Smoking and Healthcare costs

From iGeek
Revision as of 22:23, 22 July 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

An argument used to justify anti-smoking laws was that smoking increases healthcare costs -- as if that meant that it was OK for the government to then tell you what you can do with your body as a cost savings measure. Yea, exterminating people at 30 saves healthcare dollars as well, so what? We don't need Logan's Run. On top of that, the whole idea was faked. Canada did a study that found that the lifetime costs of smokers healthcare was far less than the average, which makes sense to the non-mouth breathers.

  1. Most healthcare costs are in the last few years of life.
  2. Smokers die quicker (on average) -- meaning they cost less over their lives!

That means the justification used to ban smoking should be used to encourage it, and we should charge smokers LESS for healthcare, and start giving kickbacks for skydivers and stunt pilots. If you really want to save healthcare costs, ban leftist know-nothing idiots from interfering with others lives: imagine how much that de-stresser will save society.

If we costs really mattered:

  • Think of the enforcement costs alone, not to mention imprisonment costs, or in the lost revenues to businesses and society (in taxes).
  • Some businesses (certain bars or restaurants) report 20-40% decreased sales -- that means all their workers made that much less in tips (if they were able to keep their jobs).
  • Think of the jobs lost.

Those costs far far outweigh the healthcare costs. Let's persecute them for a while, and see how they like it. How about a stupidity tax and a special tax for those that support too many taxes! Think of the savings!?! (I am being sarcastic... but only a little).

Persecuting smoking and smokers is a modern witch hunt among the left, as proven by the intolerance of progressive areas (California, Oregon, Washington, NY, Mass., etc). Of course that's anti-Science. While smoking isn't healthy it's not as unhealthy as a bad genes, not exercising, bad diet, or bad attitude (stress) -- if you can regulate smoking based on public health claims then the state could regulate all those others (and some are trying. Many of the studies were fraudulent to get the laws, doubly so for the second hand smoke scares, or the false (unsupported) claims that it increases healthcare costs (they die quicker so it saves money). It was all flim-flam to allow the anti-liberty fascists to tell us what to do with our bodies, in our property, "for our own good".



📚 References