Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
**** 2014 **** THREAD - A NEW HOPE **** **** 2014 **** THREAD - A NEW HOPE ****

02-08-2014 , 11:18 PM
Not a smoker myself. But that being said I do not believe that is the government or anyone else's place to tell people how to live their lives. Let alone tax people in order to do so.
02-08-2014 , 11:49 PM
The problem is that we pay for everyone's healthcare when they get old.

(Not that smoking is the only activity that makes people sicker/more likely to be cancerous, etc.).
02-09-2014 , 12:42 AM
I'm down with a tax to correct for externalities.
02-09-2014 , 01:35 AM
microbet, the fact it's much cheaper is just a perk. the main motivation is I believe (biology degree, lots of research etc.) it is much healthier, or much less unhealthy.

Slacker- the loss of cig taxes is not lost on the government. The huge push for regulation and the propaganda campaign by the state and federal governments is a move to tax ecigs in a manner that will replace the lost revenue. If it had nothing to do with lost taxes the government would just hand out ecigs to all smokers on medicaid and medicare. It would pay for itself in decreased health billing. Government sucks sometimes, as we all know. The data is there showing that ecigs is the most successful smoking cessation product ever made, much better than patches, gum, etc. If it was really about getting people to stop smoking it would be embraced and encouraged. How the government is actually handling it speaks loudly.

Last edited by lacky; 02-09-2014 at 01:59 AM.
02-09-2014 , 02:10 AM
WOW I still remember my password...
02-09-2014 , 02:14 AM
I haven't logged in for years. Does anyone know what happened to Sippin? Is he still playing poker or is he a golf pro now?
02-09-2014 , 03:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimon
I haven't logged in for years. Does anyone know what happened to Sippin? Is he still playing poker or is he a golf pro now?
forumserver.twoplustwo.com/174/poker-goals-challenges/sippin_criss-2014-6m-hyper-sne-pga-tour-canada-chase-1395242/
02-09-2014 , 04:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DevinLake
I think in countries with universal health care they should given how much smoking related illness costs the country each year.
The other option would be to allow people to opt out of "universal health care".

It seems disingenuous to force people onto the health system against their will, charge them for the benefit, and then remove their ability to make personal choices about their health because they were forced onto the system in the first place.
02-09-2014 , 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimon
I haven't logged in for years. Does anyone know what happened to Sippin? Is he still playing poker or is he a golf pro now?
He also got married and I believe has a bun in the oven
02-09-2014 , 05:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlackerMcFly
So, how does the US Government go about justifying the attempt to eliminate smokers whilst maintaining the illusion of a socially responsible budget?
People will spend the money they used to spend on smoking on other goods that are also taxable and with that the majority of the jobs will shift towards other industries.
Thinking that we need the sig industry to keep the economy running and the government afloat is not correct, certainly not mid to long term and likely something sig lobbyist would like you to believe.
02-09-2014 , 05:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by slimon
I haven't logged in for years. Does anyone know what happened to Sippin? Is he still playing poker or is he a golf pro now?
He has his own thread in the Poker Goals area of 2+2.
02-09-2014 , 05:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem
The other option would be to allow people to opt out of "universal health care".

It seems disingenuous to force people onto the health system against their will, charge them for the benefit, and then remove their ability to make personal choices about their health because they were forced onto the system in the first place.
that only works if you (society) are then going to let that person die in the gutter. If you make laws that he has to be treated, what difference did it really make wither he was signed up or not? Everyone still pays for his care one way or another.
02-09-2014 , 11:03 AM
Without having read all the discussion:

Quote:
Originally Posted by lacky
that only works if you (society) are then going to let that person die in the gutter.
Yeah, this.
Can't really argue health care should be designed even close to a free market where you can freely decide whether to participate/buy/sell sth or not, cause several of the necessary conditions for a free market to somehow work are so much violated.

Can it really be considered a free decision if someone wants his life to be saved or buy a nice tombstone instead?
Can you really exclude ppl from the service without violating basic human rights?
02-09-2014 , 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josem
The other option would be to allow people to opt out of "universal health care".

It seems disingenuous to force people onto the health system against their will, charge them for the benefit, and then remove their ability to make personal choices about their health because they were forced onto the system in the first place.
Well, that's all well in good. But smokers can't afford health care. A higher percentage of smokers are low income and less educated citizens.

Almost no one can actually afford health care.

So what happens when they develop cancer? The sit at home slowly dying a painful death? And the rest of us say "well, it was there choice".

Edit: I see others beat me to this argument.
02-09-2014 , 01:40 PM
The ACism rampant on this board loves to treat life like a game with a set of logically consistent rules based on simple principles.

That works pretty well in general, but it's ok to break the rules a bit when they lead to people dying in the street even if it is their own fault.
02-09-2014 , 01:44 PM
I'm on schedule to have two great accomplishments this weekend that will boost my productivity. I finally beat GTA-V and I believe I will finish up all the 9th-11th Doctors available on Netflix streaming.

(Dr. Who? exactly)
02-09-2014 , 02:11 PM
My problem is I started iracing, which doesn't have an end point.
02-09-2014 , 03:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
I'm on schedule to have two great accomplishments this weekend that will boost my productivity. I finally beat GTA-V and I believe I will finish up all the 9th-11th Doctors available on Netflix streaming.

(Dr. Who? exactly)
Should I give in and watch dr who? I haven't for no reason other than I know it will consume my life.

I just finished all of the sopranos, so I think I've watched almost every major tv show. Including mash and cheers
02-09-2014 , 03:35 PM
Did you watch Buffy?

Imo, Dr. Who is similar. You have to forgive some things. Other things are great. Funny and charming. The writers do a very good job of letting in little bits of a big overall story in each episode and also cliff-hanger things a lot.This is not necessarily great writing, but it's good business.

I started with the 11th Doctor and went back and watched the 9th and 10th. Well, I had seen one or two episodes of the 9th earlier and didn't get hooked. After watching more of him, I like him, but the 11th with Amy Pond was definitely the quickest sell for me.

mm, I'm going to assume you've watched the holy trinity. Twilight Zone, Star Trek, and The Simpsons.
02-09-2014 , 03:37 PM
I really prefer some improper punctuation. Especially "incomplete" sentences.
02-09-2014 , 03:52 PM
mm - Hill Street Blues

I have avoided serious TV dramas since about 1990 because I didn't want to commit. I have done some binge watching and got Breaking Bad because of Netflix streaming.

My 11yo got me into Dr. Who - at first just to watch it with her. She is now sort of into Lost. I've never seen a minute of that show and always thought it sounded terrible, but I suppose it's possible I end up sucked in. Once you start watching a show it can be hard to quit, even if it's not very good. e.g. The Walking Dead.
02-09-2014 , 04:03 PM
yeah, i loved buffy. no show is perfect, but buffy suffered mostly from outside reasons ie getting cancelled and brought back, which makes it difficult to write out a cohesive storyline if you dont know if you're going to be on the air the next season.

ive actually wanted to watch hill street blues and st. elsewhere for a while, but they're hard to find.

and i never got into star trek. i suppose i could go through those too. but i was raised on twilight zone and simpsons. ive been rewatching some of the old simpsons and its amazing how many big names were on the early seasons. conan was a staff writer, brad bird (pixar guy), greg daniels (american office), and a lot of people in the judd apatow producing circle all came from there. its the more modern version of the sid cesar show.
02-09-2014 , 04:13 PM
St. Elsewhere was good too.
02-09-2014 , 04:15 PM
I agree walking dead sucks. The comic on the other hand is awesome.

I actually am enjoying an old one, Ally Mcbeal. Lawyer firm based drama/comedy.
02-10-2014 , 12:43 AM
Cheers. Discuss.

      
m