I just wanted to say, if you see a smoker out there lighting up a smoke, go over and shake their hands, better yet, give them a hug and say THANKS!

Yes, those people with nicotine stained fingers and smelly clothes are doing their part, single handedly, to keep lower income families' healthcare covered. Not just children but mom and pop too!

The legislation Congress passed expanded SCHIP eligibility to families that earn up to four times the federal poverty limit. This means a family of four earning $80,000 a year were eligible for the program in 2007.


The President released his Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal in January 2008. The President’s plan would increase the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funding by $19.7 billion over the next five years. So THAT'S why the prices soared! But good for him and the Congress. Smoking is a nasty habit and it puts a terrible burden on the healthcare industry.

But wait. Rising cost, second class citizen status (lepers,) and fewer and fewer places they can actually light up (we're getting close to snuffing them out even in their own homes if they have children present.) HEY! That mean more people will quit, right? That's good, right? RIGHT?????

Ummmmmm.. NO! If more people quit because they just can't afford it anymore or it's just to much of a hassle (snooty non-smokers constantly harping on them) then someone please tell me just WHO and HOW are they going to get the funding?

Does it make any sense to fund a healthcare program that will most assuredly have increasing costs every year from an income source with decreasing revenues?

That is, unless we can increase the tax base by getting 22 million more people to smoke. (GO JOE!)

Anyway, just thought I'd stick that out there as I light up another RYO smoke, take a deep draw and sigh, feeling quite good about it knowing I'm helping low-income (80KPY) familes with their healthcare. So, next time you see a smoker..... Say THANK YOU! and.. try not to inhale.

Oh an afterthought..... If the Government is allowing those making 80K a year to be covered through SCHIP, just WHERE is the insurance/healthcare crisis of uncovered people who supposedly can't afford coverage? HMMMMMMM

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

The legislation Congress passed expanded SCHIP eligibility to families that earn up to four times the federal poverty limit. This means a family of four earning $80,000 a year were eligible for the program in 2007.

Digging up two year old bogus claims? That malarky was debunked a long time ago. http://www.factcheck.org/bushs_false_claims_about_childrens_health_insurance.html

Well, maybe they SHOULD do that, problem solved?

Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Quit picking up pine cones when the whole forest is on fire.

After all.. Global Warming has been debunked too, but they are still screaming that to the top of their lungs.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Quit picking up pine cones when the whole forest is on fire.

After all.. Global Warming has been debunked too, but they are still screaming that to the top of their lungs.

Smoking will never vanish, nor diminish by a significant enough amount to eliminate it as a source of significant funding for this program. If and when it becomse insufficient, additional legislation will be required to either scale back the program or find alternate funding. Feel free to address it when it comes up.

Global warming was debunked? Where?

I was in the grocery store yesterday (buying fresh fruit and vegetables) and saw this whale of a woman in front of me buying two cartons of smokes, and paying over $100 for them, and I just thought how amazing it was that anyone would actually be willing to pay so much money for their own demise but then it occurred to me that the woman is addicted, and that addiction is actually a (treatable) disease, and that tobacco companies are ultimately just merchants of death who peddle a deadly addictive substance and then laugh all the way to the bank as society blames the smoker for all the negative consequences of smoking, like it's their fault.

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
I was in the grocery store yesterday (buying fresh fruit and vegetables) and saw this whale of a woman in front of me buying two cartons of smokes, and paying over $100 for them, and I just thought how amazing it was that anyone would actually be willing to pay so much money for their own demise but then it occurred to me that the woman is addicted, and that addiction is actually a (treatable) disease, and that tobacco companies are ultimately just merchants of death who peddle a deadly addictive substance and then laugh all the way to the way to the bank as society blames the smoker for all the negative consequences of smoking, like it's their fault.

It's not ONLY their fault, but at this point is there anyone who looks at cigarettes and says "yeah, that's good for me!"? I blame the companies for the refinements they have made to tobacco products that make them more harmful and more addictive. I blame the smokers for not having the sense to not pick it up in the first place, despite a wealth of public information telling people that it is (a) harmful and (b) addictive. I spread the blame around.

quote:

Smoking will never vanish, nor diminish by a significant enough amount to eliminate it as a source of significant funding for this program. If and when it becomse insufficient, additional legislation will be required to either scale back the program or find alternate funding. Feel free to address it when it comes up.

Global warming was debunked? Where?

They keep hiking the prices up as much as they have and you may have to eat that statement. People going to RYO saw a 2160% tax increase in the last few months. What use to cost 20.00 now cost 37.95. $6.00 packs and 57.00 cartons are out of reach for the majority of smokers so they will thus either cut back or quit.

Think about it, if you smoke 2 packs a day, that's roughly 2 cartons a week or $144w/577monthly. If more than one smokes (as in my family) that averages over 700 per month. You think low/moderate income families can afford to keep that up? What magic mushrooms have YOU been eating? That's more than most smokers MAKE! Check your data on smoking stats.


As for Global Warming, I'll give you this one freebie and then you'll have to look the rest up for your own.. Your local weather is a good start (record lows and temperature declines)

Here's the former leader of Greenpeace.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...player_embedded#t=22

Follow the money, honey

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Why is it that, when your posts are debunked or trumped, you spout "you missed the MAJOR point" or "you missed the BIGGER picture" ?

Because she's trying to make you "think"

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
Because she's trying to make you "think"

As if she's doing us a big favor - !

LOL!

Well, she's good for a laugh, anyway. And we can all use one.

Just thank her and move along.

quote:

Originally posted by 1WW:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Why is it that, when your posts are debunked or trumped, you spout "you missed the MAJOR point" or "you missed the BIGGER picture" ?

The POINT of this post was simply stated "Does it make any sense to fund a healthcare program that will most assuredly have increasing costs every year from an income source with decreasing revenues?

That is, unless we can increase the tax base by getting more people to smoke." Which NOBODY wants. Everyone is trying to get them to quit, citing health risks and costs of medical care. So, why fund an important project such as this by putting the load fully on the backs of one single group of people which you are TRYING to get rid of or at least substantially reduce their numbers. That's pure STUPIDITY if you ask me.

Smoking is an addiction, that's true. One that is extremely hard to overcome. True, a smoker will continue as long as they can until they either find a way to set their mind to it, or they just financially can't afford to anymore. Going from manufactured to RYO to even growing their own.. Opps.. there's no tax for that.. HEY THANKS!

Yeah, well.

I hugged a smoker this past weekend. But that's because I love him.

Hug a smoker? I'd rather push them off a cliff.

O2 is a harsh element yet necccessary. CO2 is a pollutant? major contributer to GW? but an unavoidable result of breathing. Hell, sex will kill you! We all gonna die! pick your poison. Light em up. BTW, I do ryo's too - bugler (1/4 bag/day)... and have grown my own tobacco this summer for the first time.

SLMPD77,

I'd rather acknowledge that they are suffering from the treatable (though terribly misunderstood) disease of addiction and get them the medical help they deserve.

And hug them when are well again.

And push tobacco companies over the cliff...

quote:

It's not ONLY their fault, but at this point is there anyone who looks at cigarettes and says "yeah, that's good for me!"?

No, they don't. But let's go farther, shall we? Is there anyone who looks at a bottle of alcohol and say "yeah, that's good for me!"? Or even a can of Coke, or hormone injected beef & poultry.

Would you PLEASE tell me what in this world now IS good for you? That DOESN'T cause cancer or some other health problem?

And please, don't list fresh fruits and veggies because with all the things they use on them and do to them to make them 'safe' kills any benefits you'd normally get from them.

quote:

Originally posted by cheapthrills:
O2 is a harsh element yet necccessary. CO2 is a pollutant? major contributer to GW? but an unavoidable result of breathing. Hell, sex will kill you! We all gonna die! pick your poison. Light em up. BTW, I do ryo's too - bugler (1/4 bag/day)... and have grown my own tobacco this summer for the first time.

Finally a voice of sanity... THANK YOU *HUGS*

Now, back to the subject of the post.

Let me put it simply and straight forward.

Do you think it's fair to saddle only one minority group with the full weight of funding a project such as SCHIP?

Is it 'smart' to do so with a group you are trying to significantly reduce or eliminate?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marine5711,

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Well, maybe they SHOULD do that, problem solved?

Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Quit picking up pine cones when the whole forest is on fire.

After all.. Global Warming has been debunked too, but they are still screaming that to the top of their lungs.

debunked? Global warming?

what planet are you living on, again?
because right here on earth, global warming is a real issue....

quote:

Do you think it's fair to saddle only one minority group with the full weight of funding a project such as SCHIP?

Yes. Addictive or not, smoking is an opt-in program.

Smart? I'm not sure we're really 'trying' to reduce or eliminate smoking. Tax it, hide it, restrict it, make it inconvenient, maybe; but the funds from the Big Tobacco Settlement which were earmarked for education and smoking cessation have mysteriously ended up in other budget line-items.

quote:

Originally posted by Killswitch_Engage:
SLMPD77,

I'd rather acknowledge that they are suffering from the treatable (though terribly misunderstood) disease of addiction and get them the medical help they deserve.

Whether they want it or not. Heil!

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Now, back to the subject of the post.

Let me put it simply and straight forward.

Do you think it's fair to saddle only one minority group with the full weight of funding a project such as SCHIP?

Is it 'smart' to do so with a group you are trying to significantly reduce or eliminate?

No and no.

quote:

Originally posted by Elesso:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Well, maybe they SHOULD do that, problem solved?

Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Quit picking up pine cones when the whole forest is on fire.

After all.. Global Warming has been debunked too, but they are still screaming that to the top of their lungs.

debunked? Global warming?

what planet are you living on, again?
because right here on earth, global warming is a real issue....

Some reputable sources say yea while others say nay. Some maintain that the planet is just now coming out of a looong cooler half-cycle and headed towards the melenia-ago norm of warm temps. Global climate change is undeniable unchangable and unavoidable while global warming seems to come and go.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

Smoking will never vanish, nor diminish by a significant enough amount to eliminate it as a source of significant funding for this program. If and when it becomse insufficient, additional legislation will be required to either scale back the program or find alternate funding. Feel free to address it when it comes up.

Global warming was debunked? Where?

They keep hiking the prices up as much as they have and you may have to eat that statement. People going to RYO saw a 2160% tax increase in the last few months. What use to cost 20.00 now cost 37.95. $6.00 packs and 57.00 cartons are out of reach for the majority of smokers so they will thus either cut back or quit.

Think about it, if you smoke 2 packs a day, that's roughly 2 cartons a week or $144w/577monthly. If more than one smokes (as in my family) that averages over 700 per month. You think low/moderate income families can afford to keep that up? What magic mushrooms have YOU been eating? That's more than most smokers MAKE! Check your data on smoking stats.


As for Global Warming, I'll give you this one freebie and then you'll have to look the rest up for your own.. Your local weather is a good start (record lows and temperature declines)

Here's the former leader of Greenpeace.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...player_embedded#t=22

Follow the money, honey

I agree that increases in costs will force people to either cut back or quit, but I maintain that a solid base will nonetheless remain to fund the program. I cannot say how much will come in over the long term compared to the costs of the SCHIP increase (who can?) but as I mentioned before it will be up to future sessions of Congress to balance that issue - perhaps requiring them to tighten the entry limits. Personally, I expect the tobacco companies will start rolling out more "discount" brands to reduce costs and keep selling as many as possible.

In the meantime, smokers will either be quitting or smoking less, and however much they do smoke they will be funding health programs for poor children - often their own, as you point out the correlation between income and smoking habits. I am okay with that. Is it long term sustainable? To some extent yes, but it will require period evaluation.

I do note that you have smokers in your family, and that this is therefore hitting you directly in the wallet. Sorry about that.

On global warming, I cannot get to Youtube for the next few weeks (home internet is down) - can you give me the name and reasoning of the person? I generally do follow the money, but I also do the science as well - my field is the electromagnetics of remote sensing, which requires a fair understanding of certain atmospherics physics issues, and I have in the past run analyses of global climate data based on antarctic ice cores. If there is more data out there, I would love to see it.

quote:

Originally posted by Elesso:

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Well, maybe they SHOULD do that, problem solved?

Okay, fine... but again, missed the MAJOR point of the post..

Quit picking up pine cones when the whole forest is on fire.

After all.. Global Warming has been debunked too, but they are still screaming that to the top of their lungs.

debunked? Global warming?

what planet are you living on, again?
because right here on earth, global warming is a real issue....

Yes, if you follow SCIENCE and the fact that our world goes through cycles of climate change. Notice they had to change their buzz words from Global Warming to Climate Change?

We had the same 'scare tactics' in the 1970's and '80's only it was Global Cooling caused by greenhouse gases and pollution.

It's merely a way to get certain legislations passed by scaring the _____ out of people. It's all about politics and money.

If you aren't totally blinded by the News Media and would like to read and see the science behind it from top UNBIASED Scientist, may I recommend this site. It's quite informative, along with quotes from such people as Clinton and Gore among others.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html

It's very interesting, not dry reading and full of University study charts and grafts explaining the natural cycles of the earth and the minute impact we human actually have on it.

We are so arrogant that we actually think WE can change the Earth's climate in the short time we've been industrialized?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Marine5711,

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:

quote:

It's not ONLY their fault, but at this point is there anyone who looks at cigarettes and says "yeah, that's good for me!"?

No, they don't. But let's go farther, shall we? Is there anyone who looks at a bottle of alcohol and say "yeah, that's good for me!"? Or even a can of Coke, or hormone injected beef & poultry.

Would you PLEASE tell me what in this world now IS good for you? That DOESN'T cause cancer or some other health problem?

And please, don't list fresh fruits and veggies because with all the things they use on them and do to them to make them 'safe' kills any benefits you'd normally get from them.

That fact that nothing is perfectly healthy does not excuse things that are wholly toxic. My point was that smokers at this point cannot be reasonably ignorant of the fact that cigarettes are both toxic and addictive - when people decide to start smoking, I have little sympathy for their smoking-related problems. For that matter, fat guys who live on Little Debbies snack cakes, McDonalds, and Jumbogorge Pepsi's get no sympathy either.

This was, by the way, a response to someone else's post, and is more of an aside rather than a direct response to your main topic.

Marine5711--

The Mods are going to hit you about the hotlinks--if you click the little color palette in the top of the reply box, then paste the link into it, the links will come up cold, and therefore be okay.

Hotlinking outside of a very few domains--mil.com or a .gov or .mil domain--is not allowed.

quote:

Originally posted by Yooper_tj:
Marine5711--

The Mods are going to hit you about the hotlinks--if you click the little color palette in the top of the reply box, then paste the link into it, the links will come up cold, and therefore be okay.

Hotlinking outside of a very few domains--mil.com or a .gov or .mil domain--is not allowed.

Thank you. Noted and appreciated.

quote:

Originally posted by Marine5711:
Yes, if you follow SCIENCE and the fact that our world goes through cycles of climate change. Notice they had to change their buzz words from Global Warming to Climate Change?

We had the same 'scare tactics' in the 1970's and '80's only it was Global Cooling caused by greenhouse gases and pollution.

It's merely a way to get certain legislations passed by scaring the _____ out of people. It's all about politics and money.

If you aren't totally blinded by the News Media and would like to read and see the science behind it from top UNBIASED Scientist, may I recommend this site. It's quite informative, along with quotes from such people as Clinton and Gore among others.

***http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
It's very interesting, not dry reading and full of University study charts and grafts explaining the natural cycles of the earth and the minute impact we human actually have on it.

We are so arrogant that we actually think WE can change the Earth's climate in the short time we've been industrialized?

<rolling up sleeves>

First of all, "global climate change" is now used because it is easier explaining to people that when you sum multiple cyclic effects that you will get periods of cooling and heating regardless of the global trend. Further, climatology is also dependent on local terrain, ground cover, and industrialization, such that while the whole rest of the world is heating, some parts will stil cool down (and vice versa).

Second, no matter what the truth of the matter is, there will always be people on both sides who stand to make or lose money. For example, oil companies stand to lose money if global warming is correct, and so have uniformly lobbied against it. Likewise, corn producers stand to gain money, and so have uniformly lobbied for it. I find this an interesting take on those individuals but of little scientific value - there is no truth, only influence.

Finally, your source material. Love it. Here is my perspective:

Climatologists at Penn State (consistently one of the highest ranked programs in the world in this field) were able to recover 300,000 years worth of ice cores from antarctica. They then extracted the temperatures corresponding to those annual layers, and provided it to me as a 300,000 element vector (I was double checking the answer of one of the professors).

I then used a discrete Fourier Transform to determine the cyclic content of the data. This verified the presence of the cycles your source notes, as well as a few other weaker sources. These cycles were extracted from the transformed data, leaving temperatures dependent only on acyclic causes and those causes with a >> (that means much greater than) 300,000 year cycle.

The result showed a steep ramp starting a little over 200 years ago. This corresponds pretty well with the industrial revolution and man-made causes. It could be cyclic, but if so the cycle is very long, the cause unidentified, and the amplitude of the cycle would be ~5x greater than any other - this should have made it very easy to identify, but we got nothing.

So carbon-dioxide may not be it, but I am pretty sure something is going on, no matter what "the money" says.