Totally Off Topic !

"<RJ>" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

A statistician once said; "What do you want the numbers to mean"

if you consider the fact those smokers tend to die off sooner, between
medical costs and social security savings, I'm happy to have them keep
smoking.

RJ said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

A statistician once said; "What do you want the numbers to mean"

????

It's fairly easy to extrapolate the costs of smoking related illnesses
and even easier to compare between those who smoke, those who used to
smoke, those who never smoked, those exposed to second hand smoke, and
estimate what percentage lie and by how much they lie when asked by a
doctor to fill out a medical history... most everyone who is asked
about smoking lies (usually substantially) to favor themselves. Any
decent medical doctor can tell with a five minute cursory exam if
someone smokes or did, and how much. What was your question again...
oh, there was none.

I would say that MN is giving an extremely low estimate, the actual
costs are probably more than thrice that, that number only represents
claims, not real costs.

And if I asked you if you smoke and you say no I'll bet you're
lying... RJR! LOL

Sheldon

Sheldon said:

RJ said:

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.

I would say that MN is giving an extremely low estimate, the actual
costs are probably more than thrice that, that number only represents
claims, not real costs.

And if I asked you if you smoke and you say no I'll bet you're
lying... RJR! LOL

Sheldon

But this assumes that every smokers medical expenses
are being covered by the state !

If that were true, people who can't afford medical insurance
would take up smoking for the coverage ......

I smoked back when it was a rite of passage to adulthood....
then I quit. Haven't had a cig. in over 30 years. :o)

It's just that more and more, I see items in the news
that just don't make sense..

<rj>

Gil Faver said:

"<RJ>" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

Quoted message said:

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

Quoted message said:

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

Quoted message said:

A statistician once said; "What do you want the numbers to mean"

if you consider the fact those smokers tend to die off sooner, between
medical costs and social security savings, I'm happy to have them keep
smoking.

That's pretty stupid... the cost of SS is hardly a speck compared to
the costs involved with treating smoker's diseases. What needs to
happen is for society to spend a lot of money to educate young people
not to start smoking, and to dismantle the ready rolled industry...
anyone wants a smoke gotta roll their own like it used to be, that'll
cut back signicantly.

And truth be known the US Federal Government is who is reponsible for
promoting smoking, they subsidized all the tobacco industry, the
growing, but especially the development and building of high speed
cigarette production machinery, and gave away for free billions of
cigarettes to military sevicemen/women. The US Government is by far
the biggest drug lord this planet has ever seen, still, or ever will.
And there's nary a drug addict who didn't take their first hits with
tobacco.

Sheldon

Quoted post said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

A statistician once said; "What do you want the numbers to mean"

I presume that they look at the number of cases of people with medical
problems who smoke and who have smoking related conditions. For instance,
if the person with lung cancer, emphysema, heart condition etc. is a
smoker.

I wonder if they keep similar figures for people with diabetes or obesity
related illness and the junk food they eat.

Quoted message said:

????

<rj>

Quoted post said:

IThe State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

It could refer to health benefits for current
and former state employees. It could also refer
to treatment for smoking-related diseases of the
indigent and inmates of the state prison system.

RJR said:

Sheldon said:

RJR said:

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.

Quoted message said:

I would say that MN is giving an extremely low estimate, the actual
costs are probably more than thrice that, that number only represents
claims, not real costs.

Quoted message said:

And if I asked you if you smoke and you say no I'll bet you're
lying... RJR! LOL

But this assumes that every smokers medical expenses
are being covered by the state !

They are, to various degrees.

Quoted message said:

If that were true, people who can't afford medical insurance
would take up smoking for the coverage ......

They already do... do you actually think people on welfare don't
smoke.

Quoted message said:

I smoked back when it was a rite of passage to adulthood....
then I quit. Haven't had a cig. in over 30 years.   :o)

It's just that more and more, I see items in the news
that just don't make sense..

There is nothing nonsensical about how tobacco costs everyone a
fortune.

Most people who drink, especially outside the home, also smoke. If
smoking outside the home were punishable by a stiff prison sentence
DUIs would probably cease to be... think how much money and misery
that would save.

The government can easilly develop a pill that will stop the desire to
smoke, and other addictions. But there is just too much money
collected in tax revenues from tobacco and booze.

Sheldon

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

On the off chance you are not a troll, it's a fairly simple calculation
once you know:

- The percentage of people who smoke.
- The increased incidence of various diseases caused by smoking.
- The amount spent per year treating those diseases.

--
Peter Aitken

"<RJ>" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.

Medicare?

RJ said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

http://www.smokeoutgary.org/news/

There are about 660,000 on state-funded insurance. 12% of all
costs incurred by those patients ate classified as
smoking-related (which is [censored] in itself).

only about 25% of the money collected from the "health impact
fee: actually went to pay medical bills. The rest weent intot he
"General Slushbucket".

Typical government scam to justify raising taxes. It seems every
state is now using a cigarette tax to help cover a budget
shortfall attributed to their in incompetencies, not smoking.

-sw

Dave Smith said:

I presume that they look at the number of cases of people with medical
problems who smoke and who have smoking related conditions. For instance,
if the person with lung cancer, emphysema, heart condition etc. is a
smoker.

I wonder if they keep similar figures for people with diabetes or obesity
related illness and the junk food they eat.

I'm sure these State-employed doctors classify every cough, cold,
or flu as a smoking related illness, even if you haven't smoked
for years.

-sw

Peter A said:

On the off chance you are not a troll, it's a fairly simple calculation
once you know:

- The percentage of people who smoke.
- The increased incidence of various diseases caused by smoking.
- The amount spent per year treating those diseases.

Not trolling.... just learning.
The state implies that it pays $300 mil to cover smoker illness.

HOW ??
Guy shows up at doctors office with an earache.
Doc asks if he smokes.
If yes, Doc sends bill to the state ??

I just don't see where the state spends this "smoker money" ?

<rj>

RJ said:

Sheldon said:

RJ said:

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.

Quoted message said:

I would say that MN is giving an extremely low estimate, the actual
costs are probably more than thrice that, that number only represents
claims, not real costs.

Quoted message said:

And if I asked you if you smoke and you say no I'll bet you're
lying... RJR! LOL

Quoted message said:

Sheldon

But this assumes that every smokers medical expenses
are being covered by the state !

No, that assumes that smokers with no insurance are coming to the
state for smoking-related ailments (emphysema, lung cancer, heart
disease etc.)

Quoted message said:

If that were true, people who can't afford medical insurance
would take up smoking for the coverage ......

The state only covers them when they get sick. They don't give you
general health coverage just because you smoke. If you need help
paying for ailments other than smoking-related ones, they'll cover
those too if you're indigent.

Quoted message said:

I smoked back when it was a rite of passage to adulthood....
then I quit. Haven't had a cig. in over 30 years. :o)

It's just that more and more, I see items in the news
that just don't make sense..

<rj>

As you've pointed out, depending on which statistics you use, and what
you relate them to, you can pretty much prove any point with numbers.
This sounds like the state gearing up to sue the tobacco companies for
more money to cover the expenses of the folks who have been paying the
tobacco companies for years for their "fix".

maxine in ri

RJ said:

I read a newspaper bit that I'd like to share;

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims
from smokers cost the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.
I'm puzzled.
I've never heard of a smoker going to a doctor or hospital,
and asking for the "state medical coverage for smokers".

Poor parsing of the comment you started with. They don't say they
cover only smokers. They say that the subset of "smokers" costs the
taxpayers X amount, not that they have specific coverage for
smokers.

Quoted message said:

There are some pretty clever people in this newsgroup.
How would any state arrive at these numbers ?

A statistician once said; "What do you want the numbers to mean"

????

<rj>

maxine in ri

Sheldon said:

They already do... do you actually think people on welfare don't
smoke.

And they might even be getting the government to pay for the cigarettes!

Food stamps (or their modern debit card equivalent) can't be used for tobacco,
but there are ways around it. I've been asked a couple of times in the
supermarket by people if they could pay for my food with their "food stamp"
debit card if I would give them the amount in cash afterwards. It doesn't take a
genius to figure out they are trying to buy disallowed products via this method.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

RJ said:

Sheldon said:

RJ said:

The State of Minnesota claims that medical claims from smokers cost
the taxpayers $303.7 million bucks.

I would say that MN is giving an extremely low estimate, the actual
costs are probably more than thrice that, that number only represents
claims, not real costs.

And if I asked you if you smoke and you say no I'll bet you're
lying... RJR! LOL

Sheldon

But this assumes that every smokers medical expenses are being covered
by the state !

If you want more silliness, there's an argument in another group right
now about how much bicycle riders that don't use helmets cost all of us.
🙂

Quoted message said:

If that were true, people who can't afford medical insurance would
take up smoking for the coverage ......

What? There's no government Frequent Smokers Plan? 🙂

Quoted message said:

I smoked back when it was a rite of passage to adulthood.... then I
quit. Haven't had a cig. in over 30 years. :o)

20 years here. After 20 years of smoking, ending up at 2.5 packs a day,
I quit in April 1987. At todays prices, I'd be paying (Smokes are
what, US$4 a pack, now? That's what I used to buy cartons for) US$3,600
a year to smell really bad.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

"Blinky the Shark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

If you want more silliness, there's an argument in another group right
now about how much bicycle riders that don't use helmets cost all of us.
🙂

Neighbor kid was hit by a car and has been in a nursing facility for the
past 10 years at state expense. I don't know if he had a helmet would have
made a difference, but we do pay for situations like that.

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"Blinky the Shark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

If you want more silliness, there's an argument in another group right
now about how much bicycle riders that don't use helmets cost all of us.
🙂

Neighbor kid was hit by a car and has been in a nursing facility for the
past 10 years at state expense. I don't know if he had a helmet would have
made a difference, but we do pay for situations like that.

Absolutely. I think of that every time a Harley blows by me with a
helmet-less rider. Somehow they think wearing a bandana is more chic.

gloria p

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"Blinky the Shark" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

If you want more silliness, there's an argument in another group right
now about how much bicycle riders that don't use helmets cost all of us.
🙂

Neighbor kid was hit by a car and has been in a nursing facility for the
past 10 years at state expense. I don't know if he had a helmet would have
made a difference, but we do pay for situations like that.

It is my opinion that within the context of all the taxes we pay *and
even* adding the premiums we pay on medical insurance, the national cost
of helmetless bicycle riders is infinetessimal.

--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html