Totally Off Topic !

Kent said:

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

Quoted message said:

Sheldon said:

"<RJ>" wrote:
> 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

wouldn't it be simpler just to kill all the poor people? then we
could turn them into fertilizer or something.

your pal,
blake

Dave Smith said:

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.

that's it! we'll kill all the fat people, or at least make them start
smoking.

your pal,
blake

blake murphy said:

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.

If they want to enjoy themselves, let them do it at their own expense. The
taxpayer shouldn't be funding their alcohol, tobacco or other such purchases.
It's especially bad if the taxpayer gets stuck with both the cost of the tobacco
and the cost of the resultant medical problems. There are even some who are
effectively taking their children's food money and using it to buy illegal drugs
for themselves.

It's not just the poor who have scams like this. Very recently there were the
cases of people taking their transportation allowance (Metrochecks) and
auctioning them off on eBay. In fact, there are three for auction right now, for
example:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=150116611432

It totally defeats the purpose of the transportation allowances, that is to get
cars off the road. And the perpetrators are enriching themselves with ill-gotten
income at taxpayers expense. It's pretty disgusting.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net