(September 6, 2019 at 11:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 11:32 am)onlinebiker Wrote: It does seem reasonable - although I have no way at all of verifying it. I have however seen how quickly medical costs can add up - and if I were to guess - I would say it's a low number.

But let's assume it's right.

Now consider - there really isn't any other use of cigarettes than consuming them. They only have one use.

Now the consumer of this product is well aware of it's risks. Is it reasonable to expect the consumer to be responsible for the cigarettes use?

Actually, you can make a pretty effective insecticide from tobacco.

How do you mean 'responsible'?  That they should use them responsibly or that they should bear the costs of using them?

Boru

Who else should bear the cost of using them?

(September 6, 2019 at 12:43 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 11:44 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Actually, you can make a pretty effective insecticide from tobacco.

How do you mean 'responsible'?  That they should use them responsibly or that they should bear the costs of using them?

Boru

Who else should bear the cost of using them?

Oh, I definitely think the users should bear the cost, both medical and loss of productivity.

Boru

(September 6, 2019 at 12:41 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Thanks for being an excellent hall monitor.

You're welcome.

Boru

I' m surprised you haven't seen this cloddish and clumsy analog-like argument before.

(September 6, 2019 at 12:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 12:43 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Who else should bear the cost of using them?

Oh, I definitely think the users should bear the cost, both medical and loss of productivity.

Boru

I think this is a dig at universal healthcare

(September 6, 2019 at 1:12 pm)Aegon Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 12:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Oh, I definitely think the users should bear the cost, both medical and loss of productivity.

Boru

I think this is a dig at universal healthcare

Not at all.  I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare, I just don't think that voluntarily self-destructive behaviour should be a drain on the system.

If you want to smoke, then smoke.  But that shouldn't give you carte blanche to take medical resources away from other people.

Boru

(September 6, 2019 at 12:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 12:43 pm)onlin ebiker Wrote: Who else should bear the cost of using them?

Oh, I definitely think the users should bear the cost, both medical and loss of productivity.

Boru

Ok... Now if you think the user should bear the responsibility of use - does t his mean insurance companies should be able to actualize the cost and pass that onto the user?

If a person decides to take up high wire acrobatics as a vocation - and wants insurance - the insurance companies are allowed to charge the acrobat. Society as a whole does not subsidize them.

(September 6, 2019 at 1:17 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:12 pm)Aegon Wrote: I think this is a dig at universal healthcare

Not at all.  I'm very much in favour of universal healthcare, I just don't think that voluntarily self-destructive behaviour should be a drain on the system.

If you want to smoke, then smoke.  But that shouldn't give you carte blanche to take medical resources away from other people.

Boru

I meant him!

Although now I'm curious if you think those who got lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking should be liable for their treatment costs, even if other cancers may be treated at little to no cost? (Assuming a single-payer system)

(September 6, 2019 at 1:20 pm)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 12:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Oh, I definitely think the users should bear the cost, both medical and loss of productivity.

Boru

Ok... Now if you think the user should bear the responsibility of use - does t his mean insurance companies should be able to actualize the cost and pass that onto the user?

If a person decides to take up high wire acrobatics as a vocation - and wants insurance - the insurance companies are allowed to charge the acrobat. Society as a whole does not subsidize them.

As I understand it, insurers already charge higher rates to smokers.  Is that what you're getting at? (I'm not being intentionally dense, I just don't have a lot of experience with private health insurance).

Boru

(September 6, 2019 at 1:33 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 6, 2019 at 1:20 pm)onlinebiker Wrote: Ok... Now if you think the user should bear the responsibility of use - does t his mean insurance companies should be able to actualize the cost and pass that onto the user?

If a person decides to take up high wire acrobatics as a vocation - and wants insurance - the insurance companies are allowed to charge the acrobat. Society as a whole does not subsidize them.

As I understand it, insurers already charge higher rates to smokers.  Is that what you're getting at? (I'm not being intentionally dense, I just don't have a lot of experience with private health insurance).

Boru

I don't know about all but many do charge more for premiums for smokers.