I think Rod might agree that there is no entity "Big Insurance" that would "foot the bill" anyway. Either way it's passed to some segment of the public. And I believe someone (Rod?) pointed out that another benefit goes to health services -- (physicians, labs, hospitals) that can maintain high prices and not offer discounted services?
Not being in health care and looking at the books, I don't know much about *actual* healthcare costs. However, I can look at costs and results. (Sometimes, I wonder about waste and how that might affect costs, though.) My husband's dissertation was on the nurse staffing shortage; he does scheduling among other things. so, my experience in actual costs is minimal.
However, I do know a little about insurance. My mother's husband is in insurance--and I worked for him for a while. (Yes, my *mom* married my boss!) I also know a bit about how people often use their insurance. For example, I bought insurance when I moved. Now, I can't find the DVD player, but it'll be a *huge* hassle to file and I'm not sure that they'll pay because I signed the little paper when the stuff got here. (According to the little tags, everything that was loaded in IL arrived in FL. Hmmmm....) Also, people don't always file when the *could* because--strangely(?)--they don't want their rates to go up. Now, these examples are for private insurance--not governement funded insurance. However, I also know that there has been a big flap over childrens' healthcare insurance through the state in IL--read about it in the paper and even got a letter to the editor published inre the dental portion. A problem with government insurance is that not a whole lotta practitioners will accept it because the gov't pays too little and takes too long to re-imburse. So...frankly, it looks like a mess the whole way around. My guess is that the first thing that needs to be done is to clean-up the government policies involving disbursement and covered treatments...and make sure that practitioners will *accept* the insurance. Unless these things are ironed out, the program could feasibility do more harm than good.
Once these things are handled, then the absurdity of funding through tobacco needs to be dropped. (LOL, would the politicians be as eager to allow alcohol taxes cover health care insurance?) I think this is the Doc's point, and I do agree on this one. Wholeheartedly. Even if the tax was only two cents per pack, I'd still disagree for this reason.
I hate to say this, boy do I hate to say this.....gawd but this is painful.......but I'm with Dr. Siegel in praying that this time the bush....errr I mean the president, follows through and actually vetos this bill.
The thing that gets me about it, and amazingly even the press hasn't picked up on it, is this: They brag about all the money it will bring in and how many kids it will cover; AND in the same breath brag about how the increase will force people to quit smoking. EXCUUUUUUUSE ME.....BUT IF people quit smoking where the hell do they think the money will come from? HELLO? KNOCK KNOCK IS ANYONE HOME?
What this bill WILL accomplish is pushing smokers to the black market cigarettes. I'd say it would push them to making their own, but no one I've been trying to convince to make their own is doing that yet because they can't be bothered. They prefer to buy them ready made.........extra poisons, extortion money and all.
Fortunately for me, I make my own so this is yet another children's program (like the one here in Arizona) that I will NOT be footing the bill for.
Growing my own is my next project, because I know they'll start taxing the hell out of MYO tobacco as soon as they figure out their idiocy.
Chantix seems to now be the med of choice precribed for tobacco smokers and now claims are being made for alocohol addiction due to blocking chemicals in the brain. Maybe it is time for Chantix to be prescibed for politicians to block all that dopeyscheme to their brains.
Doc, the whole TC movement has always been about politics.
Doc,
A reasonable post, the logic is undeniable, however I fundamentally disagree with this paragraph
"Congress to do anything that might jeopardize the program by substantially reducing smoking rates or cigarette consumption. What the anti-smoking groups are doing by supporting this proposal is inadvertently putting a death knell into any meaningful federal legislation to decrease youth or adult smoking."
I cannot agree that it is Congress's (or any Government's)responsibility to actively decrease smoking. Educate yes, coerce and legislate no.
If you really believe it is the Governments responsibility to decrease primary smoking then let's cut to the chase. Ban all tobacco products. Yes we will criminalise loads of people, yes we will create an opportunity for organised crime but you are doing that anyway, albeit slowly. Smuggling and black market smokes are already an enormous problem in Canada and Ireland. How much worse could it be with full prohibition?
What do you think the reduction in smoking would be with total prohibition?70%/80%/90% more? ETS would cease to be a problem overnight. It would be worth it, no?
GreatScot
Well legalise this stuff and then tax the hell out of it http://
comment.independent.co.uk...icle2758791.ece
I could maybe have understood raising the smoking tax to create effective resources for helping the 70% of US smokers who want to break smoked nicotine's grip upon their minds, to succeed in doing so (resources currently not widely available). I could fully accept using 100% of new cigarette tax revenues to declare all-out war upon the act of enticing children and teens into a state of permanent chemical servitude, where their new #1 priority in life is servicing that next mandatory feeding (see http://whyquit.com/pr/031806.html ).
What is sickening and inhumane is to witness society itself become dependent upon revenues generated by its ongoing failure to insulate youth from nicotine addiction industry influence. It is one thing to attempt to destroy the original revenue stream and another totally to budget its arrival. How our leaders could be so blind as to not see the horrible conflict of interest they create is beyond comprehension.
Taking drug money from addicted children to fund health insurance for children, how will history portray a nation that stooped so low as to resort to cannibalism, in feeding children to children?
John R. Polito
I to agree with the Doctor and DancingTigerBait made some great points. Though I need to add that there is alot of waste of money in healthcare and if they started at the bottom and reigned it in some, all families, no matter of income, would beable to afford their own insurance and not have to rely on smokers or anyother member of the population to pay their expenses.
A quick story. Back in the early 90's, I was taken ill and rushed to the hospital via ambulance. I was admitted to the hospital for a 3 day stay while they tried to figure out what was wrong with me. I will never forget the ER Doctor asking if I might be pregnant. When I told him "No, I had my tubes tied 14 years ago" he said, "Maybe all they did was tell you that they tied your tubes". As it turned out, I had internal bleeding taking place, but I thought I was going to bust a few more whatever when I recieved the itemized bill for my care. One of the tests they ran on me was a pregnacy test at a cost of then $275. On the next page under misc. was a charge of $225 for a tube of toothpaste. Now these bills are submitted to my insurance carrier and they pay off on it, but then turn around and increase rates so to cover these frivilous charges. Two hundred and twenty five dollars for toothpaste? I have not spent another night in a hospital but I do know that should I ever find myself there again, I will be stopping at Walgreens on my way there and buying my own and maybe a box of kleenex too!
Oh yeah, each gauze pad they used was $8 a pad. Walgreens charges $4 for a box of 24. Wasted money or huge profits?
" I could maybe have understood raising the smoking tax to create effective resources for helping the 70% of US smokers who want to break smoked nicotine's grip upon their minds, to succeed in doing so (resources currently not widely available)."
As long as it is not SMOKED nicotine your okay with them being hooked on it. Last I checked Nicotine is widely available in pill, patches, potions, lotions and what have you as a multi-billion dollar a year business. Do I understand you correctly?
__________
'declare all-out war upon the act of enticing children and teens into a state of permanent chemical servitude'
________
So rather than choosing 'our servitude, we are forced by the government into a state of servitude? Did I understand that right?
Mr Polito if you are worried about any children (you own or others) perhaps allowing yourself and any child NOT to be used as a tool of propaganda for social engineering would be where to start.
If I read you wrong please clarify.
Goverment rarely, if at all ever, is the solution to any problem, because in fact more often than not, government is the root cause of the problem to begin with.
Advocates of more government, higher taxes and taking from the few to benefit the many do not belong in a democratic republic. Would all of you tobacco control freaks kindly take your socialist/fascist ideas and find a country for yourselves and get out of the lives of liberty and freedom loving people. Thank you.
In the 1990s we bought our own health insurance, renewable at 6-month terms.
It just so happened that one of the terms expired July 31. Before she was hospitalized, we had already been billed for, the check cashed for the next term staring Aug 1. So, we were alrewady enrolled in the next term starting Aug 1
So, my wife was hospitalized July 31 tol Aug 3
And guess what happened? The insurance paid her hospital bill for the day of July 31, but rejected her hospital bill for Aug 1-3 because it was a preexisting condition.
Remmeber, it was not a preexisting condition in early July when we paid the premium for the renewal date starting Aug 1.
We saw a lawyer, and we fought with them... finally they admited they made a "mistake" Yeh! right!
A bunch of snakes in the grass, is all these health insurance cos really are!
health insurance and healthcare will pick clean the pockets of all of us until we nationalize healthcare.
Plan to see Michael Moore's new movie "sicko"
Dave K
Dave K,
Please explain to me how nationalied healthcare would be any less run by snakes in the grass?
Would you really consider going to Cuba for medical treatment?
Help me get this?
When seeing this sort of proposal before, I'd always assumed lawmakers have a backup plan, that they'll find another source of funding once smoking rates are cut(assuming they are.)
I guess I assumed that somewhere in these big long bills was a provision or a way to fund things once the primary stream of revenue dried up. Can anybody point to another instance where cigarette taxes paid for health care and what the results were after a few years?
If smoking rates were cut and there came a new way to fund these programs, then the government would deserve credit for seeing things correctly, but with such a huge deficit I think they need to do a lot more than raise cigarette taxes just to close the gap, much less make new plans.
There were a couple of comments i wanted to make inre DaveK's insurance and diance toothpaste (I recall a problem $5000 screwdrivers here in the US back in the eighties but...)
Wait, wait wait. I just got an idea.
Any chance I (*ahem* we) could use this tax increase to fund my (*ahem* our) research of ASDS?
Man, oh, man. I could make out like a bandit at this TC trough.
*delusions of grandeur to follow*
John R. Polito wrote:
"I could maybe have understood raising the smoking tax to create effective resources for helping the 70% of US smokers who want to break smoked nicotine's grip upon their minds, to succeed in doing so (resources currently not widely available)."
Somehow those 70% can afford to smoke, but they can't afford to quit? Ridiculous.
How do fat people afford their $58 billion in diet aids each year without taxation?
"I could fully accept using 100% of new cigarette tax revenues to declare all-out war upon the act of enticing children and teens..."
How about instead of saying you "fully accept using" you say "I could fully accept PAYING 100% of the tax." Seems to be a big deal to you. You pay it. Quit being a parasite. You're no better than the people you're criticising.
David K "...health insurance and healthcare will pick clean the pockets of all of us until we nationalize healthcare."
...................
If you think the "state" is intrusive now, you should dread the day healthcare/health insurance is nationalized.
Then you will have zero power to make decisions on you and your children's personal habits, lifestyle.
All will be decided by the "state."
Isn't it about time that the money stolen by the imposition of the MSA ,supposedly to be used for the health care costs of smokers etc,who of course cost far less than the public have been advised ,is re-distributed back to the public ?Any deficit could be made up by the States due to their bullying and corrupt practices of ensuring as much as possible that tobacco is purchased in state.They have achieved this by a back door agreement with the credit card companies and paypal, forcing internet tobacco merchants to close.None of this has ever been discussed at federal level,though they are of course well aware of it happening.It is incredibly cynical that after banning smoking as much as possible,they now need sales of cigarettes to remain static at least,to fund their plans.Rather like trying to stuff your head up your own arse.If they continue to clamp down on smoking,the tax will have to continue to rise.Eventually the end result will be smokers will quit,the tax will not get paid,health insurance will not happen.What a great ploy,congratulations must be in order here.
Mike's proposal to force healthcare insurance policy holders to subsidize healthcare services for uninsured children would result in many employers eliminating healthcare insurance for children of employees, which would further increase the costs of SCHIP, which would further increase costs for healthcare insurance policy holders, and on and on until no employer based healthcare insurance policy covers children.
That has to be the stupidist healthcare financing policy proposal I've ever heard or read about.
Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop.
Thus, the healthcare and lost productivity costs of smoking during 2007 will likely be more than $20/pack when those costs are actually paid.
So Congress should increase the cigarette excise tax by at least $10/pack, instead of a meager $.69/pack.
A $.69/pack cigarette tax hike would reduce cigarette consumption by about 10% overall, and by about 20% among youth.
I can understand why selfish smokers want everyone else to continue subsidizing the healthcare and lost productivity costs caused by smoking, but I cannot understand why Mike
opposes sound health and fiscal policies that will sharply reduce the number of diseases, disabilities and death caused by smoking.
In a June article of a Military Officer magazine that we recieve each month, they were covering the health care of not just military personnel but of all Americans. They conducted a survey of Military only and 90% said they were in favor of national healthcare and the same 90% said they were NOT in favor of the Government being in charge of it though! So, what does that have to say for trust in the Goevernment. May I remind you that everyone pays taxes for medicare for the elderly and tricare for the military, yet those benefits are once again being cut by 10%. That eventually could be big bucks, money that you all paid in your taxes, thinking that someday your parents or yourself will have affordable healthcare and not put such a large strain on your children. So who is to say and guarantee that if the taxes on cigarettes were increased and paid for by smokers only, any child would someday actually have the coverage they were promised? The only people who will see continued no cost insurance is the Government as they have seen fit to give this to themselves along with yearly $36,000 a year pay raises for doing nothing but to screw their fellow Americans!
Bill,
All us selfish smokers already pay 1000's of times over. We just are fed up with subsidizing you!
Bill----" Mike's proposal to force healthcare insurance policy holders to subsidize healthcare services for uninsured children would result in many employers eliminating healthcare insurance for children of employees, which would further increase the costs of SCHIP, which would further increase costs for healthcare insurance policy holders, and on and on until no employer based healthcare insurance policy covers children'
Listen to him squeal like a stuck pig now that he realises what this will cost HIM?
Sorry sweet cheeks, should have thought about what your fascism would cost us all in the end.
.
Bill Godshall - Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop.
Thus, the healthcare and lost productivity costs of smoking during 2007 will likely be more than $20/pack when those costs are actually paid.
So Congress should increase the cigarette excise tax by at least $10/pack, instead of a meager $.69/pack.
A $.69/pack cigarette tax hike would reduce cigarette consumption by about 10% overall, and by about 20% among youth.
.......
Bill,
Your posts would be received more courteously, seriously, if you would supply facts and figures that had some connection with reality.
All we get are conclusions that are faith-based instead of science-based.
I, among many others, will fight those who oppress me with their faith.
When you produce credible (verifiable) evidence of your assertions and figures, I will give you the courtesy of listening to your presentations.
Mr Godshall could you itemise these?
Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop.
Thus, the healthcare and lost productivity costs of smoking during 2007 will likely be more than $20/pack when those costs are actually paid.
For example, in the Uk, for people who smoke.
Annual Cost of healthcare=£1.7b
Annual Revenue from tax=£8b
net contribution by people who smoke=£6.3b
(Estimates based on generally available figures, excludes a number of other revenues from tobacco including employment and indirect revenue from hospitality etc)
Given these figures, in the UK, people who smoke should be given 5 star hospital treatment, instead in some authorities that treatment is refused.
Is it different in the US?
west
----
Bill said:
"Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop."
Can you provide me with a reference to where these numbers come from? Failing that, how they were derived? Thanks,
Bill----'All we get are conclusions that are faith-based instead of science-based.'
Rod, Did't you get the memo? Bill considers himself God Almighty so needs no proof.
West--
If it's not the healthcare costs of treating smokers that costs the UK so much, then it must be the "lost productivity" that has your economy groaning. Smokers are obviously taking considerably more than 6.3 billion pounds worth of cigarette breaks each year. Non-smokers, on the other hand, are 100% productive at all times. In addition, in the unlikely event that a non-smoker should ever need healthcare, the cost of providing such care is entirely justifiable.
And yes, it's the same here in the U.S., except that we take more like $10 billion a year in smoke breaks.
Judy---'In addition, in the unlikely event that a non-smoker should ever need healthcare, the cost of providing such care is entirely justifiable.'
Yes that is correct, we all remember Bills big-time surgery (and loss of productivity) from being the Volley Ball King of the world. s/
.
Any proposal that removes all incentive for the federal government to take any action to reduce smoking is not a way to promote the public's health.
Why is there "incentive for the federal government to take any action to reduce smoking" in the first place? Sure, it kills you, but so does lack of exercise (or in some cases, exercise) and I don't see FBI agents walking around collecting work-out journals from "the public." Probably because "the lazy" are a larger group than smokers.
Furthermore, why (and how) should the federal government focus on preventing anything "we the people" can do to get ourselves killed?
Did I miss the part of the Constitution that lists as Congress's duties "to ensure that every citizen takes all possible steps to live as long as he possibly can, whether he want to or not?"
Steve,
Have a look at this link:
http://www.antibrains.com/
Lost productivity caused by smoking? You're off your rocker. The only lost productivity is because fanatics such as yourself and the rest of the control freaks insist they have to have "pure" air and have forced smokers outside.
If you are so concerned about the costs of lost productivity and related health costs incurred, I suggest you figure out how to ban women from the work force and company health policies while they are in their reproductive years and/or with young children. Their costs and absences far exceed that of even the most unhealthy smoker. Oh and the same applies to their husbands/fathers of those children.
You anti-smoker control freaks are such an absolute joke.
Shall we not forget lost productivity when people sit around and complain to their fellow workers that John just went out for a smoke and then the conversation stays on that topic for 10 minutes.
Then there are the people who take time off work for some cause due to family members. Some read the newspaper on company time, some plan fishing trips on company time, some reapply makeup on company time. The list is endless. Smokers only take their law allowed 10 minute break. Even God himself gave himself Sunday's off for a day of rest. It is right there in the Bible along with the passage of how God created heaven and earth for all of us, regardless of race, religion or a tobacco plant which is also one of his creations.
"Judy---'In addition, in the unlikely event that a non-smoker should ever need healthcare, the cost of providing such care is entirely justifiable.'
Yes that is correct, we all remember Bills big-time surgery (and loss of productivity) from being the Volley Ball King of the world. s/"
LOL yeah, but then again, everyone knows the difference between smoking and volley ball is that smoking is "unnecessary."
si: ...trying to stuff your head up your own arse.If they continue to clamp down...
No offence , si, but this created an unpleasant mental image of the TC brigade. Would such a position and clamp-down require yoga training?
Bill Godshall's "creative" math: Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop Thus, the healthcare and lost productivity costs of smoking during 2007 will likely be more than $20/pack when those costs are actually paid. So Congress should increase the cigarette excise tax by at least $10/pack, instead of a meager $.69/pack. A $.69/pack cigarette tax hike would reduce cigarette consumption by about 10% overall, and by about 20% among youth.
Followed by an ad hominem attack on barbeque cookers (smokers): I can understand why selfish smokers....
Ya know...it's high time that we start taxing nonsmokers for the increased burden they put on our medical resources--Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, TB, ASDS....
Rod: Bill, Your posts would be received more courteously, seriously, if you would supply facts and figures that had some connection with reality.
Rod, he is incapable of dealing with facts and figures that have some connection with reality because he has ASDS. This is a *real* and *true* disease. He is dissociated from reality--and his cognitive abilities suffer to accomodate that dissociation. I know that I make fun of them and that is very un-PC of me, but it truly is a disease of the mind.
Judy: Smokers are obviously taking considerably more than 6.3 billion pounds worth of cigarette breaks each year.
Where? Unless all of those people who smoke work at home without employees or clients coming into the home, they don't really have anywhere to go for a smoke break.
Gabz:You anti-smoker control freaks are such an absolute joke.
The funniest--and saddest--thing about it is that they don't see what jokes they've turned themselves into. (Darn it. I just ended a sentence with a preposition.)
BTW, GDF, thank you for the stat comment and link. *sniffle* I'm rather hurt than nobody took a stab at the problem I gave--but I think I'll put the solution up anyway.
Bill Godshall wrote:
"Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop."
So it's $10 now. What, $7 didn't get enough people angry so they upped it again? Or is this just the runaway inflation we see in the healthcare industry each and every year?
Btw, your numbers are typical Bill S***. Who cooked this one up, Dorothy Rice, who's goal in life is to bankrupt the tobacco industry?
And please explain this one: "It takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop."
Maybe give us some anecdotal example from your own life. What smoking diseases did you develop 5, 10, or 20 years after you started smoking?
5 years. Even 20. LMAO. I wonder how all those smoking servicemen and women ever got in the service with a disease?
"So Congress should increase the cigarette excise tax by at least $10/pack, instead of a meager $.69/pack."
It was the Congressional Research Service which stated during Clinton's terms that the (then) current tax on cigarettes more than covered any costs due to smoking.
"A $.69/pack cigarette tax hike would reduce cigarette consumption by about 10% overall, and by about 20% among youth."
You sure are worried about smoking rates. Are you SURE you're not against allowing people to smoke?
James Austin wrote:
"So it's $10 now. What, $7 didn't get enough people angry so they upped it again? Or is this just the runaway inflation we see in the healthcare industry each and every year?"
Due to healthcare cost inflation during the past few years, the $7/pack costs of healthcare and lost productivity costs caused by smoking have now surpassed $10/pack, and will continue increasing.
Prove it.
How about hammering the tax on smokeless tobacco or levying a charge for every cubic meter of exhaust your cars kick out.The US could then go down the road of Europe where eventually everyone will have to have a car due to them being shrunk in size to reduce emissions.Motorised prams as i call them will fill the roads,but more cars equals more tax,so the Government cannot loose.Even more lucrative would be to tax alcohol,far more people consume alcohol than smoke.Is the tax a punitive measure or simply an easy way of making money by screwing smokers yet again?
Jalestra,
There really isn't a way to prove GREED. We'll see if he even trys.
DTB - I already knew the answer. This problem comes up every time someone suggests mass screening for low incidence problems. And people are surprised all over again. It also relates to my suggestion that we just don't have the tools to so certain things we would like to do in health/stats.
Si asks----'Is the tax a punitive measure or simply an easy way of making money by screwing smokers yet again?'
I think it's both Si. It's what keeps them orgasmic. Without it they's be a 'big flop'---if you know what I mean.
LOL Sunz -- on my post above I was going to go on about some people thinking their tools were more powerful than they really are...
But I passed.
Problem: The incidence of breast cancer is about 0.2 percent (say) in the female population aged 30 to 70 without symptoms. The test for detecting breast cancer has a success rate of 99.9 percent for women who actually have it. There is a false positive — the likelihood of detecting cancer in a woman who does not actually have it — of 1 percent. What is the likelihood that a woman who tested positive actually has the cancer?
Lynda: I’m really NOT good at this kind of math. I have no clue what the answer would be.
Solution:Now, now. Don't sell yourself short. (Okay, GDF got the answer...but none of us are really shocked at that. *wink* BTW, GDF, I link to an article on it below. Personally, I do think it's a good little note on the matter.) The MDs and MBAs given this probelm--a common problem for any MD who gives screening tests--gave answers ranging from 95% to 99.9%. Let's take a look.
Look at the first million people. Recalling a doctor in Tallahassee who thinks that 20 times 0.1 is "3 or 4", I'll give the solution to 0.2% of one million for any MDs who are so mathematically challenged: 2000. So, the number of people who do not have breast cancer is 1,000,000 - 2,000 = 998,000. So, 99.9% of the people who have breast cancer will get a positive test result--it's easier to think that 2 of those people will test negative or 2000 - 2 = 1998 will test positive. Also, 1% of the people who do not have the disease will test positive. That's (0.999)(2,000) + (.01)(998,000) = 1998 + 9980 = 11,978 people who tested positive of which you are one. So, what are the chances that you have breast cancer? Well, of the 11,978 people who tested positive, only 1998 actually have breat cancer; so, your chances are 1998/11978 or about 16.67%, which is a far cry from the 95-99.9% chances given by doctors--and that's assuming that no mistakes are made at the lab or anywhere else along the line.
The crux of the mistake in the problem is ignoring the fact that the vast majority of the population does not have the disease. So, even a tiny percentage, such as 1%, of the population getting a false positive is fairly high compared to the true positives. Misunderstanding of stats can lead to a bunch of unneccessary procedures that are costly both financially and psychologically. Throw in real world problems, such as misunderstanding diseases and how quickly they spread, and there's a costly mess. (For example, I've read a couple fo pathological reports that included finding undiagnosed lung cancer in people who died of other things. They'd lived with the disease for a long time but didn't die of it. So, are there times when a true positive or a false negative are not life-threatening?) In fact, I read a recent article on the exorbitant expense of medical mistakes, which might be a good place to look if one wishes to fund pet projects in the government.
If you want to read the article in ORMS Today--that's operations Research/Management Science Today--you can access it at http://lionhrtpub.com/orms/ORMS-...MS-
search.shtml and type "breast cancer" in the search. It's the first article that comes up. It's fairly short, readable and very interesting. Also, it begins with an eerie quote from H.G. Wells, "Statistical thinking will one day be as necessary for efficient citizenship as the ability to read and write."
BTW, if Bill Godshall is so eager to use tobacco taxes to fund childrens' insurance, then why doesn't he dip into the already bulging Tobacco Control coffers funded by tobacco taxes and the tobacco industry?
GDF: I was going to go on about some people thinking their tools were more powerful than they really are...
GreatScot!!!
...
Another reason that "family friendly" flights should be separate from "business" or "adult" flights:
http://news.aol.com/story/nc/_a/
...712092209990001
And the adult flights should also be "smoker friendly". Seriously, that was one of the things that the Delta flight attendent told me. She went on an on about the types of messes that twin babies made on the plane in the previous flight. (It involved a dropped, used diaper.) Personally, I was on my way to a conference and really didn't need to know all about it! "family friendly" needs to be spearate from "business class"--IMHO.
I thought about Gabz's never having seeing a photo of Bill. Did a google search:
http://images.google.com/images?...ke+free&
spell=1
(click on center photo)
Perhaps the curse Cathy placed on the doctor last week?
.
Sunz,
All I know is that in Cuba infant mortality rates are much lower than ours.
I realize no healthcaare system is perfect. So I my measure my statements by health outcomes, and in countries with nat healthcare, people are healthier, and live longer.
I don;'t think that emans parents do not ahve the right to make health decisions for their children. We do have canadians who post here..some probably have kids.... so any canadians want to weigh in on this?
Now to godshell.... there are more uncshedulaed absences from work , according to the US Dept of Labor, now than there were in the 1970s
Godshell's numbers do not take into account that twice as amny smokers are blue coller workers, and they are more inclined to ahve more dangerous jobs, and when they do get hurt, they cannot return to work as soon.
If godshelll were correct, the dept of labor stats would be improving as the % smokers in the workforce continues to decline.
But again, godshell's claims are not borne out by the facts. it's just another broken promise made by the antis. Dave K
Smoking costs...? In 2005, US consumers smoked about 380 B cigarettes. Okay, according to Bill, the costs are like 10 $ a pack. That works out to 50 c pr cigarette. Now we multiply that with the number of cigs. That works out to 190 B $. That is about 19 years worth of MSA payments. How come the attorneys generals were so stupid as to settle for just 5 percent of the 'cost' of smoking? They must be a pretty dumb bunch, huh? Maybe you should run for president, Bill, you are so clever.
What's your plan for Irak? Ah, a ban on smoking, which will 'cause' such great happiness that all Iraqis will put down their weapons, jump and skip all day with joy over their smoke freedom.... And it's good for the hospitality business, so hotels, bars, restaurants will all be 'booming' with activity.... I can just imagine Wall Street going all crazy with the great Iraqi smoking ban economic bubble....
Bah.
Bill Godshall -Due to healthcare cost inflation during the past few years, the $7/pack costs of healthcare and lost productivity costs caused by smoking have now surpassed $10/pack, and will continue increasing.
......
Bill,
Smokers subsidize non-smokers by at least 50% of non-smokers healthcare and retirement funding.
We also support tens of thousands of otherwise unemployable parasites that spend their entire careers lobbying to increase their pay by increasing taxes on cigarettes.
You need us, Bill. That's a fact.
But, I don't wish to pay 100% of non-smokers healthcare/health insurance.
Smokers pay our way and yours, too.
I suggest you find another source of funding, another trough to feed from.
Oh, I know! Maybe add an excise tax to instant baby formula? After all, every department of public health (hysteria?) "knows" that breast-fed children have fewer illnesses. That way, those scummy, low-life non-breast-feeding child abusers can pay for their purposeful neglect of their children.
Trans-fats? Sugar? Salt? The possibilities are endless! Just think of all the things you could tax to fill your need, your trough.
Whoa! Let's "control" drugs that are now illegal! Think of the never-empty troughs to feed from!
Anyway, all this demonization of smokers is just to distract good people from the fact that 32.7% of non-smoking meddlers commit filthy, unpardonable acts in secret.
Rod -- you forgot to adjust for inflation -- it's now 44% (and growing!)
Soren -- can't get the image of Iraqi's skipping and jumping in their smoke freedom out of my head. Help!
Bill G:
Healthcare and lost productivity due to cigarette smoking now exceed $10/pack, and it takes 5, 10 or 20 years for most smoking diseases to develop.
Cool, then I guess I’m in the clear since I’ve been smoking 39 years now and am still healthy. Then all my contributions to health care that I’ve NOT used is more than ample. Everyone in my office (all NON-smokers by the way) has been to their doctor more than once already this year. I have NOT been once.
Wonder if you’d be this generous with taxes IF it were your damned cars that were being taxed to no end (with representation thank you) to fund crap for everyone else.
OH, and Bill? Labor law (which I believe is Federal) requires all full time employers are entitled to one 30-minute lunch and two 15-minute breaks every six hours. Since I only run out to smoke twice a day (10 minutes each time), and once during at lunch time while working through the rest of my lunch period……………….MY companies get plenty of FREE work out of me. So stuff your imaginary insults about productivity. What’s more amazing is you don’t think all those personal phone calls that people make and don’t work through are lost productivity.
DTB:
Solution:Now, now. Don't sell yourself short.
Uhhhhhmmmmmmm NOPE, not selling myself short. I just read your solution and I will be trying to make sense of it over the weekend. Told you, anything beyond basic math is truly NOT my forte. Knew the answer was a low number though, just no clue how to get it.
Just heard on my local news/health report that the British heart association is recommending that we all begin to tax fast food for a healthier lifestyle. I'm not really into fast food so I say, Go for it! I bet that even Bill chomps down on a Big Mac on his way to the next smoking ban arguments. Time for you to pay for my healthcare Bill.
The tv station is even running a poll on what you think of taxing fast food. You all can go to www.nbc5i.com, click on first at four on the left side of the page and the poll question is there. I already voted and of course said Yes!
Dave K,
In my book those benefits are not worth the trade-off. I don't want the state to own my body, ever!!!
The have way too much intrusion into all of our lives as it is.
Have you thought about the excercise schedule you will be placed on the dietary restrictions, the limitationss on lifestyle choices etc just so you might live longer?
Quality of life means way more to me than quantity.(length)
Please, be careful what you wish for...
.
OT but I just found this from the Smokers' Club newsletter:
Now that all the bartenders are safe in the Twin Cities, who’s protecting the smokers that are now relegated to the streets?
Attacked, woman says St. Paul bar wouldn't call 911
Margaret Dean said she was at the 'The Trend' on University Ave. when she went outside to have a cigarette.
Dean said a man threw her to the ground, and broke her arm in two places.
http://www.kstp.com/article/stor...3.shtml?
cat=206
Thanks for the answer, Bill.
So the healthcare industry is responsible for the nearly 50% increase in smokers' costs in recent years. For a minute there I thought you were blaming smokers.
Now if you could answer these:
What smoking diseases develop in 5 years? 10 years? 20 years?
Which smoking diseases did you develop at 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?
Don't any of you see that Bill is just trying to up the federal excise tax on cigarettes to $10/pack? That is how they arrive at the "healthcare costs associated" with smoking.
$0.61/pack not being nearly enough lol.
Bill's $10 a pack regressive tax should be applied retrospectively to all ex-smokers. It's only fair after all.
GreatScot
GreatScot wrote:
"Bill's $10 a pack regressive tax should be applied retrospectively to all ex-smokers. It's only fair after all."
With interest.
Btw, seeing how smokers (not former smokers like Bill though) save Social Security at the rate of $12 a pack, the government should give Big Tobacco $2 for every pack they sell and Big Tobacco in turn will knock $2 off the price of each pack.
DTB -"I was going to go on about some people thinking their tools were more powerful than they really are...
GreatScot!!!"
Ah, I see that Scottish humour doesn't travel well. I belittled myself. Most of my humour is self depreciating, I would rather poke fun at myself than others. I will just have to keep my jokes securely locked up in my sporran from now on. 
Re your math / logic test, why convert to 1,000,000 people you can just work off the percentages? And did all those Dr's and MBA's really get it so wrong? Could be that it's not just Brittain that is dumbing down education. I despair sometimes.
((0.2*0.999)/(1+0.2*0.999))*100 = 16.65 or 1/6
DTB,
That above is not correcting for the 0.1% of the 0.2% as I considered this negligable for working out the chance.
Sorry for being so free and easy with your profession and passion.
What do I know about medicine and statistics I am only an Engineer.
GreatScot
GreatScot - What do I know about medicine and statistics I am only an Engineer.
........
I like it!
Don't give up hope! If Stanton Glantz can do it, you can too!
By the way, be sure you're using a big enough tool when poking fun at yourself.
Rod,
and a Mechanical Engineer to boot.
My psychiatrist says I could rule the world if I was not being held back by a particularly pesky stubborn respect and empathy for others. He also says I am too tolerant and honest.
Maybe if I sharpen my tool enough I could excise these abnormal traits?
GreatScot
Aahh GreatScot,but are you using your tool in the correct manner that it was designed for ?
GreatScot --
And what, exactly, is a sporran? And well... what else do you keep in there?
GDF
GDF
A sporran is a purse worn with a kilt for keeping items in, there are no pockets in a kilt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sporran
Mine is made of fur and I usually have some cash and smokes in it.
GreatScot
And before you ask what is worn under my kilt the answer is nothing.... it's all in perfect working order!! Much to TC's chagrin
GDF,
see what you made me do? I opened my sporran to see what I had in there and some Scottish humour slipped out.
GreatScot
DTB - "I was going to go on about some people thinking their tools were more powerful than they really are...
GreatScot!!!"
GreatScot - Ah, I see that Scottish humour doesn't travel well. I belittled myself. Most of my humour is self depreciating, I would rather poke fun at myself than others. I will just have to keep my jokes securely locked up in my sporran from now on.
Actually, it was GDF's comment after your humour (with a "u" *wink*) that set me off. It sounds like something a woman might say to boost her sweetheart's ego in the throes of passion--and given the content of your humorous post...wellll....
Re your math / logic test, why convert to 1,000,000 people you can just work off the percentages? And did all those Dr's and MBA's really get it so wrong? Could be that it's not just Brittain that is dumbing down education. I despair sometimes.
I used the one million in the solution because it makes the other numbers--aside from percentages--integral. (For those mathematically challenged MDs, "integral" applied to positive numbers means "whole numbers". That's like one, two, three...remember those?) Yes, all those doctors and MBAs were that far off the mark--and they still tend to be.
In a more simplistic example, just think of a disease contract by 1 in 100 people. If the test is positive for virtually all who have the disease and, say, a mere 2% of the rest test positive, then a positive test result still leaves only a 1-in-3 chance that you've got the disease. (Because, of 100 people, the one with the disease will test + and virtually 2 of the remaining 99 will test +.)
((0.2*0.999)/(1+0.2*0.999))*100 = 16.65 or 1/6
That's getting a little Bayesian, I think.
--------------------------------------
DTB, That above is not correcting for the 0.1% of the 0.2% as I considered this negligable for working out the chance. Sorry for being so free and easy with your profession and passion.
Please don't apologize. It isn't really my passion; it's more like a hobby.
What do I know about medicine and statistics I am only an Engineer.
Well, you're a step ahead of me as I'm just a bored housewife. And yet...simpletons like engineers and housewives know better. Hmmm....
Okay -- glad we got that sporran thing cleared up. But...DTB -- doncha think GreatScot is prob'ly just humble?
GreatScot -- did you try the link I posted yesterday? I think you might enjoy it.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/tal...alks/view/id/
67
GDF-- Scottish *and* humble? These are people who were trapsing through thistle patches...before trousers were invented!! *yeow* Tough bunch.
(Well, but now they need the governement to "protect" them...and to potty train them -- http://www.timesonline.co.uk/
tol...ticle711006.ece My, how times change. *sigh*)
I'm still gonna think "GreatScot!!!" every time I see something riske.
GDF,
Yep I saved that link, very interesting and well presented.
DTB/GDF
Speaking of "Bayesian" here is an article that I found interesting.
http://projecteuclid.org/Dienst/...d.ss/
1030037958
GreatScot
Sorry DTB/GDF wrong link. I meant this one.
http://www2.isye.gatech.edu/~bra...bank/
pvalue.pdf
GreatScot
This from the Scottish parliament clearly shown that there is an agenda.
http://www.scottish.parliament.u...her05-01-
06.htm
be sure to click on the continued tab at the bottom.
GreatScot
GreatScot,
It not only shows that there is an agenda, it also clearly shows they deliberately chose to lie and deceive.
I heard a discussion of this tax on TV this morning.
One of the panelists thought the tax was a great idea.
Why?
"I don't understand how anyone still smokes. We really need the money."
Oy vey!
I kid you not!
HEY SAM--
From GreatScot's link above. This is likely pretty close to the derivation of the 220:
A recent example of the misuse of science was provided by an estimate(2) that claimed that ETS exposure caused the death of 49 workers in UK pubs and bars each year. This figure was arrived at by using relative risks for lung cancer, heart disease and stroke for home and workplace exposure that were used in a New Zealand review paper3 ; assuming a workforce in pubs and bars of 53,500 of which half were permanent staff; assuming that all of the workforce was exposed 100% of the time over a 6-hour shift to 3 times more smoke than would a non-smoker at home living with a smoker; and assuming that all the workers in those places were non-smokers. The review paper from which the relative risks were drawn did not claim precise predictions but only a guide dependent upon many assumptions and unknowns. The researcher’s assumptions were highly speculative, but the estimate suffers from a much larger flaw - the assumption that a relative risk for a chronic disease, which is the result of prolonged exposure over forty or so years, can be applied to a population group which is much younger (as well as one which also changes jobs frequently), with a consequently much smaller duration of exposure. The incidence of lung cancer, heart disease and stroke, below the age of 40 is very low and the age distribution of workers in the hospitality trade on average is very different from those exposed to ETS at home. As if that were not sufficient, an additional, fundamental error in the data used effectively destroys all possible credibility in the claim that was made.
Wait a minute! What exactly does the term "uninsured children" connote other than a politically correct and sensitizing euphamism to more spending,taxation and beurocratic government programs? Why is it that we continually fail to address the true root cause for "uninsured children" as after all,had there not been selfish,self absorbed and irresponsible procreators,(ie. PARENTS),of these so called "uninsured children",we wouldn't have such a problem to begin with. Rather than taxing the poorest members of society for their smoking vices,(and why not gambling,drinking,junk food/obesity epeidemic scourges as well!),why not implement some kind of behavioral modification and parental responsibility legislation that will curtail the procreating by adults that creates the very class of uninsureds that so many of you speak passionately about?! But then again,we live in a society of enablement and entitlement today that rewards social irresponsibility and penalizes self empowerment and self actualization. Wake up America before we truly become a second rate Socialist country! Warm regards,Stuart.
Dr Siegel,having clicked on the link to the scottish parliament and reading the the item,it is either at fault or your early studies should have ended up in the bin.Now ,since you refuse to ever discuss your earlier work and are so adamant that you are correct that ETS poses a HUGE threat i really wonder why ,at the time you were undertaking your studies,there appeared to be a total of 30 epidemiological studies that had been reviewed.The majority showing nil effect and a 6-6 showing some effect.In essence there were no indicative studies,other than the large number showing no effect.You then appear to come along at this highly propitious time and prove the moon is made of cheese after all.Now, either your work was good or it was cheesy?
If I read the reasoning for this proposed tax increase correctly, this proposed tobacco tax rape is specifically to fund "Children's Healthcare". NOT healthcare costs caused by smoking. I believe the MAS (Master Settlement Agreement) was suppose to fund healthcare costs caused by smoking and we see how well the Feds and the States managed those funds.
Funding "Children's Healthcare" should be the responsibility of the parents of those children. I fail to see how putting adult oriented tobacco business out of business will further the funding of "Children's Healthcare" programs or any other tax based programs. I also fail to understand why other peoples behaviors should, in any way, become MY FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. As a former 911 Paramedic, the only 2 babies I delivered in the field were to Hispanic females that spoke NO ENGLISH. Those 2 "anchor" babies now entitle THOSE entire illegal extended families to some 60 "federal financial assistance programs" one of which is healthcare.
Maybe our Federal Government should enforce the laws on the books and then there might not be such a need to take American Citizens rights and money away from them in order grant persons that entered our country illegally MORE RIGHTS than American Citizens and LEGALLY naturalized American Citizens are afforded. Make NO mistake, this is TRULY a power grab just as the "COMPRENSIVE IMMIGRATION PACKAGE" was. OUR GOIVERNMENT wants me to pay for others to play.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!!! Here is a clue! Check out http://www.rwjf.org/ major stock holder of Johnson & Johnson. I believe J&J owns all of the pharmaceutical nicotine products on the market today to the tune of some $454? BILLION/year in sales coupled with the marketing strategy to up-sale vitamins and other 'stop-smoking' aids that J&J also manufactures or shares an interest in.
Beyond the money that is poured into each state through "charitable donations" from www.rwjf.org with their stated State specific goals "to eliminate" second hand smoke from "ALL work places" (because, as born FREE and raised to adults and individuals (employees and employers) are just too stupid to make choices for ourselves as to where we want to work and who we want to employ, www.rwjf.org has now anointed themselves as our keepers).
www.rwjf.org donates millions of dollars to medical groups each year (AMA, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, AHA) with the caveat (as stated on their website) that recipients of their grants use other funding to fight FOR TOTAL TOBACCO BANS within the recipients State. I have listened to 'renowned specialists' testify UNDER OATH and state factually "SECOND HAND SMOKE IS THE MOST DEADLY SUBSTANCE ON THE PLANET". I live in Houston, Texas. Based on the SWORN testimony from "renowned specialists" (before Two Texas legislative committees (House of Rep. Committee - Business & Commerce and the Senate Committee - Health and Human Services)) exhausts from the numerous petroleum factories are all good and SECOND HAND SMOKE IS THE MOST DEADLY THING ON THE PLANET. Please forgive me while I go VOMIT!!!! Can you say Nail Salons?
I must admit I have not researched monies donated to individual politicians, parties not withstanding, through J&J. With the un-questioned staunch support from both parties, IN SUPPORT OF a Texas-State-Wide smoking ban, I will be researching further. Heaven help the Texas politicians that introduced, co-signed, and supported legislation to take MY RIGHTS AWAY AND BUSINESS AWAY FROM ME, and HEAVEN HELP the TEXAS POLITICIANS THAT FEEL THEY CAN SIT IN JUDGMENT OF MY LEGAL BUSINESS AND TRY TO TAX ME OUT OF BUSINESS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL. If they have received even 1 penny from any donor that can be linked back to J&J, any of their associates, any of their "Non Profits" that receive funds from stock holdings, any connection to J&J in any way, I promise I will make it my mission in life to expose their corruption and betrayal of the citizens of MY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Lynn: If they have received even 1 penny from any donor that can be linked back to J&J, any of their associates, any of their "Non Profits" that receive funds from stock holdings, any connection to J&J in any way, I promise I will make it my mission in life to expose their corruption and betrayal of the citizens of MY UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
We'd all be interested in what you learn about that. Also, you might be interested in a couple of links--or, maybe you already have them, http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/ and http://boycottjohnsonandjohnson....n.blogspot.com/
GreatScot--Thank you very much for those links!!!
Stuart--Wow. Don't mincw words next time, LOL! Good point. Why *are* all of these kids uninsured? Or, more to the point, why are all of these people bearing children that they can't support--in one of the richest countries on Earth? My, my, my. But...uh...how could we require parenting lessons before people actually procreate? Tell adolescents to please remove certain body parts until they have a stable job and nest egg saved? (Body parts returned on approval--if the bureaucrats haven't mislaid them or sent them to Bangaladesh by mistake.) Require contrceptives to be implanted in irresponsible parents? (Actually, I think that's been done to some drug-abusers. So, RWJF affiliates would be the first to be "fixed". Not bad, Stuart.)
si--Cheesy? First, SHS studies cause dementia and now they melt in high temperatures. But I think that some studies would be more like goatshead cheese...just a little stinky. LOL, I have a mental image of the man-in-the-moon smoking a cigarette. A cheesy moon and a choclate cigarette...man, I need a snack. Bon appetit!
DTB,
I noted in the Scottish parliament link that the supplementary evidence from ASH was anecdotal with no references while that from the Tobacco industry was science based and fully referenced.
No agenda my butt. The consultation process was a sham, the outcome predetermined.
GreatScot
Yes. This link seems to have opened a can of worms.
And calls the 220 number into question yet again, I think.
Still refusing to discuss that number, doctor?
I wish you would defend it.
I don't know about calling it into question Sam,i think i've reached the point that it was a scam,UNTIL DR SIEGEL CAN PROVE DIFFERENTLY.
GreatScot: I noted in the Scottish parliament link that the supplementary evidence from ASH was anecdotal with no references while that from the Tobacco industry was science based and fully referenced.
No agenda my butt. The consultation process was a sham, the outcome predetermined.
May ASH should enter a fiction contest?
Anyway, yes, point, noted. ;-(
I'm shocked, shocked! Restaurant workers use illegal drugs?
1 in 12 Workers Admits Using Drugs
By Associated Press (Chicago Tribune)
Published July 16, 2007
Lead in:
WASHINGTON -- One in 12 full-time workers in the United States acknowledges having used illegal drugs in the past month, the government reports.
Most of those who report using illicit drugs are employed full-time, with the highest rates among restaurant workers, 17.4 percent, and construction workers, 15.1 percent, according to a federal study being released Monday. About 4 percent of teachers and social service workers reported using illegal drugs in the past month, which was among the lowest rates.
Full article URL: http://tinyurl.com/2ldlt4
Commenting by HaloScan
