Practice, practice, practice
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...

And for you beer drinkers...no leaving the car to pee!
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Leave the car??
Real men would use the empty bottles for that.

Practice, practice, practice
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:27:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/14/2007 9:18 AM, JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:47:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/13/2007 10:31 PM, JimH wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rchqh.14082

I would guess that it is a lot greater number than that. Overall,
smoking does not cost the non smoking taxpayer anything.
Huh?

Studies show that cigarettes bring in a lot more money in taxes than
are
paid out in health care costs. And smokers die a few years earlier
than
non smokers, so there is less Social Security and Medicare paid out.
Very
simple equation.

Please tell the insurance companies to reduce my health care insurance
premiums as smokers do not have any impact on their costs.

I am a taxpayer and the health care costs of smokers impact my health
care
premiums.
Damned straight it does. For several years, I had direct access to a
huge database of insurance information, including comparative statistics
on smokers and non-smokers. Smokers without exception had substantially
more hits against the insurance for all sorts of reasons.

What we are getting here is obfuscation and rationalization from smokers .
Smoking in the home where children are present ought to be a serious
misdemeanor and if repeated, a felony.

Fortunately, almost all the good restaurants in these here parts have
banned smoking, and smoking is also banned in almost all office
buildings downtown. I hope it is next banned from the sidewalks in front
of buildings. Who the hell wants to smell the stench created by a
cigarette smoker? Blech.

In terms of health dollars, drinking alcohol causes more health
problems in terms of dollars spent than smoking.


According to these articles smokers cost us $73 billion in health care.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...6/smoking.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...o_Business.asp

According to this article excessive drinkers cost us $35 billion in health
care.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/hea...0822costs.html

Also (from the ACS link):

Statistics related to the cost to business of employee tobacco use include
the following data from published reports:

Cigarette smokers are absent from work 6.5 days per year more than
nonsmokers.

Approximately eight percent of a smokers working hours are spent on smoking
rituals.

Smokers make about six more visits to health care facilities per year than
nonsmokers. In a study of health care utilization in 20,831 employees of a
single, large employer, smokers had more hospital admissions per 1,000 (124
vs. 76 admissions), a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days),
higher average costs for outpatient visits ($122 vs. $75), and a higher
average insured payment for health care ($1,145 vs. $762).

Average lifetime medical care costs for male smokers are 32 percent higher
than for men who have never smoked. For female smokers, that cost is 24
percent.





Your stats match the trends I saw when I had access to insurance company
statistics.

Most smokers smoke all day long. Most drinkers are occasional drinkers,
and might go weeks or months between a drink or two. I had a beer in
November at Mexican restaurant, and haven't had another since. I had a
margarita New Year's Eve, and haven't had another hard drink since.

Smokers are as self-deluding as alcoholics.

They are both addicts exhibiting addictive behavior.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Practice, practice, practice
 

There is no doubt that drunk drivers kill thousands annually. And I am sure
Tom's viewpoint is somewhat biased based on his service with the EMT's and
seeing folks killed on the road from drunk drivers.

But there is also no doubt that smoking (including the effects of second
hand smoke) is more of a killer and a drain on our health care dollars.

Yes but if you take out the health insurance there is a much higher cost
because of the court fees induced with drunk driving. if you are not impared
but just over the legal limit you get a DWI. How much money is spent on
check points, random traffic stops and police enforcement to make MADD happy
about what is being done? That may be the costs they are reffering to. I
don't drink at all but I have been pulled over several times and done
sobriety tests late at night when leaving work or just driving home from a
night out. Since I wasn't drinkng there could have been no external signs of
drunk driving but still a cop was paid to pull me over and check. Extra cops
are put on the streets to run checks, extra clerks and judges are needed for
the increased demand on teh court system not to mention lawyers.

I do agree that smoking has a much higher effect on health care but the
government system of enforcing drinking and driving is really expensive. I
can't say with any numbers if it is higher than those for smoking but maybe
that is where these two to one numbers are from. They really shouldn't
complain because they are self impossed. if you don't pull people over then
you don't have to pay for all the stuff that goes along with it.

--
Message posted via BoatKB.com
http://www.boatkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/boats/200701/1

Practice, practice, practice
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
On 1/13/2007 10:12 PM, Calif Bill wrote:
"JimH" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:41:45 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:21:25 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:55:15 -0500, JohnH
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:59:40 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:23:08 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

On 1/12/2007 9:22 AM, JimH wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...=knockdown.flv
All I can say is.......dam!

Here's the handgun, sans the special sight.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/x-five1.jpg
Are you an NRA member?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

No, he is anti hand gun formerly.


It is amazing how people's attitude change when they decide they
want to
own or use what they formally wanted to ban.
For me, the converse is also true, especially with cigarettes.
Cigarettes are nasty. But they are a legal drug and people ought
to have
some freedom of choice. Limit where they can smoke in public
places, but as
long as the rest of us do not have to pay for their habit, let
them smoke.
Disclaimer: I do own a decent part of Altria, but do not smoke.

We do pay for much of the results of their habits. I had pneumonia
(sp?)
twice, and even spent some time in the hospital with it. I couldn't
tell
you the number of times I went to the doc with bronchitis, not to
mention
the problems with teeth and gums caused by cigarettes. As I was in
the
military, *we* paid for it with our taxes.

I don't propose making cigarettes illegal, but I'd be in favor of
making
them much harder to acquire, especially for minors. It's very sad
driving
by the high schools and seeing the groups of kids puffing away just
off
school property.
Tell me - just out of curiosity - which costs Americans more in
terms
of dollars - cigarettes or drunk drivers.

Think about it first before you answer.
My guess would be cigarettes. Most drunk drivers don't cost Americans
anything, unless they're involved in an accident or put behind bars.
I'm
guessing that only a small percent of those who have driven drunk
have had
an accident or been caught. I know I never was!
You would be wrong. It's almost two to one in terms of dollars.
I would guess that it is a lot greater number than that. Overall,
smoking does not cost the non smoking taxpayer anything.
Huh?


Studies show that cigarettes bring in a lot more money in taxes than are
paid out in health care costs. And smokers die a few years earlier than
non smokers, so there is less Social Security and Medicare paid out.
Very simple equation.


What studies?

Google it. Studies on all the effects of smoking. This mornings paper has
an article about the guy who got most of smoking banned in public places.
Says the people are going overboard now. Against the American way of as
long as you do no harm to others it is ok. The banning of smoking
everywhere is going that way.

Practice, practice, practice
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:rchqh.14082

I would guess that it is a lot greater number than that. Overall,
smoking does not cost the non smoking taxpayer anything.

Huh?


Studies show that cigarettes bring in a lot more money in taxes than are
paid out in health care costs. And smokers die a few years earlier than
non smokers, so there is less Social Security and Medicare paid out.
Very simple equation.


Please tell the insurance companies to reduce my health care insurance
premiums as smokers do not have any impact on their costs.

I am a taxpayer and the health care costs of smokers impact my health care
premiums.


Insurance companies will charge you for anything that might affect your
health. And they are not the ones getting the cigarette tax money.

Practice, practice, practice
 

"JimH" wrote in message
...

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:47:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/13/2007 10:31 PM, JimH wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rchqh.14082

I would guess that it is a lot greater number than that. Overall,
smoking does not cost the non smoking taxpayer anything.
Huh?

Studies show that cigarettes bring in a lot more money in taxes than
are
paid out in health care costs. And smokers die a few years earlier
than
non smokers, so there is less Social Security and Medicare paid out.
Very
simple equation.


Please tell the insurance companies to reduce my health care insurance
premiums as smokers do not have any impact on their costs.

I am a taxpayer and the health care costs of smokers impact my health
care
premiums.

Damned straight it does. For several years, I had direct access to a
huge database of insurance information, including comparative statistics
on smokers and non-smokers. Smokers without exception had substantially
more hits against the insurance for all sorts of reasons.

What we are getting here is obfuscation and rationalization from smokers
.
Smoking in the home where children are present ought to be a serious
misdemeanor and if repeated, a felony.

Fortunately, almost all the good restaurants in these here parts have
banned smoking, and smoking is also banned in almost all office
buildings downtown. I hope it is next banned from the sidewalks in front
of buildings. Who the hell wants to smell the stench created by a
cigarette smoker? Blech.


In terms of health dollars, drinking alcohol causes more health
problems in terms of dollars spent than smoking.


According to these articles smokers cost us $73 billion in health care.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...6/smoking.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...o_Business.asp

According to this article excessive drinkers cost us $35 billion in health
care.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/hea...0822costs.html

Also (from the ACS link):

Statistics related to the cost to business of employee tobacco use include
the following data from published reports:

Cigarette smokers are absent from work 6.5 days per year more than
nonsmokers.

Approximately eight percent of a smokers working hours are spent on
smoking rituals.

Smokers make about six more visits to health care facilities per year than
nonsmokers. In a study of health care utilization in 20,831 employees of a
single, large employer, smokers had more hospital admissions per 1,000
(124 vs. 76 admissions), a longer average length of stay (6.47 vs. 5.03
days), higher average costs for outpatient visits ($122 vs. $75), and a
higher average insured payment for health care ($1,145 vs. $762).

Average lifetime medical care costs for male smokers are 32 percent higher
than for men who have never smoked. For female smokers, that cost is 24
percent.




There are more than just health care costs.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg20n3c.html
less retirement costs for a smoker is one big item.

Practice, practice, practice
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 02:02:39 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 19:41:45 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 00:21:25 GMT, Tom Francis
wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:55:15 -0500, JohnH wrote:

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 21:59:40 GMT, "Calif Bill"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:uviiq2hi5dg9iingdmplm79n954ptmiav8@4ax. com...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 15:23:08 -0500, "Reginald P. Smithers III"
wrote:

Calif Bill wrote:
"Dan" wrote in message
...
Harry Krause wrote:

On 1/12/2007 9:22 AM, JimH wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...=knockdown.flv

All I can say is.......dam!


Here's the handgun, sans the special sight.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...us/x-five1.jpg
Are you an NRA member?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


No, he is anti hand gun formerly.



It is amazing how people's attitude change when they decide they
want to
own or use what they formally wanted to ban.

For me, the converse is also true, especially with cigarettes.

Cigarettes are nasty. But they are a legal drug and people ought to
have
some freedom of choice. Limit where they can smoke in public places,
but as
long as the rest of us do not have to pay for their habit, let them
smoke.
Disclaimer: I do own a decent part of Altria, but do not smoke.


We do pay for much of the results of their habits. I had pneumonia
(sp?)
twice, and even spent some time in the hospital with it. I couldn't
tell
you the number of times I went to the doc with bronchitis, not to
mention
the problems with teeth and gums caused by cigarettes. As I was in the
military, *we* paid for it with our taxes.

I don't propose making cigarettes illegal, but I'd be in favor of
making
them much harder to acquire, especially for minors. It's very sad
driving
by the high schools and seeing the groups of kids puffing away just off
school property.

Tell me - just out of curiosity - which costs Americans more in terms
of dollars - cigarettes or drunk drivers.

Think about it first before you answer.

My guess would be cigarettes. Most drunk drivers don't cost Americans
anything, unless they're involved in an accident or put behind bars. I'm
guessing that only a small percent of those who have driven drunk have
had
an accident or been caught. I know I never was!

You would be wrong. It's almost two to one in terms of dollars.

I'd love to see some data supporting that, especially how they derived the
costs.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Drunk kills the wage earner of the family. Social Security will send at
least $500 per month for each child. Damage to property. Just a DUI will
cost about $20,000 via court and attorney and lost wages cost. Even if you
do not lose your job.

Practice, practice, practice
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:35:38 -0500, "JimH"
wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
On 1/14/2007 9:18 AM, JimH wrote:
"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 13 Jan 2007 22:47:01 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

On 1/13/2007 10:31 PM, JimH wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
news:rchqh.14082

I would guess that it is a lot greater number than that.
Overall,
smoking does not cost the non smoking taxpayer anything.
Huh?

Studies show that cigarettes bring in a lot more money in taxes
than
are
paid out in health care costs. And smokers die a few years earlier
than
non smokers, so there is less Social Security and Medicare paid
out.
Very
simple equation.

Please tell the insurance companies to reduce my health care
insurance
premiums as smokers do not have any impact on their costs.

I am a taxpayer and the health care costs of smokers impact my
health
care
premiums.
Damned straight it does. For several years, I had direct access to a
huge database of insurance information, including comparative
statistics
on smokers and non-smokers. Smokers without exception had
substantially
more hits against the insurance for all sorts of reasons.

What we are getting here is obfuscation and rationalization from
smokers .
Smoking in the home where children are present ought to be a serious
misdemeanor and if repeated, a felony.

Fortunately, almost all the good restaurants in these here parts have
banned smoking, and smoking is also banned in almost all office
buildings downtown. I hope it is next banned from the sidewalks in
front
of buildings. Who the hell wants to smell the stench created by a
cigarette smoker? Blech.

In terms of health dollars, drinking alcohol causes more health
problems in terms of dollars spent than smoking.


According to these articles smokers cost us $73 billion in health care.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkele...6/smoking.html

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/NWS/co...o_Business.asp

According to this article excessive drinkers cost us $35 billion in
health care.

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/22/hea...0822costs.html

Also (from the ACS link):

Statistics related to the cost to business of employee tobacco use
include the following data from published reports:

Cigarette smokers are absent from work 6.5 days per year more than
nonsmokers.

Approximately eight percent of a smokers working hours are spent on
smoking rituals.

Smokers make about six more visits to health care facilities per year
than nonsmokers. In a study of health care utilization in 20,831
employees of a single, large employer, smokers had more hospital
admissions per 1,000 (124 vs. 76 admissions), a longer average length
of
stay (6.47 vs. 5.03 days), higher average costs for outpatient visits
($122 vs. $75), and a higher average insured payment for health care
($1,145 vs. $762).

Average lifetime medical care costs for male smokers are 32 percent
higher than for men who have never smoked. For female smokers, that
cost
is 24 percent.





Your stats match the trends I saw when I had access to insurance company
statistics.

Most smokers smoke all day long. Most drinkers are occasional drinkers,
and might go weeks or months between a drink or two. I had a beer in
November at Mexican restaurant, and haven't had another since. I had a
margarita New Year's Eve, and haven't had another hard drink since.

Smokers are as self-deluding as alcoholics.

There is no doubt that drunk drivers kill thousands annually. And I am
sure
Tom's viewpoint is somewhat biased based on his service with the EMT's and
seeing folks killed on the road from drunk drivers.

But there is also no doubt that smoking (including the effects of second
hand smoke) is more of a killer and a drain on our health care dollars.

"In the most recent cost study, Rice and co-workers estimated that the
cost to society of alcohol abuse was $70.3 billion in 1985 (4); a
previous study by Harwood and colleagues estimated that the cost for
1980 was $89 billion (3). By adjusting cost estimates for the effects
of inflation and the growth of the population over time, Rice
projected that the total cost of alcohol abuse in 1988 was $85.9
billion, and Harwood projected that the cost in 1983 was $116 billion
(3)."

"Rice and co-workers calculated a cost of $6.3 billion for treatment
of the medical consequences of alcohol abuse and treatment of alcohol
dependence in all settings in 1985, and in addition, nearly $500
million for support costs, such as the costs of training medical
staffs (4). In the prior study, Harwood and co-workers estimated that
in 1980, such treatment costs were more than $9 billion, and support
costs were nearly $1 billion (3)."

"This "human capital" approach is standard in cost-of-illness studies,
including the studies by Rice and Harwood. Critics of this approach
contend that it understates the value of human life, especially for
women and retired people (8,15,17). Using the "human capital"
approach, Rice estimated that the costs of premature deaths due to
alcohol abuse were $24 billion in 1985 (4), and Harwood estimated that
they were $14.5 billion in 1980 (3). "

"I wish to emphasize that the costs of treating alcoholism are only a
minority of total alcohol-related health costs; medical consequences
of alcohol use--trauma, cirrhosis, pancreatitis, and so forth--account
for the majority. Perhaps if patients at risk for alcohol-related
problems were identified before repeated traumas or health problems
occur, these costs might be reduced."

Add it up - close to160 BILLION in 1980 dollars and that doesn't
include medical consequences as the author stated.

And check this out from 1992.

http://www.nida.nih.gov/economiccosts/Chapter1.html#1.2

There an interesting graph at the bottom of this above report - about
two to one as I stated.

So, I'll ask again - why not restrictive taxes and use of alcohol?


For every study you show supporting your case I can show one supporting
mine. And perhaps you can come up with a study less than 2 decades old.

The bottom line is that smokers are a burden to our health care system and
are responsible for killing innocent bystanders inhaling their smoke.

Smoking was banned in public places in Ohio. The *majority* in Ohio, being
non smokers, are happy now as we don't have to inhale the stuff when we go
out to eat or to work. Our clothes also no longer stink when coming home
afterwards either.

Practice, practice, practice
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 14:40:13 -0500, "JimH"
wrote:

For every study you show supporting your case I can show one supporting
mine.

No you can't.


I already did. ;-)


And perhaps you can come up with a study less than 2 decades old.

Oh please...

The bottom line is that smokers are a burden to our health care system and
are responsible for killing innocent bystanders inhaling their smoke.

And alcohol has more impact in terms of dollars than smoking ever did.

Whatever.


I win - you lose...


Actually we both win as (thanks to the smart Ohio voters) I no longer have
to inhale stinky cigar and cigarette smoke when I go out to eat, especially
when having a beer or mixed drink at the bar before being seated. ;-)

Practice, practice, practice
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
link.net...
What studies?

Google it. Studies on all the effects of smoking. This mornings paper
has an article about the guy who got most of smoking banned in public
places. Says the people are going overboard now. Against the American way
of as long as you do no harm to others it is ok. The banning of smoking
everywhere is going that way.


http://www.insidebayarea.com/trivalleyherald/ci_5012770