Quake3World

who cares, just list that you dont smoke

I'm going to, didn't you read the post?

R00k wrote:I have a problem with fat people who are that way because of their own habits too - and I don't want to have to pay for gastric bypasses and diabetes medication and joint problems. But I am not about to walk up to one of those people, and tell them they have to pay a higher insurance rate than everyone else, even though they are the only group that is being treated that way, and then tell them it is their fault in the first place, and they deserve it because of all the harm they are doing to everyone else.

I guess this is something I don't understand, and it must be because of a lack of understanding of health insurance. Why do you consider yourself to be paying for other people's healthcare? They pay insurance so they can be covered if they need major healthcare. You pay more insurance if you're more likely to have health issues. I guess I don't understand why you think you're unfairly targeted as a smoker. Smokers have always paid more for insurance.

Fender wrote:I'm all for it. Smoking and obesity are the root cause of a majority of our health care costs in this country. Fuck you if you smoke or are fat. Pay for your own addictions, don't expect me to do so.

Actually, I figure you should live your life any way you please even if it means dying at 55 yrs old. It should be your choice, not someone else's. Live fast, die young if u want.

However, I do know the insurance industry is based on statistics. Statistics say that 18yr olds get into more crashes than 40yr olds so 18yr olds pay alot more for car ins. Statistics say peeps who smoke regularly die younger so smokers pay more. All of this stuff is analyzed endlessly by the bean counters.

If you really want to be a rebel, then don't get the insurance.

smoking creates like 10 billion in taxes a year

were keeping your petrol prices down, stop hating and start praising.... were taking it for the team !

Anhedoniac wrote:Foo: I live in a country where I'm not allowed to smoke in bars, restaurants or in any public place. The healthcare for whatever cancer I get, I've paid for many times over in taxes on cigarettes.

Not true, and that's if you just get cancer (lip, tongue, pharynx, oesophagus, lung, bladder, etc etc.). Like I said before, emphysema is, if anything, more expensive. A night in evena shitty hospital like mine costs about £350, and that's before you get any actual treatment

Rook wrote:Second-hand smoke does not affect people's well being. You could smoke one or two cigarettes every 2nd day for a year and odds are you would not have any ill effects from it. Chronic, abusive smoking is what causes serious health problems.

Completely untrue.

R00k wrote:I'm going to, didn't you read the post?

You won't have a leg to stand on if you make a claim, so why pay for the insurance in the first place?

Geebs wrote:

Anhedoniac wrote:Foo: I live in a country where I'm not allowed to smoke in bars, restaurants or in any public place. The healthcare for whatever cancer I get, I've paid for many times over in taxes on cigarettes.

Not true, and that's if you just get cancer (lip, tongue, pharynx, oesophagus, lung, bladder, etc etc.). Like I said before, emphysema is, if anything, more expensive. A night in evena shitty hospital like mine costs about £350, and that's before you get any actual treatment

Rook wrote:Second-hand smoke does not affect people's well being. You could smoke one or two cigarettes every 2nd day for a year and odds are you would not have any ill effects from it. Chronic, abusive smoking is what causes serious health problems.

Completely untrue.

No shit untrue... this woman in my building likes to smoke outside of my window instead of in her apartment. I'm allergic as hell to the cloves she smokes. If i leave my window open at night and she smokes outside, I can't hardly breathe in the morning.

Geebs wrote: Not true, and that's if you just get cancer (lip, tongue, pharynx, oesophagus, lung, bladder, etc etc.). Like I said before, emphysema is, if anything, more expensive. A night in evena shitty hospital like mine costs about £350, and that's before you get any actual treatment

So far, after smoking a pack a day for fourteen years, at least £17,816 of the money I've spent on cigarettes have gone to taxes.

£592,728,485.78580 was the tax revenue on tobacco in Norway 2004 (pop. 4,593,041).
http://www.ssb.no/aarbok/tab/tab-474.html

Anyway, If we're talking just money though, it would cost a hell of a lot more for the government if I lived to be 90, than dying at 70 from smoking.

.78580?

.78580!

Geebs wrote:

Rook wrote:Second-hand smoke does not affect people's well being. You could smoke one or two cigarettes every 2nd day for a year and odds are you would not have any ill effects from it. Chronic, abusive smoking is what causes serious health problems.

Completely untrue.

aye, there was a thing on the radio saying that if you had one tab a day, it would still fuck you up. was a new study and they were saying they needed more to back it up - but the doctors on the show talking seemed pretty convinced.

Anhedoniac wrote:So far, after smoking a pack a day for fourteen years, at least £17,816 of the money I've spent on cigarettes have gone to taxes.

.....which is peanuts. You're quoting a cigarette company (read: evil multinational) line which was the fallback from their original position that cigarettes cause no harm. They only abandoned that one after overwhelming evidence, because they're evil and they don't care that their product actively poisons their customers without any beneficial effects (no I don't count "feeling slightly more alert and maybe a bit lightheaded" as a beneficial effect). At the time the original research was being debated, the cigarette companies were trying to come up with new ways to get children hooked. Why the FUCK would you want to give them your money?

Geebs, you're talking about all tobacco companies like one giant evil entity. If there's a tobacco company that tries to make nicotine part of the diet of all children aged 1 or older, I'll switch to a different brand. There are bastards in any industry.

Anhedoniac wrote:Geebs, you're talking about all tobacco companies like one giant evil entity. If there's a tobacco company that tries to make nicotine part of the diet of all children aged 1 or older, I'll switch to a different brand. There are bastards in any industry.

he's right, it's just that they're a group of giant evil entities rather than one big one.

if that sort of thing really does bother you then it's time to switch to roll-ups, assuming you can find a brand of roll-ups that aren't owned by a company that makes regular cigarettes.