A concrete solution to a complex health problem.

[Ray9]

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.

 

[Harry Dresden]

they would use the money for their pet projects....

 

[JoeB131]

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?

Do you spend all days coming up with these crazy essays?

If someone dies from Alcohol or Tobacco, it's because they are lifetime users, not because they were exposed to it once like TRUMP PLAGUE.

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.

Where have you been. Most of the cost of a pack of cigarettes is ALREADY taxes meant to offset health costs. Non-smokers already get a break on their health insurance. We already have more Medical Calvinism than we need in this country, thanks.

 

[occupied]

They are already two of the most heavily taxed items in the country. States use the proceeds for various things including health care already. Our healthcare woes are not solvable by any simple solutions since the problems are many different things that vary state to state. More funding would help but as it stands way too much money goes into the pockets of people who have nothing to do with treating patents or providing services. No one should be getting rich off our healthcare system unless everyone is first covered at a cost they can afford.

 

[Gdjjr]

yeah, just what people need- another source of revenue for Empty Suits and their minions not to mention the rights violated already-

Ray, you're a good writer- and a good thinker- it's too bad you think, incorrectly, and believe you represent older people-

Liberty is the answer- NOT more of the same bullshit packaged differently- SMH

 

[Gdjjr]

No one should be getting rich off our healthcare system unless everyone is first covered at a cost they can afford

No one not involved directly- indirect participants (like Empty Suits in the District of Criminals) make money, adding to their wealth, on the backs of everyone< can't get much more "fair" than that right?

Free enterprise is the answer to ALL economic woes- mandates cost money- paying to play (lobbyists) takes money- writing restrictions to, well, restrict competition costs money-

 

[Ray9]

600,000 dead every year. Did you miss that?

 

[Gdjjr]

600,000 dead every year. Did you miss that?

Tax cars too while you're at it bozo- why did you miss that?

 

[Ray9]

600,000 dead every year. Did you miss that?

Tax cars too while you're at it bozo- why did you miss that?

I am not the one trying to make everyone dependent on government with health insurance. If the government cares so much about health why does it subsidize the poisoning of the people without offsetting the costs?

 

[occupied]

600,000 dead every year. Did you miss that?

The argument can be made that they take themselves out early and quickly and therefore avoid years or decades of expensive geriatric life support. Besides, the really expensive health conditions are the result of the crappy food we eat and a lack of exercise. Solve that one Einstein.

 

[Gdjjr]

I am not the one trying to make everyone dependent on government with health insurance. If the government cares so much about health why does it subsidize the poisoning of the people without offsetting the costs?

No, you're trying to inflict more costs on something you don't approve of- and want the gov't to do something about it- LIBERTY- Ray- THE answer to ALL of our problems- not more of the same from a different angle- justifying is excusing, not sound explanation- there is NO sound explanation for restricting Liberty- N.O.N.E.

 

[RodISHI]

I'm in agreement with Gdjjr and even JoeB for once.

Government and big business looking for more ways to exert their authority over private lives for they both can expand is unwanted and unneeded.

 

[Gdjjr]

The argument can be made that they take themselves out early and quickly and therefore avoid years or decades of expensive geriatric life support. Besides, the really expensive health conditions are the result of the crappy food we eat and a lack of exercise. Solve that one Einstein.

I'm 72 soon to be 73- I've been smoking since I was 15- I've been eating what I want my entire life and I'm a Texan which means fried everything- yet, when I've had artery problems the "experts" tell me I need to quit smoking- I'M 73 FUCKING YEARS OLD- seems to me, the experts need to be figuring out HOW I've done so well vs telling me what they "feel" is better for me-

 

[sparky]

600,000 dead every year. Did you miss that?

well...at least they died of something they liked to do.....~S~

 

[sparky]

The argument can be made that they take themselves out early and quickly and therefore avoid years or decades of expensive geriatric life support. Besides, the really expensive health conditions are the result of the crappy food we eat and a lack of exercise. Solve that one Einstein.

I'm 72 soon to be 73- I've been smoking since I was 15- I've been eating what I want my entire life and I'm a Texan which means fried everything- yet, when I've had artery problems the "experts" tell me I need to quit smoking- I'M 73 FUCKING YEARS OLD- seems to me, the experts need to be figuring out HOW I've done so well vs telling me what they "feel" is better for me-

good genetics Gdjjr?

methinks you've just opened pandora's box

can you imagine the insurance cabal running w/that one?

[completebullshitmode]oh, and....did i ever tell you 'bout my grandma, who drank and smoked all her life ,and pro wrestled until she was hit by a meteor @ 103????[/completebullshitmode]

~S~

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Perhaps there should be a food tax, especially on sugar and sugar products, obesity is running through our society creating other health issues that cause a higher death rate than tobacco or alcohol.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Gdjjr]

methinks you've just opened pandora's box

I would hope so- I'll take anyone on- they best bring a flashlight and lunch though-

 

[Ray9]

I am fine with people doing what they want to do. What I am not fine with is government forcing everyone into a system that purports to deal with health issues that are supposedly so serious that there is national emergency requiring government intervention using the Supreme Court.

Ignoring actual causes while making the government more powerful is not a good way to solve real problems.

 

[Gdjjr]

Perhaps there should be a food tax, especially on sugar and sugar products,

NYC beat you to the punch- (which should have sugar to be any good) with it's tax on super sized soft drinks-

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Perhaps there should be a food tax, especially on sugar and sugar products,

NYC beat you to the punch- (which should have sugar to be any good) with it's tax on super sized soft drinks-

Are you surprised?

*****SMILE*****