Totally Off Topic !

Puester said:

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.

I think we can assume that they know *their* culture better than you do;
thus, in the context *of* their culture it's logical that the bandana *is*
more chic, or they'd be wearing something else.

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

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

Quoted message said:

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

Right on, Sheldon, word for word. Added to the cost is the poor basturd in
his bed dying of lung ca, throat ca, larynx ca, COPD and the rest.

Kent

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

Quoted message 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 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>

Quoted message said:

The smoking related illness is covered by insurance that you and others
have. You are paying
premiums that cover this. Your premiums are higher because smoking medical
costs are covered.
Believe me, it's not just the government. Even there, it's your taxes.

Kent

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

Quoted message said:

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

I have only known 4 people who died of lung cancer in my 60 years. Now all 4
of these people neither smoked or where married to smokers. All 4 got cancer
of some other organ that moved to their lungs causing their death. So when
talking about lung cancer deaths are these included as none smokers or they
just all lumped together which I kind of think they do.

--

Joe Cilinceon

Steve Wertz said:

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.

I am not from the US, so I have no idea how your health/SS/tax systems
work with regard to smoking/smokers and who pays for what. However...
how come you don't hear anybody moaning too loudly about paying for
other people's 'booze-related' illnesses - e.g. liver problems from
drinking excessively? Not to mention all the deaths that are caused by
drivers that have been drinking and driving... Shouldn't drinking any
form of alcohol be 'banned' too, just in case people become "sick" from
it, or might kill somebody while "under the influence"? Just my two
cents worth.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Gil Faver said:

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

news:[email hidden]...

>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.

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

Right on, Sheldon, word for word. Added to the cost is the poor basturd in
his bed dying of lung ca, throat ca, larynx ca, COPD and the rest.

Kent

To say that smokers dying young saves on SS is a farce. If someone is
classified 'disabled' by their smoking related diseases, they qualify for
Supplimental Social Security Income (SSI), so they DO collect SS. Also, as
noted by a number of other posters, smoking seems to be magnified in the
segment of society that receives governmental assistance. So smoking
related diseases flourish in this segment as well. High blood pressure,
obesity related diabetes, poor dental health, all have a home in this
segment of society. If you note in inner city neighborhoods, the residents
are targeted for special deals on cigarettes, larger packages of alcohol,
and fast foods. The government allows 'unhealthy' alternatives to be
marketed big time in these neighborhoods for substantial campaign
contributions then complains when the same segment on medical assistance
needs medical treatment.
-ginny
who grew up in NC, on the SC border, home of Chesterfield and Marlboro
Counties, and Salem, NC home of RJ Reynold Tobacco company.......who owns
the state of NC...

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

Quoted message said:

To say that smokers dying young saves on SS is a farce. If someone is
classified 'disabled' by their smoking related diseases, they qualify for
Supplimental Social Security Income (SSI), so they DO collect SS. Also, as
noted by a number of other posters, smoking seems to be magnified in the
segment of society that receives governmental assistance. So smoking
related diseases flourish in this segment as well. High blood pressure,
obesity related diabetes, poor dental health, all have a home in this
segment of society. If you note in inner city neighborhoods, the residents
are targeted for special deals on cigarettes, larger packages of alcohol,
and fast foods. The government allows 'unhealthy' alternatives to be
marketed big time in these neighborhoods for substantial campaign
contributions then complains when the same segment on medical assistance
needs medical treatment.
-ginny
who grew up in NC, on the SC border, home of Chesterfield and Marlboro
Counties, and Salem, NC home of RJ Reynold Tobacco company.......who owns
the state of NC...

A very perceptive post, thanks.

Speaking of NC (where I live), the legislature just rejected a ban on
smoking in restaurants. The legacy of the tobacco industry is still a
power in this state.

--
Peter Aitken

"Kent" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

The smoking related illness is covered by insurance that you and others
have. You are paying
premiums that cover this. Your premiums are higher because smoking medical
costs are covered.
Believe me, it's not just the government. Even there, it's your taxes.

Believe it or not, this is what I was actually thinking when I stupidly
suggested
"Medicare," which is of course a Federal program.

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

To say that smokers dying young saves on SS is a farce. If someone is
classified 'disabled' by their smoking related diseases, they qualify for
(clipped )
-ginny
who grew up in NC, on the SC border, home of Chesterfield and Marlboro
Counties, and Salem, NC home of RJ Reynold Tobacco company.......who owns
the state of NC...

A very perceptive post, thanks.
Speaking of NC (where I live), the legislature just rejected a ban on
smoking in restaurants. The legacy of the tobacco industry is still a
power in this state.
Peter Aitken

Here in El Paso Texas, we're considered a model city for antismoking
ordinances. All the bar/restaurant owners fussed and moaned it would take
business away. It didn't happen, business is booming and every place is a
lot cleaner to eat in! Not to mention healthier for the servers. The smokers
just got used to going outside. Many cities in NM following suit.
Edrena
Quit Jan 23 AND 26, 1999.

Joe Cilinceon said:

"Steve Wertz" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:12:28 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

Quoted message said:

-sw

I have only known 4 people who died of lung cancer in my 60 years. Now all 4
of these people neither smoked or where married to smokers. All 4 got cancer
of some other organ that moved to their lungs causing their death. So when
talking about lung cancer deaths are these included as none smokers or they
just all lumped together which I kind of think they do.

--

Joe Cilinceon

No, they won't unless totally incompetent. Epidemiologists will have
a pretty fair idea of the number of people with smoking induced lung
cancer 'a' vs other causes 'b'. Then it is just a matter of
inserting the fraction a/(a=b) into the cost equation. Establishing
the costs is likely to be a lot harder and messier than the relevant
cancer rates.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

Chatty Cathy said:

Steve Wertz said:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:12:28 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message 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.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

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.

I am not from the US, so I have no idea how your health/SS/tax systems
work with regard to smoking/smokers and who pays for what. However...
how come you don't hear anybody moaning too loudly about paying for
other people's 'booze-related' illnesses - e.g. liver problems from
drinking excessively? Not to mention all the deaths that are caused by
drivers that have been drinking and driving... Shouldn't drinking any
form of alcohol be 'banned' too, just in case people become "sick" from
it, or might kill somebody while "under the influence"? Just my two
cents worth.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Prohibition? USA's experiment with banning alcohol and founding the
US mafia.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

John Kane said:

Chatty Cathy said:

Steve Wertz said:

On Sun, 06 May 2007 17:12:28 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:
> 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.

I am not from the US, so I have no idea how your health/SS/tax systems
work with regard to smoking/smokers and who pays for what. However...
how come you don't hear anybody moaning too loudly about paying for
other people's 'booze-related' illnesses - e.g. liver problems from
drinking excessively? Not to mention all the deaths that are caused by
drivers that have been drinking and driving... Shouldn't drinking any
form of alcohol be 'banned' too, just in case people become "sick" from
it, or might kill somebody while "under the influence"? Just my two
cents worth.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Prohibition? USA's experiment with banning alcohol and founding the
US mafia.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

You moved to Canada because the mafia was "afta ya"? LOL

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Peter A said:

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

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 ?

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

Not quite Peter, at least as posted by the OP. He was talking 'state'
as the state of Minnisota. Given the hodgepodge of US medical plans
smokers costs might not accrue to the state of Minnisota directly. If
you're talking societal costs or 'state' operated system such as we
have in Ontario then you're right .
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am not from the US, so I have no idea how your health/SS/tax systems
work with regard to smoking/smokers and who pays for what. However...
how come you don't hear anybody moaning too loudly about paying for
other people's 'booze-related' illnesses - e.g. liver problems from
drinking excessively? Not to mention all the deaths that are caused by
drivers that have been drinking and driving... Shouldn't drinking any
form of alcohol be 'banned' too, just in case people become "sick" from
it, or might kill somebody while "under the influence"? Just my two
cents worth.
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

Prohibition? USA's experiment with banning alcohol and founding the
US mafia.

John Kane, Kingston ON Canada

There's a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco always
has negative health consequences, even if it does not kill you. It is
never neutral or positive. Any use of tobacco is misuse. In contrast,
there are hundreds of millions of people who use alcohol sensibly with
no negative health effects, and there is a great deal of evidence that
modest consumption of certain kinds of alcohol has significant health
benefits.

--
Peter Aitken

Peter A said:

There's a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco always
has negative health consequences, even if it does not kill you. It is
never neutral or positive. Any use of tobacco is misuse. In contrast,
there are hundreds of millions of people who use alcohol sensibly with
no negative health effects, and there is a great deal of evidence that
modest consumption of certain kinds of alcohol has significant health
benefits.

Aha. Guess who likes a glass of wine (or two) with his food? Gotcha!
--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

In article <[email hidden]>, cathy1234
@mailinator.com says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco always
has negative health consequences, even if it does not kill you. It is
never neutral or positive. Any use of tobacco is misuse. In contrast,
there are hundreds of millions of people who use alcohol sensibly with
no negative health effects, and there is a great deal of evidence that
modest consumption of certain kinds of alcohol has significant health
benefits.

Aha. Guess who likes a glass of wine (or two) with his food? Gotcha!

Huh?

--
Peter Aitken

Peter A said:

In article <[email hidden]>, cathy1234
@mailinator.com says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

There's a huge difference between tobacco and alcohol. Tobacco always
has negative health consequences, even if it does not kill you. It is
never neutral or positive. Any use of tobacco is misuse. In contrast,
there are hundreds of millions of people who use alcohol sensibly with
no negative health effects, and there is a great deal of evidence that
modest consumption of certain kinds of alcohol has significant health
benefits.

Aha. Guess who likes a glass of wine (or two) with his food? Gotcha!

Huh?

You took the bait. Never mind...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Aha. Guess who likes a glass of wine (or two) with his food? Gotcha!

Huh?

You took the bait. Never mind...

Do you think you are being clever? Thanks for wasting my time.

--
Peter Aitken

Peter A said:

Do you think you are being clever? Thanks for wasting my time.

Any time Peter, anytime...

--
Cheers
Chatty Cathy

On Mon, 07 May 2007 01:19:27 GMT, "wff_ng_7" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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.

god forbid that poor people should enjoy themselves in any way. god
knows it's their own fault. if they smoke or drink, they must at the
very least be sinners.

your pal,
jerry