Ray9
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2016
- 2,707
- 4,485
- 1,970
- Banned
- #1
600,000 people die every year in the US from the combined effects of just two products, tobacco, and alcohol. If we apply concrete reasoning to a complex problem could we not save millions of lives by following the lead of the highest court in the land? We know that the Supreme has ruled that a product, health insurance, can be forced on the people and called a tax, not a penalty. It is for the good of the people in the minds of some, so a kind of doublespeak has been enforced to manipulate public opinion.
Fine, but what about the human carnage imposed on the people by two products that are widely affordable and universally available? There is no debate about the death toll involved with the use of these products either separately or in combination. Incredibly, during a global pandemic, liquor stores and tobacco-peddling outlets have been declared essential businesses. Why are 600,000 deaths annually acceptable while the population is forced to wear masks and socially distance to the extent that businesses that sell food like restaurants are being wiped out to save the people’s health?
We know from experience that prohibition will not work but we also know from the Supreme Court that measures can be taken and imposed to address national health issues like uninsured people by forcing them to purchase insurance. In light of that could we not impose a health surcharge on tobacco and alcohol? We could start with a $5.00 health surcharge on a single pack of cigarettes and a $3.00 health surcharge on a six pack of beer.
The mountains of money raised from this concrete solution could go into a superfund to finance the health costs of the users of these products. They would essentially be paying at the pump to get the healthcare they cannot afford now. As it stands at the moment people who do not use these products are being forced to participate in schemes to pay for the profits of two industries and their addicted customers while humans still die in droves driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone.
Why is this not done? Well, both these toxic industries are well represented in Washington lobbies. So, in effect, the government that wants to give everyone health insurance is killing the people by subsidizing the poison manufacturers.
This could work to save the health of the nation.
Fine, but what about the human carnage imposed on the people by two products that are widely affordable and universally available? There is no debate about the death toll involved with the use of these products either separately or in combination. Incredibly, during a global pandemic, liquor stores and tobacco-peddling outlets have been declared essential businesses. Why are 600,000 deaths annually acceptable while the population is forced to wear masks and socially distance to the extent that businesses that sell food like restaurants are being wiped out to save the people’s health?
We know from experience that prohibition will not work but we also know from the Supreme Court that measures can be taken and imposed to address national health issues like uninsured people by forcing them to purchase insurance. In light of that could we not impose a health surcharge on tobacco and alcohol? We could start with a $5.00 health surcharge on a single pack of cigarettes and a $3.00 health surcharge on a six pack of beer.
The mountains of money raised from this concrete solution could go into a superfund to finance the health costs of the users of these products. They would essentially be paying at the pump to get the healthcare they cannot afford now. As it stands at the moment people who do not use these products are being forced to participate in schemes to pay for the profits of two industries and their addicted customers while humans still die in droves driving up the cost of healthcare for everyone.
Why is this not done? Well, both these toxic industries are well represented in Washington lobbies. So, in effect, the government that wants to give everyone health insurance is killing the people by subsidizing the poison manufacturers.
This could work to save the health of the nation.