you do in life.

Tod's on fire this morning, somebody toss him a rep for me, will ya please?

[Anti Federalist]

And it will. As sure as the sun rises. Electronic medical records, GPS location, political views and on and on. Everything will be taken into account.

And to phill...

I'll start smoking again just to check out of this Brave New World being built.

People are eagerly marching right into hell on earth, smiling and applauding.

[tod evans]

Tod's on fire this morning, somebody toss him a rep for me, will ya please?

Spare the rep :o

Those who imbibe in whatever please do.

Those who don't please shut the fuck up for a day...

[Anti Federalist]

Agreed 100%. I'd never dream of dictating to you.

I hate to see what has become of my stepdad. That's all.

I understand, and since I have many ill people on my mind currently, I'll keep him in my prayers.

[MelissaWV]

Smoking, drinking, and fattening aren't the problem. People should take responsibility for the consequences of their own behaviors. No one here yet has questioned that basic healthcare is out of the financial reach of anyone save the wealthy without joining a collective. Insurance interests are in collusion with government (there's a shocker). Without insurance, you risk losing your life's savings just to have a broken ankle set. Americans are forced to plug into the matrix to avoid ruin, and with obamacare even more so. Another benefit of our Corporate Plutocracy.

That's weird. I went without insurance for many, many years. I've managed to pay my medical bills. I also work in a field helping those who can't pay, get medical care for free/reduced prices.

Cost to fix my arm when I got stabbed? $300. Of course, that was full price.

Hyperbole does not help either side of the argument.

[liberty2897]

What causes cancer in fish?

Clue:
They don't smoke.

Nuclear weapons testing? My guess is the same thing that causes cancer in humans. Ionizing radiation.

http://www.epa.gov/radiation/sources/tobacco.html

---

If they would only spend some of those sin taxes getting the polonium-210 out of cigarettes instead of making more threats. Cigarettes are about $9/pack here in Wa. What is that, probably 100% tax rate? They are almost half the cost in Oregon (where I buy mine). Now it sounds like Oregon might make them prescription only? WTF? I need a smoke.

[acptulsa]

I thought I was losing my mind...that somehow I was the only one who could see this, how the corporate/medical/government world of medical fascism will combine together to mandate and regulate everything you do in life.

Tod's on fire this morning, somebody toss him a rep for me, will ya please?

Done. Tyranny has found a grand new frontier. The witch hunters and prosecutors of heresy have already presumed to invade our souls and punish us for what they 'found' there. The Imperial Japanese, during the war years, had their thought police to invade your skull. But they were pikers. What we can do with a blood test today--the sheer mileage we can get from presuming how your cholesterol got high and offering your own cholesterol level as evidence against you--government never staged so invasive an invasion before.

And don't we all feel honored to be in on the cutting edge of this fiasco?

[tangent4ronpaul]

Don't forget Type I Diabetes, which carries with it the associated costs of a lifetime of medication.

Coffee Each Day Might Keep Diabetes Away
http://medtech.syrene.net/forum/showthread.php?1811-Coffee-Each-Day-Might-Keep-Diabetes-Away

Cinnamon for Diabetic Control
http://medtech.syrene.net/forum/showthread.php?2484-Cinnamon-for-Diabetic-Control

hypoglycemic plants <== best in batch!
http://medtech.syrene.net/forum/showthread.php?973-hypoglycemic-plants

The attached document is the artical: Farnsworth, NR, Segelman, AB, Hypoglycemic Plants, in Tile and Till, 57(Sept): 52-55, 1971

It's the primary source for data on this topic in Lewis and Lewis Medical Botany as well as Mowrey, The Scientific Validation of Herbal Medicine. Please also see the 2 abstracts on this topic from the U Zimbabwe in the pharmacy section of this board.

If it takes, rename .zip -> .pdf to read. it is not ziped, the board just will not accept pdf extentions.

-t

====

Asthma Cigarettes
http://medtech.syrene.net/forum/showthread.php?4031-Asthma-Cigarettes

Asthma
One Hundred Years of Treatment and Onward
Eric K. Chu and Jeffrey M. Drazen

ABSTRACT
There have been four types of drug treatment of asthma that have been used over the past 100 years. Belladonna alkaloids, derived from the thorn-apple plant were used in 1905, and chemically synthesized entities in this class are still in use today. Western medicine began to use adrenergic stimulants approximately 100 years ago, but they were likely used in Asian medicine long before that. Systemic treatment with corticosteroids was introduced into the treatment of asthma in the mid-20th century; inhaled corticosteroids have been in use for over 35 years. The last 40 years have also seen the development of the first targeted asthma treatments: cromones, antileukotrienes, and anti-IgE. As we learn more of the biology of asthma, we anticipate that more effective targeted asthma treatments will be developed.

Excerpt:

ANTICHOLINERGIC ASTHMA TREATMENT

In Stedman's Twentieth Century Practice of Modern Medical Science, Stewart and Gibson (3) suggest that one of the primary treatments for an asthmatic paroxysm was the use of belladonna alkaloids; often these were delivered by smoking "asthma cigarettes" (Figure 1).

Smoking tobacco benefits a few, but the addition of a little stramonium to tobacco, or the smoking of cigarettes composed largely of stramonium, is of far greater service [in the treatment of an asthmatic paroxysm]. There are many forms of cigarettes sold by the druggists.

Full article found here:
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/171/11/1202

-t

ps: if anyone is interested, I can dig up the link on making insulin.

[MelissaWV]

I mentioned Type I.

Incidentally, cinnamon for Type II. is outstanding.

[tangent4ronpaul]

No one here yet has questioned that basic healthcare is out of the financial reach of anyone save the wealthy without joining a collective. Insurance interests are in collusion with government (there's a shocker). Without insurance, you risk losing your life's savings just to have a broken ankle set.

Medical care is actually pretty cheap and affordable - if you get gvmt regulations and mandates out of it. It's absolutely shocking that you can care for someone in ICU (in Africa) for under $70 a day. That's provider pay, bed, equipment, food, meds, medical tests - EVERYTHING!

What is it in the US now? - about $5,000 a day, or am I low balling it?

-t

[pcosmar]

Nuclear weapons testing? My guess is the same thing that causes cancer in humans. Ionizing radiation.


May be yet another contributing factor,, however radiation is inescapable.. that bright spot in the sky is a HUGE source of radiation, without which all life on this planet would cease.

Cancer is Caused by cell division.
Find a way to prevent that.

[heavenlyboy34]

In the course of a family outing today down in Boston, attended a very well staged and accurate re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party.

King George was guilty of benign neglect and perhaps a little short temper.

We suffer daily under tyrannies that are manifestly far greater than anything King George could have or would have ever considered.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Anti Federalist again. ​:( I'll hit ya up again ASAP.

[heavenlyboy34]

First government steals your money. Then it makes health care unaffordable through manipulation. Then government gives you a choice, change or die. Nothing like the freedom of choice. Democracy: How the the majority of sheep sh!t on the individual.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." ;)

[Philhelm]

-Don't smoke.
-Don't drink alcohol.
-Don't gamble.
-Don't drink coffee.
-Don't drink soda.
-Don't eat red meat.
-Don't have unprotected sex with hot women.
-Don't have unprotected sex with two hot women at once.
-Don't possess dangerous firearms.

Those sound like things a mother would tell her child. What a hellish existence we're creating.

[MelissaWV]

-Don't smoke.
-Don't drink alcohol.
-Don't gamble.
-Don't drink coffee.
-Don't drink soda.
-Don't eat red meat.
-Don't have unprotected sex with hot women.
-Don't have unprotected sex with two hot women at once.
-Don't possess dangerous firearms.

Those sound like things a mother would tell her child. What a hellish existence we're creating.
-Don't curse.
-Don't question authority.
-Don't be politically incorrect.
-Don't discriminate based on any factor, even in deciding on a mate.
-Don't deny your children the school "experience" by homeschooling.
-Don't pay cash (only terrorists do that).
-Don't worry about living outside your means; credit is okay.
-Don't forget we live in the greatest country on earth and other countries are just jealous because they want to be us.
-Don't say anything bad about Government or the military or our role in overseas "conflicts" because that means you hate America.
-Don't rock the boat.

[oyarde]

-Don't smoke.
-Don't drink alcohol.
-Don't gamble.
-Don't drink coffee.
-Don't drink soda.
-Don't eat red meat.
-Don't have unprotected sex with hot women.
-Don't have unprotected sex with two hot women at once.
-Don't possess dangerous firearms.

Those sound like things a mother would tell her child. What a hellish existence we're creating. I enjoy a cup of coffee while fondling my dangerous firearm :)

[oyarde]

-Don't curse.
-Don't question authority.
-Don't be politically incorrect.
-Don't discriminate based on any factor, even in deciding on a mate.
-Don't deny your children the school "experience" by homeschooling.
-Don't pay cash (only terrorists do that).
-Don't worry about living outside your means; credit is okay.
-Don't forget we live in the greatest country on earth and other countries are just jealous because they want to be us.
-Don't say anything bad about Government or the military or our role in overseas "conflicts" because that means you hate America.
-Don't rock the boat.

I paid in cash last night , ten beers and ten deep fried chicken wings, split it with the Mrs .

[Philhelm]

I enjoy a cup of coffee while fondling my dangerous firearm :)

Is that a euphamism?

[MelissaWV]

I paid in cash last night , ten beers and ten deep fried chicken wings, split it with the Mrs .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_BEJmY911s

Which brings me to:

-Don't drive a fuel-inefficient vehicle.
-Don't speed.
-Don't forget your seatbelt!
-Don't drive without your child in a safety seat/booster seat.
-Don't ride in the bed of a pickup.
-Don't own a dangerous (aka breathing) dog.
-Don't spank your kids.
-Don't find others attractive for their physical attributes (especially women; that's insulting).
-Don't eat hotdogs, nachos, or basically anything else that you find at a bowling alley or sporting event.
-Don't go to bowling alleys.
-Don't listen to any music that others will not be able to instantly identify, whether from pop music stations or the gossip websites.
-Don't be smarter than your peers.
-Don't be ignorant of "current events" like who is getting married, who's pregnant, who lipsynched the national album, etc..

[bolil]

The first group to go were the fat smokers, then it was the thin smokers and fat people, then came the alcohol consumers, next came those pesky hazards with pre-existing conditions, then those who drive, then everybody whose consumption did not fit the Affordable Care approved model saw their premiums skyrocket.

[Anti Federalist]

Done. Tyranny has found a grand new frontier. The witch hunters and prosecutors of heresy have already presumed to invade our souls and punish us for what they 'found' there. The Imperial Japanese, during the war years, had their thought police to invade your skull. But they were pikers. What we can do with a blood test today--the sheer mileage we can get from presuming how your cholesterol got high and offering your own cholesterol level as evidence against you--government never staged so invasive an invasion before.

And don't we all feel honored to be in on the cutting edge of this fiasco?

I presume Job felt the same way.

If it's all the same to all concerned, I'll pass.

What's that you say? "A pass" is not an option, and if choose not to decide, I still have made a choice?

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/33942894.jpg

[phill4paul]

-Don't own a dangerous (aka breathing) dog.


Now THAT ^^^ right there made me laugh.

[bolil]

When did competition become such a bad thing? My line of work involves bidding and, being in Chicago, I work mostly for Democrats (funny how they have the money for the big jobs) and I have never once bid a job exclusively. Every time I know their are others bidding the same job, and that forces me to be as reasonable as possible. Healthcare is not so different, indeed my line of work has as much to do with public health as health care itself. Yet these same people, who get many bids for themselves, as many as possible I would bet, would turn around and deny other consumers the same right for a different product arguably as necessary to healthy life as mine is.

Hypocrites, and I have to be nice to these people. Very tedious.

Also, the company I work for is nonunion and we trounce the union bids every time. Unless the work is being subsidized by government on any level. In those cases we are not even considered.

Also, democrats don't like pulling permits.

[Henry Rogue]

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote." ;)
Yes, but there seems to be plenty of lambs (even a few in the liberty movement) ready to throw other lambs to the wolves.

[Origanalist]

Yes, but there seems to be plenty of lambs (even a few in the liberty movement) ready to throw other lambs to the wolves.

Some things never change....

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4927406375109109&pid=15.1

(yes, I know it's a goat, not a sheep)

[otherone]

That's weird.

Hyperbole does not help either side of the argument.

huh. That's weird. My daughter occupied an emergency room bed for 4 hours due to heart palpitations. My cost as an "uninsured"? $5000.

[tangent4ronpaul]

When did competition become such a bad thing? My line of work involves bidding and, being in Chicago, I work mostly for Democrats (funny how they have the money for the big jobs) and I have never once bid a job exclusively. Every time I know their are others bidding the same job, and that forces me to be as reasonable as possible. Healthcare is not so different, indeed my line of work has as much to do with public health as health care itself. Yet these same people, who get many bids for themselves, as many as possible I would bet, would turn around and deny other consumers the same right for a different product arguably as necessary to healthy life as mine is.

Hypocrites, and I have to be nice to these people. Very tedious.

Also, the company I work for is nonunion and we trounce the union bids every time. Unless the work is being subsidized by government on any level. In those cases we are not even considered.

Also, democrats don't like pulling permits.

You obviously are not up on paying your bribes - that and being non-union. Otherwise, it would be a single source, no-bid contract.

-t

[MelissaWV]

huh. That's weird. My daughter occupied an emergency room bed for 4 hours due to heart palpitations. My cost as an "uninsured"? $5000.

The cost was not for a bed. The cost was for the tests and physicians seeing her, more than likely, and any medications to stabilize her. I'm sure, though, that you negotiated with the hospital and spoke to financial about a payment plan or reduced cost.

Incidentally, your original assertion was:


Without insurance, you risk losing your life's savings just to have a broken ankle set.

Now, either that WAS hyperbole, or your life savings are a fair bit shy of $5,000.

[acptulsa]

The cost was not for a bed. The cost was for the tests and physicians seeing her, more than likely, and any medications to stabilize her. I'm sure, though, that you negotiated with the hospital and spoke to financial about a payment plan or reduced cost.

Negotiation is a highly regarded art form in the rest of the world, but in the U.S. it seems largely restricted to car sales. But where a company is generally billing insurance companies, even in auto paint and body, one does have to say, look, I'm not making you do a ream of paperwork. What's the cash price?

They'll make hagglers out of all of us.

[otherone]

Now, either that WAS hyperbole, or your life savings are a fair bit shy of $5,000.

Yes you're right. No hyperbole ever on the RPF. :rolleyes:
If basic healthcare is so affordable out of pocket, then why do people purchase insurance? Why does medical tourism exist?

[MelissaWV]

Yes you're right. No hyperbole ever on the RPF. :rolleyes:
If basic healthcare is so affordable out of pocket, then why do people purchase insurance? Why does medical tourism exist?

You are here to pick a fight for some reason.

I said that hyperbole serves neither side. Saying that it takes your life savings to set an ankle IS hyperbole, and it makes people who say things like that look absolutely ignorant.

You sniped back that you had a $5,000 hospital bill once, apparently to disprove that there was any hyperbole involved.

People purchase insurance because they like the "included" preventative care, because their jobs pay for a portion of it, because there ARE catastrophic things for which people use insurance as a kind of warped savings account, and for any number of other reasons. Many don't know they can negotiate medical bills. Many don't realize the actual cost of a doctor's appointment because others scare them with doom & gloom talk of needing their life savings to set an ankle. Many don't have that few hundred dollars --- or even few thousand dollars --- at any given time.

If we want to have an honest conversation about healthcare, the first step is to have actual data, and not ridiculous claims of being financially ruined for a fracture.

[tod evans]

Yes you're right. No hyperbole ever on the RPF. :rolleyes:
If basic healthcare is so affordable out of pocket, then why do people purchase insurance? Why does medical tourism exist?

I'm currently researching the medical tourism industry....

Anybody have good leads?

[acptulsa]

You can't discuss medicine any more without discussing the lawyers. If you want to know why it has become impossible to sleep for eight hours straight in a hospital bed, ask the lawyers, for they are the ones who deemed it necessary to wake a patient every two hours and take blood (they're checking for 'silent heart attacks', believe it or not).

Likewise, you can't discuss hospital costs without discussing insurance. If you don't believe this, go to a hospital in your town and ask to see the staff that handles insurance paperwork. Count noses. These costs are so integral that some hospitals have trouble breaking down the actual cost of your care without the paperwork overhead. About the best we can do is listen to Ron Paul and others talk about the olden days fifty years ago when the insanity was yet a gleam in some underwriter's eye.

[otherone]

You are here to pick a fight for some reason.
Many don't know they can negotiate medical bills.


Ok then.. Why is it necessary to negotiate medical bills at all? If a service costs x, then charge x. Are they hoping I automatically pay the higher rate?. Yes, I "negotiated" the expense of my daughters care down, and yes, my GP gave me a "special" rate for my daughter's physicals. Why? And why is medical tourism becoming more prevalent?

[tod evans]

And why is medical tourism becoming more prevalent?

The dental surgery I've been quoted locally, paying in green folding money is close to $20K

Traveling all expenses included is less than half plus there's no records.......

[Origanalist]

The dental surgery I've been quoted locally, paying in green folding money is close to $20K

Traveling all expenses included is less than half plus there's no records.......

I'll be interested in your findings Tod. I will be needing a bit of work myself.

[otherone]

The dental surgery I've been quoted locally, paying in green folding money is close to $20K


lol. Just "negotiate" your bill with your dentist.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Try this:

http://www.1dental.com/aetna-dental-access/

if you need a lot of work, it's well worth it.

-t

[tod evans]

lol. Just "negotiate" your bill with your dentist.

That was after negotiation..:o

[phill4paul]

I'm currently researching the medical tourism industry....

Anybody have good leads?

Seems someone could make a mint off medical cruises.

[MelissaWV]

lol. Just "negotiate" your bill with your dentist.

Again, I don't understand you. You won't find me saying medical coverage or procedures are cheap. You were the one who said they would cost your entire life savings.

The reason that a service does not cost "x" is because of Government intervention. X really will be zero to some, because many clinics are associated at least loosely with hospitals. Those hospitals cannot turn away anyone needing emergency care, regardless of ability to pay. Those hospitals must accept Medicaid patients with a terrible history of non-compliance, and follow them through the entire process from start to finish, even though there will not be adequate compensation from the Medicaid program... if any.

Knowing it is variable is important. Pretending it is going to cost every penny you have every time you have a minor fracture is not.

Still, it is passing impossible to argue with someone when they think they know everything about a subject.

Did you know the Government does things the same way? Do you know what the difference would be for a HHRG based on your daughter's problems, versus someone who was homebound and required care for post-surgical therapy in the home after that awful fracture? Did you know it varies by zip code? Number of visits? Disciplines? That a change in the diagnosis modifier by one digit will make all the difference?

There are no static costs for medical care when the Government is involved. Play it to your advantage, giggle about it on an internet forum, or tout medical tourism (which does not always end well, but that's another story entirely).

[tangent4ronpaul]

A huge problem is insurance companies dictating what a provider will bill out (not that they get this) both through that companies coverage but also for the UN-insured. Don't want to play ball and give better rates? Well, that companies customers won't be using your services.

-t

[heavenlyboy34]

Is that a euphamism?
With oyarde, you can be sure that it isn't in 99.9999% of cases. He's a quite plain-spoken fellow....reminds me of someone I might meet in midwest farm country. :)

[otherone]

The reason that a service does not cost "x" is because of Government intervention.

You seem to have some knowledge on the matter....help me with this- My daughter needed a physical to get her learners permit. Her doctor performed the physical, and charged me $250. When his staff informed him that I had no insurance, he took it upon himself to call his billing company and had the charge reduced to $150. So how much did the physical actually cost? Why don't they simply have an insured price and an uninsured price?

[tangent4ronpaul]

You seem to have some knowledge on the matter....help me with this- My daughter needed a physical to get her learners permit. Her doctor performed the physical, and charged me $250. When his staff informed him that I had no insurance, he took it upon himself to call his billing company and had the charge reduced to $150. So how much did the physical actually cost? Why don't they simply have an insured price and an uninsured price?

You really need a physical to get a learners permit in PA? - WOW!

When was the last time you had a physical?

It's basically all the docs time.
A few dollars to pay rent and electricity.
5-6 feet of paper to cover the exam table.
A gown (that is usually laundered)
1 pair non-sterile gloves.
1 surgical mask (optional).
1 disposable plastic cover for the thermometer.
The disposable ENT exam cup. (for oto/opthalmascope)
1 tongue depressor.
an autoclave bag or two for instruments.
A few squirts of disinfectant.

Was there any lab work? (not normal - urine test strip if anything)

Outside of the docs time, what are we up to now? $5 ? $10 ?

-t

[otherone]

You really need a physical to get a learners permit in PA? - WOW!


it gets funnier. after doing the physical, the dr. wouldn't sign off on the pa dot form because my daughter has a minor heart condition (murmur) and he wanted her cardiologist to sign off. keep in mind this is the same dr. who knows I have no insurance. I wound up having a chiropractor examine her and he had no problem signing the pw and charged me 80 bucks. the best system of healthcare in the world.

[oyarde]

I would have signed it for $21.

[oyarde]

Or $17 if you threw in a pack of cigarettes...

[tangent4ronpaul]

it gets funnier. after doing the physical, the dr. wouldn't sign off on the pa dot form because my daughter has a minor heart condition (murmur) and he wanted her cardiologist to sign off. keep in mind this is the same dr. who knows I have no insurance. I wound up having a chiropractor examine her and he had no problem signing the pw and charged me 80 bucks. the best system of healthcare in the world.

LOL! - that's INSANE!

And ppl wonder why medical care is so expensive in this country.

-t

[MelissaWV]

You really need a physical to get a learners permit in PA? - WOW!

When was the last time you had a physical?

It's basically all the docs time.
A few dollars to pay rent and electricity.
5-6 feet of paper to cover the exam table.
A gown (that is usually laundered)
1 pair non-sterile gloves.
1 surgical mask (optional).
1 disposable plastic cover for the thermometer.
The disposable ENT exam cup. (for oto/opthalmascope)
1 tongue depressor.
an autoclave bag or two for instruments.
A few squirts of disinfectant.

Was there any lab work? (not normal - urine test strip if anything)

Outside of the docs time, what are we up to now? $5 ? $10 ?

-t

Ah but you forgot the other expenses.

With the quantity of forms the usual doctor's office has to fill out, you have to have staff. There's the gal that answers the phone, and there's usually one to keep up with the medical records, and there's a clerical floater around to courier things back and forth, keep the rooms neat, etc.. If that last one takes any samples, conducts patient interviews, or anything else, then they will also need to be educated, which means a higher pay grade since there is likely a tsunami of student debt. There is rent to be paid, and of course malpractice insurance, not to mention advertising (yes, advertising).

All that said, no, physicals are not very expensive at all. Many places will indeed have a fixed price (around here it's something like $25) for physicals. It's interesting that they were so much where otherone is, but not surprising. If you make physicals mandatory for every little thing, then you have a community by the tender places. Prices go up. Standards narrow. There is more visibility to the results, and more liability assumed by the physician.

[oyarde]

Where I am , there is a place that make a nice living out of DOT physicals and drug testing.

[oyarde]

$25 will get you nothing.

[oyarde]

They do not even have a bar or a designated smoking area.

[oyarde]

I usually let them know I am snagging whatever magazine I am reading on my way out , feel free to put it on the company tab .

[MelissaWV]

$25 will get you nothing.

And as you said it is mandatory. Trend?

Type in a search for "sports physicals $25" though; it's not a pipe dream.

[oyarde]

And as you said it is mandatory. Trend?

Type in a search for "sports physicals $25" though; it's not a pipe dream.

Yeah , I bet I could get those locally for a kid, easy.

[tangent4ronpaul]

Ah but you forgot the other expenses.

With the quantity of forms the usual doctor's office has to fill out, you have to have staff. There's the gal that answers the phone, and there's usually one to keep up with the medical records, and there's a clerical floater around to courier things back and forth, keep the rooms neat, etc.. If that last one takes any samples, conducts patient interviews, or anything else, then they will also need to be educated, which means a higher pay grade since there is likely a tsunami of student debt. There is rent to be paid, and of course malpractice insurance, not to mention advertising (yes, advertising).

All that said, no, physicals are not very expensive at all. Many places will indeed have a fixed price (around here it's something like $25) for physicals. It's interesting that they were so much where otherone is, but not surprising. If you make physicals mandatory for every little thing, then you have a community by the tender places. Prices go up. Standards narrow. There is more visibility to the results, and more liability assumed by the physician.

And most of that is gvmt mandated BS.

We have a walk in clinic around here that has 3 rate scales:
simple, short visit: $35
longer more complicated: $75
longer more complicated + up to 3 Rx's (filled) : $100
Cash or credit cards only - no checks. Takes Medicare and Medicaid but no other insurance.

She won't do any invasive procedures (like draining an abscess or stitches) due to malpractice insurance.
She does not advertize. Word of mouth keeps her waiting room full!
The only time you really get screwed with her is if you ask for medical lab testing. She has to send it out and you pay through the nose! (Thank you Congress! - NOT!)

-t

[tangent4ronpaul]

//

[bolil]

I do hate to be this guy, but it just came to me: There are statistics that say members of households containing guns commit suicide at higher rates, could this also be grounds for lifestyle fines? Obviously a person that is dead does not require healthcare, but survivors in grief might be construed to require therapy, help, shrinkage (what have you). The trend is towards single payer (Government), and if the only provider of health insurance and care decides to impose a "fine" because of that "fact" where does that leave healthy gun owners who have not committed any crimes of the mala in se nature?

[alucard13mmfmj]

im iffy on government health.

in about 1-2 months, after my birthday, i will no longer have health insurance. im too poor/unemployed/part time for health insurance. personal wise, it would be nice to have government health, despite it being crap, better than nothing. but principle wise, it is wrong and its a burden on the government.

which reminds me... anyone know what process i can go through to get government/state health care at least for temporary?

[oyarde]

im iffy on government health.

in about 1-2 months, after my birthday, i will no longer have health insurance. im too poor/unemployed/part time for health insurance. personal wise, it would be nice to have government health, despite it being crap, better than nothing. but principle wise, it is wrong and its a burden on the government.

which reminds me... anyone know what process i can go through to get government/state health care at least for temporary? in California ?

[oyarde]

I do hate to be this guy, but it just came to me: There are statistics that say members of households containing guns commit suicide at higher rates, could this also be grounds for lifestyle fines? Obviously a person that is dead does not require healthcare, but survivors in grief might be construed to require therapy, help, shrinkage (what have you). The trend is towards single payer (Government), and if the only provider of health insurance and care decides to impose a "fine" because of that "fact" where does that leave healthy gun owners who have not committed any crimes of the mala in se nature?

Where did these stats come from Boll ? I knew a guy committed suicide, he had a couple weapons in his home . This was Jackson County Indiana in the 1960's, he owned a large farm.Every Farm in the county would have had weapons .

[Anti Federalist]

Seems someone could make a mint off medical cruises.

Wow...what an idea...I'll have to think on that, but off the top of my head I can think of no legal issue that would prevent this.

[Tpoints]

how can a person criticize IPAB or death panel, unless his alternative is MORE INCLUSIVE, MORE SOCIALIST, LESS FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE, LESS DISCRIMINATORY?

[Tpoints]

Either the government should stop you from smoking or the government shouldn't pay for your idiocy.

Take your pick, smokers.

why isn't government paying me to smoke AND paying to keep me healthy an option? cheapskate health fascist!

[Tpoints]

But the question is, should fat smokers pay for everyone else's idiocy even as they're being excluded? Because if they're to be exempted from health care taxes, along with the coverage, then smoking is about to gain in popularity.

you're basically saying, is smoking going to be a self inflicted way to opt out of ACA/ObamACAre?

[oyarde]

I am calling it a night , but Fuck the Govt .

[DamianTV]

No one has the Right to expect someone else to be healthy.

[alucard13mmfmj]

in California ?

yeah. california. lol.

[Tpoints]

No one has the Right to expect someone else to be healthy.

letting them die is hardly expecting them to be healthy

[phill4paul]

Wow...what an idea...I'll have to think on that, but off the top of my head I can think of no legal issue that would prevent this.

You drive the boat and I'll yank the teeth. I have a wide selection of vice grips. :D

[DamianTV]

letting them die is hardly expecting them to be healthy

It is expecting an individual to comply with what someone else expects of them. If a man does not own his own person, what can he be but a slave?

[PaulConventionWV]

Smoking cuts out the ten worst years of life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHIT2or-F9o

Not everyone is reduced a wheelchair and pill-induced existence at the end of their life. Many people take a different route and are active until they die. The last ten years is what you make of it. It's not always this guaranteed sort of suffering.

What's more, if smoking cuts out the last 10 years of your life, I can guarantee you it has its effects long before those years come. It will probably just make the "worst 10 years" you speak of come sooner. The toxins are building up in your system from the day you begin smoking, so don't even try to tell me that smoking doesn't affect your quality of life, much less increases it.

The myth that smoking makes you happy in the years you are alive and alleviates suffering at the end is pure fiction. That view doesn't even make sense if you know anything about how the human body works. I see tons of people who are in their fifties and wheeze and cough with every step, look like they're 70, and can hardly move or think.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/114-and-Still-Smoking-San-Rafael-man-likely-to-3305117.php
114 and Still Smoking


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/114-and-Still-Smoking-San-Rafael-man-likely-to-3305117.php#ixzz2J8avKQB8

I'm not sure I want to hang around that long,,

Cigars are different than cigarettes. Cigarettes have tons of added toxins like mercury and cyanide. I bet these old people didn't smoke cigarettes.

[Tpoints]

It is expecting an individual to comply with what someone else expects of them.


Yeah, like telling a person he can't commit a crime.



If a man does not own his own person, what can he be but a slave?

He made his choices, nobody wants to pay for his choices.

[Origanalist]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4882760192363170&pid=15.1

[PaulConventionWV]

Fuck this...enough talk and fuck all you short sighted people right here, who should damn well know better how this is going to turn out, getting on your high horse about somebody else's choices that they make.

Maybe we all ought to sit around and start poo-pooing (pun most certainly intended) the negative health costs of male homosexuality.

Ya'll can kiss my fat ass, while I fire up a cigar and pour myself a drink.

Fuck me...fed, entertained and exercise petty power over their fellow man.

Is it not possible to have a heated discussion about what's good for one's body without someone trying to coerce the other with government? Everyone here gets hung up on the idea that, because we're talking about a health issue, that means someone who argues fervently is trying to FORCE you to adopt their view. Nobody said anything about that.

Seriously, I can come on here and say such and such is bad for you just to offer up advice and someone will invariably yell "Fascist! Don't tell me what to do!" at some point in the discussion. People need to decide whether they're talking about government action or individual action before they start yelling at people about being fascists and such nonsense.

[Tpoints]

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4882760192363170&pid=15.1

No, you're free to smoke, just don't expect the same protections and costs of health maintainence as your counterparts

[Origanalist]

No, you're free to smoke, just don't expect the same protections and costs of health maintainence as your counterparts

Tell you what, you pay for yours and I'll pay for mine. Fair enough?

I never asked for any protections.

[Tpoints]

Tell you what, you pay for yours and I'll pay for mine. Fair enough?

I never asked for any protections.

Definitely fair enough, and smoking isn't illegal. Certainly isn't banned for people who are happy to pay for their own health care costs.

[PaulConventionWV]

You are confusing smoking with smoking commercially produced cigarettes. This is not shocking, as earlier you were talking about people getting fat and smoking just to get Government healthcare. No. The point was that if I am supposed to pay in a whole lot of taxes to a "universal" system, then that system decides I do not get any benefit at all and, in fact, am treated as subhuman... then it's even worse than the taxation we already face.

The point of the information provided was that the anti-smoking people act like even getting a whiff of smoke will kill you dead before your poor children have a chance to graduate HS. It's simply not true. How often you smoke, what you smoke, where you smoke, and your own genetic makeup, have a whole lot to do with how it will impact you.

No, actually I am quite aware of the difference between cigarettes and cigars. If you'll notice, I was referring to cigarettes in that post. I am not confusing them. People lump them in with each other when they shouldn't.

I'm not naive. I know smoking doesn't kill you right away. I'm really not sure if the effects are over-stated. It depends on who you're talking to, but if one thing's certain, it's that cigarettes contain known poisons and toxins and that they are bad for your health. Observe most 50 year olds who have smoked all your life, and you will not see someone with a happy, fulfilling life, usually; nor will they be in good health at all.

[BAllen]

The fact remains that there is already enough money from the cigarette tax to cover all the smokers' health costs and then some. There is NO reason for ANYONE'S health insurance to be higher or for smokers to be disqualified because. Therefore, the real problem is that the fuktards in gubmint have SPENT IT ON OTHER THINGS!!!

[phill4paul]

Definitely fair enough, and smoking isn't illegal. Certainly isn't banned for people who are happy to pay for their own health care costs.

Yet, heavily taxed to cover the "societal burden" while receiving higher insurance premiums in return. Remember the SCHIP program?


The purpose of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) is to provide aid for impoverished children. With the increased revenue from tobacco taxes SCHIP can now afford to include families with up to three times the federal poverty level as well as children from high-income families in New York and New Jersey. SCHIP will also be able to cover dental benefits and treatment of mental illnesses where it previously could not. In addition to providing these services for U.S. citizens, SCHIP is also expanded to cover immigrant children and immigrant pregnant women.

Glad we could help out with that one. Of course when smokers die off or are forced to quit THAT tax burden is gonna shift elsewhere.

[pcosmar]

Definitely fair enough, and smoking isn't illegal. Certainly isn't banned for people who are happy to pay for their own health care costs.
That I can agree with,, But I would also like to see some honest investigation into what is driving the costs up.
Competition should bring prices down.

[Origanalist]

That I can agree with,, But I would also like to see some honest investigation into what is driving the costs up.
Competition should bring prices down.

You know that isn't going to happen.

[PaulConventionWV]

So smoking makes you fat?

Have you ever heard of the term "comorbidity"? The two usually go hand in hand, is what I'm indicating. Sometimes they don't, but to me it's the same kind of habit. They're both addictions.

[PaulConventionWV]

It surprises me how many people there are on this board who don't agree with the idea of equality in all things governmental, or if there is not equality, that there is not equal taxation to support it. Anything else is taxation without representation.

The entire history of this nation is one of a struggle toward the fine ideals written by Thomas Jefferson and his friends into the Declaration. And the first place we go to find equality is the government, because if we can't get equal treatment from the government this is no republic. This is common sense. If government cannot do a thing without discriminating (on any basis, not just race or sex), then government has no business taking it over. This has been at the core to the libertarian/paleo objections to nationalized health care since back when it was Medicare, and only those over 65 had to worry about it.

Common sense says, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. And if it is broke, don't expect government to fix it. Giving the mercurial, ever-changing nature of current medical thought, and the 'fads' that have come and gone since back in the days that the most important nutrient on the chart was protein from red meat, giving this ever-changing 'consensus' of medical academia the power of law, and making every doctor an agent of the state, is a brand of creeping tyranny that goes way beyond, 'Common sense and the propaganda against tobacco have won and we should just do what they say is good for us.'

You're not only barely scratching the surface of this subject, you seem quite content to be incrementalized into Soviet Life. Excuse us if we disagree. It never cost money to live and breathe in this nation before. You might have had to pay tax for your shelter or your food. But a line is being crossed. This health care insurance mandate is tantamount to taxing the very oxygen in the air.

Equality is NOT going to solve the problem. What we are looking for when we say the government should treat us the same is equality of condition. If we truly had liberty, we wouldn't need to promote equality in government because government would have nothing to do with it. When we search for equality of condition, we doom ourselves to running in circles, chasing our tails looking for more answers from the government. When we try to change the government to promote equality but we keep the same system of borrowing, taxing, and spending, we are only going further into the hole that liberty itself was cast into; a hole that swallows us as a nation and keeps us from returning to the ideals of freedom and liberty, of loving our neighbors but letting them be. When we make the laws, the taxes more equal we are doing nothing but avoiding the problem. We are not solving the problem by revising the laws. What we need to do is eliminate the laws and the taxes. We can argue for decades about how to make a tax "fair" because there are so many factors that go into it, but at the end of the day, what you have done is futile and hollow because it's still a tax. It doesn't matter why you want the government to distribute. If you even recognize the role of the government in distributing health care and other people's money, then you have failed in maintaining your principle of liberty. Instead of telling the government "This distribution is not fair, let's distribute it a different way", let's tell the government to get its grubby hands off of our money.

This is the reason I hate equality. It has done nothing but cause us to promote the liberal agenda and lose sight of liberty. Equality is an empty, vague word that has made us think we know where our neighbor's money should be spent. It has made us think that ruining ourselves is okay as long as it helps us get a slice of that government pie. Equality is the bane of the cause of liberty.

We wil never achieve equality of condition. Instead, let's strive for liberty. Let's leave out the word 'equality' because it can be twisted and bent to mean something other than just liberty, which is what we are here to promote... just liberty. I am not content with sliding into totalitarianism or authoritarianism any more than you are. I simply realize that we can't ask the government for equality because they may very well give it to us, and even then we won't be satisfied because something else will strike us as unfair or unequal. If we say, "Let's not leave smokers out", then we are not even discussing liberty. We are deciding how to distribute the money that's been stolen. If the system is unfair, don't try to make it fair. Don't be distracted by hollow calls of "Where's MY healthcare?" The system is unfair because that's the nature of the system, and leaving people out is going to happen as long as the system is in place. Don't revise the system, dismantle the system. It's the same way with gay marriage. Let's not make marriage "fair". Let's destroy the idea that we need government 'benefits' to be married in the first place. Let's not talk about who's being left out of healthcare. Let's focus on truly making healthcare a private practice.

[Danan]

Definitely fair enough, and smoking isn't illegal. Certainly isn't banned for people who are happy to pay for their own health care costs.

So you say if you don't want to be "protected" by the public healthcare system you are allowed to buy cigarettes and don't have to pay cigarette taxes and you are also allowed to opt out of public healthcare altogether and buy you own, unregulated, healthcare in a free market system?

As I said before, if that were the case almost everybody would start to smoke. At least officially.

[Origanalist]

Have you ever heard of the term "comorbidity"? The two usually go hand in hand, is what I'm indicating. Sometimes they don't, but to me it's the same kind of habit. They're both addictions.

That is pure bs, period. Smoking no more goes with being fat than pulling out stops you from getting a girl pregnant. Where do you get this stuff?

[PaulConventionWV]

If by "dying younger" you mean dying before my brains and asshole give out and I don't spend the last few years of my life drooling and shitting myself as I slowly die in a hospital bed while the medical fascists suck up whatever pennies I have left to my name, leaving my family and friends with nothing but that image of me and broke to boot, then light me up pal.

I gave up cigarettes years ago, and I might have just convinced myself to start again.

See, this is what I can't understand. WHY do you think this is what happens to all people at the end of their life? Why do we have this notion that, if we take care of ourselves, then we are doomed to die a horrible death bathing in excrement and not able to control our bodies or our minds. This does NOT represent the norm. People die that way because they don't take care of themselves, not the other way around. Your quality of life is decreased because you're intentionally breathing known toxins into your lungs. Whether even THINK your quality of life is decreasing or not, it is because you have numbed yourself by letting yourself be poisoned for whatever shallow satisfaction you get by puffing smoke in and out of your lungs. What's the point? It's an addiction that we do simply because we are addicted, not because it gives us any sense of enjoyment. Any benefits you get from smoking you could also get by taking a few deep breaths and mentally relaxing yourself with meditation. The word meditation has been voodoo-ized, I know, but it's really just taking the time to relax and calm yourself. You don't need a cigarette for that.

Cigarettes don't just cut out the years of misery at the end, they make them come sooner, so don't think for one second that you are doing yourself a service because I think you will find that a shortened life comes with all the things that you think a longer life would result in. Where did this myth even start?

[phill4paul]

See, this is what I can't understand. WHY do you think this is what happens to all people at the end of their life? Why do we have this notion that, if we take care of ourselves, then we are doomed to die a horrible death bathing in excrement and not able to control our bodies or our minds. This does NOT represent the norm. People die that way because they don't take care of themselves, not the other way around. Your quality of life is decreased because you're intentionally breathing known toxins into your lungs. Whether even THINK your quality of life is decreasing or not, it is because you have numbed yourself by letting yourself be poisoned for whatever shallow satisfaction you get by puffing smoke in and out of your lungs. What's the point? It's an addiction that we do simply because we are addicted, not because it gives us any sense of enjoyment. Any benefits you get from smoking you could also get by taking a few deep breaths and mentally relaxing yourself with meditation. The word meditation has been voodoo-ized, I know, but it's really just taking the time to relax and calm yourself. You don't need a cigarette for that.

Cigarettes don't just cut out the years of misery at the end, they make them come sooner, so don't think for one second that you are doing yourself a service because I think you will find that a shortened life comes with all the things that you think a longer life would result in. Where did this myth even start?

People die because they die. Some take longer. Some no time at all.
Those who 'live?' Well, that is up to their own interpretation.

[PaulConventionWV]

What causes cancer in fish?

Clue:
They don't smoke.

Toxins, many of which are found in cigarette smoke. Not cigar smoke, mind you, but cigarette smoke, where the toxins are deliberately put into the cigarette.

[PaulConventionWV]

May be yet another contributing factor,, however radiation is inescapable.. that bright spot in the sky is a HUGE source of radiation, without which all life on this planet would cease.

Cancer is Caused by cell division.
Find a way to prevent that.

It would be more accurate to say cell division is a symptom of cancer. It does not actually cause cancer. It is simply what happens when you have cancer. The defining factor is that these cancerous cells that won't stop multiplying are abnormal. They aren't cancerous just by virtue of the fact that they multiply too fast or too frequently. They are abnormal cells.

[Todd]

I dunno. Doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Sounds like reaping what you sew. If you wann eat buffet for breakfast lunch and dinner and smoke 2 packs a day, it's your right. Most likely you aren't going to live a long healthy life and may die real early. Why do I have to subsidize that again?

[mad cow]

I dunno. Doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Sounds like reaping what you sew. If you wann eat buffet for breakfast lunch and dinner and smoke 2 packs a day, it's your right. Most likely you aren't going to live a long healthy life and may die real early. Why do I have to subsidize that again?

Because there are a bunch of socialists making you subsidize it.

First they came for the fat smokers and I did nothing...

Beware motorcyclists,skydivers,skiers and snowboarders,extreme sports enthusiasts,mountain and rock climbers and on and on...you're next.

[tod evans]

I dunno. Doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Sounds like reaping what you sew. If you wann eat buffet for breakfast lunch and dinner and smoke 2 packs a day, it's your right. Most likely you aren't going to live a long healthy life and may die real early. Why do I have to subsidize that again?

You shouldn't have to, neither should the fat smoker be required to subsidize your long and possibly not so healthy life..

[DamianTV]

Yeah, like telling a person he can't commit a crime.



He made his choices, nobody wants to pay for his choices.

A crime unto themselves and themselves alone. When a person chooses to have a smoke, it can not be considered a crime against you. It is no different than suicide. Suicide is a crime unto ones self, which a person has a right to do, which does not affect you in any way shape or form.

[tangent4ronpaul]

It would be more accurate to say cell division is a symptom of cancer. It does not actually cause cancer. It is simply what happens when you have cancer. The defining factor is that these cancerous cells that won't stop multiplying are abnormal. They aren't cancerous just by virtue of the fact that they multiply too fast or too frequently. They are abnormal cells.

Not accurate.

All the cells in your body divides regularly. When you have a transcription error, you get cancer. Exceptions are some skeletal cells and hair & finger/toe nails are a waste product.

-t

[HigherVision]

I dunno. Doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Sounds like reaping what you sew. If you wann eat buffet for breakfast lunch and dinner and smoke 2 packs a day, it's your right. Most likely you aren't going to live a long healthy life and may die real early. Why do I have to subsidize that again?

It is wrong because under socialized healthcare overweight people and/or smokers won't have the opportunity to pay for treatment themselves if they can afford it. You're right that you should have to take responsibility of your own decisions, however public healthcare robs us of the opportunity to do so. What the supporter of socialized healthcare doesn't realize or doesn't care to acknowledge is that people acquire money through their service to others in society, that that's what the market is. So someone who hasn't taken the best care of themselves and needs medical treatment but has the money to pay for it should have the opportunity to acquire this service with the money that they have earned throughout their life. Having savings reflects a lifetime of service to others and under consumption, and so they deserve the resources used in this medical treatment. But envious types would rather believe that they don't actually deserve it because everyone in society is somehow equally responsible for the contributions of each person, even if they themselves don't work and have never work or if their contributions have been relatively minimal as indicated by a low income. They believe that no one, regardless of their contribution to others throughout their life, deserves to have more property and access to resources than anyone else, including people who's lives have consisted primarily of government subsidized leisure. I.E. Obama's "You Didn't Build That" speech.

[PaulConventionWV]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_BEJmY911s

Which brings me to:

-Don't drive a fuel-inefficient vehicle.
-Don't speed.
-Don't forget your seatbelt!
-Don't drive without your child in a safety seat/booster seat.
-Don't ride in the bed of a pickup.
-Don't own a dangerous (aka breathing) dog.
-Don't spank your kids.
-Don't find others attractive for their physical attributes (especially women; that's insulting).
-Don't eat hotdogs, nachos, or basically anything else that you find at a bowling alley or sporting event.
-Don't go to bowling alleys.
-Don't listen to any music that others will not be able to instantly identify, whether from pop music stations or the gossip websites.
-Don't be smarter than your peers.
-Don't be ignorant of "current events" like who is getting married, who's pregnant, who lipsynched the national album, etc..

Hehe... "national album". I don't think America's come out with an album yet. If they did, it didn't sell very well.

[PaulConventionWV]

Ok then.. Why is it necessary to negotiate medical bills at all? If a service costs x, then charge x. Are they hoping I automatically pay the higher rate?. Yes, I "negotiated" the expense of my daughters care down, and yes, my GP gave me a "special" rate for my daughter's physicals. Why? And why is medical tourism becoming more prevalent?

Negotiations have existed since the dawn of time. No price is set in stone.

[PaulConventionWV]

That is pure bs, period. Smoking no more goes with being fat than pulling out stops you from getting a girl pregnant. Where do you get this stuff?

Does pulling out not prevent pregnancy? I honestly don't know. Being fat and smoking, to me, are both behaviors of over-indulgence. You don't NEED to smoke, but you do because you're addicted. You don't NEED to eat all the time, but you do because you don't take the time to moderate and think about what you're putting into your body. You do it because it makes you feel good. There's really no other reason to over-eat, just like there's no other reason to smoke. People say it relaxes them, but you can get the same effects by doing the deep, controlled breathing without the cigarette in your mouth.

[PaulConventionWV]

People die because they die. Some take longer. Some no time at all.
Those who 'live?' Well, that is up to their own interpretation.

Not sure what your point is. I was talking about the notion that everyone who lives long is doomed to being hopelessly senile at the end of their life. What are you talking about?

[PaulConventionWV]

Not accurate.

All the cells in your body divides regularly. When you have a transcription error, you get cancer. Exceptions are some skeletal cells and hair & finger/toe nails are a waste product.

-t

What part of my post wasn't accurate?

[Origanalist]

Does pulling out not prevent pregnancy? I honestly don't know..... snip.

The rest of it is to annoyingly asinine to respond to, however after reading some of the other bs you're posting this doesn't surprise me.

[PaulConventionWV]

The rest of it is to annoyingly asinine to respond to, however after reading some of the other bs you're posting this doesn't surprise me.

I wish you would be more specific instead of lashing out at my general lack of compliance with your own worldview.

What part of my post did not make sense? You don't NEED to smoke. You don't NEED to over-eat. What's so asinine about that?

[Origanalist]

I wish you would be more specific instead of lashing out at my general lack of compliance with your own worldview.

Jumping Jesuits, how old ARE you? You don't know if pulling out prevents pregnancy?


Being fat and smoking, to me, are both behaviors of over-indulgence. You don't NEED to smoke, but you do because you're addicted. You don't NEED to eat all the time, but you do because you don't take the time to moderate and think about what you're putting into your body. You do it because it makes you feel good. There's really no other reason to over-eat, just like there's no other reason to smoke. People say it relaxes them, but you can get the same effects by doing the deep, controlled breathing without the cigarette in your mouth.

That whole post was dripping with condescension. You make one fucking sweeping judgement after another, quite frankly you sound like a do gooder from hell and I'm glad I don't know you personally. We would not get along.

I don't fit ANY of your fantasies Paul and you would probably be shocked to know I have been smoking for many decades.

[PaulConventionWV]

Jumping Jesuits, how old ARE you? You don't know if pulling out prevents pregnancy?

I thought the answer was an obvious yes (if you do it right?), but I have someone saying it's an obvious no. I just don't have much experience in that area. Make fun of me if you want and say "it figures", but I just don't place too much emphasis on it.


That whole post was dripping with condescension. You make one fucking sweeping judgement after another, quite frankly you sound like a do gooder from hell and I'm glad I don't know you personally. We would not get along.

I don't fit ANY of your fantasies Paul and you would probably be shocked to know I have been smoking for many decades.

Whatever. I don't see how your statements about me are not judgments. I also don't see how I made sweeping judgments. It may not be politically correct, but it certainly is true. They're behaviors of over-indulgence. Sorry if you don't see it that way, but I can't think of one good reason why someone should smoke. It's to satiate the addiction, is it not? You can paint it as something else, but at the end of the day, you really don't need it, do you?

I'm not sure what you mean by not fitting any of my fantasies. What fantasies? I can't really be shocked if I don't know you, can I?

[MelissaWV]

No, actually I am quite aware of the difference between cigarettes and cigars. If you'll notice, I was referring to cigarettes in that post. I am not confusing them. People lump them in with each other when they shouldn't.

I'm not naive. I know smoking doesn't kill you right away. I'm really not sure if the effects are over-stated. It depends on who you're talking to, but if one thing's certain, it's that cigarettes contain known poisons and toxins and that they are bad for your health. Observe most 50 year olds who have smoked all your life, and you will not see someone with a happy, fulfilling life, usually; nor will they be in good health at all.

Yes, you are confused, and demonstrated it just now by implying I was talking about cigars and cigarettes.

Commercial cigarettes are full of toxins. The cheaper you go, the worse they seem to be for you. There are a few cigarettes out there that do not have all those additives in them. Of course, beyond that, there are plenty of folks who roll their own.

My mom just turned 63. Her health problems are few, and entirely unrelated to smoking. They are genetic in nature.

My dad is 67. He smoked for quite a long time, but has more health issues from injuries in Vietnam and extensive exposure to toxins throughout that war than he ever has from smoking. He has probably smoked more actual cigarettes than mom.

The nurses I work with are probably only 10% smokers. They're doing great. Many of them are past age 50.
It really doesn't seem to matter what the person did throughout their life. The end of life patients we see are usually doomed by their genes far more than anything they did or didn't do. Some of them smoked and are homebound and on oxygen. Others have no mental faculties left at 50, but never smoked at all.

Comorbidity? Cute. Do you know what "fat smokers" often have in common? Lack of access to preventative care. Lack of insurance. Lack of decent nutrition (often by choice).


See, this is what I can't understand. WHY do you think this is what happens to all people at the end of their life? Why do we have this notion that, if we take care of ourselves, then we are doomed to die a horrible death bathing in excrement and not able to control our bodies or our minds. This does NOT represent the norm.

Maybe we actually work with people during the end of their life. Maybe we have loved ones in nursing homes, and go to visit them, and see and smell what it's like even in the cleanest of places. Maybe we are watching relatives who have not known us by sight in 10 years.

http://www.longtermcarelink.net/eldercare/article_images/nursing_home_clip_image002.gif

http://cdn.dlplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nursing-home-abuse-70percent-65.jpg

I'm sure you are implying that these people all made bad choices and are paying for them. The fact of the matter is that your genes, which control how you react to the inevitable stupidity your body is exposed to over the years, are the single largest factor as to how you will spend your twilight years.

http://www.directsupplyservicesandsolutions.com/images/graphic-wander.jpg


I dunno. Doesn't sound like a death panel to me. Sounds like reaping what you sew. If you wann eat buffet for breakfast lunch and dinner and smoke 2 packs a day, it's your right. Most likely you aren't going to live a long healthy life and may die real early. Why do I have to subsidize that again?

Why does the "fat smoker" have to pay into the system that isn't going to pay out? That's like forcing everyone to buy auto insurance... even if they walk.


Hehe... "national album". I don't think America's come out with an album yet. If they did, it didn't sell very well.

Sure it has! Games play the Anthem, and some play America the Beautiful, and then of course there is Amazing Grace... and places are expecting you to stand. There's also the Pledge, of course, and sometimes the "moment of silence" if they can link it to something that's happened recently.

Also: You don't NEED to be online, but being online is a sign and symptom of a lifestyle that is unhealthy. Even with a normal weight, you are at a HUGELY increased risk of things like DVT. You don't NEED to go out in the sun. The sun is evil, of course, and causes skin cancer... even in small and occasional doses. You don't NEED to eat HFCS, but yet you probably do. You don't NEED to drive, but you place yourself at increased risk of a car accident.

Beyond that, your posts devolve even more. Overeating = fatness! Smoking can be replaced by deep breathing and meditation! This might be news, or it might not, but a lot of people that would be considerd "obese" are not actually fat. Furthermore, you can have a dozen different people eat the same number of calories and they will gain and lose weight at different rates. Even a step further, and you can have those folks do the same amount of working out and the same will still be true: differences. Foods are metabolized differently by different bodies. Different foods are metabolized differently depending on their makeup.

Your need to oversimplify is astounding. It's right in line with the Government's. Given what you've demonstrated about your knowledge of medicine, *I* don't want to subsidize *your* risky lifestyles at all. Ignorance is way more dangerous than a few pounds or a self-rolled cigarette.

[UWDude]

The justification for super high cigarette taxes was because of the health problems it caused. WA state gets about $3 a pack in taxes, IIRC. SO smokers should have free healthcare based on how much they pay in taxes.

[DamianTV]

... and Govt Overregulation breeds Ignorance by no longer requiring the individual to draw conclusions with the application of critical thinking. The Govt insists on having someone else do your thinking for you.

[phill4paul]

The justification for super high cigarette taxes was because of the health problems it caused. WA state gets about $3 a pack in taxes, IIRC. SO smokers should have free healthcare based on how much they pay in taxes.

Except that cig tax dollars go to insure children. Not you. Remember SCHIPS?

[PaulConventionWV]

Yes, you are confused, and demonstrated it just now by implying I was talking about cigars and cigarettes.

Commercial cigarettes are full of toxins. The cheaper you go, the worse they seem to be for you. There are a few cigarettes out there that do not have all those additives in them. Of course, beyond that, there are plenty of folks who roll their own.

My mom just turned 63. Her health problems are few, and entirely unrelated to smoking. They are genetic in nature.

My dad is 67. He smoked for quite a long time, but has more health issues from injuries in Vietnam and extensive exposure to toxins throughout that war than he ever has from smoking. He has probably smoked more actual cigarettes than mom.

The nurses I work with are probably only 10% smokers. They're doing great. Many of them are past age 50.
It really doesn't seem to matter what the person did throughout their life. The end of life patients we see are usually doomed by their genes far more than anything they did or didn't do. Some of them smoked and are homebound and on oxygen. Others have no mental faculties left at 50, but never smoked at all.

Comorbidity? Cute. Do you know what "fat smokers" often have in common? Lack of access to preventative care. Lack of insurance. Lack of decent nutrition (often by choice).



Maybe we actually work with people during the end of their life. Maybe we have loved ones in nursing homes, and go to visit them, and see and smell what it's like even in the cleanest of places. Maybe we are watching relatives who have not known us by sight in 10 years.

http://www.longtermcarelink.net/eldercare/article_images/nursing_home_clip_image002.gif

http://cdn.dlplaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/nursing-home-abuse-70percent-65.jpg

I'm sure you are implying that these people all made bad choices and are paying for them. The fact of the matter is that your genes, which control how you react to the inevitable stupidity your body is exposed to over the years, are the single largest factor as to how you will spend your twilight years.

http://www.directsupplyservicesandsolutions.com/images/graphic-wander.jpg



Why does the "fat smoker" have to pay into the system that isn't going to pay out? That's like forcing everyone to buy auto insurance... even if they walk.

They shouldn't have to. But instead of selecting who does and does not pay, let's work on dismantling the system that says people have to pay in the first place.

I know there are people who roll their own cigarettes, and I am aware that there may be some (albeit few) brands that don't have so many additives. I just didn't consider those because it's not a very significant figure.

And no, I don't believe that genetics is the chief determinant of how healthy you are in your life. We could go back and forth about the science of genetics but I don't think either of us are qualified to do that. Do you think weight is determined by genetics? Most of these diseases that they say are genetic, even if they are to some extent, can be eliminated by a good diet and healthy lifestyle. The reason you see so many people spending their latter years on a hospital bed is because they had so many habits throughout their life that they didn't even know were bad for them. Almost all commercial food that you find in a box or container is devoid of nutrients. Monsanto's tinkering with plant genetics certainly doesn't help either. So many people drink soda, eat junk food, don't get enough sleep, and don't have good posture, blood flow, etc. or they simply eat too much and don't exercise. There are also a variety of ways in which toxins can be introduced into your system, not just cigarettes. These people will find themselves on a hospital bed. Those who spend time with nature and emphasize a good diet, and know what they are doing, will not be in that position. It is lightly influenced by genetics, but none of it is outright determined. There is no such thing as being born with heart disease or cancer. You get that later if you don't take care of yourself by participating in behaviors that foster the creation of free radicals in your system.

[DamianTV]

Again, I have to maintain my point.

Does anyone else have any Right to expect someone ELSE to live a healthy lifestyle? I dont really care who pays and who doesnt pay, does someone else have that Right?

[BAllen]

The justification for super high cigarette taxes was because of the health problems it caused. WA state gets about $3 a pack in taxes, IIRC. SO smokers should have free healthcare based on how much they pay in taxes.

Finally someone else gets it! Legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Tax them. The money would be enough to provide health care for everyone. If you are a good upstanding health conscious person who doesn't smoke, drink, gamble, or buy hookers, guess what? You get FREE health care! Built in incentive for good health, instead of a government mandate with a heavy tax that EVERYONE pays.

[Origanalist]

There is no such thing as being born with heart disease or cancer.



This is getting comical.

[Origanalist]

Again, I have to maintain my point.

Does anyone else have any Right to expect someone ELSE to live a healthy lifestyle? I dont really care who pays and who doesnt pay, does someone else have that Right?

It's a brave new world my freind.

[phill4paul]

Again, I have to maintain my point.

Does anyone else have any Right to expect someone ELSE to live a healthy lifestyle? I dont really care who pays and who doesnt pay, does someone else have that Right?

That is not a Right. No.

[DamianTV]

Finally someone else gets it! Legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution. Tax them. The money would be enough to provide health care for everyone. If you are a good upstanding health conscious person who doesn't smoke, drink, gamble, or buy hookers, guess what? You get FREE health care! Built in incentive for good health, instead of a government mandate with a heavy tax that EVERYONE pays.

Then put the tax on the cigarettes themselves. The more you smoke, the more taxes you pay. As Melissa stated, it is the same as charging someone monthly for Car Insurance when they WALK. And #2, Obamacare or what ever we wanna call it is nothing short of another Direct Unapportioned Tax, which is expressly prohibited to the Federal Govt. Tax the smokes, fine, and use that for the health care, but tax the individuals, and many many people will claim to have Rights that they do not have and can not exist.

[Origanalist]

Then put the tax on the cigarettes themselves. The more you smoke, the more taxes you pay. As Melissa stated, it is the same as charging someone monthly for Car Insurance when they WALK. And #2, Obamacare or what ever we wanna call it is nothing short of another Direct Unapportioned Tax, which is expressly prohibited to the Federal Govt. Tax the smokes, fine, and use that for the health care, but tax the individuals, and many many people will claim to have Rights that they do not have and can not exist.

It's a good point, but they already tax the shit out of them.

[MelissaWV]

It's a brave new world my freind.

I am glad you can laugh. I'm just saddened.

[Origanalist]

I am glad you can laugh. I'm just saddened.

Just different outward expressions.

[Danan]

Why not instead of taxing smokers simply leave them alone? As if taxes had such a great record of benefiting people...

And then apply the same logic to non-smokers too. Let everybody buy insurance on their own and pay a premium according to their own lifestyle. Then they would have a real choice of either paying more for their insurance or stopping to smoke. Just keep the goddamn government out of it...

[tod evans]

Just keep the goddamn government out of it...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Origanalist]

yep

[PaulConventionWV]

This is getting comical.

Do you know someone who was born with heart disease or cancer? Please, be specific. You're not really helping your point by lashing out at my failure to conform to your view.

As people get older they get more errors in transcription, which will inevitably lead to cancer if you live long enough. You do NOT have cancer when you are born. If you take good care of yourself, you will not have as many errors in transcription and you will not have cancer before you die.

By the way, putting me in your sig really just makes you look silly.

[Origanalist]

Do you know someone who was born with heart disease or cancer? Please, be specific. You're not really helping your point by lashing out at my failure to conform to your view.

I'm done with you, look it up for yourself.

[mad cow]

Again, I have to maintain my point.

Does anyone else have any Right to expect someone ELSE to live a healthy lifestyle? I dont really care who pays and who doesnt pay, does someone else have that Right?

No,of course not.That will not stop tyrannical governments from dictating your diet and behavior,especially if they can convince other citizens that it is costing them money through programs such as socialized medicine.

No one can argue that smoking is healthier than not smoking,just as no one can argue that rock climbing is safer than doing calisthenics under the watchful eye of a government certified and employed medical professional along with the rest of your neighbors.

Just in case you want to be eligible for the socialized medicine you are forced to pay for,mind you.

[MelissaWV]

Among all age groups, the most common childhood cancers are leukemia, lymphoma, and brain cancer. As kids enter the teen years, there is an increase in the incidence of osteosarcoma (bone cancer).

Those terrible decisions they've made in the first few years of their life really are a bitch.


Kezia Fitzgerald and her 15-month-old daughter are both blondes with bright blue eyes. They both giggle easily and share a love of peaches.

The mom and daughter have more in common than Fitzgerald would like. Five months after Fitzgerald received a cancer diagnosis, so did her little girl, Saoirse.

It is obvious that she must be getting the wrong kind of formula.

Oh and before you say it...


This also meant she could not breastfeed her daughter because of chemotherapy and PET scans, which use radiation.


Neuroblastoma is a malignant tumor that develops in infants and kids when their immature nerve cells turn into tumors instead of cells and fibers. The tumor usually begins in the adrenal glands, which sit on top of the kidneys and produce hormones.


Follow-up of infants with congenital heart disease should follow the schedule of routine care for healthy babies with some modifications, such as administration of influenza and pneumococcal vaccines. More frequent follow-up is required if congestive heart failure is present. Family psychosocial issues should also be addressed. One of the main roles for the family physician is to help the parents put the diagnosis in perspective by clarifying expectations and misconceptions, and answering specific questions.


Although the majority of children with serious congenital heart disease (CHD) are diagnosed during the first four weeks of life, congenital heart disease and acquired heart disease present beyond this time period.

Keep going?

[tod evans]

Every big hospital in the US has a pediatric oncology ward.....

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm done with you, look it up for yourself.

No, you can't just lash out at me and then not explain yourself. If you have a problem, tell me specifically. No more of this hit and run bullshit.

If you're going to say I'm wrong, why don't YOU look it up so you know you have your facts straight before you say that?

[Danan]

Do you know someone who was born with heart disease or cancer? Please, be specific. You're not really helping your point by lashing out at my failure to conform to your view.

I know several people born with heart diseases.

Cancer is more likely to develop once your cells lose their ability to divide themselves properly (they can only do it finitely often, which is also the reason we age at all).

Or in other words: If you perform an autopsy on any randomly selected person over the age of 80 (preferably already dead :p) the chance that this person has lots of tumors is extremely high, most of them benign but probably some malignant too. Even though these tumors were only the cause of death by some of those people, most of them probably died without ever noticing their tumors due to other causes.

Cancer rates go up because people become older and older. When the life expectancy of humans was 30 years your chance of dying from cancer was almost zero. But once you reach a certain age your chance of getting cancer becomes very high (though you still probably die before the cancer affects you), even if you live the healthiest life of all people on earth.

[MelissaWV]

No, you can't just lash out at me and then not explain yourself. If you have a problem, tell me specifically. No more of this hit and run bullshit.

Okay obviously I have to keep going.


During the past week I have been at Children’s Memorial Hospital undergoing scans (MRI, CT, X-Ray, Bone Marrow puncture tests and MIBG scans). Days have been a very busy and long. Paris was sedated daily. They used all of her veins since she no loner has her central line and had to use a IV over night leaving her with a severe rash/hives because she is allergic to tegadurm and sorbaview (adhesives) but we didn’t have a choice because all of her veins in her arms, hands and feet were blown at the time.



The tests resulted thus far that the less than 1 cm growth from the residual tissue most likely is neuroblastoma. It was hidden by her liver which caused the MIBG scan not to light up in that area but because the MIBG confirmed that it has spread to her cerebellum (3 cm), the part of the brain that controls movement, balance, coordination and motor control it is a high probability that it is in the central location as well. At this time the tumor is just resting against it which is why she is still moving, crawling and standing just fine with no symptoms. If she begins to exhibit symptoms such as twitching, jerking unable to move her legs/feet then they will implement a shunt to relieve the pressure that the tumor is causing. So far so good as of now.



They needed to confirm that no other parts were affected which is why they conducted a MRI of the brain and a whole body CT scan. We have not yet received those results.



The final test was the bone marrow, where they needed to remove a portion of her hip bone from the right and left side to determine if the cancer has spread to her bones. last time it didn’t so thats what I am hoping for. It takes 3-4 days to test and dissect the bone so we should know something Thursday.


Neuroblastoma is the most common cancer in infants.

But infants don't get cancer, of course, or heart disease.

[bunklocoempire]

http://i.imgur.com/N89XbQ4.png
NEW YORK (AP) -- Faced with the high cost of caring for smokers and overeaters, experts say society must grapple with a blunt question: Instead of trying to penalize them and change their ways, why not just let these health sinners die?

Annual health care costs are roughly $96 billion for smokers and $147 billion for the obese, the government says. These costs accompany sometimes heroic attempts to prolong lives, including surgery, chemotherapy and other measures.

But despite these rescue attempts, smokers tend to die 10 years earlier on average, and the obese die five to 12 years prematurely, according to various researchers' estimates


cont
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MED_HEALTH_COSTS_REALITY_CHECK?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-26-10-03-12

(Didn't read through the whole thread)

So a human being is FORCED to be responsible for another human being while a gun is pointed at them but not the "sins" of another human being while a gun is pointed at them.

Lemme guess... the guy with the gun gets to decide what "sin" is right?

[Origanalist]

No, you can't just lash out at me and then not explain yourself. If you have a problem, tell me specifically. No more of this hit and run bullshit.

If you're going to say I'm wrong, why don't YOU look it up so you know you have your facts straight before you say that?

Sorry Paul, I'll do as I please thank you. (careful, you're bossy side is showing...;))

[Origanalist]

(Didn't read through the whole thread)

So a human being is FORCED to be responsible for another human being while a gun is pointed at them but not the "sins" of another human being while a gun is pointed at them.

Lemme guess... the guy with the gun gets to decide what "sin" is right?

That's astounding! How did you guess?..:p

[MelissaWV]

http://biomed.brown.edu/Courses/BI108/BI108_2008_Groups/group09/images/clip_image004_0003.gif

These infants getting heart transplants to deal with heart disease? Obviously fake. No one LESS THAN ONE YEAR OLD should need a heart transplant, since all heart disease stems from bad decisions.

Edited to add MORE FAKERS!!!


In a rare but heart-warming case of organ donation, a 40-day-old infant gave a fresh lease on life to two four-month-old babies suffering from congenital heart disease.

[bunklocoempire]

That's astounding! How did you guess?..:p

lol

My head is really in the game today!

[PaulConventionWV]

I know several people born with heart diseases.

Cancer is more likely to develop once your cells lose their ability to divide themselves properly (they can only do it finitely often, which is also the reason we age at all).

Or in other words: If you perform an autopsy on any randomly selected person over the age of 80 (preferably already dead :p) the chance that this person has lots of tumors is extremely high, most of them benign but probably some malignant too. Even though these tumors were only the cause of death by some of those people, most of them probably died without ever noticing their tumors due to other causes.

Cancer rates go up because people become older and older. When the life expectancy of humans was 30 years your chance of dying from cancer was almost zero. But once you reach a certain age your chance of getting cancer becomes very high (though you still probably die before the cancer affects you), even if you live the healthiest life of all people on earth.

By heart disease I don't mean congenital heart defects. Those things happen as a result of mutations or sporadic changes in the DNA during reproduction. I'm not talking about the things that happen during reproduction or the transcription of the DNA. Those obviously can't be helped, but most other disease can.

[MelissaWV]

By heart disease I don't mean congenital heart defects. Those things happen as a result of mutations or sporadic changes in the DNA during reproduction. I'm not talking about the things that happen during reproduction or the transcription of the DNA. Those obviously can't be helped, but most other disease can.

So when you say infants don't get heart disease, what you mean is that they do, but not to your definition.

I am assuming the cancer cases I posted are likewise excluded.

[PaulConventionWV]

Those terrible decisions they've made in the first few years of their life really are a bitch.



It is obvious that she must be getting the wrong kind of formula.

Oh and before you say it...









Keep going?

I'm not talking about congenital heart defects or things that happen during the transcription of the DNA. Those obviously can't be helped. Also, the malignant tumors don't develop until after birth, so they were not born with them.

[PaulConventionWV]

Okay obviously I have to keep going.





But infants don't get cancer, of course, or heart disease.

I didn't say infants don't get cancer. I said they're not born with it. Regardless, though, cancer and diseases that don't happen as a result of transcription errors and irregularities in the chromosomes are not entirely genetic diseases. If you get something later in your life, you can't blame it on genetics. You weren't born with something that developed when you were 30 or 40 or 50.