wrote in message
...
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 14:16:09 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Bill McKee" wrote in message
news:_7ednXcdOIKRWhvWnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@earthlink. com...

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 14:34:34 -0500, anon-e-moose
wrote:

That's one thing that could be done, but the bigger problem is
prevention,
e.g., heart attacks and other life-threatening, but preventable
conditions.
We need a coverage for all people that include preventative care.

Put a $10 tax on a pack of cigs. Who would argue with that?


The smokers and the people who try to enforce it.
At a certain point we may see another drug war with untaxed cigarettes
causing gun fights in the street. They just need to make the profit
incentive high enough. I doubt demand will go away.

This is supposed to be a free country. If someone wants to abuse
themselves, let them. Maybe require they carry insurance to pay for
their
injuries, instead of the rest of us. Drugs were not a problem until the
profit got so astronomical that it paid to get someone hooked.

Require them? Sounds like big gov't to me.


I am willing to bet that your average smoker has a lower lifetime
health care cost than a non-smoker. They die sooner and don't get all
the late life care. It is certainly better for Medicare since they are
not on it as long. Some never make it at all.



Heh... I have no objection your honor. I know, that's mean, but I hate
second-hand smoke.

--
Nom=de=Plume