Archived material Access restricted Article

Today's Front Page   View All of Sat 01/26/2013 View Fri 01/25/2013 View Thu 01/24/2013 View Wed 01/23/2013 View Tue 01/22/2013 View Mon 01/21/2013 View Sun 01/20/2013
2013-01-26 -Short Attention Span Theater-
Penalty could keep smokers out of health overhaul - Bloomberg
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-26 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [498 views ]  Top

#1 If the bedbugs were smoking and drinking large sugary beverages, the lil' sumbitches would history by now.
Posted by SteveS 2013-01-26 01:43||   2013-01-26 01:43|| Front Page Top

#2 Smokers be advised; your yellow arm band is for your protection and the protection of those around you. Don't leave home without it!
Posted by Besoeker 2013-01-26 02:02||   2013-01-26 02:02|| Front Page Top

#3 It's Bloomberg BusinessWeek, not Nanny New York.
And doesn't a certain US president like to fire up a Newport every once in awhile?
Posted by tu3031 2013-01-26 02:24||   2013-01-26 02:24|| Front Page Top

#4 You don't seem to be able to grasp the simple principle of Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi, tu3031
Posted by g(r)omgoru 2013-01-26 06:09||   2013-01-26 06:09|| Front Page Top

#5 If instead of tax, smokes should be sold bundled with health insurance vouchers.

Problem sorted. Now back to proper health problems the state should worry about like immigration.
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-01-26 07:03||   2013-01-26 07:03|| Front Page Top

#6 What about second hand smokers?

Second hand Doctors?
Posted by junkiron 2013-01-26 11:41||   2013-01-26 11:41|| Front Page Top

#7 A related AP piece contains a brief tidbit that should send chills down the collective (pun not intended) spines of all Americans:

So let's return to the original question: Why provoke a backlash? If 1 in 5 U.S. adults smoke, and 1 in 3 are obese, why not just get off their backs and let them go on with their (probably shortened) lives?

Because it's not just about them, say some health economists, bioethicists and public health researchers.

"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm," said Daniel Callahan, senior research scholar at a bioethics think-tank, the Hastings Center.

Goodbye America, we hardly knew ye.
Posted by AzCat 2013-01-26 12:16||   2013-01-26 12:16|| Front Page Top

#8 All hear-say.
Posted by Shipman 2013-01-26 12:16||   2013-01-26 12:16|| Front Page Top

#9 Whoops same time post... never mind.
Posted by Shipman 2013-01-26 12:17||   2013-01-26 12:17|| Front Page Top

#10 >"Your freedom is likely to be someone else's harm,"

Which is why we're subsidising peoples bad habits with state wage based fees rather than risk based insurance fees....

The people on benefits are most fat. Is there a correlation between living on benefits and poor health? Should we be slashing benefits? If it saves one life...
Posted by Bright Pebbles 2013-01-26 12:50||   2013-01-26 12:50|| Front Page Top

#11 Bingo, BP! :-D
Posted by Barbara 2013-01-26 13:12||   2013-01-26 13:12|| Front Page Top

23:02 junkiron
22:45 JosephMendiola
22:34 JosephMendiola
22:28 ZZMike
22:26 JosephMendiola
22:22 JosephMendiola
22:18 Frozen Al
22:13 junkiron
21:59 JosephMendiola
21:53 Pappy
21:30 Dino Shomomp7692
21:30 Thrineger Thurong3165
21:23 Thrineger Thurong3165
21:16 Cheaderhead
21:15 SteveS
21:12 Cheaderhead
21:11 SteveS
21:10 Cheaderhead
21:06 Thrineger Thurong3165
21:04 Thrineger Thurong3165
21:00 Thrineger Thurong3165
20:36 Bangkok Billy
20:35 KBK
20:26 KBK

Search WWW Search