"A family is NOT a nasty addictive habit - that's the difference. Having a wife and chidlren is not irresponsible, smoking is."
Oh, so now the point isn't the cost to the taxpayers for personal choices, it is the fact that it is a "nasty habit". Now, what department of the government will we allow to determine what is "nasty" and what is appropriate behaviours? The cost to the taxpayer to supplement families for their costs is immense. However, it's for the children so that makes it OK.
"Once again no one is restricting "liberty" - you can smoke all you want - it's a choice - just don't expect the rest of society to bend in the direction of a nasty habit."
Yes, a restriction of liberty is clear in the $1Billion the state of california collected 2002. Behavior control through taxation is a restriction of liberty. The same government reaping the rewards for this revenue collection is now stating that the people paying the tax are not eligible for employment. In other words, the individuals that pay for that $1Billion are not allowed to benefit from that money. That is a restriction in Liberty.
"or perhaps another option would be that the smoker pays for the entirety of their own insurance."
I already stated that they pay for the costs over the non smoker premium. If your statement is that the compensation package should be different for a person that choses to participate in a legal activity, then your behaviour control nanny statist side is showing. If not, then I already addressed it.
"- then smoking - a selfish habit, where people don't want to deal with the consequences of their choices - would be a great example."
That makes absolutely no sense. I say the same thing about having children. If people had to pay for their own children's schools, if they didn't get a tax deduction, etc. My tax rate may actually fall below 50%.
"last time I checked conservatives have NOT been sitting on their hand over the "gay marrige issue"."
Yes, now that the issue is in the spotlight, the conservatives are stepping up to the plate. However, this has been coming for YEARS and for YEARS conservatives have been sitting on their hands. Of course, it is clear that you have a hard time thinking big picture thoughts.
"Homosexual marrige - will be nipped in the bud, probably sooner, rather than later."
Doubtful. The dam is burst and a few fingers in the dike aren't goint to stop the flow! (unintentional pun alert)
Oh, so now the point isn't the cost to the taxpayers for personal choices, it is the fact that it is a "nasty habit". Now, what department of the government will we allow to determine what is "nasty" and what is appropriate behaviours? The cost to the taxpayer to supplement families for their costs is immense. However, it's for the children so that makes it OK. It's completely unhealthy to smoke and smoking causes more medical costs than any other act - it's demonstratable and obvious. Families may cost more than the single person, but they are not placing a similar burden when compared with smokers. Families are the fundamental basic unit of society - this has been true in Christian as well as Pagan societies. Families raise children to become responsible contributing adults. Smoking . . . what does it do for society again? Nothing.
You are only going to look silly chasing this rabbit any further.
Yes, a restriction of liberty is clear in the $1Billion the state of california collected 2002. Behavior control through taxation is a restriction of liberty. The same government reaping the rewards for this revenue collection is now stating that the people paying the tax are not eligible for employment. In other words, the individuals that pay for that $1Billion are not allowed to benefit from that money. That is a restriction in Liberty.
Currently behavior is NOT controlled - you merely have to "pay to play". As far as benefits from taxation for the unemployed, while I'm not certain it's germane to this discussion, you're right these folks were disenfranchised.
I already stated that they pay for the costs over the non smoker premium. If your statement is that the compensation package should be different for a person that choses to participate in a legal activity, then your behaviour control nanny statist side is showing. If not, then I already addressed it.
Ok, we seem to keep coming back to this. One last time: smokers may pay higher premiums than non-smokers, BUT their premiums cannot keep up with the increased cost of smoking related illness in this country. So, when the sherriff's dept.'s insurance carrier has to start chipping in money above and beyound the deductable, it's costs them (isurance co.) - even with the higher premiums - markedly more than those who do not smoke. In this case it's all business. Smokers and their illnesses cost too damn much!. You want to smoke - pay the entirety of your insurance. Smokers who do this have no beef with me.
I say the same thing about having children.
IMhO making you pay for the schools or other people's children is wrong. However, the choice to have chidlren and the choice to smoke are not ethical nor moral equivalents.
Yes, now that the issue is in the spotlight, the conservatives are stepping up to the plate. However, this has been coming for YEARS and for YEARS conservatives have been sitting on their hands.
Personal attack aside, maybe in Kali you're right . . . where I'm from not so.