Take smoking right out of this arguement and realize it won't stop at smoking.

Weirdo's with a cause won't stop with just smoking, they'll move onto thier next cause that may **** YOU off.

All the things that go on in a bar, and it's illegal to smoke. C'mon!

Califonia is sweet. But the rest of the country should learn the consticktive laws of CA has drivin their cost of living through the roof, and not follow their lead. All this stuff starts in CA. Except the cell phone ban that started in NY that is total BS, but that's another thread.

 

cpadpl,

I don't think we are at all that far off. And as to your response to Dennis, I don't think you come off at all like a jerk but more or less like someone with an opinion that is willing dicuss and or debate it in a well thought out manner.

I can't even claim the "we get what we deserve" quote. I'm not sure who said it but I think the quote is that "Every country has the government that it deserves"

I may be a bit of a realist or pragmatist but your "alternative" that people should act responsibally, sounds like one of those "in a perfect world" scenarios that is good in theory but not realistic in practice. In a perfect world Freakin OJ would have gotten the chair for what he did. In a perfect world the Haulocost would never have occured and nevermind the terrible crap going on in the middle East today. The reality of the world we live in is that we Humans are selfish by design and will give in to our emotions sooner than we will to our common sense.

People who want to present an agenda be it smoking bans or gun bans or anyother type of ban will always play the emotional card becuase it works. Our voting public has proven time and time again that we can be manipulated and unfourtunately this is the country we live in. I for one love it warts and all.

A rational thinking responsible citizen can find a lot to be frustrated with but if you are true to your convictions you will do what is right and not be afraid to express those convictions. That's all we can do.

 

Well, what can I say? I get irked when somebody says or implies that it's cheaper for somebody to get sick and most likely die from smoking.

I posted about my experience with somebody who died from smoking to make a point. Sure, it was expensive, somewhere in excess of $1.5 million that the insurance company and the government covered over the slightly more than 8 years. Most of you also know that the $1.5 million was only the portion of the medical care that they covered! Medical care, however, wasn't the only cost. The initial hospital stay was out of town which meant 3 people were out of work and had to stay in a hotel for a month. Of course, my older sister was broke at the time, so my father and I had to pay for her airfare and her share of the hotel and food. That month cost me alone $4,000 in lost wages (I didn't have any vacation time accrued yet), close to $2,000 in hotel and food costs, $300 in car rentals, and about $500 in airfare to fly home for a day at a time here and there to take care of things. BTW, that was all in 1979 dollars.

The last year of my mother's life was also quite expensive. She had to have very clean temperature controlled air, so a separate a/c and filtering system had to be installed. We also had to buy two generators to keep the power on if there was an outage, which was frequent back then.

Then there was the twice a week deliveries of liquid oxygen and machines to help her breathe. Not to mention the cost of having doctors and nurses making house calls or if that was not possible, hiring an ambulance to do the transporting. Then there were the frequent visits to the emergency room.

Then, there's the cost to the care givers that can't be counted in dollars. How would you feel about having to help your mother use a fracture pan? How many of you even know what a fracture pan is? How about the long hours sitting with her trying to soothe her and help her deal with the pain. How about having to learn to shoot your mother up with pain killers for the first time?

Don't try to tell me what I went through is atypical or inconsequential. It's more common than you think. What was atypical is my father and I making the effort to keep my mother at home until she died, instead of dumping her off on a care facility. I know of several other families who went through the same thing we did.

Yes, I'd like to see what insurance companies say about smokers. Please post sources or links to studies by insurance companies to back up your point of view. If what you say is true, I wonder why all the health clinics, especially the HMOs, keep trying to get people to quit smoking. You'd think that if smokers could save money for the HMO, they'd stop trying to discourage it.

I'd also like to know what health insurance companies charge different premiums for smokers and non-smokers. The biggest insurers in my state don't distinguish between the two groups. Where they do make distinctions concerns what pool you're in. For instance, premiums for people working for a large company is a lot cheaper than it is for a small one.

If you were talking about life insurance, I'd agree with you on the different premiums, but from my experience in shopping for health coverage, that's not the case.

 

I think it was Thomas Jefferson who once said "I may not agree with what you're saying, but I will die to defend your right to say it." Everyone, remember that everyone is going to have different opinions on this matter, and I don't think this should turn into a flame war, because in the end, no one's opinion will be changed.
That said, I also think that if you did not vote, don't even post, unless you have a reason not to have voted. If you can't vote, but would have if you could have, then go ahead and gripe, you have an opinion. In my experiences, the public generally obey the laws that are put into place, even if they do not agree. I have been the manager at several places, and at 'eateries', I knew my customers, and I knew who were the good customers (the ones that paid for the food) and the ones who were just being rude. I had no problem standing up for the customers in the store when they asked me for help, but, at the places I have worked, they have been divided pretty equally with smoking/non-smoking tables. For example, my first job, years ago, was at a McDonald's, and I was there for quite a while, and I knew the customers that came in (small town), and we had a sign on the front windows beside the doors that we 'reserve the right to refuse service to anyone', and that was great. If someone was being offensive to the other customers, then it was okay to ask them to leave, and if they didn't, I always had the police. (Sure, I don't RELY on the police, around here they are usually just trying to find a way to get someone for something, not that much goes on, I personally think that the cop who writes the most tickets each month gets a free toaster or something, but they were there if I needed them). Some customers who didn't smoke and were allergic to smoke were older, and there were some customers that didn't 'understand' the difference between the smoking and the non-smoking sections. Now, a lot of you will say 'Then they're stupid, so ******* them', but in all fairness, that may be me some day with a disease leaving me unable to think completely, so I stand up for them, and I would ask people around them not to smoke. Generally, people would understand, but there were some people who didn't, and if they argued, I would simply talk to the other people, and if it got too bad, then I would ask them to leave (not too bad with bothering others, I meant if they were too obnoxious to have in the store). I worked as a manager over 4 stores for 2 and a half years, and I made $5.52 an hour when I left, so I got fed up a lot of times with things that I had to put up with, but I always tried to keep everything non-confrontational (between customers, anyway), because 1) I didn't want to be fired, it was my only job at the time, and 2) I didn't want my store to look bad, because word-of-mouth is the best advertising in a small town, and unhappy customers ruin you more than happy ones help you. However, I am a smoker, so I understand the feelings of the smoker, that they should be allowed to smoke wherever as long as it is 'public', such as sports events, concerts, bars, etc..., but I also understand the non-smoker's point of view, that they shouldn't have to put up with smoke because they don't smoke, but I don't think that second-hand smoke from some sitting near you as you eat will ever be a medical problem, I think second-hand smoke comes more from 'living with or being beside someone smoking for extended periods of time.' I think that is what second-hand smoke was brought up for anyway, I don't think anyone has ever developed cancer from being near the smoking section in any place, now I WILL buy that the smoking bothers them, and that's a perfectly good excuse for not wanting to be around it, BUT there are a alot of people who just want something to whine about, and as long as the 'right to b**ch' is here, people will use it. My suggestion, and my honest opinion on it, is make it a referendum and let the people vote on it. That is the only way for the decision to be democratic. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a 'Republic', look up both words and you'd be surprised, and you won't throw 'democracy' around. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but a pure democracy would be hellish, the only decision we have to make now is how far the government can go before they are infringing on personal rights, is it a right to smoke indoors, or is it not? If it isn't, then they aren't taking anything away, and if it is a right, then we're in trouble. I agree that it should be up the owner of the business to establish non-smoking rules, but I also think we should have a 70 mph speed limit in Virginia, and you shouldn't have to have a front license plate, either. Next are guns, walking dogs in the park (just as many people are allergic to dogs as there are allergic to smoke), state lotteries, Mud Tires & Lift Kits, and the amount that you can drive in one year. Think, if everyone only drove 5,000 miles a year, then there wouldn't be as many accidents, and less pollution, too! Also, there wouldn't be as many cigarette butts on the side of the road, either.
Sorry for the long post, but I had a lot of thoughts on this.
VOTE!

 

Blizzard nailed it. It's popular to ban what is unpopular.

I could just imagine going to a full nudy bar in CA. and being allowed to bury my face in some chicks **** but not smoke a cig.???

Here are some things that we keep forgetting.

How many people scream "I'm alergic to smoke-can't taste my food-makes my eyes water-your a jerk for smoking-BS BS BS" that are old enough to have lived through an era in which most of the country smoked for the sport of it, many times themselves included. What did they wake up one day and all of a sudden they can no longer taste their food.

I know air conditioning. My stepfather was a residential and commercial air man, I grew up helping him. I install all of my own AC equipment in my rental properties and my house. If you go look at the ***** that grows inside an air handler, in an evaporator drain pan, in a squirrel cage, and in your ductwork, it would make you instantly ill. Rust, bacteria of all kinds, etc. Does anybody know how bad it is to breathe freon? If you had a small leak in your coil you'd be breathing it.


Since when is a restaurant a sterile environment? Hasn't anybody ever worked at a restaurant? Some people act as if a restaurant could be a makeshift OR. The cooks burn food, grease, nasty carpet, halfass dishwashers, unknown origin of the food. Sure they are not all like this but you would be surprised at the ones that are and the ones that aren't. And don't give me health department crap. Most of the time the manager/owners know when the health department is coming and what do you know, everyone works late to clean the place up the night before.


I don't care what anybody says, THE FRESH AIR IS OUTSIDE, even in L.A.

Tell it like it is, I'd rather people tell me I look stupid smoking or they don't like smoking. But instead I hear things like " I CAN'T TASTE MY FOOD" My repsonse to that is "Oh I'm sorry I'll put this thing out and fart in your face to see if that helps"

Insurance is a whole other story. I know people that can't get it at all that never smoked one day. I also know people that abuse insurance. ONe of my friends is a clumbsy guy. So far this year he has fallen off a roof onto a chain link fence, fallen on a pile of rocks while using a chain saw (he is still in bed from that one with bone chips in his spine) he has been rear ended twice on his motorcycle, rear ended someone in his truck, backed in to a tree in his truck, his wife has had her stomach stapled to lose weight (she should of had her mouth stapled shut, that would solve two problems with that one) and every thing that goes wrong with his kid he tries to claim on insurance, even tutoring for reading skills. All of this since a couple of days after Christmas.

But as Blizzard says, one day this popular unpopularity thing is going to affect non-smokers. For all of you non-smokers that burn 5000 plus minutes a month on your cell phone while driving, just wait until that gets banned. Yep, that will **** you off.

Why doesn't cell phones in restaurants bother these same morons? How many times lately do you hear cell phones ringing in restaurants especially during lunch? OH yeah, I know, some non-smokers need their cell phones even during lunch. Now that couldn't possibly bother anybody. Even though it is highly speculated that radiation from cell phones causes brain tumors--but that's OK because other people take their chances when they walk out their door on a daily basis, you can talk on your phone in your car and in a restaurant or wherever, you have that right. Until it becomes unpopular with some liberal, soccer-mom, lobbyist group that decides it is unpopular or unhealthy on behalf of the entire population of your state, and then you are the anitchrist. Boy will that **** you off but by then you will deserve it!

We are not debating smoking, it has been proven that smoking is a killer just as driving with a cell phone is. If I were a non smoker I would not approve of any bans of any kind. MOst people are stupid about all of the things they don't have a choice over. Things that more dramatically affect their lives than cigarette smoke ever will. Property taxes, crooked local governments, etc. etc. Banning anything be it a right or a choice will just make it easier to do with any unpopular thing. Personally, I am intelligent enough to decide most things for myself. For example, there is a new Italian restaurant down the road from my house that is a smoke free restaurant that I eat at a few times a month. I live without the cigarettes there because the lasagna is to die for. Why can't we let free enterprise decide for themselves. It works. I still go there even though I can't smoke.

Take a deed restricted community. People choose to live in these to avoid looking at tractor trailers parked in the neighbors driveway, etc. People choose not to so they can park a tractor trailer if they want to. This would be the equivalent of the deed restriction huggers trying to impose some law that required their same deed restrictions in an entire state because they have to drive on public road and they still don't want to see a tractor trailer parked in others driveways. It's wrong.

These attempts to abolish choices are one of the sickest things I've ever experienced. No excuse me while I go watch Jerry Springer.

 

Dennis

First off, even thought your response was inappropriate and rude that's no reason for me to fly off the handle so I apologize.
My suggestion is perhaps you can respond in a more inquisitive manner rather than in a condescending manner when you have trouble believing somebody's viewpoint. Realize that there's a bigger world out than your individual experiences...I wasn't suggesting that your experience was inconsequential, only atypical....

And I didn't make myself clear (as typically happens when I'm pissed). Group health insurance is typically the only one that doesn't discriminate between the two. Individually underwritten policies and self-employed business tend to be assessed adverse and select rates. Regardless, however, the insurance pooling effect would remain the same in ALL circumstances (i.e. even where the same rate is charged) as insurance rates are set on the most conservative of assumptions (worst case scenario assumed for smokers). In the same-rate scenario, the nonsmoker pays in more of a premium initially (because of the cost of smokers in the pool), but as the smoking population deceases prematurely, it is the smoker that is contributing more than his fair share...And to that the excise taxes, saving in social security, etc. etc....

Why wouldn't the insurance companies try to get people stop smoking? It's not smart, and even though smokers paid their fair share it still yanks money out of their (smokers) pocket that could have been used for other things. It also gives the insurance companies ANOTHER contigency to attempt to measure statistically and hope their right.

And as far as research, there is tons of stuff out there for both sides. My particularly favorite findings are by ol' Senior Viscusi who is now at Harvard and I believe was previously at Duke. His findings from a few years ago are at the following link:
http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg18n3e.html

 

I must be really dumb because I read what you wrote but still don't understand how smokers pay more than their share of health care costs, in regards to premium payments.

Maybe you could use the following scenario for me? Say a company has 1,000 employees. Depending on the employer, every single employee contributes the same amount of money every month, with the possible exceptions of employees with family. Some will require a higher employee payment, while others will just spread the extra cost out between everybody.

In any case, the 1,000 employees pay the same rate, for the sake of argument. The insurance company has no idea just how many employees are smokers, so they use statistics to take a guess and figure out what the pool of employees are going to pay every month.

As far as I can see, if two companies with the exact same business and exact same number of employees will pay the same rates even if one company has 5 smokers and the other has 30.

I really want to understand what you're trying to tell me, but I just don't see it yet.

I hope you understand that I'm not being combative. I really hate being wrong, but if somebody like you is so convinced with what you're saying, then I want to understand it. I tried to read what you said with an open mind, but I'm just not getting it. So, help me out so I can be on the right side on this issue. At this point, I think I'm right and you think you're right. One of us gotta be wrong and I'd really hate to be the one. However, people know me. I'll argue a point when I think I'm right until I'm proven wrong and I'm not afraid to admit it.

I'm a bit sressed out with a land deal right now. It's pretty involved (dealing with zoning, the Planning Commission, the Board of Variances and Appeals, and the County Council) and what I'm trying to do translates to a $500k difference in price... Maybe there' s a real slight chance that I don't know what I'm talking about. I just need to be convinced with facts that I can understand.

 

Dennis

It's unfortunate that you see it as a right/wrong issue. It is just like saying you've got $1,000 bucks, and in 20 years you say it will be $10,000, and I say it will be that in 18 years. Is there really a right or wrong (as only time will tell)? It is essentially a difference in opinion based on certain assumptions. Regarding your earlier question about HMOs and their desire to get rid of smokers, it came to me after that post that the most likely reason is that HMOs are the only health maintenance organizations that are essentially forbidden to utilize pre-existing condition clauses. Therefore, they need all the help they can get (so to speak), some would say they don't need any help.

One more important note. The "premium" in insurance (the reserve to an insurance company) not only includes a monthly payment, but implicitly any expediture that is NOT made. Therefore, even if insurance companies do not charge different rates to smokers and non-smokers, they can play very impressive games with pre-existing clauses and exclusions. But as I said, most insurance companies do charge different rates to individuals and small businesses. If you go down to the insurance company or log onto insurance.com and request a quote, you will be asked if you smoke (as I was two months ago when I was thinking about buying an individual health policy). Obviously you understand that with differing rates, the nonsmoker does explicitly pay for his increased costs.....Now, onto where rates are the same but the smoker pays for his costs (and possibly more) implicitly..

Although health insurance has much more up-to-the-minute data than other forms of insurance (e.g. many life insurance companies are still forced to used 1980 mortality tables), it is not like the results of trends in the population emerge immediately and are automatically fed into premium rates for two important reasons 1) a trend is just that, something that happens over time, so time is needed to observe it, and 2) they (insurance companies) dare not count on a trend (i.e. they maintain considerable contingency margins) less they actuarily calculate wrong and possibly end up bankrupt. I'm sure you are well aware of modern news stories talking about the cut-throat nature of health care insurance and it's spiraling cost (which can be attributed to many other things than smokers, but that's a different discussion). Health care cost pricing to the insurance purchasers is therefore a heads-insurance company wins-tails-you-lose game.

Some non-insurance company studies suggest (now this is a study, I'm not saying its right, I'm not saying it's fact, I'm saying I believe it to a certain extent) that an unusual occurence may be happening. Based on your example and anticipated health costs for smokers, let's assume it's decided (based on historical statistical data) that 90 out of the 100 smokers in your 1000 person group will ultimately require very expensive increased health care costs due explicitly to their tobacco use. The increased cost is then ANTICIPATED and split and shared equally over all 1000 people. Some trends are emerging that indicate that smoking is far more deadly and harmful than previously thought, and that the ultimate number of smokers that will need extensive health care is more like 15 out of 100 because it appears they are deceasing suddenly and prematurely. Under that scenario, the true cost (or benefit) of the smoker should be apparent. 75 smokers lived and paid premiums for an extensive period of time and then due to their smoking causing sudden death never utilized ANY insurance benefits...In short, while the number of smokers needing extensive healthcare is increasing arithmetically (due to the smoking baby boomers aging), the premature death rate without receiving any care is increasing geometrically, which in insurance world always puts you in a very good or very bad place.

As a side note, it's a heated debate as to what the cause of this could be. I'm thinking (this is my theory) we are really now starting to see the true smoking generation that smoked modern day cigs (some that included asbestos), smoked them in a chain fashion, and probably had little exercise. My grandfather used to smoke, but he rolled his own cigarettes, and having to roll your own makes it much less of an automatic compulsion than when you have streamlined processed packs that look like candy for the taking. It was more like an event for him. His generation also walked everywhere, and he lived to be 93. I think you will now start to see the generation that ate McDonalds for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, didn't exercise, and chain smoked 3 packs a day...That's just my theory though..And for that fact, we might now start seeing the general population exhibit those signs (i.e. maybe tobacco use just speeds it up).

That being said, that doesn't shut the door on it for me (that smokers pay more than their fair share). I truly believe it is at the very best (in the strict health insurance sense) a net to zero cost wise and at the medium to worse I say smokers slightly increase costs.....What does shut the door on it for me is the amount that smokers pay in excise taxes and the amounts they forgo in the form of social security benefits, pensions, medicare, and nursing home costs....Well let's not say it shuts the door on it for me, but I feel comfortable in stating that its my opinion smokers don't need to pay any MORE than they already do, and a probably paying more than they need to already..

But I wouldn't feel right if you said you agreed with me, as I'm not sure I'm even right, and you should do your own research do decide what you feel is right. What I didn't like was your suggestion that I insulted you by my mere mention of legitimate data and my opinion. And as I said, it infuriates me to hear other people (not specifically you) make blanket statements that smokers are running up health care costs without at least doing a little research on their position first. I would like to be told I'm wrong or disagreed with because of some legitimate argument not just 'cause "I don't believe you..."

 

Good Lord, you guys are still at this? Give it up, LMAO! Geeeeez.

 

I agree......

 

I agree, it is awful smelling, and I smoke. It makes my breath stink, my clothes stink, and everywhere I smoke stink, but I don't smoke in my house anymore, don't in the truck, and I try to keep it down. I still think it should be up the business itself if they want to allow smoking or not.

 

I found this old thread....... Well, It passed. You can't smoke in any building in the state of Florida, or Georgia. I think bars *might* be an exception, but I'm not sure about that...

 

Jersey has the same law. You can't smoke in any public building except the casinos. Apparently second hand smoke is not unhealthy there!