Practice, practice, practice
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

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?

That would be fine with me! Alcohol should be taxed at least as much as
tobacco, in my opinion.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Practice, practice, practice
 

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:13:33 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 09:58:17 -0500, JohnH wrote:

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.

Do you drink alcohol in any form at all?

Yes, I will take a shot of Nyquil if I've got a bad cold.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Practice, practice, practice
 

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:44:09 -0500, JohnH wrote:

Yes, I will take a shot of Nyquil if I've got a bad cold.

Discussion is over - Jim lost, I win.

HA HA!!! :)


http://www.feebleminds-gifs.com/adu-8.gif ;-)

Practice, practice, practice
 

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

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?

That would be fine with me! Alcohol should be taxed at least as much as
tobacco, in my opinion.

Come to my county and you will be pay quite a sum for your alcohol. For
a particular bottle of wine I pay $19 in Montgomery County Maryland but,
If I go over to Virginia the same bottle of wine only costs $12.

Did you know that Montgomery County Maryland has its own brand of vodka,
gin, whiskey, ... There is a lot of revenue in controlling the
distribution and sale of alcohol in my county.

Practice, practice, practice
 

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 21:04:17 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:44:09 -0500, JohnH wrote:

Yes, I will take a shot of Nyquil if I've got a bad cold.

Discussion is over - Jim lost, I win.

HA HA!!! :)

As I don't receive JimH, I'm not familiar with the discussion. Glad to hear
you won though!
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Practice, practice, practice
 

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 18:36:25 -0500, Bert Robbins wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:12:22 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

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?

That would be fine with me! Alcohol should be taxed at least as much as
tobacco, in my opinion.

Come to my county and you will be pay quite a sum for your alcohol. For
a particular bottle of wine I pay $19 in Montgomery County Maryland but,
If I go over to Virginia the same bottle of wine only costs $12.

Did you know that Montgomery County Maryland has its own brand of vodka,
gin, whiskey, ... There is a lot of revenue in controlling the
distribution and sale of alcohol in my county.

Since I don't drink, I don't buy it. The wife may buy some for parties or
whatever, but she will do so at the military class six store.
--
******************************************
***** Have a super day! *****
******************************************

John H

Practice, practice, practice
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qNYjtSxSFek



Last night a little teen
Came dancing to my door
Last night a little angel
Came pumping on the floor
She said a come baby
I've got a license for love
And if it expires
Pray help from above
Because

In the midnight hour
She cried more, more, more
With a teen yell
She cried more, more, more
Owww
In the midnight hour, teen
More, more, more
With a teen yell
More, more, more
More, more, more

She don't like classmates
She wont sit and beg
But when I'm tired and lonely
She sees me to bed
What set you free
And brought you to me, teen
What set you free
I need you here by me
Because

In the midnight hour
She cried more, more, more
With a teen yell
She cried more, more, more
Wow
In the midnight hour, teen
More, more, more
With a teen yell
More, more, more

He loves a saint from heaven
Collects it to go at half past eleven
Well he caught her with a subway fare
Just so long, just so long it don't mess up her hair
Wow ha

I walk the mile for you, teen
A thousand miles with you
I dried your tears of pain
A million times for you
Id sell my soul for you, teen
For money to burn for you
Id give you all and have none, teen
Just a, just a, just a, just a
To have you here by me
Because

In the midnight hour
She cried more, more, more
With a teen yell
She cried more, more, more
Wow
In the midnight hour, teen
More, more, more
With a teen yell
She cried more, more, more
More, more, more

Woo yeah, a little baby
She want more
More, more, more, more, more
Woo yeah, a little angel
She want more
More, more, more, more, more

Dan 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.


INSTRUCTED nineteen that. Brushes stories perched scraping "unclear"....

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

Practice, practice, practice
 

Dan wrote:
Are you an NRA member?


I dont' know about harry, but I am. Lifetime membership too!