damn insurance companies!!!

[windsorgreen1]

WOW, I LOVE THIS!  NOW IT'S THE AGENTS FAULT BECAUSE HE SOLD THE POLICY.

Not sure where you pulled that from but I'd wash it off before the smell gets to ya.

[Clark Kent]

Not sure where you pulled that from but I'd wash it off before the smell gets to ya.

Check your own quote.    That is where the agent accusation came from.

People are allowed to have their own opinions.  I guess it wasn't the home office that cause the problems with Prudential was it?  (Plenty of blame in the insurance industry to go around to the agents AND home office staff.)

"Fox smells his own hole first" stuff.

CK  

[Scoop]

Dude, if they wanted you to stop smoking, they'd outlaw it.  The fact is the use the health care cost argument as an excuse to raise the taxes.  And they get away with it because most people don't smoke, so the increased tax won't cost the politician any votes, so he gets to stay in office, and the government gets a big increase in revenue.

If they wanted people to stop smoking, they quit subsidizing tobacco farmers.  They don't do that, because that would cost politicians in tobacco producing states votes.

The government wants to get every possible nickel out of you it can.

Now back to the original topic....

To take the topic off on a tangent again......
Rest assured, smoking will stop.  It is a long and slow process of behavioural change and some nations will lag behind others, but smoking will stop.  The government needs taxpayers who are paying taxes.  Not ones with rotted lungs wasting in hospice wards.  In countries with subsidised health care, the change will come quicker as dying smokers take a long time to expire during which time they are not paying taxes and are costing health care.  In countries without subsidised health care, the change will take longer, but it will happen.  It's just not cost efficient to disable and kill your taxpayers.  
Unless.....there is govt. sponsored smoking insurance!!!

[highside]

To take the topic off on a tangent again......
Rest assured, smoking will stop.  It is a long and slow process of behavioural change and some nations will lag behind others, but smoking will stop.  The government needs taxpayers who are paying taxes.  Not ones with rotted lungs wasting in hospice wards.  In countries with subsidised health care, the change will come quicker as dying smokers take a long time to expire during which time they are not paying taxes and are costing health care.  In countries without subsidised health care, the change will take longer, but it will happen.  It's just not cost efficient to disable and kill your taxpayers.  
Unless.....there is govt. sponsored smoking insurance!!!

Um, governments take a financial loss on people the longer they live. Which person costs the government more money: A smoker that dies at the age of 50, or a person that lives to the age of 100 and spends half a century collecting social security and health coverage? The prime tax collecting age of the average tax payer extends from the day they start working to the day they stop working, all time outside of that range creats a financial liablity for a government, especially one with subsidized health care. The best possible thing from a financial perspective is for everyone to die by the age of 60.

[TheRedOnesAreFaster]

What Highside said.

Smokers, on average, die earlier, and throughout their lives are paying huge taxes that non-smokers aren't.

State and Federal governments are getting more money from a pack of smokes than BIG TOBACCO. [/deepevilvoiceoff]

Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.

[Riceman]

To take the topic off on a tangent again......
Rest assured, smoking will stop.  It is a long and slow process of behavioural change and some nations will lag behind others, but smoking will stop.  The government needs taxpayers who are paying taxes.  Not ones with rotted lungs wasting in hospice wards.  In countries with subsidised health care, the change will come quicker as dying smokers take a long time to expire during which time they are not paying taxes and are costing health care.  In countries without subsidised health care, the change will take longer, but it will happen.  It's just not cost efficient to disable and kill your taxpayers.  
Unless.....there is govt. sponsored smoking insurance!!!

When I "dropped" smoking into my post, it was merely ment as an example.  I never expected this to turn into a "smoking bashing" thread.  But, since we've taken that turn...

Saying that smoking will eventually end is like saying there will eventually be an end to illegal drugs.  Smoking might go the way of drugs, being deemed illegal, but it will never completely end.  You can bank on that!

And while on smoking...since everyone is on the "you need to say you are sorry" bandwagon these days, I think the Native Americans need to apologize for turning the "white man" on to tobacco!  In fact, they should be footing the healthcare bills of smokers.  Had the Native Americans NOT introduced the "white man" to tobacco....we wouldnt be talking about it today....

[Clark Kent]

When I "dropped" smoking into my post, it was merely ment as an example.  I never expected this to turn into a "smoking bashing" thread.  But, since we've taken that turn...

Saying that smoking will eventually end is like saying there will eventually be an end to illegal drugs.  Smoking might go the way of drugs, being deemed illegal, but it will never completely end.  You can bank on that!

And while on smoking...since everyone is on the "you need to say you are sorry" bandwagon these days, I think the Native Americans need to apologize for turning the "white man" on to tobacco!  In fact, they should be footing the healthcare bills of smokers.  Had the Native Americans NOT introduced the "white man" to tobacco....we wouldnt be talking about it today....

Now you wantum stick us with your medical bills.  Why not, you have been paying ours for 120 years. SUCKERS!  


 

[Scoop]

And while on smoking...since everyone is on the "you need to say you are sorry" bandwagon these days, I think the Native Americans need to apologize for turning the "white man" on to tobacco!  In fact, they should be footing the healthcare bills of smokers.  Had the Native Americans NOT introduced the "white man" to tobacco....we wouldnt be talking about it today....

It should probably be noted that the origin of tobacco with Native Americans was spiritual, not enjoyment.  So, the white man took their religion and used (abused?) it for fun, and gave them our religions, which did them a hell of a pile of good!  They shoulda stuck to smoking.  

[highside]

It should probably be noted that the origin of tobacco with Native Americans was spiritual, not enjoyment.  So, the white man took their religion and used (abused?) it for fun, and gave them our religions, which did them a hell of a pile of good!  They shoulda stuck to smoking.  

Um.

Not every culture draws such thick lines between religion and enjoyment, the two are not necessarily mututally exclusive in this case.

To make a comparison, alcohol is used in many European religious environments, particularly by the first western europeans to visit the new world and encounter tobacco. One could say that "they" abused "our" religion in exactly the same way. That comparission would be just as innacurate as the original one. Just because tobacco was used in a religious capacity doesnt mean that it was not used in any other capacity, just like alcohol.

[Scoop]

Um.

Not every culture draws such thick lines between religion and enjoyment, the two are not necessarily mututally exclusive in this case.

To make a comparison, alcohol is used in many European religious environments, particularly by the first western europeans to visit the new world and encounter tobacco. One could say that "they" abused "our" religion in exactly the same way. That comparission would be just as innacurate as the original one. Just because tobacco was used in a religious capacity doesnt mean that it was not used in any other capacity, just like alcohol.

That is true, I admit.  I will have to ask.  However, alcohol was also a common European beverage, as it kept well and didn't kill you like the water they had.  Also, it would keep on ocean voyages.  So, there was a practical aspect to alcohol.  It's use in religious environments and in biblical references, I believe, stems from the same practicality.  If they had canned apple juice instead, that might well have become sacred.  
I will have to ask our resident native spiritualist about the tobacco bit.