""If you smoke a pack of cigarettes, that means you are giving more to help solve social problems," commented Kudrin."

Translation: If you common people keep dying, we'll have less people, so less strife.

No problem commissar.

/inhale
//thats some good governin

Somaticasual: ""If you smoke a pack of cigarettes, that means you are giving more to help solve social problems," commented Kudrin."

Translation: If you common people keep dying, we'll have less people, so less strife.you won't be around to collect all your social security and tax our medicare system. So drink up and smoke em if you got them (unless you have the fortitude of George Burns).

fixed it for you

But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

Legalize and tax pot, which people are already consuming, instead of encouraging them to consume more of the more dangerous stuff.

OK, I'm really really sick of hearing about "the state". All the state should be doing is defending the borders and probably some basic law enforcement. And it should be MY state, not the federal government telling states what to do and when to do it. Instead my taxes are squandered on everything from welfare for immigrants to giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free. I'm no tea partyer but this neo-Obama "you have a duty to your country before it has a duty to you" business is getting out of hand. "The state" shouldn't be telling me to drink and smoke, or not, and it shouldn't be taxing my cigarettes to pay for someone else's cigarettes.

Cigarettes and booze are taxed heavily so he does have a point.

sirgrim: No Such Agency: OK, I'm really really sick of hearing about "the state". All the state should be doing is defending the borders and probably some basic law enforcement. And it should be MY state, not the federal government telling states what to do and when to do it. Instead my taxes are squandered on everything from welfare for immigrants to giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free. I'm no tea partyer but this neo-Obama "you have a duty to your country before it has a duty to you" business is getting out of hand. "The state" shouldn't be telling me to drink and smoke, or not, and it shouldn't be taxing my cigarettes to pay for someone else's cigarettes.

No Such Agency: welfare for immigrants

No Such Agency: giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free

OK here comes the hard question. Do you have any examples or facts to back these up?

illegals get free emergency healthcare. Some get to send their children to our schools and learn about what an evil marxist country we live in. You have heard the problems with school overcrowding haven't you? How much more revenue could be spent if schools weren't trying to teach the children of illegals fundamentals.

Liver transplant for free? Wait until 0bamacare kicks in.

The only good thing about 0care will be that the "state" will be too broke to pay for things like this so they will send you home with a pain bill. 0bama told us that from his very lips.

Itstoearly: But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

No it doesn't. Cost of treatment is negligible compared to the cost of administration. Socialized medicine reduces the administration.

Itstoearly 2010-09-05 07:54:50 AM

But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

This one is easy. imagine a person who is out of shape, and a smoker and he dies at 64 years old. Then imagine a real fit guy who dies at 94. Which one pulls in thirty years of pension and health care costs?

It is much better off for society if you croak right after retirement. Even if you use a few medical services doing so.

That is why all the arguments that the nanny state ought to control what you eat and what you do for societies good is a bunch of crap.

Which is more expensive? Smoking and dying at 65 or being healthy as a non-smoker and lingering in a nursing home on the taxpayers dime until you are 93?

Really now, think about it. I bet our medical costs would be lower with consumption at 1960's levels.

vorsicht

No it doesn't. Cost of treatment is negligible compared to the cost of administration. Socialized medicine reduces the administration.

That is not correct. I have seen some studies that administrative costs are reduced under SOME socialized systems, and much higher under others. In our case we have medicare which has way way high administrative costs including a whole lot of outright fraud.

No Such Agency: OK, I'm really really sick of hearing about "the state". All the state should be doing is defending the borders and probably some basic law enforcement. And it should be MY state, not the federal government telling states what to do and when to do it. Instead my taxes are squandered on everything from welfare for immigrants to giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free. I'm no tea partyer but this neo-Obama "you have a duty to your country before it has a duty to you" business is getting out of hand. "The state" shouldn't be telling me to drink and smoke, or not, and it shouldn't be taxing my cigarettes to pay for someone else's cigarettes.

Not to nit pick, but you do realize that the article in question is a bout Russia, right?

/break time
//off for a smoke
///doin my part

Tee hee.

vorsicht: Itstoearly: But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

No it doesn't. Cost of treatment is negligible compared to the cost of administration. Socialized medicine reduces the administration.

Hahahaha...I have to assume you are joking. Look at countries with socialized medicine. The UK for instance. The biggest single cause of wastage is the massive bureaucracy. Government spending always creates bureaucracy. Socialized medicine does nothing to reduce administration. Quite the opposite.

Impudent Domain: vorsicht
That is not correct. I have seen some studies that administrative costs are reduced under SOME socialized systems, and much higher under others. In our case we have medicare which has way way high administrative costs including a whole lot of outright fraud.

Fraud is a semantics argument. Especially with what the insurance companies put out. "Is not"/ "Is too". That is now covered.
There is a legal definition of "Administrative costs" it is more or less defined as the cost of having the business. With Socialized systems those hover around 10% of revenue. In cases like England where its' easy to hid from paying into the system up at the 10% range. Canada it's down at the 10% range.

Currently Medicare is at 15% there 8% jump in 2002 right after some insurance company deregulations. The clause for removing the problem was removed from the house bill. The big five all released last quarters SEC filings. In every case Administrative costs were at the legal max of 26%. However in the best case half of the "claim payments" were legally defined ad Administrative costs.

Due to personal bias I pick on Aetna. 12.2 (up 1.4 since "Obamacare") billion from premiums. 3.2 (up .4) billion in administrative costs, 1 billion in claims according to aetna(hasn't changed in a decade). .5 billion in claims (according to the SEC)

This is one reason I brew my own beer: so I can drink without paying taxes on it.

/well, other than sales tax on the kits when I buy them at the local homebrew shop
//buy most of my kits online from Midwest - no sales tax!

But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

Don't treat it. She did it to herself, she's on her own.

I'm helping the state?! I was trying to help the breweries!

NotaFinn: Socialized medicine does nothing to reduce administration. Quite the opposite.

Yes, common declarative statement. Do you have any examples, numbers, observations etc? SEC publishes quarterly and Medicare expensive are public.

SouthernManDunWrong:

illegals get free emergency healthcare. Some get to send their children to our schools and learn about what an evil marxist country we live in. You have heard the problems with school overcrowding haven't you? How much more revenue could be spent if schools weren't trying to teach the children of illegals fundamentals.

Liver transplant for free? Wait until 0bamacare kicks in.

The only good thing about 0care will be that the "state" will be too broke to pay for things like this so they will send you home with a pain bill. 0bama told us that from his very lips.

1- Legals get free emergency healthcare.

2- School overcrowding has been a problem for a long time.
How convenient that you and many others use it as another
vilification of illegal immigrants.

I've seriously been wondering who on the nutter right fringe
got you all whipped into a fury about school overcrowding and
it being because of illegal immigrants. You're not the first
I've heard say this/parrot it.

sirgrim: SouthernManDunWrong: illegals get free emergency healthcare. Some get to send their children to our schools and learn about what an evil marxist country we live in. You have heard the problems with school overcrowding haven't you? How much more revenue could be spent if schools weren't trying to teach the children of illegals fundamentals.

God forbid we actually heal and teach some brown kids so their life gets better which improves our country. Overcrowding is one thing but if teachers are already there I don't see a downside to maximizing the teaching potential. Now actual facts that overcrowding is caused by illegal immigrants and not an overall underfunding of our education system is something I'd be interested to see.

SouthernManDunWrong: Liver transplant for free? Wait until 0bamacare kicks in.

So no actual facts then? (I said wait for it, and you have to wait....so wait)


And I see that you
ignored the costs of providing emergency services to our medical system. Illegals that have no insurance and get free health care in the emergency room drain resources from hospitals and cause them to go out of business. What good is that to the general population?

dna_level_c: Well, call me a parasite.

/6 days (almost) tobacco free
//Yay me!

Good for you! I can't seem to break the habit, and I hate it.

/ Non-parasitical :(

dna_level_c: Well, call me a parasite.

/6 days (almost) tobacco free
//Yay me!

Pussy.

/jk
//GJ, keep it up!
///Wish I could :(

bilbo douchebaggins:
I've seriously been wondering who on the nutter right fringe
got you all whipped into a fury about school overcrowding and
it being because of illegal immigrants. You're not the first
I've heard say this/parrot it.

Glenn Beck most recently but the teatard logic is easy:

Given: Your quality as a human being is defined by your wealth.
Given: Only saved wealth goes to taxes.
Given: Anyone saving money never uses government services.

So: Work is the mandated punishment until you save enough money is to be contributing American.
So: Immigrants that come here are lesser people.
So: Illegal immigrants don't work proper jobs.

Therefore the average quality of America goes down because of immigration and all problems are because illegal aliens.

skinink: "Illegals that have no insurance and get free health care in the emergency room drain resources from hospitals and cause them to go out of business. What good is that to the general population?"
So it's only illegals that are forcing hospitals to go out of business, and not mismanagement or other factors. Got it. And is it a crush of hospitals going under as well? You make it sound like an epidemic but provide no stats for anything you say.

I'd like to know, just a practical matter, how screening for illegals would work in an emergency setting. Are we to deny treatment until ID is produced? Because I think that may cause some other problems.

Impudent Domain: Itstoearly 2010-09-05 07:54:50 AM

But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

This one is easy. imagine a person who is out of shape, and a smoker and he dies at 64 years old. Then imagine a real fit guy who dies at 94. Which one pulls in thirty years of pension and health care costs?

It is much better off for society if you croak right after retirement. Even if you use a few medical services doing so.

That is why all the arguments that the nanny state ought to control what you eat and what you do for societies good is a bunch of crap.

Did you factor in quality of life for the unhealthy 64/94 year old and how long they are likely to remain productive?

My mom and dad both smoked. Neither exercised or ate right. Both died around 70. Each started having health problems in their forties they were always seeing doctors about. Blue Cross paid for most of it.

Dad had a heart attack in his fifties which resulted in congestive heart failure then two more attacks later on. Mom developed emphysema then died of cancer.

I work with a guy who's 75, eats well, and walks on a track every day. He's got his health problems too, but guess who I'd like to emulate?

Weaver95: yup, I'd have to agree. not only are they kicking in more tax money with their purchases, but they're also going to die earlier and thus not cost anyone any money over the long term.

If this was really the goal, wouldn't the government legalize crack and rescind seat belt laws?

HotWingConspiracy: Weaver95: yup, I'd have to agree. not only are they kicking in more tax money with their purchases, but they're also going to die earlier and thus not cost anyone any money over the long term.

If this was really the goal, wouldn't the government legalize crack and rescind seat belt laws?

Never did understand why government though it was their duty to protect us from ourselves. It's their duty to protect us from OTHERS.

Floobergasted: Impudent Domain: Itstoearly 2010-09-05 07:54:50 AM

But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

This one is easy. imagine a person who is out of shape, and a smoker and he dies at 64 years old. Then imagine a real fit guy who dies at 94. Which one pulls in thirty years of pension and health care costs?

It is much better off for society if you croak right after retirement. Even if you use a few medical services doing so.

That is why all the arguments that the nanny state ought to control what you eat and what you do for societies good is a bunch of crap.

Did you factor in quality of life for the unhealthy 64/94 year old and how long they are likely to remain productive?

My mom and dad both smoked. Neither exercised or ate right. Both died around 70. Each started having health problems in their forties they were always seeing doctors about. Blue Cross paid for most of it.

Dad had a heart attack in his fifties which resulted in congestive heart failure then two more attacks later on. Mom developed emphysema then died of cancer.

I work with a guy who's 75, eats well, and walks on a track every day. He's got his health problems too, but guess who I'd like to emulate?

Richard Simmons?

dna_level_c, naptapper, TuesdayClub:

Just got one of these^. Pretty awesome. Definitely worth trying....at least, even if you're on this for ever, there's no actual smoke, just nicotine.

People who bring up the issue of 'illegals' in discussions involving socialized medicine in the USA don't know math or statistics. But they sure know fearmongering! That is all.

I think we are all missing the point here: We have found the Yankee spy in their government that is supposed to take the country down!

I wonder if anyone realizes TFA is about Russia?

skinink: Can't wait until smoking is finally outlawed in America (which is what the government should do instead of using a person's addiction to raise money), and then to replace that revenue stream they start to tax everyone else including the people who hate smokers.


According to this page,


(http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Businesses&L2=Help+%26+ R esources&L3=Cigarette+and+Tobacco+Tax&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dor_commissio ner_cigarette_tax&csid=Ador)


the Massachusetts tax is $2.51 per pack. So a pack a day smoker pays a tax of $916.15 a year. Suppose there were only 50,000 smokers in Massachusetts, then that tax revenue is $45,807,500. When smoking is illegal, what will replace that much tax revenue?

I've often wondered that too. When taxes are raised on cigarettes, obviously some people quit because they can't afford the increase or it pisses them off. So theoretically, there is a point where an increase in taxes will results in less tax revenue.

No Such Agency: OK, I'm really really sick of hearing about "the state". All the state should be doing is defending the borders and probably some basic law enforcement. And it should be MY state, not the federal government telling states what to do and when to do it. Instead my taxes are squandered on everything from welfare for immigrants to giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free. I'm no tea partyer but this neo-Obama "you have a duty to your country before it has a duty to you" business is getting out of hand. "The state" shouldn't be telling me to drink and smoke, or not, and it shouldn't be taxing my cigarettes to pay for someone else's cigarettes.

You do of course realize that this is RUSSIA we are talking about here, right?

SomebodyElsesShoes: So it's only illegals that are forcing hospitals to go out of business, and not mismanagement or other factors. Got it. And is it a crush of hospitals going under as well? You make it sound like an epidemic but provide no stats for anything you say.

I'd like to know, just a practical matter, how screening for illegals would work in an emergency setting. Are we to deny treatment until ID is produced? Because I think that may cause some other problems.

The stats and effects are well published. But they lack the truthiness he needed.

The costs are reported for all public hospitals and for any hospital seeking government repayment of free care. Within a few percentage points unpaid bills line up with the people treated. So about 80% is the insurance companies and 20% is everyone else. Hospital revenue is about 50/50 between insurance payments and people paying. Going with the teatard assumption that all uninsured ad illegal immigrants the revenue to nonpayment ration is 30% worse. The truth is in this country the uninsured subsidize the insured. How much of that subsidy is from illegals is imposable to measure
Of course you would also need the infrastructure to support the id checks in first responder service. It's not even feasible to implement no matter how much money is wasted on it. Also the backlash would be uncalculatedly huge. Tourism would take a hit if you can't get emergency service and our exports would all have pissed off customers.

Your county hospitals are happy to talk about it. Since a healthcare bill passed the big five are fighting to be the second worst company by paying their bills. I know a couple local ones that will not be asking for government aid this year.

marksman: Floobergasted: Impudent Domain: Itstoearly 2010-09-05 07:54:50 AM

But under socialized health care, does this stay true? Does the money you spend giving yourself cancer or liver disease outweigh the cost of treating it?

This one is easy. imagine a person who is out of shape, and a smoker and he dies at 64 years old. Then imagine a real fit guy who dies at 94. Which one pulls in thirty years of pension and health care costs?

It is much better off for society if you croak right after retirement. Even if you use a few medical services doing so.

That is why all the arguments that the nanny state ought to control what you eat and what you do for societies good is a bunch of crap.

Did you factor in quality of life for the unhealthy 64/94 year old and how long they are likely to remain productive?

My mom and dad both smoked. Neither exercised or ate right. Both died around 70. Each started having health problems in their forties they were always seeing doctors about. Blue Cross paid for most of it.

Dad had a heart attack in his fifties which resulted in congestive heart failure then two more attacks later on. Mom developed emphysema then died of cancer.

I work with a guy who's 75, eats well, and walks on a track every day. He's got his health problems too, but guess who I'd like to emulate?

Richard Simmons?

Is that you, Ceiling Cat?

sirgrim: No Such Agency: OK, I'm really really sick of hearing about "the state". All the state should be doing is defending the borders and probably some basic law enforcement. And it should be MY state, not the federal government telling states what to do and when to do it. Instead my taxes are squandered on everything from welfare for immigrants to giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free. I'm no tea partyer but this neo-Obama "you have a duty to your country before it has a duty to you" business is getting out of hand. "The state" shouldn't be telling me to drink and smoke, or not, and it shouldn't be taxing my cigarettes to pay for someone else's cigarettes.

No Such Agency: welfare for immigrants

No Such Agency: giving every alcoholic in the country a liver transplant for free

OK here comes the hard question. Do you have any examples or facts to back these up?

Another hard question: have you ever heard of literary exaggeration to make a point, or to inject humor/readability?

I love liberals. Really, I do. On the one hand, they are absolutely clueless about context. But on the other hand they will glom onto something like the above statements and bet it like a dead horse.

Their brains are just.... strange.