I think we need to get out of the business of protecting people from their own stupidity.
And, using Larry's numbers, can we really afford to put tax dollars behind something that has a 90% failure rate? Here's a great way to save money. If you are on Medicare or Medicaid and you are being treated for illnesses secondary to smoking...tough shit. Ge beg the tobacco industry for help with your bills. When I was a medic, I cannot tell you how many medicare patients I took care of who had emphysema who still smoked (and how many of them suffered facial burns because they smoked while still having the oxygen cannula in their nose). On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:56 PM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > how long do you think if we started spending money on smoking cessation > before there is a noticable decrease in cancer treatment? > > I doubt it would be during Obama's term (even if he gets reelected) > > How could reducing government costs 10 years from now (probably longer) be > considered part of a stimulus package? > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Charlie Griefer > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > was the stimulus ever explicitly stated as being a "short term" stimulus? > > i'm asking... i don't know. i don't recall ever seeing a time frame > > attached to it. > > i don't know what the exact numbers would be, but i'd tend to agree with > > Larry here (yes, really). we'd lose the spending and tax $ on cigarette > > purchases, but gain $ in not having to treat the cancer/emphysema > patients > > (you know they're not all insured, or insured enough). would that > possibly > > be a wash? again, i don't know... just throwing it out there. > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Jerry Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > But, has NOTHING to do with the stimulus. > > > > > > As a matter of fact, it would do the opposite (reducing spending and > > taxes > > > on smoking) > > > > > > Any actual benefits would not be seen for 10, 20, 40 years. > > > > > > Which is a good thing, but WAY outside a short term stimulus. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Larry Lyons <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > $75 million for "smoking cessation activities." (wasteful) > > > > > > > > I disagree. This country spends over $50 billion annually on smoking > > > > related diseases. Even using the most skeptical 10% success rate for > > > smoking > > > > cessation plans, this would mean a significant reduction in those > > cancer > > > and > > > > emphysema treatment costs. In other words even if $1 billion is saved > > > every > > > > year that more than makes up for the $75 million spent on smoking > > > cessation > > > > programs. > > > > > > > > If that's a wasteful program, then I'd hate to see a useful one. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;207172674;29440083;f Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:287353 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
