Indefensible.

You've bought into the Democrat lie that it's no cost to us. Sorry, but that's not true. Worse, you know it.

It costs the American consumer. It takes -- actually, confiscates -- money from the private sector in a grossly unfair way. You can paint a scarlet letter on he chest of smokers all you want, but they're American citizens doing absolutely nothing illegal. You can tar and feather the tobacco companies all you want, but they're American companies operating legally and producing a product that is perfectly legal. They are part of companies that also produce a lot of products other than tobacco. And they are companies that have thousands and maybe millions of stock holders.

 

Yes, Deskslave put it very well how irresponsible he was. When I was part-time way back starting out, I was making hardly any money and had no health insurance provided by my employer. So I went out and bought health insurance. Not a great plan, but something that covered me in case of a catastrophic incident. It had something like a $1,000 deductible for hospitalization and surgical. Now $1,000 was a huge amount of money to be back then, but it wasn't a sum that would break me for life.

So I know what Deskslave went through. I, however, was responsible. He wasn't. And he wears it like a badge of honor.

 

Yep, he's irresponsible because he can't afford quality health insurance. Keep digging that hole.

 

Ironically, really_old_tony made this same argument in defense of slavery in 1852!

 

OT you are truly embarassing yourself on this thread. I guess you skipped the part about how raising the cigarette tax lowers the number of smokers which in turns saves the US billions in health care costs. (Does it sound like a stretch? Not as much as s-chip acting as teh first step toward socialism.)

Also, when you got insurance for yourself, how did this cover your children. Oh, you didn't have children at the time? Well then it has absolutely nothing to do with the s-chip debate, which is about how working families can't afford health insurance for their children.

I know, I know. It's because they're buying plasma TVs and lobster for dinner. Right?

 

Glad to see someone defending insurance companies, smokers and tobacco companies in this discussion. What'd you think, that it's all about the children?

 

Wow, OT, too bad Deskslave couldn't be such a super duper responsible guy like you. But one question: in what years were you starting out and without insurance?

Because you are, of course, aware of how astronomically health care costs have skyrocketed the last couple decades. The same health insurance plans that were once affordable to people starting out are usually not today. Did you consider that, if deskslave was in his situation years later, he would not have had the same options as you did.

 

Will somebody please think about the stockholders!

 

I don't.

But turning over paying everyone's bills to the government sure does make them wards of the state.

 

You don't read very well do you?

This is not about paying everyone's bills. It's about a couple of million children whose parents work -- repeat work! not go on welfare and claim medicaid -- but fall through the cracks.

 

Well, you do. Read again what you wrote. Stop dodging.

And what does "the government paying everyone's bills" have to do with a discussion of universal health care and public policy?

 

So how can you completely miss the part where people stopping smoking means that the tax won't cover the costs. And when there are cost overruns, you and I both know who is going to cover that.

You're the one who made the "it's no cost to anyone" argument. I trashed that, so you changed the subject.

Nice try ... but not a good try.