I wasn't going to reply, but I guess I must.
And I STILL disagree. If money is coming out of my pocket it doesn't matter to me whether it's insurance or tax dollars to the Feds, it's STILL GONE.
I addressed what you said
, which was how they spent
the money; not how they took it away from you.
I AM however against the insurance companies making excessive profits.
And when it comes to smokers, they lose
money; they don't make a profit.
To my mind there's reasonable profit taking and then there's greed. In the medical industry there appears to be alot of the latter going on.
The medical industry or the insurance industry?! Have you followed the medical industry lately? Hospitals close left and right these days. A friend broke his wrist and was told that he had to go 20 miles to another hospital for a cast. Do you know how many hospitals he passed on the way?
And here again, that is your personal experience, just as my personal experience is entirely opposite and just as valid. According to CDC criteria my dad's death will go into the "smoking related" illness category when it really had little to no bearing on what actually caused his death.
Again, you're making assumptions
. You don't really know what caused his stroke and heart attack, right? I have no idea how much he smoked, but if he was a regular smoker, chances are the smoking had a great deal to do with it. Smoking would have ruined his lungs so oxygen exchange would have been diminished. The arteries around his heart would have hardened, making the pumping of blood harder.
My doctors question regarding whether my mom smoked or not was a great example of that mentality. He never asked not one other question BUT that one and if she had been a smoker, she'd have gone into the "smoking related illness/mortality" cateogry right along with my dad and it would have been every bit as invalid as a cause of illness or death.
Again, you're making wild assumptions. Maybe he was doing a paper on smoking. Maybe he was just curious. You again say that he would be putting her in a "category", but he's not the one compiling the statistics.
I think you need to go back and reread my posts Broph, better yet:
. OK, from the top. Here is exactly what you wrote: "Do we have higher premiums for salt intake, lack of exercise, poor diet etc....? Given that 3 of the top killers are associated DIRECTLY to THOSE issues, than under your view there SHOULD be and given that disability claims for those conditions are likewise HUGE...Fair is fair right?" You never actually say
which of the 3 diseases on your list of 10 you're talking about!
I have no idea if you're talking about heart disease, stroke, respiratory, diabetes, pneumonia, or the others. Why do you specify 3 diseases, but never actually tell us what those 3 diseases are?!
I, on the other hand, can link smoking to several of your top 10: Heart Disease, Cancer (including the #1 cancer killer!), Stroke, Chronic Respiratory Disease and Flu/Pneumonia (tar in the lungs tends to exacerbate the collection of fluids in the lung).
Of the top 3, only cancer really belongs in the "smoking related category" and even in THAT category I honestly beleive only cancers directly attributed to smoking (aka like lung cancer) should be included there.
LOL! You're completely forgetting the others! My father died of a heart attack, not cancer. He was hooked up to oxygen and he was GASPING for his last breaths. I know. I was there with him when he died. His lungs were probably like styrofoam. His heart was probably pounding, trying to get what little oxygen was going through from his lungs to the bloodstream.
Saying that cancer is the only smoking-related disease is a symptom of the ostrich syndrome.
I think we can also agree that poor diet, lack of exercise, poor management of high blood pressure etc...also kills.
It all depends on degrees. However, smoking regularly kills for sure.
Explain it away however you like Broph, IMO, it was dismissive, which prompted the response you recieved from me.
Hey, I've kept things civil. You haven't.
There was nothing statistical to your contentions, just your single, personal experience which can't be used to validate a broad brushed picture of the entire situation.
I didn't think that I had to back up what I consider to be common knowledge with links. When you present these wild ideas, I will certainly ask you to back them up.
He left when my dad was 10 but he'd not been living at home for about a year and a half before that.
OK, again, you're evading my question. You still haven't said how long they were living together when he left. Not your father; your grandmother. Did she remarry? Did she remarry a smoker?
BTW...my dad didn't have emphysema nor did my grandfather. My grandfather had a huge farm down in Kentucky that he ran (and worked daily until the age of 84). Grandpa simply died of old age.
Just because he wasn't diagnosed
with emphysema doesn't mean that he didn't have it. Just because he didn't need oxygen on a daily basis doesn't mean that his lungs hadn't lost their elasticity and worked harder for the work they had to do.
I mentioned that she never smoked, not to mislead but to point out that if she HAD smoked, under CDC criteria, she'd have gone in the "smoking related illness" category too and it would have been totally invalid. You can get cancers of all sorts that have zero to do with smoking but they end up lumped into that cateogry none the less.
When people who smoke get certain cancers at a higher frequency than non-smokers, science can easily infer that the cancer is smoking-related.
MY way of saying that of course there was methodology to it and part of that methodology was a flawed lumping together of many diseases into the "smoking related illness" category that may have had zero to very little causality involved in including it.
And for every person who didn't die because of smoking, they probably miss 10 who did
die of smoking. Since I don't have ovaries, I'm unlikely to ever develop ovarian cancer. Since I don't smoke, I'm unlikely to ever develop lung cancer (unless I start working in a coal mine). I also have 2 uncles who died of stomach-related cancers. You guessed it; they were smokers. The tar went down their throats, destroyed the cilia and collected in the stomach. Personal story? Sure; but look it up. There are more cancers that are due to smoking than you'd like to admit.
YES, they DO include ALOT of diseases that's MAIN cause had nothing or very little to do with the fact that the person smoked
Asked and answered. The CDC knows more about diseases than you or I. I'd have to defer to them on this judgement over your opinion.
Statistics are only as valid as the criteria used to compile them, hense my point from the start of this...The criteria is flawed, has always been flawed. You can generate statistics to support just about anything when you make up the criteria and assumptions used at the basis for them.
Nonsense. 87% of lung cancer patients are smokers when only 24% of the population are smokers. How is this flawed? How is this skewed? When 1 fourth of the population is responsible for a majority (over half) of a particular disease), then it's pretty clear that the smoking is directly related to that disease.
As I said before, "big Tobacco" didn't create that article nor did the website that displays it, the CATO Institute did.
OK, careful how you mix things. Are you trying to tell me that the CATO Institute puts up the forces.org site? Now, you took the CDC - an internationally recognized institution - to task for their methodology, but you take this
report at face value? What methodology did they
use? Who were the peers who reviewed their
article? What other organizations support their
You say that forces.org is not published by big tobacco. Where are the HQd? Oh, surprise, surprise, they're headquartered in Virginia! Better think that one through again.
Have you read any of their stuff? Read their FAQ: "In fact, not even one death can be demonstrated to have been caused uniquely by smoking, nor is it possible to establish the contribution of smoking to the death or disease of one individual." If they can lie about that, what else do they lie about?
I told you earlier; you have to question your sources. If forces.org told me that the sun was shining, I'd still look out my own window.
they didn't, the CATO Institute did.
Never heard of the CATO institute. "Individual Liberty, Limited Government, Free Markets and Peace". Sounds like a great bunch of scientific minds!
Again you accuse and insult me
I did neither. You can now show me a single insult. I disagreed with you and still have no idea of the sources of some of your ideas, but the only thing I accused you of was not backing up your statements.
yes, the CDC site does support the contention that they include many diseases as "smoking related" simply based on the fact that the person smoked.
Again, no they don't. Look over the list of diseases again.
Under their criteria you could make the same case for TV...Well X amount of the people with X diseases were TV viewers. X number of people with X diseases were NOT TV viewers. Okay let's take all the X number of diseases for TV viewers and anything over the number of non tv viewers with that disease, we'll claim are all TV related diseases or fatalities.
OK, not really following what you're trying to say there. However, when 24% of the population are responsible for 87% of one disease, then what they have in common that the other 13% don't have in common is likely the source of the disease.
Clearly you are very emotional about this issue. I am sorry about your father Broph, I really am but all the ills of the world aren't smoking related. So scorn away at the Cato Institute if you like.
OK. You're confusing forces.org with Cato. Never heard of Cato, but like I said in this post, they sound sort of odd. forces.org is a propaganda web site that promotes smoking. Anything they say is suspect. When they present someone else's work, they only present the portions that support their own ideas.