Clown Car VI: Hello, Goodbye. On to 2024.

[Birdjaguar]

It's the sick and the old, simply in general. Smokers die earlier. That's the difference. You don't milk them as long before you pay the same ****. There's a really good argument they cost less, overall, since they tend to just gtfo for their "twilight years" rather than inconveniencing us all with our magnanimous healthcare. Even the logic is bs all the way down.

Perhaps, but the damage done by smoking is so widespread, its impact is difficult to pin down. Your case would be better if smoking wasn't preventable.

Maybe a portion of cigarette taxes collected should go into a personal account (like an IRA) to build up over time to pay for their later healthcare? The time value of money could build up a tidy sum over the years. Smokers would then be funding their own future healthcare.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/index.htm

 

[El_Machinae]

IIRC in NM Marlboros sell for about $8 for 20 and unbranded or Indian branded sell for about $5

In the US a very small percent (5%) of the population consume 50% of the health care costs. I do not know, but assume that elderly smokers are part of that 5%. It is within that small group of people where we should be paying attention as to who and why. Smoking related diseases are preventable and well known. I am not a fan of paying for health care that folks know is coming at great expense and refuse to do anything about. The long term cost of smoking are predictable and mostly ignored by smokers because paying those costs will likely be borne by others: insurance, government, etc.

If you don't like the cost of covering people who are a burden to the system, you surely won't enjoy the lack of progress or dismantling of public health care by people who're worried (legitimately) about how you'll Big Brother away their liberty. Also, once paternalism kicks in (especially when viewed through the self-interested lens of saving your money), condescension kicks in soon after.

My warning is more political than anything else. A public healthcare system that just accepts these costs is vastly more affordable than not having the public healthcare in the first place. The slippery slope of intrusive paternalism is a legitimate concern being expressed sincerely.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If you don't like the cost of covering people who are a burden to the system, you surely won't enjoy the lack of progress or dismantling of public health care by people who're worried (legitimately) about how you'll Big Brother away their liberty. Also, once paternalism kicks in (especially when viewed through the self-interested lens of saving your money), condescension kicks in soon after.

My warning is more political than anything else. A public healthcare system that just accepts these costs is vastly more affordable than not having the public healthcare in the first place. The slippery slope of intrusive paternalism is a legitimate concern being expressed sincerely.

i am certainly not against government healthcare for all those who want it or need it. There are no unknowns here. I don't have a problem with folks who are a burden to the system because of bad luck, bad genes, accidents, what have you. That is just the way life works, or not. My objection is with those who choose abuse their health over many years with the expectation that someone else will "fix it" later "for free". I suspect that most people smokers included rarely think about the body's future failings and what their end of life path will be. there are too many unknowns. Smoking is an exception to that.

 

[Farm Boy]

My objection is with those who choose abuse their health over many years with the expectation that someone else will "fix it" later "for free"

This will never have a limit. It ends with inefficient people messing up the planet just by being*. Maybe that's the limit.

The desire to modify somebody else's body to one's own pleasing is... deeply rooted. Even in what are good people, or just people, or whoever.

*"Who would even want to live such a life? It's a mercy that they do not have to."

 

[El_Machinae]

i am certainly not against government healthcare for all those who want it or need it. There are no unknowns here. I don't have a problem with folks who are a burden to the system because of bad luck, bad genes, accidents, what have you. That is just the way life works, or not. My objection is with those who choose abuse their health over many years with the expectation that someone else will "fix it" later "for free". I suspect that most people smokers included rarely think about the body's future failings and what their end of life path will be. there are too many unknowns. Smoking is an exception to that.

I know you're in favor, so I'm miscommunicating.

By seeking to impose restrictions on people, and justifying it because you feel like you're paying for it, you're losing people who'd be swayed by efficiency arguments but worry that you're creating the slippery slope to restrictionist paternalism.

 

[Farm Boy]

...know that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Do you know what cigarette packets look like in the UK? They are military brown with horrible pictures on them. I approve of that, anti-advertising.

Spoiler Cigarette packets, state mandated shocking. Some are nasty. :

Canadian Cigarette Packaging.

This kind of packaging will occur in the US over... well... I guess... more dead bodies?

 

[Birdjaguar]

This will never have a limit. It ends with inefficient people messing up the planet just by being*. Maybe that's the limit.

The desire to modify somebody else's body to one's own pleasing is... deeply rooted. Even in what are good people, or just people, or whoever.

*"Who would even want to live such a life? It's a mercy that they do not have to."

I have no interest in modifying smokers' behavior beyond looking at the true cost of that behavior on the community. I pretty much gave up trying change other peoples behavior three times: during the first five years of being married; while our daughter was a teenager; and as employer of people. All you can do is crate situations where you hope they make good decisions.

I know you're in favor, so I'm miscommunicating.

By seeking to impose restrictions on people, and justifying it because you feel like you're paying for it, you're losing people who'd be swayed by efficiency arguments but worry that you're creating the slippery slope to restrictionist paternalism.

You are doing just fine; I'm just not easily persuaded. I'm not trying to restrict anyone's choice of behaviors, just assign the costs appropriately. Smoking is a "lizard brain" addiction and trying to "sway" people is not a great path for change. On the corporation side we try do it all the time: reduce your pollution, clean up your messes, etc. We already do it at the person level too: smokers pay more for insurance, Drunk/DUI offenders pay more for insurance; owners of faster, more expensive cars pay more for the cars and to use them. Sin taxes are a real thing.

Is there a reason personal, destructive choices that go beyond personal impact into society as a whole shouldn't be costly to the person? Is it paternalism to make it expensive for me to drive a 1964 gas guzzling, oil burning Caddie around town because I find it pleasurable? We already curtail the joys of being drunk with all kinds of restrictions and punishments to help keep drunks from killing others; paternalism?

 

[Farm Boy]

No, you're still saying "true cost."

You're conflating "aggressing" with "aggressing for another." One we do for children. They require it, whatever the fairness may be. But seriously. It's finite. I could be gone tomorrow and I no longer fear it like I did. It might be what I choose. That might last 40 years, fortunately or unfortunately. The sheer arrogance behind your argument's qualification of the good for my own life at your imagined self expense is stunning. In the kindest possible terms, of course.

Edit: yes, I know you can read the edits. They're real and intentional.

 

[Birdjaguar]

No, you're still saying "true cost."

You're conflating "aggressing" with "aggressing for another." One we do for children. They require it, whatever the fairness may be. But seriously. It's finite. I could be gone tomorrow and I no longer fear it like I did. It might be what I choose. That might last 40 years, fortunately or unfortunately. The sheer arrogance behind your argument's qualification of the good for my own life at your imagined self expense is stunning. In the kindest possible terms, of course.

Edit: yes, I know you can read the edits. They're real and intentional.

To begin, I can't see your edits; maybe an admin can, but I never even thought about it. I have only seen what I've actually quoted. We are far apart in our thinking on this and unlikely to find common ground. It is a good thing we don't need to. My opinions are not likely to be acted upon by anyone. There are many things I do not like paying for but do so: wasteful military spending; United Healthcare CEO bonuses; Congressional junkets; how long a list do you want?

I have said nothing about the quality of your life at all. I do not care if you smoke, drink or do drugs. Drunk drivers kill people while they engage in their chosen pleasure. There is a quick and close tie between the drinking and the kill/maiming. Society has tried to comes to terms with that and added high costs for those that do harm to others after drinking. With smoking the costs are extended decades along the path of the actions. Currently, we mostly ignore the high, end cost of smoking on our healthcare costs. That is my point. What is arrogant about pointing that out and saying it should be taken into account? I've been talking in generalities with regard to smokers as a group. You seem to be the one taking it personally. that certainly was not my intent.

 

[Farm Boy]

There are few greater lies than, "it isn't personal."

Smoking is not drunk driving and killing somebody else. Fundamentally. All the way down. Smoking in a car with your kid with the windows rolled up maybe. But those are not remotely the same. You are imposing your costs. Then enforcing them.

The deep seated desire to change other people's bodies to our own liking is deep rooted. All the way down.

 

[Samson]

Currently, we mostly ignore the high, end cost of smoking on our healthcare costs. That is my point. What is arrogant about pointing that out and saying it should be taken into account?

You may have talked around it, but not really about it. This is the first estimate of "cost" I came across:

We estimate a net saving of £14.7 billion per annum at current rates of consumption, with the costs smokers incur significantly outweighed by the sum of tobacco duty paid and old-age expenditures avoided due to premature mortality.

The government spends £3.6 billion treating smoking-attributable diseases on the NHS and up to £1 billion collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. But these costs are covered more than four times over by early death savings and tobacco duty revenue.
​

Considering they take about £10 billion in tobacco duty per year, a significant amount of that saving is dying sooner.

Total tobacco receipts for 2019-20 to date (April to October) are £5,259 million, which is £318 million (5.7%) lower than the same period in 2018-19.
​

 

[AmazonQueen]

i am certainly not against government healthcare for all those who want it or need it. There are no unknowns here. I don't have a problem with folks who are a burden to the system because of bad luck, bad genes, accidents, what have you. That is just the way life works, or not. My objection is with those who choose abuse their health over many years with the expectation that someone else will "fix it" later "for free". I suspect that most people smokers included rarely think about the body's future failings and what their end of life path will be. there are too many unknowns. Smoking is an exception to that.

Not sure its really workable.
If you had state funded healthcare would smokers receive treatment for a brain tumour but not lung cancer or heart disease?
What if they had all of them? Would you only treat the non-smoking related life threatening ailment but let them die of the other?
Perhaps because they have endangered their own health you'd refuse them treatment. If so why not do the same to alcoholics, drug addicts, the obese, careless drivers who get in accidents, accidents at work when safety regulations weren't followed?

 

[Traitorfish]

i am certainly not against government healthcare for all those who want it or need it. There are no unknowns here. I don't have a problem with folks who are a burden to the system because of bad luck, bad genes, accidents, what have you. That is just the way life works, or not. My objection is with those who choose abuse their health over many years with the expectation that someone else will "fix it" later "for free". I suspect that most people smokers included rarely think about the body's future failings and what their end of life path will be. there are too many unknowns. Smoking is an exception to that.

This sounds superficially reasonable because smokers are a socially stigmatised group. But if you try to apply the same logic elsewhere, it starts to fall apart: back and knees destroyed by forty years working in the building trade? Well, you knew the risks, you chose to make yourself a burden. It's the same logic, these people made choices with predictably negative health outcomes, but because builders aren't a stigmatised group, we find it repellent.

 

[Ajidica]

This sounds superficially reasonable because smokers are a socially stigmatised group. But if you try to apply the same logic elsewhere, it starts to fall apart: back and knees destroyed by forty years working in the building trade? Well, you knew the risks, you chose to make yourself a burden. It's the same logic, these people made choices with predictably negative health outcomes, but because builders aren't a stigmatised group, we find it repellent.

But smoking isn't an occupational hazard. It is people taking a conscious choice to participate in an elective activity that has clear and serious long term health risks. While I don't necessarily agree with Birdjaguar's point, I'm not sure your argument holds water.

 

[Samson]

But smoking isn't an occupational hazard. It is people taking a conscious choice to participate in an elective activity that has clear and serious long term health risks. While I don't necessarily agree with Birdjaguar's point, I'm not sure your argument holds water.

But if you assume that one's choice of career is a real choice, then occupational hazards are serious long term health risks clearly associated with elective activity. I would agree that working in manual labour is a whole lot less a free choice than smoking in the real world, but this logic can be applied to a lot of things, including childbearing, sport, diet, transportation and many others that would be unpopular to discriminate against in the way it is acceptable to with smoking.

 

[AmazonQueen]

But smoking isn't an occupational hazard. It is people taking a conscious choice to participate in an elective activity that has clear and serious long term health risks. While I don't necessarily agree with Birdjaguar's point, I'm not sure your argument holds water.

Like sports. Long term damage caused by sports like rugby and boxing is well-documented now. Should we refuse treatment for people who take part in them?

 

[Birdjaguar]

You may have talked around it, but not really about it. This is the first estimate of "cost" I came across:

We estimate a net saving of £14.7 billion per annum at current rates of consumption, with the costs smokers incur significantly outweighed by the sum of tobacco duty paid and old-age expenditures avoided due to premature mortality.

The government spends £3.6 billion treating smoking-attributable diseases on the NHS and up to £1 billion collecting cigarette butts and extinguishing smoking-related house fires. But these costs are covered more than four times over by early death savings and tobacco duty revenue.
​

Considering they take about £10 billion in tobacco duty per year, a significant amount of that saving is dying sooner.

Total tobacco receipts for 2019-20 to date (April to October) are £5,259 million, which is £318 million (5.7%) lower than the same period in 2018-19.
​

Well, the numbers do speak for themselves. In the US though, much of that revenue would go to the tobacco companies. None-the-less, I guess we should be thanking our smokers for dying young and not being a burden while generating lots of revenue for governments and business. I guess I will stop worrying over the healthcare costs of aging smokers and stop complaining about having to pay for their care. Good news.

There are few greater lies than, "it isn't personal."

If I were doing something to you or your family, this holds some truth. But this is an internet discussion forum and nothing I say or think changes your day.

Smoking is not drunk driving and killing somebody else. Fundamentally. All the way down. Smoking in a car with your kid with the windows rolled up maybe. But those are not remotely the same. You are imposing your costs. Then enforcing them.

The deep seated desire to change other people's bodies to our own liking is deep rooted. All the way down.

You seem quite fixated on thinking I want to change your behavior. You are just making that up. Setting Samson's post aside, the idea of assigning the cost of personal and corporate behavior to activities may change behavior but often doesn't. Sin taxes are paid daily even when raised. Smoke shops in NM do a brisk business.

https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/secondhand_smoke/general_facts/index.htm

 

[El_Machinae]

But smoking isn't an occupational hazard. It is people taking a conscious choice to participate in an elective activity that has clear and serious long term health risks.

It's true, the counterpoint is that not everyone has the same amount of freewill. It's rough math, but the people most affected by cigarette addiction are also the most likely to need assistance from society. Sure, the Venn diagrams don't perfectly overlap, but there's a pretty strong amount of overlap

I have no doubt that Society has a vested interest in reducing the amount of smoking, my concern is insisting that we have the right to intervene because we pay the bills

It's an argument from Liberty rather than efficiency that I'm using. Of course, because I know that Public Health Care is so overwhelmingly more efficient, I'm willing to lose some money in order to preserve Liberty. If the math was different, an argument from efficiency would resonate much more

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

If the huge taxes I pay would only save me from people dicking smugly about smoking.